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.

PenitentJake wrote:
So to be clear before I start: I don't play as often or as hard as some of you do, so I'm not "challenging" anyone's interpretation of rules- I'm player with less experience seeking clarification.

From what I can see in the BRB and the Daemon books, it looks to me like summoned Daemons are "free" regardless of whether points or PL are being used in the game being played. PL is used to determine how many Daemons can arrive (a single unit with the Daemonic ritual keyword of 3-18 PL). The number of PL is not a "cost," so even in a points game, PL is used to determine the amount of Daemons that show up.

Nowhere in the Daemon dex, nor the Daemon FAQ nor the BRB nor its FAQ do I see anything that says that summoned Daemons must be treated like Strategic Reserves.
But even if it DID say that, Strategic Reserves are purchased with CP using PL, not points.

Now a lot of you are seeing things I am not seeing, and you all seem to agree, which means there must be something I'm missing. Is it in a GT mission pack or something?

Demon Summoning has always been treated as reserves, which has a very real definition in 40k.You can't call up reserves in matched play without paying for them. The way you pay for reserves is strictly with points. There is no way to play with summoning reserves with PL, IE the arguement that summoning Demons in PL is free. Which automatically means one player is 100% playing in bad faith.

PenitentJake wrote:
So to be clear before I start: I don't play as often or as hard as some of you do, so I'm not "challenging" anyone's interpretation of rules- I'm player with less experience seeking clarification.

In normal matched play games you have a CP cost to put things in reserve based on their PL point cost but you also have a rule that all units summoned (or otherwise created) during the game must be paid for with points out of your army total. If you want to summon 250 points worth of demons you start the game with 1750 out of 2000 points and a 250 point summoning pool. Once you have summoned 250 points worth of models you can no longer summon. Effectively summoning is an alternate deployment with the ability to choose which unit you deploy as you deploy it, not free models.

In narrative games there is no such limit. You build a full 100 point army and then summon an unlimited number of additional units, including using those summoned units to summon more units. You could theoretically end the nominal 100 point game with 500 points worth of models on the table.

 Blndmage wrote:
Why is it wrong to have a Basic and Advanced version of the game?

The competitive player, players that like the cruncher version have thing to math out and break down.

The people who are actively turned off by that level of crunch can play without worrying about it.

You can have two versions of a thing with both serving different purposes.

its not, but PL is not the basic rules, its the dumb down rules.
The game has always been about points, and point based system. PL is not equivalent to a basic set of rules, its a Lite version of the game. Matched and the "Advanced rules" ARE the basic version of the game and have been for the last like how many years has it been since 3rd? That long.
PL is a fine way to play the game if you are just looking to roll dice for a Warhammer themed game. But its definitly a stripped out version of the intention of the basic rules.

Since there is no real time wasted on the creation of those rules, i dont really see an issue having it because im pretty damn sure GW just takes the point cost of the unit and divides it by 20 and calls it PL.

I always thought the conversion was 1PL=15points. IE A CC is 2PL. A Infantry Squad is 3. Which was based I think around the 8th ed cost of 45(?) I can't recall, but I feel like 20 is high. When was the very LAST PL update?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I always thought the conversion was 1PL=15points. IE A CC is 2PL. A Infantry Squad is 3. Which was based I think around the 8th ed cost of 45(?) I can't recall, but I feel like 20 is high. When was the very LAST PL update?

It might be 15 = PL now, i remember last time i looked at PL it was roughly 20 points, but truth be told i think you can safely say either and you will be in the same ball park.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because your definition is the only valid one?

No, because it's the actual definition of the word.

It is *a* definition and interpretation. Not the only one.

Casual just as well describes someone like me *while playing the game*. I may be passionate and invested, but it does not extend to the tabletop or for winning or balance. As such, I am casual about such matters.

People just misuse it to mean "not competitive" because they like it as an identity no matter how inaccurate it is.

Who are you to tell people which identities they aren't allowed to embrace?

If you understand and care about the game enough to have passionate opinions on the precise details of the point system it uses then you are not a casual player.

I disagree. They can absolutely be a casual *player*, but they might not be a casual hobbyist.

If you understand and care about the game enough to have informed pre-game conversations about game styles then you are not a casual player.

I actually think that everyone is capable of doing so, even if it is a short conversation - it is as simple as asking "so, how are we playing this? What do you want to get out of this? What kind of game do you want to have?" - that can easily be casual.

If you are so devoted to a particular story (as PenitentJake is) that any change to the army construction rules would invalidate your story and destroy your enjoyment of the game then you are not a casual player.

I still disagree. They might be a devoted and invested hobbyist, but them as a *PLAYER* is a different context.

Again, please focus on what I refer to myself as - a casual PLAYER, not a casual HOBBYIST.

Again, back to this idea of "intention" - what DO GW intend, because one minute you're saying they're intending for pickup games, and then you're saying they're intending for CAAC games where you need to talk with your opponents. Which one is it?

I did not say the second thing, you seem to be very confused and mixing up multiple separate points.

GW currently intends to make matched play and pickup games the focus of the game. The entire system is designed around points-based list construction with generic scenarios suitable for any random pairing of armies, GW is running official tournaments with blind pairings, and GW is heavily promoting both of these things in their marketing. Even Crusade has a section on "how to use your Crusade list against random strangers who aren't playing Crusade".

GW at the start of 8th attempted to make PL the focus of the game, in line with the CAAC attitudes expressed by GW employees in the past. But this a past event, from before their current emphasis on pickup and tournament games, so it does not in any way contradict my statements about the current state of the game.

As I've already stated, can you show me this stated intention and deliberate effort from GW to do this? You keep mentioning GW making PL the focus, but in what way? By simply making PL exist? I don't see it. Can you show me some actual quotes or design notes from GW employees that you mention? What are these CAAC attitudes expressed?

GW does not deliberately intend to have pre-game conversations (at least AFAIK). Those comments were about the players normalizing GW's incompetence.

Again, you say incompetence, I say "setting standards".

I've never said anything about "pro-PL people being polite and reasonable and never saying anything bad", and I think you know that.

Then the comment doesn't apply to you (and wasn't addressed to you directly). But let's not pretend that those claims don't exist.

I mean this with genuine questioning, but I don't actually remember anyone explicitly saying "everyone who is pro-PL has only ever been respectful and polite and reasonable" - at least, perhaps their statements were true at that time.

It's not even a GW thing - this is something I do in *every* game, because it's good to set boundaries and expectations.

But why? What boundaries and expectations are you setting that don't follow directly from flaws (real or perceived) in the game?

Because it's respectful, and helps to make sure that we're all working towards the same thing, or that our intentions are aligned. The boundaries and expectations I might be setting might be things like "are we trying to tell a fun story, or are we trying to always make the mathematically best options", or "are we using a mulligan system if we mess up rules" or "hey, if the game's going south, do we want to call it there?" or "I'm not actually familiar with all my army's rules, could we not use them please?" or "I'm just here to playtest my tournament list, so we don't need to actually *finish* the game, if that's okay?"

It's all about just communicating and making clear what you actually want.

It's only an "error" if you believe that two different options need to be mechanically balanced.

Well yes, of course they need to be balanced. The entire purpose of a point system is to assign an accurate numerical value to each option's strength. Failure in this basic task is a failure of the system.

Do they need to be balanced? How finely? Again, it's coming down to what we're expecting from a system. You expect a value system to be balanced wherein all options are priced separately. I don't expect that. You regard it's inability to meet that requirement as a failure. I regard it's failure to meet that requirement without concern. That is why PL doesn't work for you, but works for me.

Does that make sense?

Hecaton wrote:That's why I have them blocked. They don't argue in good faith and responding to them just makes the forum a worse place.

That's a strange way of saying that I call out your flawed points, but hey - at least you remember me!

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:I love how Smudge avoids the points being made.

Was Battle Demi Company good design or good for the game? Yes or no?

I love that you think the two are comparable. The Gladius (which was the main issue, not the Demi Company Formation) directly affects the enjoyment of others, because someone needs to play against the Gladius, and is defensible by saying "but it's official, and it's in the rules".

Power Level does not directly affect the enjoyment of others, because you don't have to play it, and you can say that you'd rather play a game of points, and that is entirely within your rights to do so.

You legit don't know what you're saying. Gladius was the overarching formation where you got 3 Combat Doctrines to use. You then had the Demi Company, which was the core, and then Battle Demi Company which was when you brought two for the free stuff. So first off, to say Gladius was the problem is laughable.

Actually, I think you'll find you're still wrong. Taking two Demi-Companies outside of a Gladius didn't give you free stuff. You had to take the Gladius, then two Battle Demi-Companies, and THEN you could take free transports. The issue wasn't the simple existence of the Battle Demi-Company, it was the Demi-Company within the Gladius.

Come on, get your facts right.

Secondly they are comparable. Both PL and Battle Demi-Company give you free models. Battle Demi-Company was more strict on it though compared to PL. War Convocation (the AdMech formation) gave free upgrades.

Again, you miss in what WAY they give upgrades. PL REQUIRES you to play PL. If you don't play PL, then you cannot be affected, simple as. The Gladius, on the other hand, was entirely legal and "normal" in the, at the time, only way of playing. It was as coded into the game as the bolters the Marines were carrying.

If you can't tell the difference, then there's no point in have this discussion.

Thirdly......you didn't have to play either of those or use those either. CAD was the standard. Soooooo not sure what that point you're trying to make is.

No, *you* didn't have to, but your opponent could, and you couldn't "stop" them. Like I said - you had no choice (short of refusing to play full stop or agreeing prior to the game to remove an otherwise "core" element) but to play against it if your opponent decided to take it.

This is unlike PL, where simply by playing points, you don't have to worry about the Big Bad Scary PL coming to take away your fun times with your toy soldiers.

As I said - they're not the same thing.

So how about you answer the question: is Battle Demi Company or War Convo good design or good for the game, yes or no?

Why are you asking me to answer a question that has no bearing on the topic? As I've said - PL doesn't require you to get involved to care. You can happily live your life and PL won't affect you if you don't play a PL game. The same could not be said of Formations, which were hard-baked into the game to such a degree that they just as legit as the CAD, and, short of just not playing, you had to play against them.

Your "question" has as much weight as me asking what you favourite pizza topping is.

Just Tony wrote:So we're now basically playing the consent card and accusing a poster of predisposition to rape SIMPLY to win an argument on why they should do things your way?
I don't have the words...

I never accused anything - if the only way you see consent being important is sex then that's not on me, but I apologise for causing you to infer that. Informed consent is vital in ALL interactions, especially if you want them to be productive and respectful.

Secondly, I find it strange that you think this is about "doing this my way", when I've repeatedly advocated for EVERYONE to do things their way, and not to step on the toes of others. I don't want anyone else here in this thread to have to play a version of 40k which they don't enjoy - and I expect the same level of decency and empathy to be extended.

Do I want people to do things "my way"? Of course not, that would be boring.

 Just Tony wrote:



So we're now basically playing the consent card and accusing a poster of predisposition to rape SIMPLY to win an argument on why they should do things your way?


I don't have the words...

Report that gak. Smudge loves to use actual moral issues as shields for their gakky opinions on things like PL and female Space Marines. "Give me what I want or it's tantamount to rape!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I always thought the conversion was 1PL=15points. IE A CC is 2PL. A Infantry Squad is 3. Which was based I think around the 8th ed cost of 45(?) I can't recall, but I feel like 20 is high. When was the very LAST PL update?

It might be 15 = PL now, i remember last time i looked at PL it was roughly 20 points, but truth be told i think you can safely say either and you will be in the same ball park.

It's still 20 points, but you frequently round up or can break it in some way (like with my Harlequin Troupes).

So "Reinforcement Points" are a thing you pay to add units to your army after the battle begins (summoned daemons).

In PL games, you obviously can't use "Reinforcement Points" so... you can just add units to your army after the battle begins.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
So to be clear before I start: I don't play as often or as hard as some of you do, so I'm not "challenging" anyone's interpretation of rules- I'm player with less experience seeking clarification.

In normal matched play games you have a CP cost to put things in reserve based on their PL point cost but you also have a rule that all units summoned (or otherwise created) during the game must be paid for with points out of your army total. If you want to summon 250 points worth of demons you start the game with 1750 out of 2000 points and a 250 point summoning pool. Once you have summoned 250 points worth of models you can no longer summon. Effectively summoning is an alternate deployment with the ability to choose which unit you deploy as you deploy it, not free models.

In narrative games there is no such limit. You build a full 100 point army and then summon an unlimited number of additional units, including using those summoned units to summon more units. You could theoretically end the nominal 100 point game with 500 points worth of models on the table.

Thanks- that is how I seemed to remember it working- I didn't check the Matched play rules in the BRB- I bet that's where it is.

I think the reason you don't pay for them in Crusade is that they aren't added to your order of battle, so they never stick around long enough to get Battle Honours, nor would you ever be able to summon units with Battle Honours. Hmmm... This is giving me campaign ideas. Who knew?

Some good has come out of this thread at long last.

Edit: Of course, I don't have the 9th CSM dex yet, nor the 9th Daemon dex yet, so any campaign work would be premature.

PenitentJake wrote:
I think the reason you don't pay for them in Crusade is that they aren't added to your order of battle, so they never stick around long enough to get Battle Honours, nor would you ever be able to summon units with Battle Honours.

I think you're being really optimistic in assuming it was a deliberate choice, rather than another case of GW releasing something broken and then only bothering to fix it in matched play because "no true narrative player would ever exploit that".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I actually think that everyone is capable of doing so, even if it is a short conversation - it is as simple as asking "so, how are we playing this? What do you want to get out of this? What kind of game do you want to have?" - that can easily be casual.

I don't think you understand what "casual" means. A genuine casual player is going to give you a confused look and say something like "what do you mean by 'how are we playing this', you roll dice I guess?" because a casual player does not have any of this context of casual vs. narrative vs. competitive stuff that only very invested players follow. Nor do they care about that whole debate even if you insisted on explaining it to them. The whole concept of a "type of game" is beyond them, they just put their box of space marines on the table and roll dice against their buddy who took the other half of the starter set.

As I've already stated, can you show me this stated intention and deliberate effort from GW to do this? You keep mentioning GW making PL the focus, but in what way? By simply making PL exist? I don't see it. Can you show me some actual quotes or design notes from GW employees that you mention? What are these CAAC attitudes expressed?

The CAAC quotes are from WD articles, blog posts, etc, from years ago and I'm not digging through decades of archived material trying to find something that meets your demands. And I don't have an explicit statement about PL being the focus, only reading between the lines with an understanding of game design. GW has never commented on the subject in any official form. Sorry if that isn't satisfying enough but I don't care if you accept that my interpretation is correct, whether or not you agree with it I still have a valid claim to concern about PL existing that is not about gatekeeping.

I mean this with genuine questioning, but I don't actually remember anyone explicitly saying "everyone who is pro-PL has only ever been respectful and polite and reasonable" - at least, perhaps their statements were true at that time.

Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?

So maybe it doesn't apply to you but I didn't address it to you. It absolutely applies to Andykp and I notice that he hasn't said one word in criticism of the people on his side being needlessly rude and insulting.

Because it's respectful, and helps to make sure that we're all working towards the same thing, or that our intentions are aligned. The boundaries and expectations I might be setting might be things like "are we trying to tell a fun story, or are we trying to always make the mathematically best options", or "are we using a mulligan system if we mess up rules" or "hey, if the game's going south, do we want to call it there?" or "I'm not actually familiar with all my army's rules, could we not use them please?" or "I'm just here to playtest my tournament list, so we don't need to actually *finish* the game, if that's okay?"

But that's all the result of failures! This is what I mean about normalizing GW incompetence, you can't even imagine a world where those questions aren't necessary. There is no need to ask about story vs. mathematical optimization in a game where there is good balance instead of having "story" options be decisively inferior on the table. There is no need to ask about mulligans or omitting rules if the rules aren't such a bloated mess that forgetting stuff is common and a player can show up to a game without being familiar with their own rules. Etc. The only thing that could possibly still be a pre-game conversation is asking for tournament playtesting, but TBH people aren't showing up to a pickup game for that, they're playtesting in private groups where everyone is already expecting a playtesting session.

Do they need to be balanced? How finely?

As finely as possible within the scope of systems that are practical to use. Why excuse needless error when it's so trivially easy to improve balance? It would be one thing if using PL took a few minutes to write a list and to get the improvement of the normal point system you had to work a full eight-hour day solving complicated math problems but that's not the reality of the situation. PL is only negligibly easier, the additional time required to use the point system and see the full benefits of improved balance is less time than you just spent writing this post in defense of PL. If you stopped arguing about PL on this forum and just used the normal point system you'd come out ahead.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
PL is only negligibly easier, the additional time required to use the point system and see the full benefits of improved balance is less time than you just spent writing this post in defense of PL.

The difference between using points and PL is about more than math. It's about a sort of headspace. For me, load out isn't even a part of list building. It comes at a different stage in the process of getting from my head to the table. Because I'm mostly playing 25 PL games, even my smallest collection is larger than my list.

This means I can build a list based on the units I like and not worry about load-out at all. Like, not even bother reading what the special and heavy options are, because they literally don't matter at the time I'm building the list.

Then, before every game I just put all the standard models on the table, and then add specials heavies and upgrades from my collection as desired and not do ANY MATH AT ALL. It's fething AWESOME.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

If you stopped arguing about PL on this forum and just used the normal point system you'd come out ahead.

And if YOU could just see that everyone on this thread is on your side about keeping Points as they are, and stop insisting on the removal of PL then EVERYONE would come out ahead.

PenitentJake wrote:
This means I can build a list based on the units I like and not worry about load-out at all.

But why does it matter if you have to worry about those weapons? If it takes you 10 minutes to write a PL list and 11 minutes to write a list that considers equipment costs why is it such a big deal? And TBH, with small games it's likely to be the reverse and be 15 minutes to make a list with PL vs. 10 minutes to write a list with normal points because PL can only add or remove things in whole-unit increments if you're at 24/25 or 26/25 points.

I also find it interesting that you're so dedicated to the concept of your Crusade force remaining the same over time unless a specific story event involves a change. You can't add a new unit without having at least one game to tell the story of it being requisitioned and integrated with your force but you're perfectly happy to put a squad into your list without knowing which weapons it will be armed with. Do you not build the heavy/special weapons models as part of the unit? Most people I know who are that dedicated to narrative play have units with fixed weapons because it is essential for story purposes that those specific models are always used together. This is second platoon's third squad, armed with a grenade launcher and lascannon, and those specific ten models will always be used together with no substitutions permitted. They're all painted and based to match, they have third squad's markings on their shoulder pads, etc. But apparently you'd boot the grenade launcher model out of the squad in favor of a flamer if that's what your pre-game whim decided on?

I'm not saying you're wrong here, I just find it an interesting contrast to the other ways you play the game.

And if YOU could just see that everyone on this thread is on your side about keeping Points as they are, and stop insisting on the removal of PL then EVERYONE would come out ahead.

Or we could just remove PL for all of the reasons I've suggested. But I'm not the one claiming that saving time is the important part.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I could care less about a past edition with a very different design. It's a different game now.

It's not a different game, and the problems with PL are the same exact problems that Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation had.

You’re just full of nonsense you aren’t you.

You avoid the question too. Is Battle Demi Company or War Convo good design or good for the game, yes or no?

I'll bite.

Battle Demi-Company was good(ish) for the game. It encouraged players to play a thematic Space Marine army that was decently competitive. The reward for BDC was a bunch of transports that while free points were paid for by taking less than optimal units. If all similar formations provided a similar bonus, it would have been even better for the game.

War Convocation was an abomination. It allowed you to take the all the best options for less points. That is a recipe for disaster.

But ultimately, the PL vs Points Debate is just a matter of the opinion of which produces a more enjoyable play experience. Balanced rules are desirable, but better balance does not necessarily make for a better play experience. This is doubly true when we are looking at two ways to value units that both fail to make what I would say is the most enjoyable play experience.

What is that you ask? A system that encourages your army to look like the background and is balanced around that type of army build. Power Level fails because it too often places a wide balance gap between a thematic build and a power build at the same PL for a unit. Points fail because they are so simplistic that it misses the forest by valuing the trees in isolation.

Hecaton wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:



So we're now basically playing the consent card and accusing a poster of predisposition to rape SIMPLY to win an argument on why they should do things your way?


I don't have the words...

Report that gak. Smudge loves to use actual moral issues as shields for their gakky opinions on things like PL and female Space Marines. "Give me what I want or it's tantamount to rape!"

I can't. Yellow triangles are ableist and transphobic.

 Just Tony wrote:



I can't. Yellow triangles are ableist and transphobic.

I assume you've written a scathing letter to GW about the current edition of Kill Team's use of geometry, then?

What the hell is this thread?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So "Reinforcement Points" are a thing you pay to add units to your army after the battle begins (summoned daemons).

In PL games, you obviously can't use "Reinforcement Points" so... you can just add units to your army after the battle begins.

Eh, to be fair Vampire Counts did that in Fantasy, so it's not as if that's unusual for a GW game. It's still bs, but it's not a problem unique to PL, but rather poor design.
Kind of like how having to constantly flip to the back of the book to look at points values isn't a problem inherent to points, but terrible formatting.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So "Reinforcement Points" are a thing you pay to add units to your army after the battle begins (summoned daemons).

In PL games, you obviously can't use "Reinforcement Points" so... you can just add units to your army after the battle begins.

Eh, to be fair Vampire Counts did that in Fantasy, so it's not as if that's unusual for a GW game. It's still bs, but it's not a problem unique to PL, but rather poor design.
Kind of like how having to constantly flip to the back of the book to look at points values isn't a problem inherent to points, but terrible formatting.

Vampire Counts could only summon skeletons or zombies, it was stoppable by the opponent, only once a turn and it was a random number of models and generally not enough to make a huge difference.

Skeletons were also pricey for what they were with this in mind and zombies could be replenished but were deleted quite easy. VC were like Wood Elves in almost ignoring how a game would usually be played and were designed with this in mind. I dont think modern GW games have the depth for this sort of faction currently.

The fact that "reinforcement points" could be expanded to "reinforcement costs" with about 5 words added to encompass PL is being touted as a problem with PL when it's the core rules at fault there.

PL also doesn't ever get you "free models". Free ripper swarms exist in pointed matched play though as an example of the rule being applied at random.

Dudeface wrote:
The fact that "reinforcement points" could be expanded to "reinforcement costs" with about 5 words added to encompass PL is being touted as a problem with PL when it's the core rules at fault there.

PL also doesn't ever get you "free models". Free ripper swarms exist in pointed matched play though as an example of the rule being applied at random.

Not sure why you think the free reinforcement thing isn't by design. After all, why shouldn't the daemon player forge the narrative? Or I dunno, maybe just like there is no difference between 6 and 10 Space Marines in PL, maybe GW sees no difference between 3 and 6 Nurglings in PL also.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I could care less about a past edition with a very different design. It's a different game now.

It's not a different game, and the problems with PL are the same exact problems that Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation had.

You’re just full of nonsense you aren’t you.

You avoid the question too. Is Battle Demi Company or War Convo good design or good for the game, yes or no?

You avoided my question. Are you full of nonsense? Yes or no? (Hint: the answers yes )

 Sim-Life wrote:
What the hell is this thread?

Comedy gold

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I could care less about a past edition with a very different design. It's a different game now.

It's not a different game, and the problems with PL are the same exact problems that Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation had.

You’re just full of nonsense you aren’t you.

You avoid the question too. Is Battle Demi Company or War Convo good design or good for the game, yes or no?

You avoided my question. Are you full of nonsense? Yes or no? (Hint: the answers yes )

You still avoided the question like Smudge is.

Hecaton wrote:Smudge loves to use actual moral issues as shields for their gakky opinions on things like PL and female Space Marines. "Give me what I want or it's tantamount to rape!"

For saying you have me on block, you do like to talk about me. I really did make an impression on you, didn't I?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I actually think that everyone is capable of doing so, even if it is a short conversation - it is as simple as asking "so, how are we playing this? What do you want to get out of this? What kind of game do you want to have?" - that can easily be casual.

I don't think you understand what "casual" means. A genuine casual player is going to give you a confused look and say something like "what do you mean by 'how are we playing this', you roll dice I guess?" because a casual player does not have any of this context of casual vs. narrative vs. competitive stuff that only very invested players follow. Nor do they care about that whole debate even if you insisted on explaining it to them. The whole concept of a "type of game" is beyond them, they just put their box of space marines on the table and roll dice against their buddy who took the other half of the starter set.

As I've said, I don't think that your definition of "casual" is entirely holistic of casual attitudes, and the range of which they can express themselves.

Someone can be entirely wholeheartedly into the tournament scene, but be a casual painter.
Someone can be massively into converting their models, but only have a casual interest in playing the game.
Someone can be a top tier player, but only have a casual interest in the lore.
Someone can be invested in the hobby, but only play casually.

In the field that they specify (like I did), these are all casual. You can be casual in one aspect, and serious in others. For me, I have already professed myself to be a casual *player*, and I believe that identity sticks.

Personally, I don't like this tone of a "genuine" casual player, or trying to put this idea of "true" or "genuine" on people's identities and experiences - it reeks of exclusionary attitudes. If not that, let my actions bear out my attitudes - I don't care for winning, I play for the sake of playing, and have less care for balance than I do aesthetic. If not a casual *player*, what am I?

Also, I think you're being far too literal when I refer to "type of game" - I am referring to "do we want a friendly beer and pretzels game" or "do we want to go full ham and tournament this" kind of dynamics, the same kind of chat you'd have before a football game with your mates. I'm not talking about "which of these rules do we follow", I'm going even more basic than that.

As I've already stated, can you show me this stated intention and deliberate effort from GW to do this? You keep mentioning GW making PL the focus, but in what way? By simply making PL exist? I don't see it. Can you show me some actual quotes or design notes from GW employees that you mention? What are these CAAC attitudes expressed?

The CAAC quotes are from WD articles, blog posts, etc, from years ago and I'm not digging through decades of archived material trying to find something that meets your demands. And I don't have an explicit statement about PL being the focus, only reading between the lines with an understanding of game design. GW has never commented on the subject in any official form. Sorry if that isn't satisfying enough but I don't care if you accept that my interpretation is correct, whether or not you agree with it I still have a valid claim to concern about PL existing that is not about gatekeeping.

The bolded is all I needed to see. Thank you.

I mean this with genuine questioning, but I don't actually remember anyone explicitly saying "everyone who is pro-PL has only ever been respectful and polite and reasonable" - at least, perhaps their statements were true at that time.

Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?

So maybe it doesn't apply to you but I didn't address it to you. It absolutely applies to Andykp and I notice that he hasn't said one word in criticism of the people on his side being needlessly rude and insulting.

It should be noted, while I don't speak for Andykp, that the comment you mention was made over halfway back through the thread, and, at that time (as I actually demonstrated a page later), there was an overwhelming disparity in the severity of comments that had been made between viewpoints.

Now, I am not going to be going back through and going through the other HALF of the thread to examine how that has changed, but let's not kid ourselves with context here - Andykp's comment was made at a time when you, and others sharing your perspective, had been overwhelmingly disrespectful and hostile, and I don't actually recall being given a single apology over the matter.

I don't condone certain comments made on both ends, but I do find it ironic that you're calling for civility and respect when yourself and others like you have consistently refused to do so for me.

Because it's respectful, and helps to make sure that we're all working towards the same thing, or that our intentions are aligned. The boundaries and expectations I might be setting might be things like "are we trying to tell a fun story, or are we trying to always make the mathematically best options", or "are we using a mulligan system if we mess up rules" or "hey, if the game's going south, do we want to call it there?" or "I'm not actually familiar with all my army's rules, could we not use them please?" or "I'm just here to playtest my tournament list, so we don't need to actually *finish* the game, if that's okay?"

But that's all the result of failures! This is what I mean about normalizing GW incompetence, you can't even imagine a world where those questions aren't necessary. There is no need to ask about story vs. mathematical optimization in a game where there is good balance instead of having "story" options be decisively inferior on the table. There is no need to ask about mulligans or omitting rules if the rules aren't such a bloated mess that forgetting stuff is common and a player can show up to a game without being familiar with their own rules. Etc. The only thing that could possibly still be a pre-game conversation is asking for tournament playtesting, but TBH people aren't showing up to a pickup game for that, they're playtesting in private groups where everyone is already expecting a playtesting session.

Have you missed where I said that this is something I learned from outside of GW games, and apply to things beyond GW? Of all the various things to blame GW for (and there are many, just look at the poor CSM book), encouraging me to take a more communicative and player-led approach isn't one of them! This is something more inspired by D&D, by theatre, by relationships and friendships.

It's literally just called communication, and of all the things 40k should be, it should be a chance to HAVE communication. I don't want a game where two strangers rock up, say nothing, and push toy soldiers around. I want a game where people can talk, communicate, lay out how they're feeling and what they want, and work to support and empower the other.

Fundamentally, I think we both want different things, and that's okay, but don't take what I enjoy away from me!

Do they need to be balanced? How finely?

As finely as possible within the scope of systems that are practical to use. Why excuse needless error when it's so trivially easy to improve balance?

Is it "trivially" easy? If it's so easy, why hasn't it been done in previous editions? Which editions were perfectly balanced? If balance is so "trivially easy", do it for me now.

If you stopped arguing about PL on this forum and just used the normal point system you'd come out ahead.

But why should I? I wouldn't have to argue about PL if you just let folks enjoy themselves how they want. Also, I wouldn't have saved time to use on points because I haven't played any games during this "discussion", that's an utterly ridiculous argument on your part.

If you could learn to live and let live, you wouldn't be wasting your time on this.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
This means I can build a list based on the units I like and not worry about load-out at all.

But why does it matter if you have to worry about those weapons? If it takes you 10 minutes to write a PL list and 11 minutes to write a list that considers equipment costs why is it such a big deal? And TBH, with small games it's likely to be the reverse and be 15 minutes to make a list with PL vs. 10 minutes to write a list with normal points because PL can only add or remove things in whole-unit increments if you're at 24/25 or 26/25 points.

Okay, I'm kinda sick of seeing this whole "points only takes a minute more" concept thrown around, because it's utterly hyperbolic. I would be perfectly happy to construct two separate lists, one with PL, and the other with points, out of my existing Primaris army, and see which one is faster. I'd be happy to stick it to 1500 points, or 75PL, and see how long both take - have no interest in cheating, but I want to put this idea that there's only about a minute saved to bed.

And if YOU could just see that everyone on this thread is on your side about keeping Points as they are, and stop insisting on the removal of PL then EVERYONE would come out ahead.

Or we could just remove PL for all of the reasons I've suggested.

But what reasons? All the reasons you given only mean something to you - they mean nothing to me. Why do I care about half the reasons you've given? At the end of the day, you can carry on unaffected if PL goes, but I can't carry on without changing, over some "reasons" that only appeal to you!

Where is your sense of empathy?

EviscerationPlague wrote:You still avoided the question like Smudge is.

I answered it - it's not my fault you asked a question that has no bearing to the actual topic. Why don't you answer mine?

Ask stupid questions, get stupid responses - it ain't hard.

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I could care less about a past edition with a very different design. It's a different game now.

It's not a different game, and the problems with PL are the same exact problems that Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation had.

You’re just full of nonsense you aren’t you.

You avoid the question too. Is Battle Demi Company or War Convo good design or good for the game, yes or no?

You avoided my question. Are you full of nonsense? Yes or no? (Hint: the answers yes )

Maybe because you did not ask a question at all. You made a statement, which does not invite a response. If you can't tell the difference between basic English structures like these, then maybe you shouldn't be getting into an intellectual argument in this thread.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I could care less about a past edition with a very different design. It's a different game now.

It's not a different game, and the problems with PL are the same exact problems that Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation had.

You’re just full of nonsense you aren’t you.

You avoid the question too. Is Battle Demi Company or War Convo good design or good for the game, yes or no?

You avoided my question. Are you full of nonsense? Yes or no? (Hint: the answers yes )

You still avoided the question like Smudge is.

Wrong answer, the answer was yes, you are full nonesense.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
This means I can build a list based on the units I like and not worry about load-out at all.

But why does it matter if you have to worry about those weapons? If it takes you 10 minutes to write a PL list and 11 minutes to write a list that considers equipment costs why is it such a big deal? And TBH, with small games it's likely to be the reverse and be 15 minutes to make a list with PL vs. 10 minutes to write a list with normal points because PL can only add or remove things in whole-unit increments if you're at 24/25 or 26/25 points.

Okay, I'm kinda sick of seeing this whole "points only takes a minute more" concept thrown around, because it's utterly hyperbolic. I would be perfectly happy to construct two separate lists, one with PL, and the other with points, out of my existing Primaris army, and see which one is faster. I'd be happy to stick it to 1500 points, or 75PL, and see how long both take - have no interest in cheating, but I want to put this idea that there's only about a minute saved to bed.

Just out of curiosity, I've just made a 1500pts list using points vs using PLs and a stopwatch.

Pure math time:
- PLs: 13 individual entries, pure math time 0:30, without calculator.
- Points: 38 individual entries, pure math time 1:15, had to use calculator for that to not get lost in what has been counted already

BUT

- PLs time overhead for actually constructing the list, that is to make all the choices necessary at the list building stage and noting the list down for print: 5 minutes, had to swap one unit to fit under the limit.

- Points time overhead, for having to choose and juggle all upgrades for all unit entries: the same 5 mins from PLs (it's the same list) plus about 20 minutes for choosing loadouts with point considerations in mind, noting the list down and formatting it for print, with the last 5 minutes spent on juggling the last 10 points to fit 1500. This also doesn't account for the time to actually optimise the list and do math for point efficiencies against my known opponent and their army, as this was not the part of the excercise and is also not necessary for the actual game context those lists were created for.

Additional note: this is made out of about 10000pts of owned models for a single faction. If you only have own 2000 pts + spares here and there worth 500-1000 pts, then you basically own a single list and have little need for juggling points, so here PLs vs points have narrower overhead gap.

Now with PLs, you also have to add a time to choose loadouts before the match, but that is 90% covered by putting the models on the table, with only "invisible" wargear to note down and inform my opponent of - I'll very generously add 5 mins for that

So, totals:
PLs: 10 minutes, 30 seconds
points: 26 minutes, 15 seconds (plus any optimisation time)

Now, another element to that is: PL list is perfectly reusable from game to game in "cross tailoring for balance" narrative environment I play in. Ability to swap loadouts just by selecting different models adds no time over the listed 10m 30s. Point list? Not so much, as with many list entries not being round 5-10 pts you have to juggle all those odd pts upgrades around. This adds between 10 to 20 minutes before each game I want to play with the same narrative balance goal I play when using PLs. And anticipating the question "why I care about juggling those points" - I have built both of those lists to be legal - that is to the standard of presentation required in both systems - and to the scrutiny levels expected from players of both systems. On top of that - in a friendly, narrative context, all this "but PLs allow for sooooo much free gear it makes the game utterly broken" crap is completely irrelevant, as in such context you are not building your lists for advantage and not in the void of blind pickup, but in a co-op fashion, so you don't care for min-maxing potential within the system.

So no, PLs vs Points is not "just a minute saved on adding fewer numbers" and PLs have a very clear utility context. With the standard game taking about 3 hrs, that is 1/7th-1/6th time overhead saved, about the same time it would take me to commute to the nearest FLGS.

One other thing to note, which some posters here seem to not realise/ignore: any PL player that has started in edition prior to 8th has an actual experience with both systems and often decades worth of list building with points under their belt. On the other hand, points advocates clearly state, that they have zero practical experience with PLs and all their views are purely theoretical. This simple fact makes position of those posters utterly bizarre - they literally try to convince people, that their life experience is wrong - not merely their PoV - both on time saved and practical, real life balance levels produced by both systems.

Dudeface wrote:
The fact that "reinforcement points" could be expanded to "reinforcement costs" with about 5 words added to encompass PL is being touted as a problem with PL when it's the core rules at fault there.

PL also doesn't ever get you "free models". Free ripper swarms exist in pointed matched play though as an example of the rule being applied at random.

Right, but them's the rules. GW clearly intended to allow infinite summoning in PL games, given that Reinforcement Points explicitly excludes PL and I doubt they just "forgot" PL existed.

Game design choices are exactly what we are talking about here, otherwise there's no debate - heck, upgrade choices could be expanded to include PL cost.

"Lascannon = +1 power level"
"Plasma = 0 power level, or +1 if 2 are taken" etc. etc.

Also list tailoring is bad automatically, and a system that encourages or facilitates list tailoring is a bad system.

GW should balance their own game, not the players.

Both sides including myself have been to some degree: abrupt, rude, negligent, outright offensive or ignorant.

The point is this thread needs to die.

Evidently some people use PL and enjoy it, some people don't want to use it and think it should go irrespective of any justification.

Those two trains of thought are incompatible at this juncture and were going to loop endlessly (again).

Can we all agree to leave it?