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: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.

The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote: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.

The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.

Are you going to say the same thing to the guy calling people donkey-caves and scumbags for taking "too many" of a strong weapon?

I've recently transitioned from playing Power Level to Points and I must admit I don't see what the fuss is with Points. It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink. Also points seem to regularly change so having spent a long time creating a list it can then be upturned, meaning yet more time to rebuild the list.

I've not noticed more or less imbalance with either system so I can't see what the benefit of Points is over Power Level.

Tallonian4th wrote:
I've recently transitioned from playing Power Level to Points and I must admit I don't see what the fuss is with Points. It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink. Also points seem to regularly change so having spent a long time creating a list it can then be upturned, meaning yet more time to rebuild the list.

I've not noticed more or less imbalance with either system so I can't see what the benefit of Points is over Power Level.

Thank you

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 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.

"Except it does becasue they then point out im apparently taking it 'too seriously' "
Why do you care what others think? Just tell them its a a bad secondary point system GW tried to use, and no one really uses it that much, and move on. Like, why do you care if they think you are taking it to seriously for wanting to use points, the system taht everyone else uses.
You are putting WAY to much importance on what others think about the system, and there is literally no reason to be "Embarrassed" thats just silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tallonian4th wrote:
I've recently transitioned from playing Power Level to Points and I must admit I don't see what the fuss is with Points. It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink. Also points seem to regularly change so having spent a long time creating a list it can then be upturned, meaning yet more time to rebuild the list.

I've not noticed more or less imbalance with either system so I can't see what the benefit of Points is over Power Level.

Its because generally the people who play PL are not making wombo combos. Its a LOT harder to exploit points vs PL. A PL game can be horribly exploited, the example i used again was rubrics, being able to give them all warpflamers and infernal bolters so you basically got like 100-200 points of free gear.
You could also do this with things like devestators, stern guards, vanguard, captains and what not. Its very easy to exploit PL, its not as easy to exploit points.

Tallonian4th wrote:
It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink.

Why do you need multiple books? All of the points for the entire game are here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/mYZ4b5gZUiktj4GI.pdf

If anything PL is the point system that requires more time flipping through books since all of the point costs are spread throughout the datasheet section instead of compiled into a 1-2 page table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Scrutiny?? What is there to scrutinise?

The argument "I think X therefore GW should do Y" absolutely should be scrutinized. If X does not hold up to inspection, as is the case with "PL is easier", then there is no argument for Y.

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.

To put it bluntly: yes, that is exactly the way things work. You don't design and support an entire separate point system for the three people that "need" it to play. It's unfortunate if those three people are not able to play the game but it is incredibly foolish to bloat the rules in pursuit of such a tiny number of additional players.

And no, it is not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping requires, by definition, deliberate intend to exclude a targeted group. Making a change for non-exclusionary reasons that has the unfortunate side effect of excluding someone is not gatekeeping.

Removing that legitimacy implies that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to play.

No. What implies a right and wrong way to play is having and Official™ Open™ Play™ Way™ To™ Play™. The fact that GW explicitly says "stratagems are optional" implies that changing the rules to allow primaris marines to ride in a Rhino is not part of Open™ Play™. And that's how many people are going to take it, that Open™ Play™ is a specific set of optional features and you're supposed to play within those constraints.

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

There is no double standard at all. Matched play is defined by a desire for officialness and standardization. Open play is defined by a rejection of those things. So it is absolutely consistent to want official recognition for matched play rules but not for a format where "screw officialness, I'm doing my own thing" is the defining element.

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?

Casual player: a player who puts limited effort into the game. They own a few models, maybe play a game occasionally, but they don't really care about it. By definition nobody on this forum is a casual player.

Narrative player: a player who focuses on the story around the game and attempts to represent it on the tabletop.

CAAC GW employee: a TFG who insists that competitive players are playing the game wrong and wants to exclude them from "their" game.

PL is great for CAAC GW employees because of its gatekeeping value. It's bad for casual players because it's a less-balanced system and balance is vital when you're dealing with players who lack the knowledge or desire to make good list building choices. It's bad for narrative players because it needlessly creates tension between trying to win the game on the table and trying to accurately represent the forces in the story. And the hilarious irony in this is that PL has the least effect on competitive players, as competitive players will just change their optimization strategies and bring the best PL lists.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Tallonian4th wrote:
It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink.

Why do you need multiple books? All of the points for the entire game are here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/mYZ4b5gZUiktj4GI.pdf

If anything PL is the point system that requires more time flipping through books since all of the point costs are spread throughout the datasheet section instead of compiled into a 1-2 page table.

Does that document (Which for safeties sake I would recommend you illustrate what it is) include things like the changes that just came out last week? Also, does that read 100% correctly? The problem with saying things like this is that GW has a VERY BAD HABIT of completely crapping the bed on docs like these, and forcing Day0 patches. Which invalidate the entire thing. In order for your point to be true, you and you opponent would have to agree on a set time frame for list building. IE "All lists will be built using the documented unit costs in the Free Community Care Update". This gets tedious the deeper you go, for obvious reasons. The good/bad thing about PL is that they almost NEVER change. Almost. What is the age on the current PL costs that are claimed to be valid for Space Marines? 2 years?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote: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.

The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.

Are you going to say the same thing to the guy calling people donkey-caves and scumbags for taking "too many" of a strong weapon?

Way to misrepresent me. I said I'd be insulted and willing to take insult with someone literally slapping everything humanly possible onto every unit because you gave a way of performing a functionally double the precieved value crisis suit unit.

The difference there? You just brought an army which wouldn't be overly nice to play against and against the spirit of what I personally enjoy about the hobby. You actively wasted my game time with your decision to be as absurd as possible. PL existing in the first place has no impact on your enjoyment of your points led game.

It'd be like me turning up to your points based game with a PL list which you know gives me a points advantage to help give it a competitive edge.

So yes, I'd be willing to insult someone who would willingly waste my time.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Does that document (Which for safeties sake I would recommend you illustrate what it is) include things like the changes that just came out last week?

That is the document that contained those changes.

Also, does that read 100% correctly?

Yes, considering it is the final authority on what point costs are it is by definition 100% correct. You could make the argument that some of the listed point costs are the result of an error (but still official until changed), but you could say the same thing about the point costs in PL. If this document isn't trusted to be 100% correct then what PL source can be trusted?

In order for your point to be true, you and you opponent would have to agree on a set time frame for list building.

Why is this a problem? "We're using the current points" is the standard assumption. And even with PL you have to do the same thing, PL has changed in the past and unless you're operating under the assumption of always using the current points you and your opponent have to agree on whether you will use the original printed PL values or one of the PL update documents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Way to misrepresent me.

Way to take the guilt for that when I wasn't even talking about you. That comment was referring to Wayniac's post on the previous page, but if you think you're also being insulting then feel free to claim the label.

You just brought an army which wouldn't be overly nice to play against and against the spirit of what I personally enjoy about the hobby. You actively wasted my game time with your decision to be as absurd as possible.

Why are you being so arrogant and assuming that your way to use PL is somehow the objectively correct way and people who use it in different ways are "wasting your time"? Why aren't you equally guilty of wasting their time for trying to show up with a list that is poorly optimized for PL games and not giving them a proper challenge?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 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.

I believe we were talking about taking plasma pistols over laspistols for guard sgts. So you think one model in ten in some of yiur units having a 12” weapon with a higher strength and a 50/50 chance of hitting anyway is worth worrying about? You think the balance in the game is so fine that it’s worth worrying about that increased chance of wounding with two or three weapons in your whole army? It is a good use of mine or anyone else’s time to worry about if that is worth 2 or 5 hundredths of a power level??

And for someone so embarrassed, you do like to go on about power levels, a lot. I suggest before getting embarrassed again, you get a grip and have a word with yourself.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote: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.

The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.

Are you going to say the same thing to the guy calling people donkey-caves and scumbags for taking "too many" of a strong weapon?

Why? They've not said anything about how I should feel "embarrassed".

I'm specifically referring to EviscerationPlague telling me I should feel embarrassed for what I like. Is that a statement you support, instead of whataboutism?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Scrutiny?? What is there to scrutinise?

The argument "I think X therefore GW should do Y" absolutely should be scrutinized. If X does not hold up to inspection, as is the case with "PL is easier", then there is no argument for Y.

We're talking about DISABILITY here. What is there to scrutinise about someone who might struggle without PL saying "hey, PL makes my life easier". How can you invalidate their experience on that matter?

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.

To put it bluntly: yes, that is exactly the way things work.

And that's an ableist exclusionary mentality, and says everything I need to know about further discussing this with you - you don't care about others.

You don't design and support an entire separate point system for the three people that "need" it to play. It's unfortunate if those three people are not able to play the game but it is incredibly foolish to bloat the rules in pursuit of such a tiny number of additional players.

Okay, so just so EVERYONE in this thread is clear about what's being said here - "if you're disabled, you don't get to play this game, and we're going to take away the support mechanisms you had which let you enjoy it. Screw you."

Mate, that IS ableism and gatekeeping behaviour. There really isn't any two ways about it.

And no, it is not gatekeeping.

You literally just told disabled players for feth off.

Gatekeeping requires, by definition, deliberate intend to exclude a targeted group. Making a change for non-exclusionary reasons that has the unfortunate side effect of excluding someone is not gatekeeping.

Knowing that your actions would exclude a group of people is still excluding them, and KNOWING that it would exclude them (which you admit to) and still proceeding to do is still gatekeeping, as you have decided that their needs are not worth considering.

Making a change for whatever "innocent" reason, knowing how it will negatively affect others, STILL NEGATIVELY AFFECTS OTHERS - you are still complicit in that, and even worse, knowing that you will have that effect and still doing it makes your motivation void.

Removing that legitimacy implies that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to play.

No. What implies a right and wrong way to play is having and Official™ Open™ Play™ Way™ To™ Play™.

How?? If Open exists to say "yeah, go nuts", then that allows all forms of play to be valid. Removing that limits 40k to "officially" only what's printed. Without an explicit ruling saying "hey, ignore these if it helps you", ignoring rules would be considered "wrong".

The fact that GW explicitly says "stratagems are optional" implies that changing the rules to allow primaris marines to ride in a Rhino is not part of Open™ Play™. And that's how many people are going to take it, that Open™ Play™ is a specific set of optional features and you're supposed to play within those constraints.

Speaking for all the Open Play folks I know and play with, none of them see it that way. Maybe you should just stick to what you know for the sake of how "many people take it".

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

There is no double standard at all. Matched play is defined by a desire for officialness and standardization. Open play is defined by a rejection of those things. So it is absolutely consistent to want official recognition for matched play rules but not for a format where "screw officialness, I'm doing my own thing" is the defining element.

You seriously don't understand, do you? Open isn't defined by a rejection of "officialness" - it's defined by player freedoms and choice, an OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED freedom and choice. Open doesn't say "screw official", it says "lets pick and choose what we like at our own supported freedom".

You really don't understand the perspective that I'm viewing this from, do you?

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?

Casual player: a player who puts limited effort into the game. They own a few models, maybe play a game occasionally, but they don't really care about it. By definition nobody on this forum is a casual player.

Narrative player: a player who focuses on the story around the game and attempts to represent it on the tabletop.

CAAC GW employee: a TFG who insists that competitive players are playing the game wrong and wants to exclude them from "their" game.

In that case, I disagree with your definitions. I'm a casual player, in that I play casually. I put effort into the hobby, but not into winning or trying to win more often - casual refers to my style of play, not my enjoyment of the hobby.

I would define myself as narrative, but narrative and casual are not mutually exclusive.

And frankly, as I've already said, this idea that there's this coven of GW employees who are out to get you is plain fearmongering and speculative. And, for what it's worth, EVERYONE has the right to exclude people from their own game, or rather, to play against them. You don't owe anyone a game. That's not the same as not welcoming them into the hobby, and not supporting their validity to play and giving them to tools to do so, but no-one should be forced to play a game they don't enjoy.

PL is great for CAAC GW employees because of its gatekeeping value.

As opposed to your gatekeeping of disabled hobbyists?

It's bad for casual players because it's a less-balanced system and balance is vital when you're dealing with players who lack the knowledge or desire to make good list building choices.

I'm a casual player. I don't care about balance or making a good list, because I'm casual. So, maybe stop trying to speak for us.

It's bad for narrative players because it needlessly creates tension between trying to win the game on the table and trying to accurately represent the forces in the story.

I'm a narrative player. If I want to reflect the forces in the story, I'll put them in my army. I don't care about winning. PL encourages me to play the army I field with "lore accurate" weapons, instead of having to focus on what will save me points. That's why my Cadian sergeants still only carry laspistols and chainswords, and why three of my Tactical Squads carry flamers and missile launchers.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Why aren't you equally guilty of wasting their time for trying to show up with a list that is poorly optimized for PL games and not giving them a proper challenge?

I don't owe anyone a challenge. I want to play 40k, not act as some whetstone for someone's W/D/L ratio.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Okay, so just so EVERYONE in this thread is clear about what's being said here - "if you're disabled, you don't get to play this game, and we're going to take away the support mechanisms you had which let you enjoy it. Screw you."

Just to EVERYONE in this thread is clear about what's being said here: PL advocates, by insisting on using a point system requiring math that may be a burden for some disabled people, are very clearly saying "if you're disabled, you don't get to play this game."

Or is your particular ableisim immune to criticism just because it's the point system you prefer?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Okay, so just so EVERYONE in this thread is clear about what's being said here - "if you're disabled, you don't get to play this game, and we're going to take away the support mechanisms you had which let you enjoy it. Screw you."

Just to EVERYONE in this thread is clear about what's being said here: PL advocates, by insisting on using a point system requiring math that may be a burden for some disabled people, are very clearly saying "if you're disabled, you don't get to play this game."

We literally have testimony from people in this thread who have said that they find PL to be perfectly adequate for them. If you can't see that, and instead reduce their own experiences down to "WE CAN'T DO ANY KIND OF MATHS", kindly, don't respond to me.

Or is your particular ableisim immune to criticism just because it's the point system you prefer?

No-one's saying you can't criticise it or that you need to play it. Just don't stop other people from playing the damned game if it doesn't affect you.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Tallonian4th wrote:
It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink.

Why do you need multiple books? All of the points for the entire game are here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/mYZ4b5gZUiktj4GI.pdf

If anything PL is the point system that requires more time flipping through books since all of the point costs are spread throughout the datasheet section instead of compiled into a 1-2 page table.

Fair enough I didn't know about such a document. Interestingly there is the same style of document for Power Level (https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/wRzHkacP0NPxYL3d.pdf) so I will concede that the 'too many books/sources' argument is moot for both sides.

Still doesn't help Points too much to my mind. Power Level I look up a unit once in one table, points it's several tables and sometimes multiple times in each.

Power Level also gives far more freedom over modelling. You don't have to worry if Vox Casters are worth it or not, or if they will suddenly be useless meanin you either have to chop up a model or build a replacement. You just build a cool model (or squad of models) that fits in with the story you have for your army. I use Vox Casters as an example purely as I find the idea of a combat squad without communications as bizarre but totally understand under the points system why someone would do so.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


If anything PL is the point system that requires more time flipping through books since all of the point costs are spread throughout the datasheet section instead of compiled into a 1-2 page table.

Nope.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/wRzHkacP0NPxYL3d.pdf

CadianSgtBob wrote:

for the three people that "need" it to play.

Nope.

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-2022-reader-survey-and-what-it-tells-us-about-the-community/

CadianSgtBob wrote:

And no, it is not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping requires, by definition, deliberate intend to exclude a targeted group. Making a change for non-exclusionary reasons that has the unfortunate side effect of excluding someone is not gatekeeping.

Removing PL would be a non-exclusionary suggestion if it wasn't possible for you to play points without making any changes. But it IS possible to play with points without making changes, which means the only reason for removing PL IS exclusionary.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


No. What implies a right and wrong way to play is having and Official™ Open™ Play™ Way™ To™ Play™. The fact that GW explicitly says "stratagems are optional" implies that changing the rules to allow primaris marines to ride in a Rhino is not part of Open™ Play™. And that's how many people are going to take it, that Open™ Play™ is a specific set of optional features and you're supposed to play within those constraints.

Your overall point here IS correct.

About some specifics, I think clarification would be healthy though. RAW, CP are present in any game where armies are battle-forged, regardless of play mode.

Both Crusade and Matched require Battleforged armies according to the "Mustering an army" section of their respective Mission packs (whether BRB or other). The Open rules do not specify that you MUST use a battle forged army, nor do they specify that you can't.

And Open IS a specific set of optional features, rather than just "the absence of other rules" - this includes a mission pack with only 3 missions; these are based on RELATIVE size, rather than ABSOLUTE size, as well as the Open War deck.

As for the Cult of Officialdom: I think this is a player/ meta issue as opposed to a GW issue. I mean, I suppose it's possible to argue that having as many official options as we do does encourage players to pick an official option and stick with it. But those of us who have been playing for a while, and have become used to creating occasional house rules now and again CAN still do that. I don't feel like I've seen any more or less in recent edition rule books to indicate that GW's attitude toward house rules is any different than it always has been.

Caveat: Rogue Trader, and some of the books released during 2nd may have had explicit references to house rules, as back in those days the company was far too small to supply the demand by themselves. As 2nd wore on, the company began to approach a size that DID facilitate supplying the demand.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


There is no double standard at all. Matched play is defined by a desire for officialness and standardization. Open play is defined by a rejection of those things. So it is absolutely consistent to want official recognition for matched play rules but not for a format where "screw officialness, I'm doing my own thing" is the defining element.

Except that, as explained above, Open ISN'T defined by "screw officialness". You can argue that you think Open SHOULD be defined by "screw officialness" (I'm not sure I agree, but I'm saying that this would be a rational enough argument that it could be respectfully debated.)

But doubling down here that Open IS "Screw officialness" when it was you yourself who pointed out that, RAW, it isn't... well it's just... Confusing.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Spoiler:

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?

Casual player: a player who puts limited effort into the game. They own a few models, maybe play a game occasionally, but they don't really care about it. By definition nobody on this forum is a casual player.

Narrative player: a player who focuses on the story around the game and attempts to represent it on the tabletop.

CAAC GW employee: a TFG who insists that competitive players are playing the game wrong and wants to exclude them from "their" game.

PL is great for CAAC GW employees because of its gatekeeping value. It's bad for casual players because it's a less-balanced system and balance is vital when you're dealing with players who lack the knowledge or desire to make good list building choices. It's bad for narrative players because it needlessly creates tension between trying to win the game on the table and trying to accurately represent the forces in the story. And the hilarious irony in this is that PL has the least effect on competitive players, as competitive players will just change their optimization strategies and bring the best PL lists.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
We literally have testimony from people in this thread who have said that they find PL to be perfectly adequate for them. If you can't see that, and instead reduce their own experiences down to "WE CAN'T DO ANY KIND OF MATHS", kindly, don't respond to me.

We have testimony from those specific people. We don't have testimony from the ones who are gatekept out of 40k because they lack the math ability and/or energy to use PL. But that's exactly what I expect from you, complaining about gatekeeping and ableism but refusing to acknowledge when you do the same to other people.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
We literally have testimony from people in this thread who have said that they find PL to be perfectly adequate for them. If you can't see that, and instead reduce their own experiences down to "WE CAN'T DO ANY KIND OF MATHS", kindly, don't respond to me.

We have testimony from those specific people. We don't have testimony from the ones who are gatekept out of 40k because they lack the math ability and/or energy to use PL. But that's exactly what I expect from you, complaining about gatekeeping and ableism but refusing to acknowledge when you do the same to other people.

Eh? ………. Eh?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
We literally have testimony from people in this thread who have said that they find PL to be perfectly adequate for them. If you can't see that, and instead reduce their own experiences down to "WE CAN'T DO ANY KIND OF MATHS", kindly, don't respond to me.

We have testimony from those specific people. We don't have testimony from the ones who are gatekept out of 40k because they lack the math ability and/or energy to use PL.

... what? So your argument for getting rid of PL is "PL is too hard for certain people", and you also don't see that as a reason to get rid of points? Or are you saying that there should be an option for people who don't want to use points OR PL? Sure - there should be. That's not something I disagree with.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove here.

But that's exactly what I expect from you, complaining about gatekeeping and ableism but refusing to acknowledge when you do the same to other people.

I beg your pardon? What kind of ableism or gatekeeping am I doing here exactly?

I honestly think you're floundering at this point, because you're dropping arguments left and right.

PenitentJake wrote:
Nope.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/wRzHkacP0NPxYL3d.pdf

Yep. That's an old document, and remember how much you praise PL for not being updated constantly? How you can use the same point values for years at a time? The other side of that is that the once-every-few-years points update for PL is unlikely to be relevant to you because your codex was released after the update and you'll need to use the values printed in the codex. The normal point system, on the other hand, is always relevant in 1-2 page table form. Either you use the 1-2 page table in your codex or you use the 1-2 page table in the update pdf.

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-2022-reader-survey-and-what-it-tells-us-about-the-community/

Nothing in that survey addresses PL or disability.

Removing PL would be a non-exclusionary suggestion if it wasn't possible for you to play points without making any changes. But it IS possible to play with points without making changes, which means the only reason for removing PL IS exclusionary.

I have already addressed the reasons for removing PL, so please stop lying and pretending that the only reason is deliberate and targeted exclusion of specific groups.

Except that, as explained above, Open ISN'T defined by "screw officialness". You can argue that you think Open SHOULD be defined by "screw officialness" (I'm not sure I agree, but I'm saying that this would be a rational enough argument that it could be respectfully debated.)

But doubling down here that Open IS "Screw officialness" when it was you yourself who pointed out that, RAW, it isn't... well it's just... Confusing.

This is a case of missing the difference between open play and Open™ Play™, and perhaps I should have made that more clear.

Open play, as in the choose your own rules style of game, is defined by an attitude of "screw officialness". For example, the people in 5th edition playing games where they ignored the FOC because they wanted to have a battle between two all-tank armies and following the FOC would get in the way of that concept. Whether or not it is Official™ is irrelevant to them.

Open™ Play™, the Official™ Way™ To™ Play™ defined by GW, is this weird incoherent hybrid of "do whatever you want" and "officialness is very important and you can only make these specific changes". This is why it is a redundant concept that should be removed from the rules. The people who find it appealing don't need the Official™ 40k™ Game™ approval, and the people who want an official and standardized game format don't find it appealing.

If casual players, by definition (according to you) don't care about the games they play, why would balanced lists be important an important thing for them to aspire to (also according to you)?

Because getting wiped off the table 100-0 isn't fun. The casual player doesn't invest much in the game but that doesn't mean they're going to have fun when when they lose every game, many of them before they even get to take a turn. A balanced game allows them to show up with a low-effort list and not get penalized as harshly for not making the correct choices, increasing the chances that the game is enjoyable even if they lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
... what? So your argument for getting rid of PL is "PL is too hard for certain people", and you also don't see that as a reason to get rid of points? Or are you saying that there should be an option for people who don't want to use points OR PL? Sure - there should be. That's not something I disagree with.

My argument is that you're an ableist gatekeeper because you're doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing. You defend PL even though it excludes (some) disabled people from playing the game and you don't seem to care one bit about that. PL meets your needs so you're willing to write off those people as acceptable losses.

Or you can concede the obvious: that it isn't gatekeeping just because the effect is that some people are unable or unwilling to play the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Eh? ………. Eh?

Sgt_Smudge has dishonestly accused me of gatekeeping and trying to prevent disabled people from playing the game. I'm simply pointing out that by their own standards for what counts as "ableist gatekeeping" they are doing the exact same thing. So either they're a shameless hypocrite or their definition of gatekeeping is wrong.

As a note, CSB
Because you keep saying that my method of play, which I came to by following the book, is insubstantial.
My roommates and family who play with me (a rotating group of 20 or so people), have, on numerous occasions told me, having seen more standard play at FLGSs prior to incidents, that they have zero interest in that style of playing, and prefer what we do here.

It means I now have family looking at getting tiny armies. That's a good thing, right?

The fact that I can point to the book, and show them that CPs, strats, detachments, the massive terrain rules, secondaries, are all in the Advanced Rules section. We don't have to use them, and our method of playing isn't something I'm making up on the spot.

Removing PL doesn't have to be motivated by "Feth those guys."
But as a result of removing it, you're making it harder on others to enjoy the game.

And if a casual player goes up against a tournament player, chances are they're gonna get bopped, and bopped hard. (Note that this is ALSO true in a balanced game-chances are a tournament player is much more skilled than Joe who plays once every three months.) But if Joe who plays every three months faces Ron, who plays every 12 weeks, there's a good chance that their lists won't be so out of whack that the game is no fun.

Edit: Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"

Or is that solely an invention of CSB that they've attributed to others?

 Blndmage wrote:
We don't have to use them, and our method of playing isn't something I'm making up on the spot.

But why does it matter if it is something you're making up on the spot? If you aren't playing pickup games against random strangers in a store/club environment then why does it matter if your game is Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Removing PL doesn't have to be motivated by "Feth those guys."

Great. Then you acknowledge that merely advocating the removal of PL is not gatekeeping.

Edit: Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"

They don't need to. Do you dispute the fact that there are disabled people who are unable to handle the math involved in using PL?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
We don't have to use them, and our method of playing isn't something I'm making up on the spot.

But why does it matter if it is something you're making up on the spot? If you aren't playing pickup games against random strangers in a store/club environment then why does it matter if your game is Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Removing PL doesn't have to be motivated by "Feth those guys."

Great. Then you acknowledge that merely advocating the removal of PL is not gatekeeping.

Edit: Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"

They don't need to. Do you dispute the fact that there are disabled people who are unable to handle the math involved in using PL?

Google wrote:the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.

Notice that the definition says NOTHING about motive.

As for the last bit... Yes, there are some people who can't handle PL or points. I see no reason to exclude them either-they would probably need help getting a game in, but just because someone needs help is no reason to exclude them.

Since you're so concerned, what's your proposal to help people who can't handle points or PL?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
... what? So your argument for getting rid of PL is "PL is too hard for certain people", and you also don't see that as a reason to get rid of points? Or are you saying that there should be an option for people who don't want to use points OR PL? Sure - there should be. That's not something I disagree with.

My argument is that you're an ableist gatekeeper because you're doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing. You defend PL even though it excludes (some) disabled people from playing the game and you don't seem to care one bit about that. PL meets your needs so you're willing to write off those people as acceptable losses.

lolwut?

I'm pointing out that you want to REMOVE options that people say assist them in playing the game, despite having heard accounts that say those options help them, and have decided that you don't care about them. That is ableist.

You have invented this idea that I don't want a system that helps people for who PL would be unsuitable for (which is untrue, I advocate for ALL players to have a way of playing that is accessible and helpful for their needs), for a group of people who I haven't seen any testimony from (not that they don't exist, just highlighting the double standard you're displaying), and that I wouldn't want those people to have those as-of-yet-non-existent options (which, again, is untrue, because, if said option existed, I'd want it around, and I advocate for such an option to exist).

So, I say again, where am I being a gatekeeper or ableist? I defend PL, but other people not being able to use it doesn't mean that I don't want options for them too, because unlike you, I'm capable of thinking beyond my own experiennces.

In trying to dig up something on me, you've just made yourself look even more myopic.

Or you can concede the obvious: that it isn't gatekeeping just because the effect is that some people are unable or unwilling to play the game.

And now we're shifting to "unwilling", implying that disabled folks aren't actually disabled, they just "don't want to" play. Hi, another textbook ableist phrase.

It is absolutely gatekeeping and ableist behaviour for the reasons I've stated: that you have heard the testimony of marginalised folks express their desire and want for something that helps them without affecting your enjoyment, and you have decided, STILL AFTER HEARING THEM, that their views don't matter, and they should be forced to adapt or leave, all over something that doesn't actually affect you in any way.

You chose to side with "streamlining" over accessibility - and that's pretty damn ableist.

JNAProductions wrote:Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"

Or is that solely an invention of CSB that they've attributed to others?

Seems like it - I hate to say projection, but... projection?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
We don't have to use them, and our method of playing isn't something I'm making up on the spot.

But why does it matter if it is something you're making up on the spot? If you aren't playing pickup games against random strangers in a store/club environment then why does it matter if your game is Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Removing PL doesn't have to be motivated by "Feth those guys."

Great. Then you acknowledge that merely advocating the removal of PL is not gatekeeping.

Edit: Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"

They don't need to. Do you dispute the fact that there are disabled people who are unable to handle the math involved in using PL?

"Why does it matter?"

Games have rules, I don't want to have to fething be a game designer when I'm trying to relax. I can give my family copies of the free Core Rules (I wish they still had the mini book with theCore Rules) and the Indexes to get them started and move to codexes as needed.

The books give me a mission pack and a basic framework. That's all we need. With the family who want to dive deeper into the long running story aspect, we add in the CA18 stuff, which has been a huge crowd pleaser.

Sometimes, gasp, we even play the Only War mission!

I'm playing tiny games with kids, adults, people with many disabilities, including blind folks. GW has given us a game that's drawing in new players. The coarser granularity of PL and the style of play we use has made a huge difference.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Removing PL doesn't have to be motivated by "Feth those guys."

Great. Then you acknowledge that merely advocating the removal of PL is not gatekeeping.

It is once you know that removing it would be removing an accessibility tool for many players. By consciously removing such a tool with informed knowledge of how it will exclude players, you are contributing to gatekeeping behaviour.

Edit: Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"

They don't need to.

In other words, you're inventing what I'm saying because you need a strawman to make your (flawed) argument.

Do you dispute the fact that there are disabled people who are unable to handle the math involved in using PL?

Have I said that there should only ever exist two systems, and that there shouldn't be OTHER systems in place as well?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Notice that the definition says NOTHING about motive.

It's right there in your quote: controlling. Control requires intent by definition, otherwise it isn't control. Removing PL is not controlling access because no control exists. People who like PL are free to continue playing the game just like people who don't like AoC are free to continue playing the game. People who can't handle the normal point system but have a friend make their lists for them are free to continue playing the game. Their needs aren't being supported in the way that you demand but if they find a way to continue playing nobody is putting additional barriers in their path to keep them out.

Since you're so concerned, what's your proposal to help people who can't handle points or PL?

I'm not concerned. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of certain people accusing me of ableist gatekeeping but then doing ableist gatekeeping of their own when it comes to their preferred point system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Games have rules, I don't want to have to fething be a game designer when I'm trying to relax.

But that's exactly what you're doing! You're being a game designer by deciding which things aren't necessary for getting people started, when to add new content, etc. So why does it matter if GW approves of your choices?

Or do you think that people didn't do the exact same things you're currently doing in previous editions, before GW marketing gave Open™ Play™ as a brand name? Back in earlier editions we absolutely did things like ignore the FOC, ignore mission objectives and just fight until one side is destroyed, only play with basic troops to minimize complexity, etc. We even had simplified tutorial rulebooks to go with the starter set. The only thing new about Open™ Play™ is that GW has given a their approval of it as an Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Game™ Type™.

The coarser granularity of PL and the style of play we use has made a huge difference.

So you claim. I suspect there would be no difference in your results if PL didn't exist.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Notice that the definition says NOTHING about motive.

It's right there in your quote: controlling. Control requires intent by definition, otherwise it isn't control. Removing PL is not controlling access because no control exists. People who like PL are free to continue playing the game just like people who don't like AoC are free to continue playing the game. People who can't handle the normal point system but have a friend make their lists for them are free to continue playing the game. Their needs aren't being supported in the way that you demand but if they find a way to continue playing nobody is putting additional barriers in their path to keep them out.

Since you're so concerned, what's your proposal to help people who can't handle points or PL?

I'm not concerned. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of certain people accusing me of ableist gatekeeping but then doing ableist gatekeeping of their own when it comes to their preferred point system.

Google, Again wrote:the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.

Note that that doesn't require motive.

And it's very clear you aren't concerned with anything but your own enjoyment and ideals of 40k. But there's no hypocrisy from people who enjoy PL when it comes to people who can't handle points or PL, because 1) there wasn't anything about those folk brought up before you assumed and made a strawman, and 2) they (and, I would hope, many on the points side would too!) would be accommodating.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You chose to side with "streamlining" over accessibility - and that's pretty damn ableist.

Just like you do. Except you think that as long as you haven't personally seen someone saying "I want this" in this specific forum it doesn't matter and those people don't exist. You are such a shameless hypocrite.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You chose to side with "streamlining" over accessibility - and that's pretty damn ableist.

Just like you do. Except you think that as long as you haven't personally seen someone saying "I want this" in this specific forum it doesn't matter and those people don't exist. You are such a shameless hypocrite.

What part of "I enjoy PL" automatically means "I would refuse to accommodate someone who wasn't able to use it"?