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.
2022/07/11 17:50:33
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
The difference is, those formations were not in a separate category. They were right there in standard games alongside things like Ork formations, which pretty much all sucked.
If you don't want to play PL, you can just play points. It's separate.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/07/11 17:55:36
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
I dont wanna be argumentative with you, but how are they not separate categories? You have to make a conscious choice to use that battle demi company just like you have to use one to use PL.
If you dont wanna play with a battle demi company, you just dont use it.
To many unpainted models to count.
2022/07/11 18:12:41
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Backspacehacker wrote: I dont wanna be argumentative with you, but how are they not separate categories? You have to make a conscious choice to use that battle demi company just like you have to use one to use PL.
If you dont wanna play with a battle demi company, you just dont use it.
If you play with points, your opponent plays with points. If you play PL, so does your opponent. I don't think I've ever seen anyone play a points vs. PL game.
If you played without formations in 7th edition, nothing stopped your OPPONENT from using some-from the terrible Ork ones to the brokenly good ones.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/07/11 18:16:12
Subject: Re:If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
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?
I'm going to need citation for how long they spent on PL as a concept and what you think they should have used the time to do in its absence please.
2022/07/11 18:40:23
Subject: Re:If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
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?
I'm going to need citation for how long they spent on PL as a concept and what you think they should have used the time to do in its absence please.
Probably relax and grab lunch. Seems about the amount of time spent on it based on the effort and end result.
2022/07/11 18:41:34
Subject: Re:If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
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?
I'm going to need citation for how long they spent on PL as a concept and what you think they should have used the time to do in its absence please.
Probably relax and grab lunch. Seems about the amount of time spent on it based on the effort and end result.
So... remind me, how would removing it benefit the game if they spent 0 time on it to begin with?
2022/07/11 18:43:57
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
The difference is, those formations were not in a separate category. They were right there in standard games alongside things like Ork formations, which pretty much all sucked.
If you don't want to play PL, you can just play points. It's separate.
And if someone wants to play with their broke formations you didn't have to play against them either and find a different opponent.
That doesn't mean they're well written. Almost like free upgrades and models is a bad concept to begin with...
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.
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?
I'm going to need citation for how long they spent on PL as a concept and what you think they should have used the time to do in its absence please.
Probably relax and grab lunch. Seems about the amount of time spent on it based on the effort and end result.
So... remind me, how would removing it benefit the game if they spent 0 time on it to begin with?
It's an eyesore and I'd rather 5 minutes to remove it to make up for the minute spent making it. It has no purpose. Just because something was "added" doesn't mean it adds value.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/11 18:44:55
2022/07/11 18:56:22
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Dudeface wrote: 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.
Oh look, another PL advocate being a condescending ass and not understanding the difference between gatekeeping out unpainted armies and opposition to PL being about gatekeeping. So much for that whole "PL players are more polite" thing.
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/11 19:09:40
Subject: Re:If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Dudeface wrote: 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.
Oh look, another PL advocate being a condescending ass and not understanding the difference between gatekeeping out unpainted armies and opposition to PL being about gatekeeping. So much for that whole "PL players are more polite" thing.
I am more polite, I haven't been telling people I want to take their fun away and gatekeep people's armies.
2022/07/11 19:11:32
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Lolwut. No. 3.5e was not a good game in any way. It was a bloated mess that makes 40k look elegant, 99% of the content could have been deleted without losing anything of value and the remaining 1% was an equal split between normal basic classes and "after pulling obscure items from 16 different books my level 1 character is a literal god". And compared to the horrific balance issues between spellcasters and any non-spellcaster class 40k is a paragon of balance and out of the box playability.
Not that I really expect you to understand this, as you still don't understand why removing pointless bloat in 40k is a good thing even if you don't use a particular piece of bloat.
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/11 19:12:37
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Dudeface wrote: I am more polite, I haven't been telling people I want to take their fun away and gatekeep people's armies.
Telling people they need to go to therapy for not wanting to include unpainted armies is being a condescending donkey-cave. But feel free to keep digging that hole even deeper and prove that, once you finally exhaust the inane arguments about "BUT I SAVE ONE MINUTE OF TIME" PL advocates have nothing but petty insults and whining about not being included.
JNAProductions wrote: And the people in this very thread who say it adds value to them… what are they?
People that, when they move back to points, realize how much of a mess PL as a concept and execution is. .
They cam talk about quitting all they want, but if they're willing to stick through PL something tells me they'd continue regardless.
2022/07/11 19:19:22
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
JNAProductions wrote: And the people in this very thread who say it adds value to them… what are they?
People that, when they move back to points, realize how much of a mess PL as a concept and execution is. .
They cam talk about quitting all they want, but if they're willing to stick through PL something tells me they'd continue regardless.
So you know them better than they know themselves?
Don’t you think that’s pretty arrogant?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/07/11 19:20:45
Subject: Re:If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Eldarsif wrote: hank 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.
A lot of upgrades are not worth it at their current prices. There are very few upgrades where the fair price is zero points, and in the rare case where you have an upgrade with a fair price of zero points you have nobody interested in taking it because it also has zero value. The only upgrades that have a fair price of zero points are things like "upgrading" a model's basic melee attacks AP -1 when that model already has an AP -3 power sword.
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.
No, I understand it perfectly. Unlike you I also understand that it spends a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. All weapons have to go through the same gate sequence and the analogy ignores the immense difference from changing your probability of success at each gate. It's purely an argument for people who don't understand statistics beyond "it feels bad when I roll a 1 for my upgrade". And it certainly doesn't say anything about upgrades not being worth taking.
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.
Nope. I've seen plenty of heated debates over which upgrade to take. The only reason you don't see more of them is that because GW sucks at balance there's usually one obvious correct choice. But if you hate that situation you should hate PL, since PL making all upgrades cost zero points inevitably results in there being one obvious choice for everything. You don't debate over paying points for a plasma pistol, the pistol is a mandatory upgrade because it's strictly better than the alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: 3.5 is a mess, no doubts there.
But a hell of a lot of people enjoy it to this day-that’s good when you’ve got a game where the point is to have fun.
I am skeptical that anyone genuinely enjoys 3.5e (or even Pathfinder, which is 3.5e but better). I'm sure there are people who enjoy 3.5e games despite 3.5e being a bad system, for system-independent reasons like having a great DM or memorable characters or whatever. But if you take away the fear of change that makes people cling to bad rules the vast majority of them would enjoy 5e more.
Hey, kind of like PL vs points! People claim to "need" PL because they're afraid of losing their symbol of casual play, but in reality the downsides are negligible and they'd have no issues using the normal point system instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/11 19:23:25
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/11 19:27:58
Subject: Re:If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Dudeface wrote: I am more polite, I haven't been telling people I want to take their fun away and gatekeep people's armies.
Telling people they need to go to therapy for not wanting to include unpainted armies is being a condescending donkey-cave. But feel free to keep digging that hole even deeper and prove that, once you finally exhaust the inane arguments about "BUT I SAVE ONE MINUTE OF TIME" PL advocates have nothing but petty insults and whining about not being included.
PL is an alternate system you don’t have to use-it doesn’t affect you unless you let it.
One word: Crusade. PL absolutely affects me despite not wanting to use it.
Almost like I was being an asshat in response to your arrogance. I don't really care about 'winning' the argument whether it's fair to take away something people want. You evidently aren't bothered about other people's opinions, despite being hurt by mine seemingly.
2022/07/11 19:31:33
Subject: Re:If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Dudeface wrote: Almost like I was being an asshat in response to your arrogance. I don't really care about 'winning' the argument whether it's fair to take away something people want. You evidently aren't bothered about other people's opinions, despite being hurt by mine seemingly.
I'm not hurt by you, I've been called way worse things before and I'd say much worse things about you if I didn't care about getting banned for it. I'm just pointing out the laughably wrong claims by certain PL advocates that their side is always polite and reasonable and it's only "extremists" like me that are saying anything bad. But please do keep adding evidence to the pile.
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/11 20:18:21
Subject: Re:If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Dudeface wrote: Almost like I was being an asshat in response to your arrogance. I don't really care about 'winning' the argument whether it's fair to take away something people want. You evidently aren't bothered about other people's opinions, despite being hurt by mine seemingly.
I'm not hurt by you, I've been called way worse things before and I'd say much worse things about you if I didn't care about getting banned for it. I'm just pointing out the laughably wrong claims by certain PL advocates that their side is always polite and reasonable and it's only "extremists" like me that are saying anything bad. But please do keep adding evidence to the pile.
Yes, because I singularly speak for all the users of PL.
Edit: to the point, we can be escalating bigger arseholes and neither of us will lose any sleep, but I feel that's the point by now isn't it? You need to justify yourself and 'win' this petty bs argument at this stage.
It's not even grounded in any fact, rumour or anything, you're literally dieing on a hill to piss people off.
I'll give EviscerationPlague a pass, they seem to be a troll account existing purely to spout negative anti corporation drivel with every post, you seem like a competent and intellectual person, but that in turn worries me further that you're incapable of just letting people (conceptually) do what they like without needing a "justification". Plenty of stuff in life exists because people like it with no justification other than its their preference, or we'd only have 1 brand for every food source etc.
Either way, I'll stop dirtying my PL using forum associates with my blunt decorum and duck out for 2 pages for the cycle to repeat again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/11 20:23:10
2022/07/11 21:03:22
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
JNAProductions wrote: And the people in this very thread who say it adds value to them… what are they?
People that, when they move back to points, realize how much of a mess PL as a concept and execution is. .
They cam talk about quitting all they want, but if they're willing to stick through PL something tells me they'd continue regardless.
So you know them better than they know themselves?
Don’t you think that’s pretty arrogant?
If they don't care about balance they won't care about following points strictly, so the claim of "players will quit if PL goes away" is not one i buy seriously nor care about. At least points will give them a slightly closer game.
Anybody insisting PL stays because it adds value is the same type of person that will find mental gymnastics to somehow say that free models and wargear from Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation bad, but free models and wargear from PL good. It's ridiculous.
Dudeface wrote: Almost like I was being an asshat in response to your arrogance. I don't really care about 'winning' the argument whether it's fair to take away something people want. You evidently aren't bothered about other people's opinions, despite being hurt by mine seemingly.
I'm not hurt by you, I've been called way worse things before and I'd say much worse things about you if I didn't care about getting banned for it. I'm just pointing out the laughably wrong claims by certain PL advocates that their side is always polite and reasonable and it's only "extremists" like me that are saying anything bad. But please do keep adding evidence to the pile.
Yes, because I singularly speak for all the users of PL.
Edit: to the point, we can be escalating bigger arseholes and neither of us will lose any sleep, but I feel that's the point by now isn't it? You need to justify yourself and 'win' this petty bs argument at this stage.
It's not even grounded in any fact, rumour or anything, you're literally dieing on a hill to piss people off.
I'll give EviscerationPlague a pass, they seem to be a troll account existing purely to spout negative anti corporation drivel with every post, you seem like a competent and intellectual person, but that in turn worries me further that you're incapable of just letting people (conceptually) do what they like without needing a "justification". Plenty of stuff in life exists because people like it with no justification other than its their preference, or we'd only have 1 brand for every food source etc.
Either way, I'll stop dirtying my PL using forum associates with my blunt decorum and duck out for 2 pages for the cycle to repeat again.
I'm sorry that you can't comprehend free models and wargear is bad. That doesn't make me a troll, that makes you ignorant in how Formations and PL are bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/11 21:04:25
2022/07/11 21:23:52
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
It's cute that you think preconstructed lists would automatically leave everything up to player skill. Some factions are capable of building a lot stronger list. GW is incapable of balancing things. I guarantee you would see 3-4 factions being spammed by all the best players and turning into rock/paper/scissors matchups. Mtg uses preconstructed lists only as something for new players to buy and be able to play with a coherent deck right away. They aren't used for tournaments or any kind of competitive gaming at all. The most they will do is challenges in Arena, the online version, where if you win 7 games before getting 3 losses with a precon deck, you get some skins.
2022/07/11 21:34:29
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
And the fact that competitive gamers see list building as a bigger skill than the actual game. GW in turn oblige with all these nonsense chapter apaproved pamphlets and points updates.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/11 21:35:17
2022/07/11 21:42:29
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL (she/her)
2022/07/11 21:48:11
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Oh they'd still play. 40k is too expensive to begin with, so they're going to continue (in which they'll realize that PL is junk in concept and execution). If not, I'd argue they really weren't invested in the game to begin with.
2022/07/11 21:50:21
Subject: Re:If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
So... remind me, how would removing it benefit the game if they spent 0 time on it to begin with?
The problem is that it's intertwined with the Crusade rules, as well as some Stratagems and abilities (mostly ones that let you set up your units in a location other than the battlefield.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: And the people in this very thread who say it adds value to them… what are they?
A lot of them have bad values, chief among them a lack of a growth mindset.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/11 21:50:52
2022/07/11 21:54:54
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Because if taking a single extra minute to make a list for a 3-4 hour game or not having the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Game™ Mode™ label results in you quitting you weren't really invested in the first place and you're all probably going to quit soon anyway. The point system would just be the particular excuse you used to get over the sunk cost fallacy and justify quitting a game you already hate.
And because I doubt your assessment is accurate. By your own admission most of these people have only seen those things used in a store (and your local stores are unimaginably toxic), they haven't actually played the game with the normal point system, matched play updates, etc. Your speculation that they'd all quit is just that: speculation. My alternative speculation is that most of them would grumble a bit at first but keep playing once they realized that your fearmongering about how difficult normal points and matched play are is false and there is no meaningful increase in difficulty.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/11 21:56:43
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/11 22:15:07
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
I've tried running games with Matched Play, points, terrain rules, etc, and they simply don't like it, they don't enjoy that style of play. They really don't.
Points and especially Matched Play means keeping up with EVERYTHING, and they just don't want to devote that much time and energy to the game.
They enjoy the Open Play games we run. They are casual players. They enjoy the lore, but unless the gameplay is really straightforward, they aren't very in interested in the more complex version of the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/11 22:37:41
213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL (she/her)
2022/07/11 22:24:01
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Blndmage wrote: I've tried running games with Matched Play, points, terrain rules, etc, and they simply don't like it, they don't enjoy that style of play. They really don't.
Have you genuinely tried it, without any influence from the fact that you dislike those things? Or have you presented it as "these rules are really hard but I guess we could use them"? Because I really doubt points based list construction with upgrade costs is a line that can not be crossed for people who are perfectly content to use the exact same points based list construction system as long as upgrade costs are all zero.
They enjoy the lore, but unless the gameplay is really straightforward, they are very in interested in the more complex version of the game.
Honest question: why play 40k at all? If the goal is a simple and shallow game with no terrain, no objectives, just line up and roll dice until one side runs out of dice to roll why not play a different game that is designed to work like that? It really seems like you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole because you have a weird commitment to playing Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™.
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/11 22:43:34
Subject: Re:If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
CadianSgtBob wrote: I am skeptical that anyone genuinely enjoys 3.5e (or even Pathfinder, which is 3.5e but better). I'm sure there are people who enjoy 3.5e games despite 3.5e being a bad system, for system-independent reasons like having a great DM or memorable characters or whatever. But if you take away the fear of change that makes people cling to bad rules the vast majority of them would enjoy 5e more.
I enjoy 3.X because the rules for monsters and player characters are more or less the same and it's very easy to get under the hood and tinker with things along those lines. I don't care about balance in TTRPGs though, it's not a competitive endeavor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Because we don't believe you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/11 22:44:37
2022/07/11 22:58:09
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Blndmage wrote: I've tried running games with Matched Play, points, terrain rules, etc, and they simply don't like it, they don't enjoy that style of play. They really don't.
Have you genuinely tried it, without any influence from the fact that you dislike those things? Or have you presented it as "these rules are really hard but I guess we could use them"? Because I really doubt points based list construction with upgrade costs is a line that can not be crossed for people who are perfectly content to use the exact same points based list construction system as long as upgrade costs are all zero.
They enjoy the lore, but unless the gameplay is really straightforward, they are very in interested in the more complex version of the game.
Honest question: why play 40k at all? If the goal is a simple and shallow game with no terrain, no objectives, just line up and roll dice until one side runs out of dice to roll why not play a different game that is designed to work like that? It really seems like you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole because you have a weird commitment to playing Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™.
I've been playing since 4th, I'm not a stranger to points and will play it if that's what friends want when they come to visit and we play a big (750 points) game. I wind up having to spend day learning the current Matched Play rules, ie the current GT season. I literally need a solid week to prep for that. Do I enjoy the game itself when we play? Yes,ish. I find them far more taxing to play, even if I'm truly enjoying the game. Have my family watched theses bigger games? Yes. Have they tried the same thing with said friend? Yes, that's how they know they don't like it.
You keep zooming in on just the point vs pl time limits when I'm trying to explain that playing with points brings along a lot of baggage
I, and my playgroup, prefer the simpler version of the game that GW has provided us. I shouldn't have to defend that every single time I talk about playing. We're not playing some house ruled quagmire. We do play on standard size boards at times, energy and time permitting.
If any of them ask for a bigger (14-25PL) game, on the Combat Patrol size board, we make time for it, but we still don't use the Advanced Rules. This version of the game is valid and enjoyable. Games are quicker.
I'd consider myself a "beer and pretzels" 40k player. It's a social game. In the same way folks have boardgame nights. GW has given me a version of the game I can play, I can still use my models. Ya, without CPs and Stratagems some units feel weird, but I'd rather add in Theaters of War, than add the complexity of BATTLEFORGED, CPs, detachments, Strats, etc.
The key thing here is that I'm playing the game. The books plainly offer it as a style of play by putting the rest behind the Advanced Rules. Why do you keep invalidating the way we play the game when it's a perfectly valid version that takes nothing away from you?
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Because we don't believe you.
Why?
Why would I lie?
This forum isn't for just competitive formats. It's not like I'm talking about this on r/WarhammerCompetitive.
Why do I get so much gak from people when I'm playing a version of the game that actually exists and my playgroup (which, again, includes kids, folks on the spectrum, other neurodivergent folks, those categories overlap at times) enjoys and prefers it?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/07/11 23:11:54
.
60PL 
12PL 
