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.

It's not just about the list construction point system.

The way you think of units changes after a while.

You don't have to play with the Advanced Rules. But it does make it a very different style of game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
When did 8th release? Five, six years ago now?
There are plenty of people who started 40k in that time period. Some of them stick to PL and modes of play other than Matched, because that's what they enjoy-and it's been with them since the very start of their 40k experience.
Of these players, how many do you think play IG? Because removing PL would affect them 100%, removing IG might very well not.

Removing an entire faction = harms a relatively small number of players in a severe way.

Removing PL = has a trivial effect on a large number of players.

This is not complicated.

You've yet to have a compelling argument for why it should go-"I don't like it," isn't a reason to remove it entirely, it's just a reason to not play with it. "It makes the game worse," just straight up isn't true.

Once again:

* Wasted development time.
* Rules bloat and clutter.
* Needlessly dividing the community into incompatible sides.
* Locking certain content behind either accepting the broken system or convincing people to accept house rules.
* Continued temptation for CAAC elements at GW to make PL the only system.

I've explained very clearly why PL is a bad system and why redundancy should be removed, and "but it saves me a single minute of time" is not a compelling argument when balanced against those things.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
It's not just about the list construction point system.

The way you think of units changes after a while.

You don't have to play with the Advanced Rules. But it does make it a very different style of game.

Yes, playing with most of the rules removed is a very different game. But PL has nothing to do with that, PL is purely a different point system that is used in the exact same way as the normal system.

Okay bob, you get the list word.

You win the Internet. I'm done with this dumpster fire for real this time.

PL exists whether you like it or not; it'll continue to exist at least until the end of this edition, no matter how aggressively you argue. I'd like to see GW carry on three modes, and alternate game sizes, and I'd hope that both PL and points continue but quite frankly, it was always unlikely that I would buy into another edition, so it's PL for me forever.

That certainly looks like you trying to get the last word...

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Gross. Have some standards.

Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Removing an entire faction = harms a relatively small number of players in a severe way.

I'd be pissed, since I'd be one of those players even if I have other factions to play. It happened before though. And in the eyes of GW it might mean that such players would now spend lots of money on new stuff to keep playing.

If GW thinks that a faction is not worthy of their efforts and doesn't sell much, it can definitely go away. Especially if it's part of a larger faction that already involves a dozen or more standalone factions.

 Blackie wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Gross. Have some standards.

Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Removing an entire faction = harms a relatively small number of players in a severe way.

I'd be pissed, since I'd be one of those players even if I have other factions to play. It happened before though. And in the eyes of GW it might mean that such players would now spend lots of money on new stuff to keep playing.

If GW thinks that a faction is not worthy of their efforts and doesn't sell much, it can definitely go away. Especially if it's part of a larger faction that already involves a dozen or more standalone factions.

Bretonia and tomb kings come to mind on that.

 Blndmage wrote:
It's not just about the list construction point system.

The way you think of units changes after a while.

You don't have to play with the Advanced Rules. But it does make it a very different style of game.

This sounds like something you can't even really quantify. Also PL is the "advanced rules" in the same way that Gir from Invader Zim was "advanced" lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Keeping out filthy casuals is the good kind of gatekeeping tho

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
It's not just about the list construction point system.

The way you think of units changes after a while.

You don't have to play with the Advanced Rules. But it does make it a very different style of game.

This sounds like something you can't even really quantify. Also PL is the "advanced rules" in the same way that Gir from Invader Zim was "advanced" lol.

I'm not sure I get the reference, I've never see that show.

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

I'd be pissed, since I'd be one of those players even if I have other factions to play. It happened before though. And in the eyes of GW it might mean that such players would now spend lots of money on new stuff to keep playing.

If GW thinks that a faction is not worthy of their efforts and doesn't sell much, it can definitely go away. Especially if it's part of a larger faction that already involves a dozen or more standalone factions.

None of that has anything to do with my point though, that removing a faction is not even remotely equivalent to removing PL. Whether or not you think GW would be stupid enough to remove a popular faction it would indisputably be a massive change for the people who currently play/collect that faction. Removing PL would be a negligible effect on the people who currently use it, single digit minutes at most out of a 3-4 hour game.

I don’t actually think gatekeeping has ever kept quality high…

Mostly it creates insulation to improvement and ideas that could be better for the community as a whole.

I even think this issue comes from the 40k community having so many gatekeepers, that GW is reluctant to change things as a group and forcing small changes that cause more damage to the game in the long run.

It’s probably a reason for the rules to be rather manic in improving as a whole.

Did you really just blame the community instead of the shoddy poor ruleswriting of a huge cooperation?

....

Ok.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Did you really just blame the community instead of the shoddy poor ruleswriting of a huge cooperation?

....

Ok.

Nope, specifically that gatekeeping and feedback from very insular and specific groups can cause weird responses, how GW views that can be still be shoddy both tied to that, and seperate from that.

Apple fox wrote:
Nope, specifically that gatekeeping and feedback from very insular and specific groups can cause weird responses, how GW views that can be still be shoddy both tied to that, and seperate from that.

I'm not sure what that has to do with any of the discussion here? PL isn't broken and redundant because of gatekeeping preventing them from getting feedback.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
And when it isn't it's because the point cost is too high for what you get.

Thank you for making the point for me. Yes, a majority of the upgrades are just not worth it. Having them free is often the only way to make them viable in the first place. Which is probably the reason why PL could work in a lot of cases. Not all, mind you, but in a lot of cases.

You are also misreading/misunderstanding the 'Gates' analogy. They represent decreasing probability at each intervention which reduces the overall effectiveness of the item in question - more gates, the lower your probability is. This also does not take into account all the upgrades that are not weapons that almost no one bothers with because they cost precious points.

I don't think people realize how binary upgrade options tend to be in this game due to how the game is designed. You either never take an upgrade or always take an upgrade. Very rarely are there any in-betweens due to the fact that factions vary wildly in their effectiveness towards other factions so the best recourse is to take the best all-around option; making all other options redundant.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.

Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.

Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.

This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.

Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.

Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.

This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.

Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.

Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.

Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.

Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.

This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.

Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.

In what way is it similar? I legitimately am not sure what you mean by that.

Im with you on no removing power level just because its not like its supported any way, GW just tosses them out there then never addresses them. So really i dont see any positive or negative to removing them.
However i dont think GW should waste time on it simply because its such a small small group that uses it and it does not really need much dev time.

If it was removed i dont think the community as a whole would really suffer for it. Those who use points would not even bat and eye. Those who use PL, would either start using pl or just stop playing which, is such a small group again, the community would not be effected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.

Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.

This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.

Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.

In what way is it similar? I legitimately am not sure what you mean by that.

The debate over which is the better version and the way DnD should be played 3.5e having more detailed and defined rules and more granularity to it, vs a more simplified streamlined version of DND 5e.

And both 3.5 and 5E are good, in their own ways.

5E is much more intuitive and assumes a higher baseline level of competency from the characters, and helps get into the actual game bit a lot faster than 3.5.
3.5 has a much greater depth of character building, and has more solid answers for questions that might arise during gameplay. (Sometimes the answers are stupid, but usually with enough research, you can find an at-least somewhat conclusive answer.)

Some people prefer 3.5. Some people prefer 5E. And neither side is wrong.

Yeah and i just think that the argument here is very similar to that, people going back and forth over which version of the game they think is better.

Personally i think 3.5e is better just like the point system in 40k, does not mean i think PL or 5th ed should be axed because of it.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Yeah and i just think that the argument here is very similar to that, people going back and forth over which version of the game they think is better.

Personally i think 3.5e is better just like the point system in 40k, does not mean i think PL or 5th ed should be axed because of it.

See, I prefer points in 40k, but 5E to 3.5.

It's not the complexity, it's the competence of a 5E character. In 5E, your 15 Strength Cleric can Grapple, Shove, and Knock Prone without any penalties. They might not be AMAZING at it, though with proficiency in Athletics, you'll do okay. But you're not penalized for trying it.
In 3.5, you'd need Improved Unarmed Strike (to take the next feat), Improved Grapple; Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush; and Combat Expertise, Improved Trip to achieve the same thing. That's 6 feats, when a non-human Cleric only gets 7! You'd be level 15 by the time you can do all that without taking an Attack Of Opportunity just for trying.

Dudeface wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.

Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.

This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.

Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.

Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.

Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.

Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.

ANd see for me, i enjoy that level of granularity just like points in 40k, and just like the older rules of 3rd -7th im in that boat of thats more enjoyable for me.

What i hope will happen, and i could See GW doing this IF, and this is a big big if here, if they were smart they would.

They are poised at a very good cross roads to that as well, they could move 40k into that direction of a streamlined rule set, while taking HH, and brining it forward into the scouring and or the 35th millennia era to introduce a few xeno races and utilize those older rule sets to capture both the 3.5e and 5e kinda crowd.

Right now those two groups as we have seen in this thread are basically battling each other for space, when GW could if they were smart enough make a space for both.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.

Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.

This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.

Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.

Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.

Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.

Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.

Nothing of value to you.
Other people find value in it. Try understanding that.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.

Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.

This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.

Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.

Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.

Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.

Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.

Apart from players and options. So yes, something is lost, nothing is gained by taking it out.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.

Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.

This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.

Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.

Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.

Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.

Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.

Apart from players and options. So yes, something is lost, nothing is gained by taking it out.

The system more broken than the points that you malign to begin with is a fain itself, since even a minute spent on developing PL was far too much for the concept anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .

Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.

YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.

Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.

This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.

Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.

Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.

Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.

Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.

Nothing of value to you.
Other people find value in it. Try understanding that.

Other people found value in Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation. Guess how little I care those were removed?

Battle Demi Company and War Convocation could and would make games significantly worse for the opponent.
PL is an alternate system you don’t have to use-it doesn’t affect you unless you let it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Battle Demi Company and War Convocation could and would make games significantly worse for the opponent.
PL is an alternate system you don’t have to use-it doesn’t affect you unless you let it.

To be the devils advocate here, you can make the reverse argument as well. you dont HAVE to use the demi battle company or the war convocation. PL if you use it can make it signifigently worse for your oponent if you are going out of your way to abuse the PL system and exploit things like summoning and or getting crazy amount of free war gear.

Which boils down to, crappy players are going to make for a crappy experience.