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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I've just gotta say, I love that the reason of "I genuinely struggle with certain calculations and the mental energy to build a list with points, so I use a simplified version that reduces my mental strain to play" is completely ignored as a valid reason for PL existing.

It's ignored because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You're talking about an incredibly specific scenario where a person has enough mental energy and math ability to add up points in a PL game but entering a few more numbers into the calculator is an impossible burden. It's not like we're talking about a math-free version of list building that genuinely re-imagines the concept into an easier alternative, PL is just the same old points-based list construction with a slightly different list of numbers to add. I'd be surprised if there are even double digit people in the entire potential community that fit into that precise range and I don't see any reason to add an entire separate point system to accommodate such a tiny market.

And TBH, if someone struggles with the very simple math of adding up point costs and finds it a significant barrier I am skeptical that they're going to get much out of 40k, a ridiculously convoluted and math-heavy game, at all. Adding up points in list construction is the least of 40k's math and mental energy issues. Even basic questions like "should I charge this unit" involve a much higher level of math ability than adding up point costs, whether using PL or normal points.

Additionally, who determines what is "redundant"? One could argue that many factions in the game are redundant, many weapons are redundant, and if you're talking about simplifying the game, who determines how "simple" it gets? One statblock for all troops, one statblock for all vehicles, one statblock for all characters?

You could argue that, quite accurately. Rules bloat is arguably 40k's single biggest problem and many weapons and units should be consolidated. IMO at least half of 40k's stat lines could be eliminated without losing any meaningful strategic depth. But that isn't relevant to the topic of PL.

But that simply isn't true because of different player mentalities, desires, and preferred outcomes. I don't have any interest in playing a cut-throat tourney level game, and I imagine that many other players would have no interest playing against me narrating and making decisions based on "cool factor". I believe in players making informed consensual discussions prior to their games where they can both outline their intentions and expectations from a game. Rocking up and putting models down without any discussion as to what you want out of the game sounds absolutely horrible to me.

You do understand that the whole "tournament vs. narrative" thing is entirely a balance problem, right? If you fix the balance issues then there is no compatibility problem, even the most cut-throat tournament list will be a fair and enjoyable game for you. Everything here is an argument for improving balance and an easy place to start would be eliminating PL as a failed system with inherent and unsolvable balance problems.

This literally isn't an argument beyond "I don't want it".

Sorry, I was making the assumption that you can fill in the implicit "even PL advocates think PL isn't suited for matched play" in that statement.

Again, I find it ironic that you say to PL/Open players that what they do should be covered by house rules so they don't need official support, but you seem unwilling to apply the same to your own wants and needs.

The difference is that Open™ Play™ is a contradiction. It is a concept defined by rejection of "official" in favor of each individual player choosing which rules suit their own needs, but somehow none of this can happen without an official Open™ Play™ rule declaring it official. There is no such contradiction with wanting matched play (or matched play with upgrade tables) to have official rules that meet particular needs, rejection of officialness is not inherent to matched play.

And this honestly just sounds spiteful towards those who don't enjoy competitive play, and almost like an effort to delegitimise non-comp forms of play.

Hardly. I've made it very clear that narrative play and non-competitive matched play are important things. I just recognize that the normal point system is better than PL for those things. Please do not confuse rejection of the CAAC attitude expressed by certain GW employees with rejection of actual casual/narrative players.

You literally don't have proof beyond rampant speculation about what GW "intended". When you can show me a quote from a GW designer about what they "intended" to do, and that intention being "we want to make 40k PL only, sod the competitive players", then I'll believe you.

Believe what you want. You're never going to get an official statement either way but it was pretty obvious at the start of 8th that PL was intended to be the primary system and only a backlash similar to the AoS launch debacle made GW reverse their course.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I've just gotta say, I love that the reason of "I genuinely struggle with certain calculations and the mental energy to build a list with points, so I use a simplified version that reduces my mental strain to play" is completely ignored as a valid reason for PL existing.

It's ignored because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Scrutiny?? What is there to scrutinise?? What, are we dictating now who is "actually" disabled or "actually" has problems?

I appreciate your spirited comments in defence of marginalised folks in other threads, but this is another one of those cases.

You're talking about an incredibly specific scenario where a person has enough mental energy and math ability to add up points in a PL game but entering a few more numbers into the calculator is an impossible burden. It's not like we're talking about a math-free version of list building that genuinely re-imagines the concept into an easier alternative, PL is just the same old points-based list construction with a slightly different list of numbers to add. I'd be surprised if there are even double digit people in the entire potential community that fit into that precise range and I don't see any reason to add an entire separate point system to accommodate such a tiny market.

So, even *if* we assume it's that small (which is statistically unlikely, considering the worldwide player base of 40k), what kind of message are you sending to those people? "Your problems aren't my concern, screw you, deal with it" - hardly a very moral or supportive stance to take. And for what, a sense of "screw you casuals who allegedly gatekeep competitive players" - because that's the main undertone I'm getting from your comments here.

Factually, PL is easier to calculate. Smaller numbers, less number to worry about, and less bookkeeping. These are all *factually* true. Whether you believe they're inconsequential is your opinion, but your opinion isn't the only one, and it doesn't hold more weight than anyone else's.

The long and short of it is that you are saying that you don't value the opinion of marginalised players.

And TBH, if someone struggles with the very simple math of adding up point costs and finds it a significant barrier I am skeptical that they're going to get much out of 40k, a ridiculously convoluted and math-heavy game, at all. Adding up points in list construction is the least of 40k's math and mental energy issues. Even basic questions like "should I charge this unit" involve a much higher level of math ability than adding up point costs, whether using PL or normal points.

We have examples of such users who have talked about this, such as BIndmage. What kind of message you saying to them? That they should bugger off and play a different game? That's gatekeeping.

Additionally, who determines what is "redundant"? One could argue that many factions in the game are redundant, many weapons are redundant, and if you're talking about simplifying the game, who determines how "simple" it gets? One statblock for all troops, one statblock for all vehicles, one statblock for all characters?

You could argue that, quite accurately. Rules bloat is arguably 40k's single biggest problem and many weapons and units should be consolidated. IMO at least half of 40k's stat lines could be eliminated without losing any meaningful strategic depth. But that isn't relevant to the topic of PL.

Actually, it is, so long as you keep using this argument of "cutting redundancy to make the game better". There are many other aspects of the game which take up more design space and energy than PL, so why don't we focus on dealing with them first if this is truly your focus? I'm not talking about "half of 40k's statlines" being eliminated, I'm saying we should cut every statline down to "infantry/tank/special/character" and every weapon down to "rifle/pistol/special weapon/heavy weapon/cannon", because that's the best way to remove "redundancy"


Oh, just in case it wasn't obvious, /s/.

But that simply isn't true because of different player mentalities, desires, and preferred outcomes. I don't have any interest in playing a cut-throat tourney level game, and I imagine that many other players would have no interest playing against me narrating and making decisions based on "cool factor". I believe in players making informed consensual discussions prior to their games where they can both outline their intentions and expectations from a game. Rocking up and putting models down without any discussion as to what you want out of the game sounds absolutely horrible to me.

You do understand that the whole "tournament vs. narrative" thing is entirely a balance problem, right? If you fix the balance issues then there is no compatibility problem, even the most cut-throat tournament list will be a fair and enjoyable game for you. Everything here is an argument for improving balance and an easy place to start would be eliminating PL as a failed system with inherent and unsolvable balance problems.

I disagree. Even in more balanced games, the exists the divide of player attitudes, goals, and expectations. There's a difference between a friendly pub football game and a competitive league match. There's a difference between a family playing chess together and two grand masters playing. There's a difference between plonking yourself down in front of a games console and playing a few rounds of *insert multiplayer shooter here* and playing it as an E-Sport.

Player expectation, attitude, and intention are all critically important, no matter how razor-balanced the game is. I'd rather play an imbalanced game with someone who shares the same goals and wants the same experience as me than play a perfectly balanced game with someone who has diametrically opposed goals and intentions.

You say "inherent balance problems", I say "I don't care". You want balance? Focus on balancing points. PL doesn't affect you.

This literally isn't an argument beyond "I don't want it".

Sorry, I was making the assumption that you can fill in the implicit "even PL advocates think PL isn't suited for matched play" in that statement.

I don't believe that PL is necessarily unsuited for Matched Play. Players should be free to use whatever army building system they want with whichever type of play they want. It doesn't affect me.

Again, I find it ironic that you say to PL/Open players that what they do should be covered by house rules so they don't need official support, but you seem unwilling to apply the same to your own wants and needs.

The difference is that Open™ Play™ is a contradiction. It is a concept defined by rejection of "official" in favor of each individual player choosing which rules suit their own needs, but somehow none of this can happen without an official Open™ Play™ rule declaring it official.

It's not to say it *can't* happen. I'm just asking why you feel the need to remove that official backing from it. Why does it having legitimate backing harm you? The fact that you feel the need to strip such official backing away tells me that it's needed all the more.

As for it being a contradiction, hardly. It is a concept rooted in player freedom and the legitimacy of that freedom. Removing that legitimacy implies that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to play.

There is no such contradiction with wanting matched play (or matched play with upgrade tables) to have official rules that meet particular needs, rejection of officialness is not inherent to matched play.

The contradiction comes from you wanting official recognition for "your" thing, but wanting to strip it from other things. It reeks of double standards.

And this honestly just sounds spiteful towards those who don't enjoy competitive play, and almost like an effort to delegitimise non-comp forms of play.

Hardly. I've made it very clear that narrative play and non-competitive matched play are important things. I just recognize that the normal point system is better than PL for those things. Please do not confuse rejection of the CAAC attitude expressed by certain GW employees with rejection of actual casual/narrative players.

I'm afraid I don't see such a distinction in your comments, especially when many "actual casual and narrative players" enjoy the resources put in place by those "CAAC GW employees".

Also, I wanna ask for clarification on "actual casual/narrative players" - who is determining who is an "actual" player? What is an "actual" casual/narrative player?

You literally don't have proof beyond rampant speculation about what GW "intended". When you can show me a quote from a GW designer about what they "intended" to do, and that intention being "we want to make 40k PL only, sod the competitive players", then I'll believe you.

Believe what you want. You're never going to get an official statement either way but it was pretty obvious at the start of 8th that PL was intended to be the primary system and only a backlash similar to the AoS launch debacle made GW reverse their course.

So, speculation. Cheers.

Well said, hiw many times have we heard "id love to houserule/play a certain way but my opponent wont allow it cos it isnt in the rulebook". The three ways is at least intended to foster a culture where these things are legitimate.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


So I like the idea of PL, but honestly, I think CSB has a good point. As it is currently is fine, but it shouldn't be a key thing GW wastes time on leveling. As it's only real purpose is for extremely new people or the far more casual crowds. If GW wants their success to continue, they have to stick with points, but I'd like them to continue to make PL available.

I dunno the right mix...

This is pretty much my stance in a nutshell.

As to the finding the right mix part? I think they've kinda hit that; Matched will update for balance every 3 months, but Crusade will only update for balance once a year at most. Additional content for Crusade is frequent- the only thing GW publishes which contains no Crusade content is GT Mission Packs- it's just the balance updates from Crusade that are rare.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Right. And since you are advocated the removal of PL, you are deliberately excluding people who prefer it.

That's an incredibly dishonest argument and you know it. Making a game change that some people don't like is not the same as excluding them from the game. And I have said multiple times that I expect that most people who prefer PL would continue to play with the normal point system even if PL was removed.

I wouldn't- I'd just keep using PL at the most recently approved levels. We won't stop playing the game, but my group and I also won't implement changes we don't agree with; so far this has been mostly book legal, because most of GW's balancing changes have applied to matched only.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

And I note that you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, by your argument here, adding the AoC rule was gatekeeping. Not adding the AoC rule was gatekeeping. Keeping the AoC rule is gatekeeping. Removing the AoC rule is gatekeeping. Every conceivable change or lack of change is gatekeeping because someone prefers it to be the other way. So congratulations, you've reduced "gatekeeping" to a meaningless term.

None of this is gate keeping unless you tell other people that any of the above is the only way to play, and neither I nor anyone I game with does. All of us believe that whatever a player does with AoC is up to that player and the person that they are playing with, because flexibility is a thing we like, and we believe that everyone should have access to a flexible game and gaming environment.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.

I mean to be fair i dont think they spend that much time on it to begin with. Im pretty damn sure they basically did point cost, then took the point of the unit and divided by 20 and called it power level.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.

I mean to be fair i dont think they spend that much time on it to begin with. Im pretty damn sure they basically did point cost, then took the point of the unit and divided by 20 and called it power level.

Yep. And since the edition began it's been updated what, once? Twice?

As opposed to points, which change every three months.

Crusade does take development time and effort. PL? Not so much.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.

How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?

Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.

How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?

Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.

Why are you ashamed over a game about pushing toy models around, and why would you be embarrassed for telling someone to ignore a bad mechanic?

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.

How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?

Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.

Why are you ashamed over a game about pushing toy models around, and why would you be embarrassed for telling someone to ignore a bad mechanic?

Toy soldiers aren't $50 a box for 5 models, but I love when people use that as a way to incorporate "bad balance is good" into their mindset.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?

Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.

Honestly, I think you're may just overreacting a little bit there.

Boo hoo. There's a way of playing that uses different numbers. How embarrassing. How shameful. Your problem, not mine.

This is, of course, assuming you're not trolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Toy soldiers aren't $50 a box for 5 models

These ones are. They're soldiers, and they're toys. Ergo, toy soldiers. There's nothing to ashamed about by stating what they are.

You can slap what ever price you want, they are little plastic men that are soldiers in an army. thye are army men.

Im not saying that bad balance is good, because we have bad balance in matched and PL.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.

How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?

Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.

Why are you ashamed over a game about pushing toy models around, and why would you be embarrassed for telling someone to ignore a bad mechanic?

Toy soldiers aren't $50 a box for 5 models, but I love when people use that as a way to incorporate "bad balance is good" into their mindset.

Please. Write a coherent whine for once.

You've gone from "PL is an embarrassment" to "they're not toy soldiers" to "people calling them toy soldiers think bad balance is good".

You somehow fail to just stick to one point and follow it through, knee jerking comments thinking someone will praise you as a badass sticking it to the nerds as the crowds cheer your name.

Why yes, I do in fact play with premium priced dolls while making pew pew noises as i roll die on a table and think the game could still be improved how could you tell?

I will say the lack of PL updates is actively painful for me.

I can make a 1500 point army with 3 Baneblades. I cannot make a 75PL army with 3 Baneblades.

Therefore, I can run my Baneblade company in a Crusade system that uses points, but not in one that uses PL.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I will say the lack of PL updates is actively painful for me.

I can make a 1500 point army with 3 Baneblades. I cannot make a 75PL army with 3 Baneblades.

Therefore, I can run my Baneblade company in a Crusade system that uses points, but not in one that uses PL.

The PL updates just re-calculate the values from the last point updates, the formula on how to do that is known.
For the regular baneblade, the value should be 24 (410+530/40), just talk to your campaign master and I'm sure he'll arrange something.

Failing that, the banehammer and banesword are just 24 PL and the doomhammer is 25. If you really wanted, you can absolutely make it work without house rules.

In any case, you should get updated values when your codex drops.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.

How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?

Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.

Why are you ashamed over a game about pushing toy models around, and why would you be embarrassed for telling someone to ignore a bad mechanic?

Toy soldiers aren't $50 a box for 5 models, but I love when people use that as a way to incorporate "bad balance is good" into their mindset.

Please. Write a coherent whine for once.

You've gone from "PL is an embarrassment" to "they're not toy soldiers" to "people calling them toy soldiers think bad balance is good".

You somehow fail to just stick to one point and follow it through, knee jerking comments thinking someone will praise you as a badass sticking it to the nerds as the crowds cheer your name.

Name a part where I'm inconsistent instead of just being mad that I think PL should be deleted as it's embarassing to even think about.

I mean, "But i love when people use that as a way to incorporate 'bad balance is good' into their mindset"
Is a pretty damn inconsistent, considering you are implying people who point out that we play with dolls is backing bad balance.

The other inconsistent part is, why are you embarrassed over a second set of rules for a game that you dont even have to play.
You are playing a game where you paint toys and roll dies as you make believe you are having them shoot at each other, and the thing that you are embarrassed about is a point system that hardly anyone uses?

That right there is a really inconsistent take.

Honestly I feel it wouldn't change anything. It's not like the game is more balanced with points, the main thing points do is give you an excuse to justify being an donkey-cave. Without points and you take some cheesy BS, it's obvious you're a win at all costs scumbag and you can't pretend otherwise because it's your CHOICE to take 10 cheeseguns instead of 5, or whatnot.. Points just give you a way to justify it because it's not your fault, it's GW's fault for making it too good/cheap etc. etc. etc.

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly I feel it wouldn't change anything. It's not like the game is more balanced with points, the main thing points do is give you an excuse to justify being an donkey-cave. Without points and you take some cheesy BS, it's obvious you're a win at all costs scumbag and you can't pretend otherwise because it's your CHOICE to take 10 cheeseguns instead of 5, or whatnot.. Points just give you a way to justify it because it's not your fault, it's GW's fault for making it too good/cheap etc. etc. etc.

Yeah the big offender of that when PL first got introduced were rubrics, able to take all infernal bolters and warp flamers at the same time, they got like 200 points of free gear.

It sounds like PL is another one of those "let the players balance the game!" decisions that GW has been making lately.

What do we pay them for again?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Name a part where I'm inconsistent instead of just being mad that I think PL should be deleted as it's embarassing to even think about.

Please illuminate me what:
- you finding PL an embarassing concept
- people referring to models as toy soldier upsetting you

Have to do with each other. While we're at it, clear up how:
- refer to models as toy soldiers
- bad balance is good

Are related. Likewise how do you make the jump from "PL is an embarassment" to "you must love bad balance based on how you describe your hobby".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It sounds like PL is another one of those "let the players balance the game!" decisions that GW has been making lately.

What do we pay them for again?

You mean the "let the players balance the game" decisions where they seek feedback and ideas from top end competitive players for points based play adjustments?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It sounds like PL is another one of those "let the players balance the game!" decisions that GW has been making lately.

What do we pay them for again?

Maintaining that Space Marine statue in Nottingham to scare the greys away from Stonehenge?

PenitentJake wrote:


Right. And since you are advocated the removal of PL, you are deliberately excluding people who prefer it.

They, who are not advocating for the removal of points are, are not excluding you.

Thanks for proving my point gatekeeper.

No, the difference is he doesn't want you to go away, he wants you to play with points.

Also, some people should be gatekept out of the community.

Hecaton wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:


Right. And since you are advocated the removal of PL, you are deliberately excluding people who prefer it.

They, who are not advocating for the removal of points are, are not excluding you.

Thanks for proving my point gatekeeper.

No, the difference is he doesn't want you to go away, he wants you to play with points.

Also, some people should be gatekept out of the community.

He wants the PL people to have a worse experience. Yeah, that’s good.

And some people shouldn’t be welcome-bigots, for example. People who prefer to use less granular points than more granular ones? They’re fine to play-they’re not hurting anyone.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It sounds like PL is another one of those "let the players balance the game!" decisions that GW has been making lately.

What do we pay them for again?

Models, lore and cenrtal officialdom of rules really.

Hecaton wrote:No, the difference is he doesn't want you to go away, he wants you to play with points.

Aka "play my way, or not at all". Same thing.

Also, some people should be gatekept out of the community.

I trust you're referring to bigots and people who seek to make other people feel unwelcome, yes?

 JNAProductions wrote:
He wants the PL people to have a worse experience. Yeah, that’s good.

And some people shouldn’t be welcome-bigots, for example. People who prefer to use less granular points than more granular ones? They’re fine to play-they’re not hurting anyone.

Well, not not for the sake of it, but so he can have a better experience, which is more reasonable.

I would also include people who think that grokking the game system and optimization better than them is unsporting, which is the height of unsporting itself.

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
He wants the PL people to have a worse experience. Yeah, that’s good.

And some people shouldn’t be welcome-bigots, for example. People who prefer to use less granular points than more granular ones? They’re fine to play-they’re not hurting anyone.

Well, not not for the sake of it, but so he can have a better experience, which is more reasonable.

Is it reasonable? Sounds kinda selfish to me, entirely taking away someone else's preferred way to play (especially if it aids those who may have certain conditions and circumstances that make full points impractical).

Why would removing PL give him a better experience?

I would also include people who think that grokking the game system and optimization better than them is unsporting, which is the height of unsporting itself.

I honestly don't think you know what unsporting means here, because neither usage in that sentence makes sense. And no, compared to bigots, that's not exactly grounds for gatekeeping from the entire hobby, and the same goes for even WAAC folks.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I mean, "But i love when people use that as a way to incorporate 'bad balance is good' into their mindset"
Is a pretty damn inconsistent, considering you are implying people who point out that we play with dolls is backing bad balance.

The other inconsistent part is, why are you embarrassed over a second set of rules for a game that you dont even have to play.
You are playing a game where you paint toys and roll dies as you make believe you are having them shoot at each other, and the thing that you are embarrassed about is a point system that hardly anyone uses?

That right there is a really inconsistent take.

Except it does, because they then point out I'm apparently taking it "too seriously" and then we should just do the balancing ourselves (have you even bothered to read the posts from people defending PL?). At that point you dont need to pay for rules. Just go pew pew and the player that made the best pew pew noises wins. We literally have best poster in the thread saying it's fine that Laspistols and Plasma Pistols cost the same because they dont care and thinking too much on it is taking things too seriously.

Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly I feel it wouldn't change anything. It's not like the game is more balanced with points, the main thing points do is give you an excuse to justify being an donkey-cave. Without points and you take some cheesy BS, it's obvious you're a win at all costs scumbag and you can't pretend otherwise because it's your CHOICE to take 10 cheeseguns instead of 5, or whatnot.. Points just give you a way to justify it because it's not your fault, it's GW's fault for making it too good/cheap etc. etc. etc.

Ah look, right on schedule here's the CAAC player to demonstrate the idea that the value of PL is entirely in being a tool for expressing CAAC attitudes. At least you're honest about it.