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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

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.

And see how you PL defenders avoid questions entirely? Instead of answering the question you gave the same lazy response of "gO pLaY cHeSs"

I answered you, where's my response?

You.....really didnt. You said something about unemployment and gave the lazy answer of "I don't care".

Quality journalistic integrity. I didn't say I don't care, I asked why you care if you don't use PL.

I care about the quality of the game itself. If I went to introduce the game to someone new and PL was the only option, I'd be embarrassed with the game. Self regulation =/= quality, especially when people have different definitions of "run what you think is cool instead of meta". Hell, we have a thread going on if someones friend should run Magnus at 1000 points. If balance were important this would be an issue and the friend can run what they think looks cool instead of negotiating what they're allowed to run AND thinks looks cool.

What does that have to PL? More importantly, unless points are removed, why the hatred? What's wrong with them balancing Magnus and the rest of the game around PL if they so choose?

PL is mostly used for narrative or quick games between like minded people, where the differences in power between 2 units are largely unimportant to the people playing the game.

Tyel wrote:
But what's a real worked example of a unit which was "too expensive" at 60 points, but would be "fine" at 55? What's the example of an underperforming faction that was suddenly saved by such a change?

I think its reasonable to say imbalance is a macro problem - and ultimately 5 points here and there isn't going to change an OP/UP faction - who is almost certainly out of whack by a far greater amount than this.

Well Wyches for 1, Kabals also would benefit with -1pt a lot. Reavers too. Troupes going up 1pt would be ideal as well.

Marines? A lot, tactical, Inter and Assault Inter are all 1pt too high IMO, I know its 1pts, but over 20 models thats 20pts, if you did that for a few other units like Impulsos going down 20pts, now a Inter+Impulsor combo is 40pts cheaper.

Also going up 1pt on some units while others go down can really balance a book too, DE again, Wracks +1pt and Kabals -1pt will at least make you think twice about replacing Kabals in a Kabal detachment with Wracks lol. Wracks are 40pts and so are Kabals, you will never see kabals over wracks, so if just 1 unit changes you most likely will.

Tyel wrote:
But what's a real worked example of a unit which was "too expensive" at 60 points, but would be "fine" at 55? What's the example of an underperforming faction that was suddenly saved by such a change?

I think its reasonable to say imbalance is a macro problem - and ultimately 5 points here and there isn't going to change an OP/UP faction - who is almost certainly out of whack by a far greater amount than this.

This sums it up nicely for the current state of the game, plus its OK some of these people going "but the units are X points away from their PL!" And forgetting that the same will be true on both sides of the table.

Dudeface 805449 11391567 wrote:

What does that have to PL? More importantly, unless points are removed, why the hatred? What's wrong with them balancing Magnus and the rest of the game around PL if they so choose?

PL is mostly used for narrative or quick games between like minded people, where the differences in power between 2 units are largely unimportant to the people playing the game.

If it is made by like minded people, who don't care about official rules, then they can do it themselfs and not put limitations and core design changes on people who don't play narrative. I don't understand how the difference in power is unimportant argument. It is a game, everything that gives an edge, and having units get free gear is exactly that free power, is important. And if there are people who don't care about that, then awesome, let them not care, but not ask to put the "not care" attituted in to the game for everyone else.

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 805449 11391567 wrote:

What does that have to PL? More importantly, unless points are removed, why the hatred? What's wrong with them balancing Magnus and the rest of the game around PL if they so choose?

PL is mostly used for narrative or quick games between like minded people, where the differences in power between 2 units are largely unimportant to the people playing the game.

If it is made by like minded people, who don't care about official rules, then they can do it themselfs and not put limitations and core design changes on people who don't play narrative. I don't understand how the difference in power is unimportant argument. It is a game, everything that gives an edge, and having units get free gear is exactly that free power, is important. And if there are people who don't care about that, then awesome, let them not care, but not ask to put the "not care" attituted in to the game for everyone else.

So... Play with points, like I do?

Seriously-if you like points, just play points. If you like PL, play PL. If you like both, do whatever works for you for that game.

Dudeface wrote:

They're just examples where pl =/= points precisely. Your feelings on that are subjective and this is why these thread self perpetuates.

Nobodies opinions are facts and you don't have to argue for them either for or against.

They're objective if your goal is to have a fair game. If that's not your goal, you don't need PL either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Just anecdotal - when evaluating crusade, we did a short campaign of 4 games using points and just changed all the rules with 1PL=20 points.

The biggest issue with that was that unit costs tend to not be pretty numbers, so when drawing an army from the crusade roster people often found themselves short by a lot of points without being able to add anything else - you can't just add or remove upgrades to accommodate for that like you would in a single game format. Especially elite armies were hit hard by that because often HQ+2 units would add up to 435 or something and there just was nothing in their crusade rooster they could add.

So in the context of crusade, switching to points definitely causes just as many problems as it solves.

Why would that be a problem? Your supply limit is your maximum, you don't have to get super close to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I 100% agree that GW should get their crap together and make the game better balanced-but PL isn't what's stopping that from happening.

It's not the only thing, but it is part of it - since it's forcing the idea that loadouts and weapon choices on units need to not matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
But what's a real worked example of a unit which was "too expensive" at 60 points, but would be "fine" at 55? What's the example of an underperforming faction that was suddenly saved by such a change?

I think its reasonable to say imbalance is a macro problem - and ultimately 5 points here and there isn't going to change an OP/UP faction - who is almost certainly out of whack by a far greater amount than this.

Except as I pointed upthread, PL, is oftentimes off by 20-30 points on a unit.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

They're just examples where pl =/= points precisely. Your feelings on that are subjective and this is why these thread self perpetuates.

Nobodies opinions are facts and you don't have to argue for them either for or against.

They're objective if your goal is to have a fair game. If that's not your goal, you don't need PL either.

PL is, for some on this thread, good enough. They play with friends who don't abuse the system, so the extra granularity granted by points is irrelevant. It's good to have some guidelines on what's roughly balanced, but they don't need to get into the nitty-gritty.

For them, PL works great. For me or you, it wouldn't be nearly as good as points. Luckily, unless we somehow end up playing someone like Smudge or Blndmage, it doesn't matter-we can play with points, they can play with PL.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

They're just examples where pl =/= points precisely. Your feelings on that are subjective and this is why these thread self perpetuates.

Nobodies opinions are facts and you don't have to argue for them either for or against.

They're objective if your goal is to have a fair game. If that's not your goal, you don't need PL either.

If it's your goal but not someone else's, that's not objective.

Dudeface wrote:


What does that have to PL? More importantly, unless points are removed, why the hatred? What's wrong with them balancing Magnus and the rest of the game around PL if they so choose?

PL is mostly used for narrative or quick games between like minded people, where the differences in power between 2 units are largely unimportant to the people playing the game.

Incorrect. I play Crusade; I care about whether the game is fair/balanced or not. If people keep getting clowned on because the PL costs for their units are far out of whack, they are likely to drop out of the Crusade league. And this isn't WAAC behavior, as much as some bad-faith actors might claim it's so. 40k is very time intensive; you don't want to waste time in a busy world playing games that aren't fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
PL is, for some on this thread, good enough. They play with friends who don't abuse the system, so the extra granularity granted by points is irrelevant. It's good to have some guidelines on what's roughly balanced, but they don't need to get into the nitty-gritty.

For them, PL works great. For me or you, it wouldn't be nearly as good as points. Luckily, unless we somehow end up playing someone like Smudge or Blndmage, it doesn't matter-we can play with points, they can play with PL.

No. Points would work for them better, the same way anti-vaxxers would be healthier if they took the COVID vaccine. They're just in denial.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


What does that have to PL? More importantly, unless points are removed, why the hatred? What's wrong with them balancing Magnus and the rest of the game around PL if they so choose?

PL is mostly used for narrative or quick games between like minded people, where the differences in power between 2 units are largely unimportant to the people playing the game.

Incorrect. I play Crusade; I care about whether the game is fair/balanced or not. If people keep getting clowned on because the PL costs for their units are far out of whack, they are likely to drop out of the Crusade league. And this isn't WAAC behavior, as much as some bad-faith actors might claim it's so. 40k is very time intensive; you don't want to waste time in a busy world playing games that aren't fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
PL is, for some on this thread, good enough. They play with friends who don't abuse the system, so the extra granularity granted by points is irrelevant. It's good to have some guidelines on what's roughly balanced, but they don't need to get into the nitty-gritty.

For them, PL works great. For me or you, it wouldn't be nearly as good as points. Luckily, unless we somehow end up playing someone like Smudge or Blndmage, it doesn't matter-we can play with points, they can play with PL.

No. Points would work for them better, the same way anti-vaxxers would be healthier if they took the COVID vaccine. They're just in denial.

You're honestly comparing taking a vaccine that can save yours and others lives, to using a less granular system for determining how to make your forces in a tabletop game?

Unless you want to call everyone who's said "I play PL and have fun with it" a liar, it's not even close to the same thing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're honestly comparing taking a vaccine that can save yours and others lives, to using a less granular system for determining how to make your forces in a tabletop game?

Unless you want to call everyone who's said "I play PL and have fun with it" a liar, it's not even close to the same thing.

It's a good comparison. People will embrace less efficient means if it allows them to claim certain kinds of identity.

What's "less efficient" about PL? It's less granular but that's not efficiency.

If you honestly believe people enjoying a hobby differently from you is the same as putting yourself and other people at risk of death, I would say you're the one that's too wrapped up in your identity as it relates to 40k.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

They're just examples where pl =/= points precisely. Your feelings on that are subjective and this is why these thread self perpetuates.

Nobodies opinions are facts and you don't have to argue for them either for or against.

They're objective if your goal is to have a fair game. If that's not your goal, you don't need PL either.

PL is, for some on this thread, good enough. They play with friends who don't abuse the system, so the extra granularity granted by points is irrelevant. It's good to have some guidelines on what's roughly balanced, but they don't need to get into the nitty-gritty.

If they don't need the nitty-gritty, they can just go the route of the first iteration of Age Of Sigmar.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What's "less efficient" about PL? It's less granular but that's not efficiency.

If you honestly believe people enjoying a hobby differently from you is the same as putting yourself and other people at risk of death, I would say you're the one that's too wrapped up in your identity as it relates to 40k.

It's less efficient because it produces less effective balancing outcomes for the effort put into it, both by the designers and players.

Life is rarely binary.
It’s possible to want some guidance, but not need every detail covered. PL is simpler than points and provides more guidance than nothing.

Does anyone have any actual proof that GW spends any significant amount of time/effort to determine PL for a unit? I'm talking actual evidence here - like a statement in an interview or something, not just assumption. Because it strikes me that all the heavy lifting has been done by the time that a points value gets finalized, so adding PL on top of that is negligible (and this being GW, it's entirely likely they don't spend any time on points anyways, so rolling the extra 30 seconds the pts>PL conversion takes back into working on the pt value isn't going to change anything).

Here we go with the "I can't win the argument, so I'm gonna make horrendous statements until it gets Mod-locked." It's suiciding a thread, and it's silly.

Why is it easier to say terrible things then to just admit that some people like things different than you do? Also, to make comparisons between transphobia and a side of who likes 40k? That's out there. Really out there.

But soon, 40k will be in 10th, and we'll have to see where this all goes.

Dudeface wrote:
What's wrong with them balancing Magnus and the rest of the game around PL if they so choose?

What's wrong is that, once again, PL has inherent and unavoidable errors on top of all of the errors that the normal point system has. It is not possible for PL to match the accuracy of the normal point system no matter how hard you try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
I find it fascinating, it's not down to GW, it's just humans being humans. When people lost the ability to just go "yeah I don't like it but whatever, do what you like" is a mystery. But either you're for or against PL as a base concept and the other 'side' shat in your cereal and have threatened your nan seemingly.

And yet somehow no other rule question gets this kind of reaction. Nobody insists that we must have two parallel rule sets, one with AoC and one without AoC, and that advocating the removal of AoC is an unacceptable attack on someone's identity as an "AoC" player. It's only PL where a particular game mechanic is declared to be untouchable and you aren't allowed to say "just get rid of it".

 waefre_1 wrote:
Does anyone have any actual proof that GW spends any significant amount of time/effort to determine PL for a unit? I'm talking actual evidence here - like a statement in an interview or something, not just assumption. Because it strikes me that all the heavy lifting has been done by the time that a points value gets finalized, so adding PL on top of that is negligible (and this being GW, it's entirely likely they don't spend any time on points anyways, so rolling the extra 30 seconds the pts>PL conversion takes back into working on the pt value isn't going to change anything).

It's not just determining PL for a unit, it's writing Crusade rules etc. that key off of it.

Hecaton wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:
Does anyone have any actual proof that GW spends any significant amount of time/effort to determine PL for a unit? I'm talking actual evidence here - like a statement in an interview or something, not just assumption. Because it strikes me that all the heavy lifting has been done by the time that a points value gets finalized, so adding PL on top of that is negligible (and this being GW, it's entirely likely they don't spend any time on points anyways, so rolling the extra 30 seconds the pts>PL conversion takes back into working on the pt value isn't going to change anything).

It's not just determining PL for a unit, it's writing Crusade rules etc. that key off of it.

OK. So do we have any evidence that they spend significant time and effort on it? That could be done as simply as:
"Neat rule, Reg, but we might want to make that key off something. You know, so nobody tries to pull shenanigans"
"Good call, Brian. How about it costs 2CP/10PL?"
"Spiffing! Now, about these new Primaris sculpts the design team cooked up..."

 waefre_1 wrote:
OK. So do we have any evidence that they spend significant time and effort on it? That could be done as simply as:
"Neat rule, Reg, but we might want to make that key off something. You know, so nobody tries to pull shenanigans"
"Good call, Brian. How about it costs 2CP/10PL?"
"Spiffing! Now, about these new Primaris sculpts the design team cooked up..."

Do you have any evidence that they don't? Or that they spend any time on any part of the rules? Because as fascinating as your competing speculation is it's not really relevant to the question of whether PL should exist. Any non-zero time spent on it is wasted time.

And if they are genuinely spending this little time on PL then that's an implicit concession that it's a bad system and should be removed. When you have a working system already (the normal point system) you don't need a zero-effort rush job tacked onto the game to duplicate the working system's functions.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:
OK. So do we have any evidence that they spend significant time and effort on it? That could be done as simply as:
"Neat rule, Reg, but we might want to make that key off something. You know, so nobody tries to pull shenanigans"
"Good call, Brian. How about it costs 2CP/10PL?"
"Spiffing! Now, about these new Primaris sculpts the design team cooked up..."

Do you have any evidence that they don't? Or that they spend any time on any part of the rules? Because as fascinating as your competing speculation is it's not really relevant to the question of whether PL should exist. Any non-zero time spent on it is wasted time.

And if they are genuinely spending this little time on PL then that's an implicit concession that it's a bad system and should be removed. When you have a working system already (the normal point system) you don't need a zero-effort rush job tacked onto the game to duplicate the working system's functions.

I don't need to know. My point is that until we have information as to how much time is spent on PL, then complaints that it is "wasted" or would make a meaningful difference in the balance of the rest of the game are...pointless /rimshot
You're wrong that any time spent on it is necessarily wasted, because the issues with PL and points run deep enough that swapping or sacrificing one for the other isn't going to be sufficient to make any impact because extra time alone will not solve the problem. You're asserting that it's necessarily wasted, but there's no evidence that I can see that would justify such an assertion.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What's wrong with them balancing Magnus and the rest of the game around PL if they so choose?

What's wrong is that, once again, PL has inherent and unavoidable errors on top of all of the errors that the normal point system has. It is not possible for PL to match the accuracy of the normal point system no matter how hard you try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
I find it fascinating, it's not down to GW, it's just humans being humans. When people lost the ability to just go "yeah I don't like it but whatever, do what you like" is a mystery. But either you're for or against PL as a base concept and the other 'side' shat in your cereal and have threatened your nan seemingly.

And yet somehow no other rule question gets this kind of reaction. Nobody insists that we must have two parallel rule sets, one with AoC and one without AoC, and that advocating the removal of AoC is an unacceptable attack on someone's identity as an "AoC" player. It's only PL where a particular game mechanic is declared to be untouchable and you aren't allowed to say "just get rid of it".

Of course you're allowed to say "get rid of it" there were numerous posters and threads on here saying how they didn't like it, it was unfluffy, unbalanced, they'd be ignoring the dataslate (which is optional).

AoC is on an optional rules addendum, the rules already have capacity for it to not exist. If 2 players never went to GWs site and never looked up stuff outside of their books, they wouldn't even know it existed.

The big difference is you don't need to get rid of something you don't use if others find value in it. If neither you nor opponents use PL, what harm does it do in existing?

 waefre_1 wrote:
You're wrong that any time spent on it is necessarily wasted, because the issues with PL and points run deep enough that swapping or sacrificing one for the other isn't going to be sufficient to make any impact because extra time alone will not solve the problem. You're asserting that it's necessarily wasted, but there's no evidence that I can see that would justify such an assertion.

The evidence is that PL is a redundant system with fundamental flaws that prevent it from ever accomplishing the objective of a point system as well as the normal point system. Any non-zero time spent on it is wasted time because PL should not exist. The severity of the waste is not relevant to this question, even small amounts of wasted time are still wasted time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Of course you're allowed to say "get rid of it" there were numerous posters and threads on here saying how they didn't like it, it was unfluffy, unbalanced, they'd be ignoring the dataslate (which is optional).

Yes, and this is exactly my point.

"Get rid of AoC" is fine because it's just a rule change. People can debate its merits and what should be done about it but that's as far as it goes, nobody has their identity tied up in it.

"Get rid of PL" is not acceptable because certain players have taken on the identity of "PL player", with a bunch of assumptions about how "PL players" play the game. It doesn't matter what you say about its practical value because it's not about practical value. Even if it were indisputably demonstrated that PL is slower to use, has more balance issues, etc, and every single pro-PL argument was proved to be false they would still find a way to rationalize the need for PL because of its symbolic value. And no matter how conclusive the game design arguments are "remove PL" will always be taken as an attack on their identity and an attempt to remove them from the game.

And furthermore most people are in favor of removing AoC, which was mostly created just because of the bump to all weapons basically. Bad design leads to a badly designed rule, who would've guessed?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2 things: depending on what period of history you are talking about, the Baneblade had appx 250 points of upgrades, so it isn't far off. Nowadays with points cuts (and a whole bunch of the upgrades becoming essentially free, like PL), the Baneblade's stock loadout and the Baneblade's upgraded loadout are only 120 pts apart - though that is often considered to be the equivalent of like 6 PL. Currently, though, the Baneblade's PL cost is way out of whack with it's points, because points have been updated to balance the units but PL less so.

My Legendary Keeper of Secrets (12 PL) is better in combat and more survivable than the GW Exalted Keeper (23 PL) who is also a Lord of War because of Crusade Upgrades fwiw.

Thanks for the heads up- this actually supports CSB's argument. Duly noted- when the discrepancy is that high perhaps there is room for a PL cost associated with an upgrade. See? I can be reasonable... Sometimes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So uh, lots of issues here that tout crusade as something that it is not by including unstated assumptions. So let me go in order:

1) Balance is important in Crusade. Not because victory is important, but because fun for both players is important. Playing when badly outmatched isn't any fun for a lot of people - in fact, I would say it is less fun for narrative people if they want their narrative to be more than: "Dear Sector Command: the evil Adepta Sororitas wiped out my Imperial Guard to a man again, for the fifth time. At this point, the fact that anyone is still alive is a miracle."

I agree that balance is important in Crusade. Just because it's not the number one priority that it isn't the number one priority does not mean that I don't think it's important. It's a strong number two priority. And in certain missions, at my even rise to a number one priority.

But keep in mind, that in my discussions with CSB, what I'm also talking about is how battle honours and quest rewards build in a degree of imbalance that PL/ Points or whatever hybrid is being considered will never be able to address. And in THAT context, is it worth blowing up the PL system, or Crusade? The posts that you are responding to aren't objective statements about the general state of PL vs. Points: they are statements made in a very specific context- I've got a guy who is advocating for the wholescale removal of something I love, and I am trying to explain to him why the status quo is a better idea than the wholescale removal of PL or the reduction of Crusade back to the tacked-on appendix that the narrative system in 4th ed was.

PL could be improved. Crusade could be improved. But both are worth keeping- in any post which is a response to CSB, this is really all I'm trying to prove, even if it sounds like I'm talking about more than that when you divorce it from the context in which it was written- which is an ongoing question of whether PL should be removed, and whether or not Crusade should once again become something that is a mere afterthought, rather than being a game specifically designed to work with a progression system.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) Crusade is a progression system and doesn't help tell stories at all.

The progression system is an important part of Crusade. Here are some other defining features of Crusade that AREN'T a progression system:

- 150+ missions, designed for ALL sizes of game (unlike Matched, which is only Incursion and Strike Force or Open whose missions are determined by relative army sizes rather than absolute sizes)
- the Planet Strike rules
- the rules for multiplayer games (2+)
- 20+ Flashpoints, which include Theatres of War, additional Agendas, and in some cases
- rules for tree campaigns
- new army lists (Torchbearer Fleets, Armies of Faith)
- Agendas... Which yes, are in fact related to the progression system, but deserved mention because of the impact that they have upon design differentiation. In a matched, or even an open game, every opportunity for a player decision is connected to it improving one's odds to win. Agendas add a feature to the game that asks players to think and make choices about something that ISN'T connected to victory. This adds a narrative thread that simply does not exist in the other systems. So all stories require conflict, but there is more than one type of conflict: Self vs. Other, Self vs. Environment, Self vs. Self. Matched and open are great at representing the first type of conflict. Crusade's core rules, and the concept of agendas specifically, is designed to facilitate all 3 types of conflict.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

There are bonuses and (easily avoided) maluses for units that participate in games. *Some* books, like the Sisters, have other fun rules that add a bit of flavor (the Repentia thing), but that is not always a trait of Crusade, and does not require Crusade to happen in a campaign in the first place.

Sisters, Dark Eldar, GSC, Tyranids, Tau and Eldar have some pretty wicked Crusade content. Admech was decent, but doesn't hold up to these six. The only other dexes I've seen so far this ed are Space Marines and the Deathwatch Supplement... And yeah, their Crusade content is not just a near mis like Admech- it is legit sub-par.

I've heard Orks is bad... Like really bad. I suspect all Marine Supplements (with the possible exception of Deathwing maybe?) would be as weak as Deathwatch.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I need you to understand point 2 especially PenitentJake because I have said it like r
Eight or nine times to you now and you brush it off with "well if you play your army a certain way (the GW Approved Way) crusade is great!" Well yeah, sure, but that's not different than Matched is/was for me in terms of "just follow the rules man, if you want narrative, houserule"

Like I appreciate that you have fun with Crusade, I really do. But it has major flaws and gaps and you need to acknowledge them rather than trying to paper over them and continuing to tout it as some GW triumph that they never have done before.

And I need you to understand THIS because it's my response EVERY TIME and you outright ignore it:

1: This complaint IS legit, and I wish GW could do more to fix it. A Big Book of Crusade could go a long way, and there absolutely 100% should be a Big Book of Crusade. If the edition lasts long enough, such a thing would probably end up getting made eventually... But unfortunately, I am losing my faith that there will ever be a persistent edition.

2: You are correct that if you want to tell a story that can't be expressed in the existing materials, and you have to house rule them, it is very similar to every other version of 40k we've ever had... But the difference is that the content we have gives us exemplars that we can follow to design house rules which fit into an existing set of wildly varied options. In previous lean editions, it was a bit harder to house rule: you had decent descriptions of how tree and map campaigns could be run, you had 3 Battle Honour tables that were expected to apply every army, and you have a prototype of Kill Team. With that as a basis? Sure, you could probably come up with something- I mean, you and I are both old school narrative gamers, so we've got that kin of skill... But it tended to be a harder sell, because the assumption was always one of "House rule for advantage (no GM) or unbalanced and imperfect design, or even favouritism (with a GM)

Now, the presence of all these exemplars doesn't guarantee you won't get the same thing happen if you have to add a bit of content to Crusade... But it does make it at least a little less likely. The example I gave last time was that if you wanted to create an Eldar Path of the Pilot, it's easy to do in a game where the Path of the Warrior, the Seer and the Outcast exist.

3. Related to point 2: being required to house rule SOME things is less of a burden than being required to house rule ALL OF THE THINGS.

The example here was that if you built your Path of the Pilot in any other version of the game, you then ALSO have to invent the Paths of the Warrior, Seer and Outcast. If you build a Path of the Pilot in Crusade, that's all you need to do to get you complete set of steak knives.

4. This point, though valid, DOES have associated issues (which is why I put it in 4th place), but I don't think you're actually very familiar with the magnitude of resources that exist for Crusade. I'm not sure how many Flashpoints you've seen, or how many Campaign books, or how many Crusade Mission Packs. The rules you seek MIGHT exist in a source you haven't checked.

As mentioned above, however, I agree that this is still problematic- because you certainly shouldn't have to play Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency to track down rules either. Goonhammer reviews help... But it's still a pain in the duff even for me, and I love this freakin' game.

So look man, I hope this post sounded friendly and casual. Your last posted sounded that way to me and it was awesome in a thread that has escalated to flame war in places. I have always respected your point of view, even if sometimes I got pushed a bit too far and reacted overzealously. Again, I'm only arguing about this AT ALL because people have suggested getting rid of things.

Personally, I don't know if YOU think that GW should get rid of Crusade, or if you think they should get rid of points. I'll participate in suggestions for rules improvement= there's lots of room for it in all 3 modes of the game. But I draw the line at the wholesale removal of play modes. And while there's SOME wiggle room with consolidation/ modification of points vs PL... I'm very, very reluctant to go down that road too- I think I've already explained my reasons for that elsewhere. The baneblade example was pretty egregious, and it made me think that for sure there are some places where equipment upgrades might be a big enough deal that they need a PL cost. I still think it should be rare.

PenitentJake wrote:
But keep in mind, that in my discussions with CSB, what I'm also talking about is how battle honours and quest rewards build in a degree of imbalance that PL/ Points or whatever hybrid is being considered will never be able to address.

But it absolutely can be addressed. GW chooses not to address it currently but none of the Crusade upgrades I've seen go beyond the scope of what normal units are capable of. All you'd have to do is assign appropriate point costs for those upgrades. Maybe Elite Crew (re-roll 1s to hit) is +10% to the unit's point cost. Maybe Artificer Weapon (mortal wounds on 6s to hit) is +5 points for each attack the weapon makes. Etc.

I've got a guy who is advocating for the wholescale removal of something I love

But why do you love PL so much? That seems like a pretty excessive attachment to something where its practical value is an occasional savings of a few minutes of time, especially when Crusade would work just fine with the normal point system.

Here are some other defining features of Crusade that AREN'T a progression system:

And TBH most of those are either rules bloat or things that would work just fine in matched play like they did in previous editions. Planetstrike used to be a matched play expansion. Most of the missions are just generic matched play style scenarios. And yeah, there's lots of Flashpoints but 20+ of them is ridiculous. It all makes the game completely unwieldy and TBH the best way to play Crusade is to dump most/all of the extra content and just use the core rules. Quality over quantity is an important design principle!

- Agendas... Which yes, are in fact related to the progression system, but deserved mention because of the impact that they have upon design differentiation. In a matched, or even an open game, every opportunity for a player decision is connected to it improving one's odds to win. Agendas add a feature to the game that asks players to think and make choices about something that ISN'T connected to victory. This adds a narrative thread that simply does not exist in the other systems. So all stories require conflict, but there is more than one type of conflict: Self vs. Other, Self vs. Environment, Self vs. Self. Matched and open are great at representing the first type of conflict. Crusade's core rules, and the concept of agendas specifically, is designed to facilitate all 3 types of conflict.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Maybe your particular codex has some amazing and thematic agenda but most of them are just normal matched play objectives that reward individual units instead of VP. But the actions that give the reward are still pretty much the same. So does it really matter if I'm killing the enemy LoW for Titan Hunter XP or for Titan Slayers VP? Does it really matter if I'm having my officers issue orders to units because I gain Inspired Command XP for doing it or because issuing orders to units is a fundamental part of how my army plays the game and necessary for winning?

But the difference is that the content we have gives us exemplars that we can follow to design house rules which fit into an existing set of wildly varied options. In previous lean editions, it was a bit harder to house rule: you had decent descriptions of how tree and map campaigns could be run, you had 3 Battle Honour tables that were expected to apply every army, and you have a prototype of Kill Team. With that as a basis? Sure, you could probably come up with something- I mean, you and I are both old school narrative gamers, so we've got that kin of skill... But it tended to be a harder sell, because the assumption was always one of "House rule for advantage (no GM) or unbalanced and imperfect design, or even favouritism (with a GM)

But what more do you really need? Why do you need an explicit rule for This Is Your Narrative Event Happening? Why can't you just tell the stories and find value in those events even if they aren't represented by getting a buff to re-roll 1s to hit? This goes back to what I said earlier about role playing vs. roll playing, you claim to be focused on the story above all else but you keep advocating these rules-heavy systems where playing the mechanics of the game is the focus and dismissing anything that doesn't have a bunch of rules and buffs and special abilities to upgrade your units with.

Hecaton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Just anecdotal - when evaluating crusade, we did a short campaign of 4 games using points and just changed all the rules with 1PL=20 points.

The biggest issue with that was that unit costs tend to not be pretty numbers, so when drawing an army from the crusade roster people often found themselves short by a lot of points without being able to add anything else - you can't just add or remove upgrades to accommodate for that like you would in a single game format. Especially elite armies were hit hard by that because often HQ+2 units would add up to 435 or something and there just was nothing in their crusade rooster they could add.

So in the context of crusade, switching to points definitely causes just as many problems as it solves.

Why would that be a problem? Your supply limit is your maximum, you don't have to get super close to it.

Because especially at 25 PL, having a whole unit less than your opponent can make the game be an uphill battle. It's also leagues more difficult to build a modular army that allows you switch in an out parts of it.
Most importantly though, it creates a "feels bad" moment when the ultramarines and custodes players can't add anything, while an army like DG or orks doesn't have any issues just tossing in pox walkers, chaos spawn or a support character.

For the sake of the argument whether PL or points are better for playing crusade, that ~60 point discrepancy completely erases the extra balance achieved through switching to points, making playing crusade with points a choice with no real upsides but multiple drawbacks.
Which is essentially the reason why decided to stop doing it. Feel free to try for yourself though, just make sure to give both versions a chance. Most of our "pro-points" guys are now happily using PL and don't want to go back.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

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.

And see how you PL defenders avoid questions entirely? Instead of answering the question you gave the same lazy response of "gO pLaY cHeSs"

Yes, if you suggest playing mirror matches with the exact same models as something that shouldn't be avoided in the first place, playing chess is the only answer you deserve. Do you want a game in which the only thing that matters is proving yourself? Chess is a good way to find what you're looking for, it's an extremely balanced game, cheap and popular. You'll find plenty of opponents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Seriously-if you like points, just play points. If you like PL, play PL. If you like both, do whatever works for you for that game.

Exactly, I can't understand why that's a problem for someone.

 waefre_1 wrote:

OK. So do we have any evidence that they spend significant time and effort on it? That could be done as simply as:
"Neat rule, Reg, but we might want to make that key off something. You know, so nobody tries to pull shenanigans"
"Good call, Brian. How about it costs 2CP/10PL?"
"Spiffing! Now, about these new Primaris sculpts the design team cooked up..."

Do we have any evidence that goats made of rainbows and sunshine live on the moon?

The amount of time spent creating the rules and formatting and printing the books is not going to be insignificant. Moreover, if they put the amount of effort in that you suggest, it doesn't deserve to be printed.