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.

Tallonian4th wrote:
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.

No, if you don't have vox casters you have to rip your models apart and give them to them because you get more value out of your PL by taking vox casters. Same thing with plasma guns and lascannons over grenade launchers and missile launchers. What if my regiment is stranded on a tomb world where communications have been shut down for months, why would they be carrying around vox-casters? The real problem was that vox casters were way too expensive so it was easily apparent that taking them was a waste of points previously, now it is easily apparent that you'd be silly not to take one because it is a free power boost to your unit.

PenitentJake wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

and this:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

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)?

Competitive players will avoid bad factions, datasheets and options, while a couple of casuals can walk into a massive disparity on accident. Like at the launch of Drukhari, using a casual CSM list against more or less any Drukhari list would just be a waste of time. Being casual does not mean only wanting to lose or wanting free wins.

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I like the idea of preconstructed lists, I actually think competitive gaming should only work that way. So that players really win on luck and decisions rather than having a better list.

Preconstructed lists (appropriately designed and tested to be reasonably on par of course) are what I'd expect from tournament and competitive gaming, where people are obsessed with 50/50 balance. And it's extremely easier to design balanced preconstructed lists than designing balanced codexes.

Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).

Yes I do. That's why I'd like competitive gaming to be run by people who can really play the game rather than bandwagoners. Real competitive players love the challenges and to get the most from the limited resources they have (un-optimized units in this case). Otherwise it's just pay to win.

Dudeface wrote:
Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).

I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).

Or, more likely, when they optimize the gak out of the Astartes one and leave others to languish.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).

I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.

No, preconstructed lists would be restricted to tournament only. And an option for those who want to practise for events of course. The entire purpose of such lists is to create an environment in which it's only luck and skills that matter, not the lists' composition.

Casual and narrative would continue playing whatever they want, since it's not them that are obsessed with balance or even seek 50/50 balance.

 Blackie wrote:
No, preconstructed lists would be restricted to tournament only. And an option for those who want to practise for events of course. The entire purpose of such lists is to create an environment in which it's only luck and skills that matter, not the lists' composition.

Your supposed "entire purpose" is pretty funny given the fact that the idea was suggested as a solution for people who are unable or unwilling to build lists using the normal points-based system. IOW, as a solution to the disability issue, not for competitive play.

Casual and narrative would continue playing whatever they want, since it's not them that are obsessed with balance or even seek 50/50 balance.

And this is a complete misunderstanding of game design principles. Competitive players talk about balance a lot but in reality as long as balance doesn't get too bad they'll happily just take the overpowered thing because winning the on-table game is more important than story/aesthetics/etc. It's the casual and narrative players who benefit most from a high level of balance, as those are the players that have off-table reasons for committing to particular units/upgrades even if those choices are bad in the game.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Your supposed "entire purpose" is pretty funny given the fact that the idea was suggested as a solution for people who are unable or unwilling to build lists using the normal points-based system. IOW, as a solution to the disability issue, not for competitive play.

Maybe, probably, I don't care. In my opinion preconstructed lists could be an amazing tool for competitive gaming and I've explained why. If someone struggles to build a list then yes preconstructed lists might be helpful for them as well but they only make sense if they're reasonably balanced between each other, hence they're perfect for those who want to prove their skills. Feel free to disagree of course. Ours are just opinions, maybe for someone precontructed lists are perfect for very casual players, I think they should be the standard way to play tournaments.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

And this is a complete misunderstanding of game design principles. Competitive players talk about balance a lot but in reality as long as balance doesn't get too bad they'll happily just take the overpowered thing because winning the on-table game is more important than story/aesthetics/etc. It's the casual and narrative players who benefit most from a high level of balance, as those are the players that have off-table reasons for committing to particular units/upgrades even if those choices are bad in the game.

Quite the opposite. Narrative and casual players don't need preconstructed lists because they can already have a pre-game talk and change their lists in order to get a more balanced game. I've done it since I remember and I play since 3rd edition. The only worry about balance for casual players is when balance is completely out of control and pre-game talk would be too exhausting then, see 7th edition.

You also confuse competitive players with WAACs and bandwagoners. Both may attend events but they're not the same cathegory of players. Competitive players want the challenge and to prove they're better players, the latter just want to win in the easiest way possible. A real competitive player can't stand being told he wins because he brings an OP list.

 Blackie wrote:
Narrative and casual players don't need preconstructed lists because they can already have a pre-game talk and change their lists in order to get a more balanced game.

Preconstructed lists? No, but that's not what I was talking about there. Narrative and casual players shouldn't have to have this pre-game talk, we've just normalized GW incompetence and pretend it's the only way for things to be. The game should be balanced enough that the pre-game talk isn't necessary and neither player has to sacrifice the choices they've made for narrative/aesthetic reasons. And this is why we need to dump failed systems like PL, systems which are unbalanced by design and will never reach a state of sufficient balance.

You also confuse competitive players with WAACs and bandwagoners. Both may attend events but they're not the same cathegory of players. Competitive players want the challenge and to prove they're better players, the latter just want to win in the easiest way possible. A real competitive player can't stand being told he wins because he brings an OP list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Narrative and casual players shouldn't have to have this pre-game talk, we've just normalized GW incompetence and pretend it's the only way for things to be. The game should be balanced enough that the pre-game talk isn't necessary and neither player has to sacrifice the choices they've made for narrative/aesthetic reasons.

Why not? It worked like that since decades and 40k still is very popular. Of course everything can always be improved but accepting 40k for what it is instead of what it might be is a fundamental step to enjoy this game and hobby. I don't see people protesting and rioting in large numbers about the state of 40k, probably because there's nothing (or very little) to protest about.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I guess we also disagree about what a competitive player is then .

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe, probably, I don't care. In my opinion preconstructed lists could be an amazing tool for competitive gaming and I've explained why.

That's fine, but that's not what was being talked about, which was that preconstructed lists would be good for casual players who have trouble with the listbuilding side of things.

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.

Doesn't that have more to do with GW's terrible formatting and book keeping?
It wasn't like that in earlier editions. Making a list in 4th ed was easier because the books were well formatted and they didn't put the values at the back of the book and split apart the datasheets for some stupid reason.

Points changes weren't that often either; it was on a 4 year cycle. It's just that GW has gone nuts with the updates and started pushing them out more often because the player base complained that updates were taking too long. So now GW makes updates for like, no reason, to keep up with demand.
At least you don't have to pay for the points changes now.

 Blackie wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).

I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.

No, preconstructed lists would be restricted to tournament only. And an option for those who want to practise for events of course. The entire purpose of such lists is to create an environment in which it's only luck and skills that matter, not the lists' composition.

Casual and narrative would continue playing whatever they want, since it's not them that are obsessed with balance or even seek 50/50 balance.

Optimizing lists to match your playstyle is part of player skill though, plus facing the exact same armies all the time is super boring.

Last but not least, who would be creating those optimized lists to begin with? The same company which does such a great job at balancing the game? Or is it the TOs who are heavily biased towards certain armies?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

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.

Doesn't that have more to do with GW's terrible formatting and book keeping?
It wasn't like that in earlier editions. Making a list in 4th ed was easier because the books were well formatted and they didn't put the values at the back of the book and split apart the datasheets for some stupid reason.

Points changes weren't that often either; it was on a 4 year cycle. It's just that GW has gone nuts with the updates and started pushing them out more often because the player base complained that updates were taking too long. So now GW makes updates for like, no reason, to keep up with demand.
At least you don't have to pay for the points changes now.

Since I use both systems regularly, I know fairly well what they relate to. When you build a list with points, battlescribe becomes a mandatory tool to manage building a list at all and you start fiddling with options on a model basis. Some special weapon for champions or nobz here, some unit upgrade there, that one gets a special weapon or maybe not? Or do I just downgrade all the nobz from PK to BC so I can fit in another unit of gretchin? Do I have enough nobz modeled with BC to do that?

Lot's of fiddly stuff you simply don't have to bother with when you use PL. You just add entire units, double their size, or you don't. The resulting game isn't really that much more balanced either way.

The only real noticeable difference between PL and points is that internal balance gets completely fethed up when you optimize lists to bring the best possible. There is no decision to be made if the options are plasma pistol and lascannon for the same price or when two units that are 50 points apart cost the same PL due to rounding or when adding a minor upgrades costs 1PL because that's the lowest possible cost.

External balance being a big issue is just an agenda pushed by people who clearly have neither experience nor data to back up that claim.

I guess you could look at pre-constructed lists for competitive gaming, but I'd have thought it was more just about avoiding the sharp edges that usually appear when people optimise more than GW expect you to.

I don't think the game would automatically fix itself - but I suspect things would be a lot more balanced if everyone played to the "White Dwarf meta." I.E. soft highlander is enforced because the Studio has precisely one of each painted unit (and no Orks at all), and you need to take the bad with the good to make up points.

EviscerationPlague 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.

CAAC coming up again! It's not "nothing". It's a gak system that doesn't deserve an ounce of defense.

It *is* nothing. It doesn't affect you. You can happily play 40k without needing to even think about PL, if only you were capable of doing so.

And yes, I do play casually. Yes, I am playing with toy soldiers. You are too. If you want to put more granular points on them, you're more than welcome to. I don't want to prevent you doing what you like doing - just don't stop me doing me.

Seriously, take a look at what you're arguing for here - taking away a different way of playing with toy soldiers and calling it "embarrassing". Get a sense of perspective, my person.

 Blndmage wrote:
CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all

To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.

I'd rather have less players than a worse game.

And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all

To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.

Are these 20 people genuinely so set on this specific point system that taking 16 minutes to make a list instead of 15 minutes would be an impossible barrier and end their interest in the game? Or do they only say this because you've presented the normal point system as this massive and unnecessary burden. I am extremely skeptical that all of them are perfectly fine with the standard form of points-based list construction, but only if upgrade costs are not counted.

And that's why your behaviour is ableist - instead of believing the testimony and experiences of disabled folks, you doubt the veracity of their claims and try and twist their preferences into something that doesn't force you to compromise.

I don't think I've seen you actually accept that points don't actually work for everyone and that PL is enough for others - and that's exactly what I mean by invalidating the voices of others. You are showing a critical lack of respect here, which could be fixed by simply acknowledging the experiences of others.

What my post is saying is that since you can choose to play points with the rules as they are, your reasons for suggesting the removal of PL are irrelevant. If you, and your meta are perfectly able to play points as is, you get nothing out of the removal of PL. The only thing removing them does is prevent OTHER PEOPLE from using them.

And the game design improvement of removing rules bloat and redundant systems. And eliminating the need to house rule Crusade to use the better system. And removing the temptation for the CAAC faction at GW to try again to make PL the only system. You may not agree with these things being desirable but please do not dishonestly claim that they do not exist.

When you can prove they do exist, and aren't just a boogieman you've invented to play the victim, I'll hear it out.

It is worth pointing out, however that while Open Play TM is a thing that actually exists, open play is a thing that doesn't.

Open play with no ™s absolutely exists. It existed before GW's marketing team created Open™ Play™, it exists now, and it will exist if/when GW removes Open™ Play™ from the rulebook. The fact that it doesn't have a brand label attached doesn't make it any less of a thing.

If it's not officially recognised, it runs the risk of being marginalised and invalidated - exactly like how you want to invalidate the "CAAC faction at GW".

Nah. Look man, PL is simpler math- it's lower numbers AND far fewer upgrade costs. And sure, there are some people that can't do the math necessary to build a list with PL... But all of those people would have an even harder time doing it with points, which means your position (points only) is worse than Smudge's (points and PL both continue to exist).

Call it worse if you want but either both of them are ableist gatekeeping or neither of them are ableist gatekeeping.

That's literally not how this works, because I advocated for alternative methods beyond points and PL that would also accommodate for people who struggled with PL - an argument you haven't addressed. Strange that.

Backspacehacker wrote:The reality is, nothing is hurt by having PL in the game, and nothing is really suffering for it being there since GW is doing, and even saying this is being very generous, the bare minimum effort to even include PL values for units, so minimum its not even detracting from the rest of the game as its very clear GW has not even given PL a second glance over as we have seen multiple point rewords but i dont think there has ever been a PL rework.

Very true.

Just Tony wrote:So far one good point stands out in this massive prick waving contest:


Preconstructed lists.

I'm genuinely surprised that I hadn't thought of it sooner and that it's even a good point. But yeah, it has promise, I suppose! There could be multiple thematic variants for every army (ie, in a Guard army, there could be options for an Armoured Company, a line infantry force, a light infantry detachment, an airborne Scion force, an a combined arms force, etc), all with maybe a little bit of fluff explaining how XYZ detachment was deployed on ABC World, and represents a "typical" force of it's kind. It could even have options where you could take X unit or Y unit, or certain pregen combinations of weapons (ie, an infantry squad may either have a flamer and power sword, or a heavy weapon team). Make it entirely clear that this is designed to go up against other pregen armies, but is legal in any other game of 40k. That way, it provides an early stepping stone into the rest of the game, but also allows for newer players to go toe to toe with more experienced players, who can build another pregen list and play eachother.

Hell, GW could then sell these armies as a bundle, with a small discount.

vict0988 wrote:No, if you don't have vox casters you have to rip your models apart and give them to them because you get more value out of your PL by taking vox casters. Same thing with plasma guns and lascannons over grenade launchers and missile launchers.

No, you don't. You only "have" to do that if you want to minmax your PL. My infantry squads are still barebones.

What if my regiment is stranded on a tomb world where communications have been shut down for months, why would they be carrying around vox-casters?

Then don't take them? No-one's going to complain that you didn't take an option because it was fluffy.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).

I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.

That's why they have the option to play other variants of the game? I don't know why you keep having this idea that there can be only One Way to Play.

CadianSgtBob wrote:Narrative and casual players shouldn't have to have this pre-game talk, we've just normalized GW incompetence and pretend it's the only way for things to be. The game should be balanced enough that the pre-game talk isn't necessary and neither player has to sacrifice the choices they've made for narrative/aesthetic reasons. And this is why we need to dump failed systems like PL, systems which are unbalanced by design and will never reach a state of sufficient balance.

I actually like having a pre-game talk where all players can lay out their expectations, and I genuinely believe that it should be encouraged. Why shouldn't we be encouraging mutual satisfaction and open communication?

I don't see the need to have a pre-game chat as a failure of GW - I see it as a good thing. Additionally, regarding "sacrificing choices for narrative/aesthetic reasons" - they don't have to under PL any more so than they would under points (being discouraged to take upgrades on chaff squads because it would be a 'waste of points'). Player can choose what they want to prioritise, and if they want to prioritise things over narrative/aesthetic reasons, then they are welcome to. It's never not their choice though.

Again, I do want to point out that you've not addressed the arguments I've laid at your feet.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).

I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.

You might want to do a thread search for that. Not so long ago I’ve started a dozen or so pages long gakstorm by suggesting prebuilt lists tournament format. 40k competitive players demand „listbuilding as a skill” to be a crucial element of the game.

Weren't Preconstructed lists already tried with 7th ed Formations though?
Those were kind of lame because it really came down to "buy this exact combination of units, or lose."
Except instead of lose it just becomes "or you can't play"

I'm not sure a lot of players would enjoy that. It might be better to just go back to a single FoC with additional restrictions. That way there's still freedom in building a list, but armies will still be fairly predictable as one has a rough idea of what one is going up against.

Rather than "lol, surprise Super Heavy / FA spam / gunboat spam"

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Weren't Preconstructed lists already tried with 7th ed Formations though?
Those were kind of lame because it really came down to "buy this exact combination of units, or lose."
Except instead of lose it just becomes "or you can't play"

Eh, kinda/not really? The issue with Formations was the extra stuff you got for playing that way. I personally LOVED the incentive behind formations (take a "lore typical" army), but the rewards were so skewed that it wasn't exactly balanced either, and it became a case of "you take a formation for the free stuff, not because it's a narratively rewarding detachment", which isn't the kind of thing I personally enjoy.

What I'm suggesting with this semi-proposal of pre-built lists is that they don't bring any inherent bonuses, they're just a list that could be already made with a bog standard 40k list, just with the actual choosing of units already been done for you, and the army is *designed* (but not forced) to play against other pre-built armies.

I'm not sure a lot of players would enjoy that. It might be better to just go back to a single FoC with additional restrictions. That way there's still freedom in building a list, but armies will still be fairly predictable as one has a rough idea of what one is going up against.

Rather than "lol, surprise Super Heavy / FA spam / gunboat spam"

Eh, the issue with that is that it's only as predictable the army has fewer options, and doesn't fix the reason I suggested this idea of pre-built lists: a method of generating an army that doesn't require points or PL in order to provide a way of building armies to people for whom points or PL weren't viable. It just happens to have the side effect of also allowing for greater "balance" by restricting player choices to certain pre-built combinations.

nou wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).

I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.

You might want to do a thread search for that. Not so long ago I’ve started a dozen or so pages long gakstorm by suggesting prebuilt lists tournament format. 40k competitive players demand „listbuilding as a skill” to be a crucial element of the game.

The funny part about that is, how many of them just copy net lists online.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

nou wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).

I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.

You might want to do a thread search for that. Not so long ago I’ve started a dozen or so pages long gakstorm by suggesting prebuilt lists tournament format. 40k competitive players demand „listbuilding as a skill” to be a crucial element of the game.

The funny part about that is, how many of them just copy net lists online.

Thought so exactly - a large subgroup of competitive players already use lists pre-built for them by top table players, but somehow making it official format is heresy.

The problem is that the game devs won't get information about which units the competitive community think are good if the competitive players aren't free to pick which units they think are best.

 vict0988 wrote:
The problem is that the game devs won't get information about which units the competitive community think are good if the competitive players aren't free to pick which units they think are best.

And in the reality of pre-built lists this is problem how exactly? The beauty of pre-built format is that you can design lists for a given „season” out of units of any level of „validity”. You can even have a season of lists made out of trash tier units. As long as all official lists have equal power, absolute power of such lists is irrelevant. Such format also stops any kind of arms race at FLGS level - playing with OP cheese list doesn’t train you for games that are designed around average levels of damage output and survivability.

Such format solves pretty much all of the problems 40k has, but at the expense of listbuilding for advantage, so it will never happen. Too many competitive 40k players are only „competitive” by self applied label.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all.

To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.

Are these 20 people genuinely so set on this specific point system that taking 16 minutes to make a list instead of 15 minutes would be an impossible barrier and end their interest in the game? Or do they only say this because you've presented the normal point system as this massive and unnecessary burden. I am extremely skeptical that all of them are perfectly fine with the standard form of points-based list construction, but only if upgrade costs are not counted.

I didn't say JUST PL.
I bolded it for easy reference, as you seem to ignore entire sections of my comments.
I don't mean just points being the issue for my group but the entire Advanced Rules section of the book. We shouldn't be forced into using them. They're advanced rules, and thus optional when playing the game.

The basic version of the game works perfectly well for my community, which, at 20 people, seems bigger than many groups.

Why am I having to argue for acceptance, when we're literally playing right out of the book?

nou wrote:

You might want to do a thread search for that. Not so long ago I’ve started a dozen or so pages long gakstorm by suggesting prebuilt lists tournament format. 40k competitive players demand „listbuilding as a skill” to be a crucial element of the game.

If the person making the lists was someone I could trust I'd be ok with it. But I don't trust GW to make certain lists just to sell models and purposefully nerf factions they don't want winning.

 Blndmage wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all.

To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.

Are these 20 people genuinely so set on this specific point system that taking 16 minutes to make a list instead of 15 minutes would be an impossible barrier and end their interest in the game? Or do they only say this because you've presented the normal point system as this massive and unnecessary burden. I am extremely skeptical that all of them are perfectly fine with the standard form of points-based list construction, but only if upgrade costs are not counted.

I didn't say JUST PL.
I bolded it for easy reference, as you seem to ignore entire sections of my comments.
I don't mean just points being the issue for my group but the entire Advanced Rules section of the book. We shouldn't be forced into using them. They're advanced rules, and thus optional when playing the game.

The basic version of the game works perfectly well for my community, which, at 20 people, seems bigger than many groups.

Why am I having to argue for acceptance, when we're literally playing right out of the book?

I mean to be fair though the "Advanced rules" are the rules that are intended to be used in the game and have been used in the game for decades now.
While im not saying people are wrong for playing with PL, the intended way to play the game is with Points not PL.

Truth be told, PL should relaly only be something for either just starting, or narrative games with a lot of free form house rules involved, But generally you wanna move away from PL as soon as you can to get into the more granular detail that Warhammer traditionally uses.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all.

To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.

Are these 20 people genuinely so set on this specific point system that taking 16 minutes to make a list instead of 15 minutes would be an impossible barrier and end their interest in the game? Or do they only say this because you've presented the normal point system as this massive and unnecessary burden. I am extremely skeptical that all of them are perfectly fine with the standard form of points-based list construction, but only if upgrade costs are not counted.

I didn't say JUST PL.
I bolded it for easy reference, as you seem to ignore entire sections of my comments.
I don't mean just points being the issue for my group but the entire Advanced Rules section of the book. We shouldn't be forced into using them. They're advanced rules, and thus optional when playing the game.

The basic version of the game works perfectly well for my community, which, at 20 people, seems bigger than many groups.

Why am I having to argue for acceptance, when we're literally playing right out of the book?

I mean to be fair though the "Advanced rules" are the rules that are intended to be used in the game and have been used in the game for decades now.
While im not saying people are wrong for playing with PL, the intended way to play the game is with Points not PL.

Truth be told, PL should relaly only be something for either just starting, or narrative games with a lot of free form house rules involved, But generally you wanna move away from PL as soon as you can to get into the more granular detail that Warhammer traditionally uses.

Where are we told what the "intended" method is? I prefer list based points but that's because I prefer the mental exercise and that finer tuned game, but I likely wouldn't lose much doing it with PL, I can't recall the last time I made a list that wasn't within 3pl of the equivalent amount.

You are told that its intended because its the community standard to use points, and its been used since....ever? points have traditionally been the standard method of gearing up and playing games among the community because its a universal "balanced" system. Also GW does not provide updates to PL, they only provide update to points or a rebalance to them. PL get launched out once and call it good.

PL were more or less GWs attempt to make 40k point costed like AoS where you just paid the points for the unit and then gear was not point cost, the problem was that 40k has much more gear to be utilized and it did not work out.

Its been said earlier in the thread but, the issue that PL presents is that not all units are created equal in PL, and PL is very easily exploitable vs something like Points. I use the rubric example all the time which lets you tap into like easy 100+ points of free gear, some of the terminator groups which let you do the same, bike squads as well from marine lists.

 Blndmage wrote:
I didn't say JUST PL.
I bolded it for easy reference, as you seem to ignore entire sections of my comments.
I don't mean just points being the issue for my group but the entire Advanced Rules section of the book. We shouldn't be forced into using them. They're advanced rules, and thus optional when playing the game.

The basic version of the game works perfectly well for my community, which, at 20 people, seems bigger than many groups.

Why am I having to argue for acceptance, when we're literally playing right out of the book?

I ignored the other part because PL is the only part that is relevant. Removing PL would in fact require you and your group to use the normal point system, however minor an additional burden it would be. Removing Open™ Play™ would not change anything at all for you except that you wouldn't have the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Game™ label and that label is completely irrelevant in a private group. People were playing simplified games of 40k long before Open™ Play™ existed, and they will continue to play them once Open™ Play™ is gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And yes, I do play casually.

You have 7300+ posts on a 40k-focused forum, and have been involved in an extended argument about the specific nuances of the game's point system. There is nothing at all casual about your participation in the hobby.

And that's why your behaviour is ableist - instead of believing the testimony and experiences of disabled folks, you doubt the veracity of their claims and try and twist their preferences into something that doesn't force you to compromise.

And this is precisely what I mean about using "ableism" as a tool to bludgeon an opponent into submission. It is not ableism to question something a disabled person says, their disability does not magically turn their speculation about the hypothetical actions of other people into certain fact.

If it's not officially recognised, it runs the risk of being marginalised and invalidated - exactly like how you want to invalidate the "CAAC faction at GW".

Absolutely false. History proves you wrong here, games like Open™ Play™ existed long before GW marketing came up with Open™ Play™ (and its predecessor, Unbound™) to sell primaris marines to tyranid players. And games like Open™ Play™ will continue to exist once Open™ Play™ is removed.

And yes, I want to invalidate CAAC players. Do you not want to do the same?

That's literally not how this works, because I advocated for alternative methods beyond points and PL that would also accommodate for people who struggled with PL - an argument you haven't addressed. Strange that.

So how many systems do you advocate for? Do we need an entire separate point system to handle each individual person who has different needs? Do you not see the absurdity of this concept? Or are you fine with having the army construction rules have a higher page count than the entire rest of the game combined?

But here's an idea, dump PL because it's a redundant and useless system, make an Open™ Play™ variant that uses pre-made lists. Problem solved?

Then don't take them? No-one's going to complain that you didn't take an option because it was fluffy.

No, but you'll be at a disadvantage compared to someone who did take those options. Why do you defend a system that needlessly creates tension between on-table strategy and narrative choices? If you value narrative play why not support the system that attempts to put a fair point cost on all options?

Why shouldn't we be encouraging mutual satisfaction and open communication?

Because it shouldn't be necessary! This is what I mean about normalizing GW incompetence, you can't even imagine a world where negotiating balance issues before the game isn't relevant.

Additionally, regarding "sacrificing choices for narrative/aesthetic reasons" - they don't have to under PL any more so than they would under points (being discouraged to take upgrades on chaff squads because it would be a 'waste of points').

This is completely false. The normal point system sometimes gets things wrong because of incorrect evaluation of the strength of a choice, but at least in theory you could find the correct point cost where upgrades on chaff squads become a perfect 50/50 decision. PL is a fundamentally broken point system because it can never be correct. It will have all of the usual errors of evaluation, but then on top of them there will always by systemic errors where PL by design gives the wrong point cost. So PL will always create more situations where there is tension between "do what is narrative/what looks good" and "do what is best within the rules".

35 pages of discussion over a problem that has a very simple solution: keep both PL and points.
To each their own, everyone is happy, the end.

vict0988 wrote:

Tallonian4th wrote:
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.

No, if you don't have vox casters you have to rip your models apart and give them to them because you get more value out of your PL by taking vox casters. Same thing with plasma guns and lascannons over grenade launchers and missile launchers. What if my regiment is stranded on a tomb world where communications have been shut down for months, why would they be carrying around vox-casters? The real problem was that vox casters were way too expensive so it was easily apparent that taking them was a waste of points previously, now it is easily apparent that you'd be silly not to take one because it is a free power boost to your unit.

Sorry but I really don't get what you are saying here. The example you have listed makes my point as to why I like PL, want Vox Casters for fluffy reasons go ahead take them, don't want them for equally fluffy reasons then no problem don't. If I build a list I can easily swap between a Vox and non-Vox unit in PL as it won't change the 'value' of the list. Whereas in points you have to go back in and depending on the change sometimes have to significantly re-build the list for changes to the load out of units.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

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.

Doesn't that have more to do with GW's terrible formatting and book keeping?
It wasn't like that in earlier editions. Making a list in 4th ed was easier because the books were well formatted and they didn't put the values at the back of the book and split apart the datasheets for some stupid reason.

Points changes weren't that often either; it was on a 4 year cycle. It's just that GW has gone nuts with the updates and started pushing them out more often because the player base complained that updates were taking too long. So now GW makes updates for like, no reason, to keep up with demand.
At least you don't have to pay for the points changes now.

That may well be true in terms of formatting. I'm no expert in such matters so happy to agree there may be an element of bad formatting which is not inherent to the system.

As to the fact they used to change points less often I can't comment as I can only attest to may own experiences. I've found regular points updates which are hard to keep up with (for me at least) compared to the slower PL update schedule. I would agree that slower points updates would at least help with some of the problem as the time sink of building your list wouldn't be so bad if it was spread out over a longer time.

 Aenar wrote:
35 pages of discussion over a problem that has a very simple solution: keep both PL and points.
To each their own, everyone is happy, the end.

You haven’t read the thread, have you?