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.

I can be bothered later I might set up a poll, for those who said no how many will actively stop buying and/or playing. Then whether they'll push the agenda actively to others.

I'm willing to wager most people here still play despite their words, I suspect they sometimes also buy new minis for said purpose.

Oh I'll play a few games to see how it goes, but GW recieves no money from me these days.

The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.

Dudeface wrote:
I can be bothered later I might set up a poll, for those who said no how many will actively stop buying and/or playing. Then whether they'll push the agenda actively to others.

I'm willing to wager most people here still play despite their words, I suspect they sometimes also buy new minis for said purpose.

Started with my homebrew in the mid of 9th and never looked back.
Currently sitting at 18 players and rising. Most of them attend frequently and don't play mainline 40k anymore, despite having a relatively big (albeit competitive oriented) scene in the very same local club.

Miniatures are mostly 1st party and get bought regularely.

Some people in this thread still seriously overestimate the numbers that GW is making from the gaming part of 40K and underestimate the numbers GW makes from the hobby part, despite all survey data available. They’re also completely oblivious to how the game is played by the vast majority of GW’s customers and oberestimate the importance of „whales” and hypercompetitive crowd.

As to boycott strategy - why would anyone focussed on the hobby part of the hobby switch games? Since forever, the main appeal of 40k is lore and models, not the game bolted on top. If anyone expects people will en masse shift from 40K to a II WW game with generic midels is seriously detached. The sole reason Grimdark Future is so popular is because it’s „nothammer” - a game tailored for all those awesome models people are into 40k for. Nobody cares for „lore” of GF and game mechanics only has to be accessible for newcomers and with minimal „upkeep” requirements. The quality of resulting game is secondary to the ability to push your models without studying tons of source material to even build an army. This is exactly why 10th is „simplified, not simple”, and why it will be a commercial success. This is also why „side games” like Kill Team, Warcry etc gravitate towards limited customisation and closed builds - so they are contained and can compete with board games for sunday evening games with friends.

That some old grognards, who openly state, that they had not spend a penny on GW since ages leave the game? WHY exactly should GW care about such not-customers? Especially, when they have wide and steady enough stream of new ones and a large enough pool of happy old ones? And no, „the game how I envisage it is obviously better for everyone, so GW would have all the customers in the world, old and new alike if they just listened” is not true and anyone who thinks that should do their homework on diversity. For example, by re-reading, with comprehension, all those innumerable threads on dakka, where this subject was raised.

nou wrote:
Some people in this thread still seriously overestimate the numbers that GW is making from the gaming part of 40K and underestimate the numbers GW makes from the hobby part, despite all survey data available.

and some people still underestimate how important the gaming part is for marketing, word of mouth and "be seen" for GWs numbers

with Age of Sigmar, GW exactly that, ignore the gamers because they don't bring money and focus on the hobby/painting people because they make the cash
yet with no one playing, no big tournaments and people talking about how bad the game is, also the hobby people did not buy

GW needed to make it a working game, despite the gamers not being the people who are making the money, but they are they are the driving factor behind the game and the hobby goes along with them

if a game is not played by anyone, there is no money from the hobby either

Also, tbh I don't begrudge the hobby people their minis.

GW would still be forced to improve their rules if the rules themselves weren't selling, regardless of miniatures.

Worst case scenario they stop printing the rules altogether and change their name to Miniatures Workshop, but that's the least likely outcome (and opens the sphere to all sorts of other games to step into the space of a grim-dark-future sci-fi miniatures games with Space Marines of the Astarte Adepts, the Imperial Guard, the Elder Race, the Dark Elders, the Necrotyrants, the Zerganids, and the Orcs).

 kodos wrote:

nou wrote:
Some people in this thread still seriously overestimate the numbers that GW is making from the gaming part of 40K and underestimate the numbers GW makes from the hobby part, despite all survey data available.

and some people still underestimate how important the gaming part is for marketing, word of mouth and "be seen" for GWs numbers

Without actual data, both sides are just guesswork anyway. You can guess what the effect will be, but it's not really worth any more than someone else's guesswork.

I think we have access to a few figures from GW over the years, but not enough to work out how changes in the rules would affect sales at all.

My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.

 kodos wrote:
and some people still underestimate how important the gaming part is for marketing, word of mouth and "be seen" for GWs numbers

with Age of Sigmar, GW exactly that, ignore the gamers because they don't bring money and focus on the hobby/painting people because they make the cash
yet with no one playing, no big tournaments and people talking about how bad the game is, also the hobby people did not buy

GW needed to make it a working game, despite the gamers not being the people who are making the money, but they are they are the driving factor behind the game and the hobby goes along with them

if a game is not played by anyone, there is no money from the hobby either

Very true, but you are making one silent assumption here - "working game" is just that. Working. Not great, just good enough so that there is publicity opportunity. And GW has that, despite few grognards or hypercompetitive people complaining about not-PowerLevels. Kirby was very right in his assessment, but very wrong about marketing needs of GW and was too blatant in expressing his assessment. And GW changed that optics of "not caring" to "we're listening" succesfully. But they listen to those, who are majority of their playerbase and those, who are their potential expansion. Not self-proclaimed experts on game design from some obscure corners of the web. There is a very clear reason behind simplifying army building, not-PLs and trimming customisation in 10th and old players are simply outnumbered in their needs here. Happened before, will happen again. That is the cost of stepping out of a niche and aiming at the mass audience. 8th ed was not simplified enough it seems and GW clearly thinks, it can expand even more, if they have a more accessible product. This was the main complain agains 9th - too bloated to entry, to unwieldy even for an invested part of the community. Also, in the months following major paradigm shift editions, a self-cleaning of community occures. I rage quit after 2nd-to-3rd ed shift, because 3rd was just not for me. But many people now claim it was the best edition ever. Guess what - those are mostly people, who started in 3rd. Same happened with 7th-to-8th. Some people quit, new come in their place. There will be a succesfull tournament circuit of 10th, as soon as people exhaust their initial shock and horror, and adjust to new reality. If there was one during unmaintained editions like 7th, there always will be. Hate towards GW will come back to typical, stable levels and the life will go on. GW will remain an unchallenged industry giant and a synonym of "the hobby" for players and passers by alike.

Some people in this thread are simply unable to deal with reality.

BTW, the whole boycott through the wallet concept is very U.S., and 40k is a worldwide phenomenon. GW is not a local product, like say Bud Light. Plenty enough people are pleased with 10th ed experience to vote with their wallets in an opposite direction, so GW won't even notice a slightest dent in their sales.

And lastly, a word about "PLs can't handle sword-and-board Wraithknights". Of course they can, and the same has been done under granular points for ages - simply split the datasheet to two. Done. Assault Marines were always separate from Tacticals, which were separate from Devastators, and there are multiple IK variants that only differ by loadout. It is fascinating, that such obvious solution is beyond game design knowledge of such experts as some people here claim to be.

[This post is not aimed at you specifically, too much has been going on in this thread to address everyone separately]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.

It is indeed hilarious

 LunarSol wrote:
My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.

Points for things aren't what they should be, that's the point of getting rid of PL, so we can have points be what they should be, because they sure shouldn't be 0 for sponsons. Any price over 0 is better than what we have now, the exceptions being absurd stuff like the best option costing 15 and the second best option costing 20 or the options being wildly overcosted at 100 pts. Points can be a needle to be threaded, but PL is dropping the ball completely so hitting the broadside of a barn would be an improvement.

nou wrote:
Very true, but you are making one silent assumption here - "working game" is just that. Working. Not great, just good enough so that there is publicity opportunity...There will be a succesfull tournament circuit of 10th, as soon as people exhaust their initial shock and horror, and adjust to new reality. If there was one during unmaintained editions like 7th, there always will be.

Bad publicity for a game is bad, energizing the community by delivering a set of points that 99% of people could agree on would have been much better. Not wanting to play PL isn't just a Dakkanaut neckbeard thing. 7th was often played with tournament patches to get it into a working state. The fact that sponsonless Predators are complete trash in 10th is irrelevant to the competitive community, because that's been true forever pretty much. Fair points are for casuals who want their games to be close. Competitive players are more concerned with entire factions having no viable builds and the top 1-3 army lists being far better than the next top 50 lists.

 LunarSol wrote:
My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.

And that's a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water why?

 LunarSol wrote:
My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.

You clearly haven't been following the conversation if that's your takeaway. If you don't want a balanced game just say so.

Andykp wrote:
The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.

By the same token, simply saying 'I like [thing]' isn't an argument for the quality or benefits of [thing].

nou wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and some people still underestimate how important the gaming part is for marketing, word of mouth and "be seen" for GWs numbers

with Age of Sigmar, GW exactly that, ignore the gamers because they don't bring money and focus on the hobby/painting people because they make the cash
yet with no one playing, no big tournaments and people talking about how bad the game is, also the hobby people did not buy

GW needed to make it a working game, despite the gamers not being the people who are making the money, but they are they are the driving factor behind the game and the hobby goes along with them

if a game is not played by anyone, there is no money from the hobby either

Very true, but you are making one silent assumption here - "working game" is just that. Working. Not great, just good enough so that there is publicity opportunity. And GW has that, despite few grognards or hypercompetitive people complaining about not-PowerLevels. Kirby was very right in his assessment, but very wrong about marketing needs of GW and was too blatant in expressing his assessment. And GW changed that optics of "not caring" to "we're listening" succesfully. But they listen to those, who are majority of their playerbase and those, who are their potential expansion. Not self-proclaimed experts on game design from some obscure corners of the web. There is a very clear reason behind simplifying army building, not-PLs and trimming customisation in 10th and old players are simply outnumbered in their needs here. Happened before, will happen again. That is the cost of stepping out of a niche and aiming at the mass audience. 8th ed was not simplified enough it seems and GW clearly thinks, it can expand even more, if they have a more accessible product. This was the main complain agains 9th - too bloated to entry, to unwieldy even for an invested part of the community. Also, in the months following major paradigm shift editions, a self-cleaning of community occures. I rage quit after 2nd-to-3rd ed shift, because 3rd was just not for me. But many people now claim it was the best edition ever. Guess what - those are mostly people, who started in 3rd. Same happened with 7th-to-8th. Some people quit, new come in their place. There will be a succesfull tournament circuit of 10th, as soon as people exhaust their initial shock and horror, and adjust to new reality. If there was one during unmaintained editions like 7th, there always will be. Hate towards GW will come back to typical, stable levels and the life will go on. GW will remain an unchallenged industry giant and a synonym of "the hobby" for players and passers by alike.

Some people in this thread are simply unable to deal with reality.

BTW, the whole boycott through the wallet concept is very U.S., and 40k is a worldwide phenomenon. GW is not a local product, like say Bud Light. Plenty enough people are pleased with 10th ed experience to vote with their wallets in an opposite direction, so GW won't even notice a slightest dent in their sales.

And lastly, a word about "PLs can't handle sword-and-board Wraithknights". Of course they can, and the same has been done under granular points for ages - simply split the datasheet to two. Done. Assault Marines were always separate from Tacticals, which were separate from Devastators, and there are multiple IK variants that only differ by loadout. It is fascinating, that such obvious solution is beyond game design knowledge of such experts as some people here claim to be.

[This post is not aimed at you specifically, too much has been going on in this thread to address everyone separately]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.

It is indeed hilarious

You're making the assumption that PL is better for the casual player. It's in fact worse. Suits are hung up on the idea that customers will be turned of by having to add numbers up to 2000 to make their army; that's ridiculous when they already have to assemble their minis, which is much more time consuming.

When you assemble your sword and board wraithknight and it's an objectively bad choice? That's bad for the casual player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.

No, you think that you're entitled to not being disagreed with. I've done all the things that the PL advocates claim PL is better for - Crusade, casual play, etc, and the evidence I have is that it's objectively worse for all forms of play. If someone brings up the "b-b-b-but Crusade" argument, I will very blatantly tell them they're wrong and why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

That some old grognards, who openly state, that they had not spend a penny on GW since ages leave the game?

Because I'm steering people to multiple other games instead of 40k.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.

By the same token, simply saying 'I like [thing]' isn't an argument for the quality or benefits of [thing].

I don't think anyone has used the words "objectively" and "good" about the change, the other way round certainly and happened. Nobody is preaching to go to their gaming groups and get them to stop buying/playing, but the other certainly has. One half of the argument is aggressively militant, the other might be annoying to some others but is a lot less pushy.

The same happened with the original "should GW keep PL" threads, those who are unhappy typically take a stronger stance with harsher language. I think it stands out because this is a pastime, the intensity of some positions seems very strong for an activity you do for fun.

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and some people still underestimate how important the gaming part is for marketing, word of mouth and "be seen" for GWs numbers

with Age of Sigmar, GW exactly that, ignore the gamers because they don't bring money and focus on the hobby/painting people because they make the cash
yet with no one playing, no big tournaments and people talking about how bad the game is, also the hobby people did not buy

GW needed to make it a working game, despite the gamers not being the people who are making the money, but they are they are the driving factor behind the game and the hobby goes along with them

if a game is not played by anyone, there is no money from the hobby either

Very true, but you are making one silent assumption here - "working game" is just that. Working. Not great, just good enough so that there is publicity opportunity. And GW has that, despite few grognards or hypercompetitive people complaining about not-PowerLevels. Kirby was very right in his assessment, but very wrong about marketing needs of GW and was too blatant in expressing his assessment. And GW changed that optics of "not caring" to "we're listening" succesfully. But they listen to those, who are majority of their playerbase and those, who are their potential expansion. Not self-proclaimed experts on game design from some obscure corners of the web. There is a very clear reason behind simplifying army building, not-PLs and trimming customisation in 10th and old players are simply outnumbered in their needs here. Happened before, will happen again. That is the cost of stepping out of a niche and aiming at the mass audience. 8th ed was not simplified enough it seems and GW clearly thinks, it can expand even more, if they have a more accessible product. This was the main complain agains 9th - too bloated to entry, to unwieldy even for an invested part of the community. Also, in the months following major paradigm shift editions, a self-cleaning of community occures. I rage quit after 2nd-to-3rd ed shift, because 3rd was just not for me. But many people now claim it was the best edition ever. Guess what - those are mostly people, who started in 3rd. Same happened with 7th-to-8th. Some people quit, new come in their place. There will be a succesfull tournament circuit of 10th, as soon as people exhaust their initial shock and horror, and adjust to new reality. If there was one during unmaintained editions like 7th, there always will be. Hate towards GW will come back to typical, stable levels and the life will go on. GW will remain an unchallenged industry giant and a synonym of "the hobby" for players and passers by alike.

Some people in this thread are simply unable to deal with reality.

BTW, the whole boycott through the wallet concept is very U.S., and 40k is a worldwide phenomenon. GW is not a local product, like say Bud Light. Plenty enough people are pleased with 10th ed experience to vote with their wallets in an opposite direction, so GW won't even notice a slightest dent in their sales.

And lastly, a word about "PLs can't handle sword-and-board Wraithknights". Of course they can, and the same has been done under granular points for ages - simply split the datasheet to two. Done. Assault Marines were always separate from Tacticals, which were separate from Devastators, and there are multiple IK variants that only differ by loadout. It is fascinating, that such obvious solution is beyond game design knowledge of such experts as some people here claim to be.

[This post is not aimed at you specifically, too much has been going on in this thread to address everyone separately]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.

It is indeed hilarious

You're making the assumption that PL is better for the casual player. It's in fact worse. Suits are hung up on the idea that customers will be turned of by having to add numbers up to 2000 to make their army; that's ridiculous when they already have to assemble their minis, which is much more time consuming.

When you assemble your sword and board wraithknight and it's an objectively bad choice? That's bad for the casual player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.

No, you think that you're entitled to not being disagreed with. I've done all the things that the PL advocates claim PL is better for - Crusade, casual play, etc, and the evidence I have is that it's objectively worse for all forms of play. If someone brings up the "b-b-b-but Crusade" argument, I will very blatantly tell them they're wrong and why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

That some old grognards, who openly state, that they had not spend a penny on GW since ages leave the game?

Because I'm steering people to multiple other games instead of 40k.

You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases. Seriously, you have something wrong with your theory of mind and vastly overinflated ego. For some strange reason you also act like game design in the social layer of gaming experience is exact science, and so formal proofs exist... News flash - it's not and they don't.

And no, your typical answer of "Nah, I'm rite..." does not make you right.

GW clearly has sufficient data to come to the conclusion, that PLs are good enough for large enough part of their playerbase, and than the cost of maintaining "balance" for tournament crowd is disproportional to gains. This discussion of "GW does everything wrong, is incompetent, it's only innertia keeping them afloat, etc..." happens at every possible occasion and guess what - GW profits are only ever increasing to the point, that even their recently increased production capabilities are lagging behind the demand. Clearly, they understand their customers better than you do and your "steering players away" is apparently not impactful enough to care about. Just as I wrote above - people like you overestimate player numbers vs collector numbers, and overestimate income from hardcore players over "reason to push minis" players. You won't steer any "reason to push minis" players away, because guess what - their way is not wrong or bad for them

The bottom line is, that mine, or anyone elses personal preference about PLs/points, cinematic vs streamlined, narrative vs competitive focus etc are unimportant in this context. Statistics matter, GW income structure matters, they will design their product (of which "the game" is only a part of) with the broad audience in mind. At this point this means "as far from 9th ed complexity and bloat as possible" to reach to boardgaming population and lower entry point.

nou wrote:

You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases.

Hate to break this to you, but ideas and products can be objectively bad. The whole "nah thats just your opinion" bs is what stops products and situations from improving.

nou wrote:
Very true, but you are making one silent assumption here - "working game" is just that. Working. Not great, just good enough so that there is publicity opportunity. And GW has that, despite few grognards or hypercompetitive people complaining about not-PowerLevels. Kirby was very right in his assessment, but very wrong about marketing needs of GW and was too blatant in expressing his assessment. And GW changed that optics of "not caring" to "we're listening" succesfully. But they listen to those, who are majority of their playerbase and those, who are their potential expansion. Not self-proclaimed experts on game design from some obscure corners of the web. There is a very clear reason behind simplifying army building, not-PLs and trimming customisation in 10th and old players are simply outnumbered in their needs here. Happened before, will happen again.

first of all, I don't consider 40k a working game at the moment, it is on the edge, can be turned into one with the right Errata but also can go the opposite depending on what the Codex brings

and yes, GW has changed marketing to "we listen", but it is that, just marketing and nothing more.
if they would have listen, there would have been no reset

GW takes the cheapest and easiest way, and pretend that they have listen while people need to believe that they are the minority that did not wanted that but everyone else did
this worked with 8th, this worked with 9th, but you know the story about never telling the same lie twice

because they have no way to listen to the majority as there is no way to reach the majority of players.
they can reach different minority groups, like tournament players, narrative event players those who play in their store, but none of those is a majority

and yes, everything GW is doing was "technically the truth", end of 7th with all the formations, people asked for a less complicated game with lower entry barrier, we got 8th and in 9th people again asked with the same and now we have 10th
both times it was technically true and they could say that they listened, they just did not understand what people meant

and if someone ask for less complicated army building because units are shifted around several different books and the official list builder is useless, they did not ask for Power Levels that makes list building much more time consuming now because you don't have the options to shift some upgrades around if you are 10 points over or 50 points under the target, you need to change units

and the official app is already annoying for doing this, and it won't get better if GW ask to pay for it

so it really depends if GW gets away with the story a 3rd time or people start calling their bluff

GW clearly has sufficient data to come to the conclusion, that PLs are good enough for large enough part of their playerbase,

yeah, their cost calculation
PL was easier and cheaper to get out than 2 different systems were one is hard to balance if you don't play that game yourself
so PL it was, yet all the advantages that there are from such a system in general, are not there in 40k

so even if they have data to conclude that PL is better for the players in general, what they released does not have it and is just a mess that needs fixing very soon
the 2 options to fix is going back to the old points, or splitting up the units with too many options, and I don't think that people are going to be happy if there are 3 times the units in the game after the advertised "we listen to you and made it more simple"

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:

You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases.

Hate to break this to you, but ideas and products can be objectively bad. The whole "nah thats just your opinion" bs is what stops products and situations from improving.

What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?

nou wrote:
GW clearly has sufficient data to come to the conclusion, that PLs are good enough for large enough part of their playerbase, and than the cost of maintaining "balance" for tournament crowd is disproportional to gains.

Source? You're making a fallacy by invoking the actions of GW as professionals they must therefore be right. What changed between 9th and 10th that made PL good enough now but not then?

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:

You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases.

Hate to break this to you, but ideas and products can be objectively bad. The whole "nah thats just your opinion" bs is what stops products and situations from improving.

What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?

Logic. If you don't like objective facts you can call it logical facts instead.

well, for PL it is easy, are the options from units upgrades or sidegrades
are all options from a unit worth the points
were all units from 9th split up according to their basic layout?

if on is no, it has flaws, if all 3 are no it is bad because it does nothing better than the previous system but made things worse

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:

You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases.

Hate to break this to you, but ideas and products can be objectively bad. The whole "nah thats just your opinion" bs is what stops products and situations from improving.

What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?

You can have many standards or measures, some are objective and some aren't.

subjective ones
- is it fun
- is it easy
- is it pretty
- is it exciting
- is it tiring
Etc.

These usually have to do with how the game feels and aren't what people are arguing about, as they're literally inarguable.

objective ones
- does the gameplay match the lore
- does the game have rules loopholes
- do the game rules model interactions and behaviors well
- are the abstractions within the adjudication methodology defensible?
- does the design inhibit or help with future tweaks to try to improve balance (objective balance, not subjective - i.e. data-driven balance)

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:

You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases.

Hate to break this to you, but ideas and products can be objectively bad. The whole "nah thats just your opinion" bs is what stops products and situations from improving.

What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?

"Does this accomplish the goal it is intended to accomplish" is a pretty good way to look at it:

The goal of a point system is to provide an open-ended force construction system by evaluating the strength of each option, assigning a numerical value to it, and allowing balanced forces for each side to be constructed by taking options up to an equal point total without strict constraints from historical force lists or similar scope reductions.

PL and pseudo-PL are objectively bad because they do a poor job of accomplishing that goal. They contain systemic and deliberate errors that guarantee incorrect evaluations of options even when the system is used by a hypothetical perfectly skilled and knowledgeable expert. PL tells you that a LRBT with melta sponsons, a heavy stubber, and a hunter-killer missile has the same value as a LRBT with none of those things. This is indisputably not true and given the fact that the error is ~25-40% of the total price of the unit it is also indisputably not such a small error that it has no impact on the game. And PL is, by deliberate design, incapable of assigning the correct point cost to both tanks at the same time. At least one must have an incorrect value.

And what does PL offer in return for this failure in accomplishing the basic goal of a point system? A very minor reduction in the amount of third grade level addition and subtraction required to write down a list, in an era when most players are using software tools that add up all the points for you. It is objectively a bad system.

nou wrote:

You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases. Seriously, you have something wrong with your theory of mind and vastly overinflated ego. For some strange reason you also act like game design in the social layer of gaming experience is exact science, and so formal proofs exist... News flash - it's not and they don't.

It's not all *feels.* Some things are objectively true in game design. Not everything, but PL being objectively worse than points is something that's been backed up repeatedly.

nou wrote:
And no, your typical answer of "Nah, I'm rite..." does not make you right.

I've noticed that as soon as I start bringing evidence into it, the pro-PL types stop responding. They don't argue against it, they just stop responding, because they have *nothing*.

nou wrote:
GW clearly has sufficient data to come to the conclusion, that PLs are good enough for large enough part of their playerbase, and than the cost of maintaining "balance" for tournament crowd is disproportional to gains. This discussion of "GW does everything wrong, is incompetent, it's only innertia keeping them afloat, etc..." happens at every possible occasion and guess what - GW profits are only ever increasing to the point, that even their recently increased production capabilities are lagging behind the demand. Clearly, they understand their customers better than you do and your "steering players away" is apparently not impactful enough to care about. Just as I wrote above - people like you overestimate player numbers vs collector numbers, and overestimate income from hardcore players over "reason to push minis" players. You won't steer any "reason to push minis" players away, because guess what - their way is not wrong or bad for them

Yes, because they totally understood their customers during 7th. This idea amounts to "they have more money than you, therefore your argument is invalid" which is wrong for a number of reasons.

Your point about their production capabilities lagging behind demand is interesting - it's actually a failure on GW's part, because they refuse to expand production even though they could save massive amounts of money by moving production to the US.

nou wrote:
The bottom line is, that mine, or anyone elses personal preference about PLs/points, cinematic vs streamlined, narrative vs competitive focus etc are unimportant in this context. Statistics matter, GW income structure matters, they will design their product (of which "the game" is only a part of) with the broad audience in mind. At this point this means "as far from 9th ed complexity and bloat as possible" to reach to boardgaming population and lower entry point.

I'm not complaining about streamlining. But because PL produces such a gakky game experience compared to points, it's clear GW is making the wrong move. Again, what happens if somebody buys a wraithknight as their first big mini and puts it together with sword and board? The current setup is *not* friendly to that player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?

People who actually understand game design. Which, at this point, clearly doesn't include the GW design team and their cheerleaders.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.

By the same token, simply saying 'I like [thing]' isn't an argument for the quality or benefits of [thing].

I’ve had this argument many times over with pl, and have said why I like it better, but it’s entirely my opinion and the reasons make it better for me and not everyone else, I’m not going to go in to them again because as I have said they won’t convince anyone and they aren’t meant to. It’s subjective, and for the way I play it suits me better, but for others it doesn’t and is “worse”. I am ok with that.

Andykp wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.

By the same token, simply saying 'I like [thing]' isn't an argument for the quality or benefits of [thing].

I’ve had this argument many times over with pl, and have said why I like it better, but it’s entirely my opinion and the reasons make it better for me and not everyone else, I’m not going to go in to them again because as I have said they won’t convince anyone and they aren’t meant to. It’s subjective, and for the way I play it suits me better, but for others it doesn’t and is “worse”. I am ok with that.

What do you say when someone gives objective reasons for PL being worse? Just say "I understand PL is making my gameplay worse, but I gain an ineffable and unquantifiable benefit from using it, so I will persist in doing so"?

Plus this is very close to saying, just because I am having fun, this makes the edition fun.

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:

You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases. Seriously, you have something wrong with your theory of mind and vastly overinflated ego. For some strange reason you also act like game design in the social layer of gaming experience is exact science, and so formal proofs exist... News flash - it's not and they don't.

It's not all *feels.* Some things are objectively true in game design. Not everything, but PL being objectively worse than points is something that's been backed up repeatedly.

nou wrote:
And no, your typical answer of "Nah, I'm rite..." does not make you right.

I've noticed that as soon as I start bringing evidence into it, the pro-PL types stop responding. They don't argue against it, they just stop responding, because they have *nothing*.

nou wrote:
GW clearly has sufficient data to come to the conclusion, that PLs are good enough for large enough part of their playerbase, and than the cost of maintaining "balance" for tournament crowd is disproportional to gains. This discussion of "GW does everything wrong, is incompetent, it's only innertia keeping them afloat, etc..." happens at every possible occasion and guess what - GW profits are only ever increasing to the point, that even their recently increased production capabilities are lagging behind the demand. Clearly, they understand their customers better than you do and your "steering players away" is apparently not impactful enough to care about. Just as I wrote above - people like you overestimate player numbers vs collector numbers, and overestimate income from hardcore players over "reason to push minis" players. You won't steer any "reason to push minis" players away, because guess what - their way is not wrong or bad for them

Yes, because they totally understood their customers during 7th. This idea amounts to "they have more money than you, therefore your argument is invalid" which is wrong for a number of reasons.

Your point about their production capabilities lagging behind demand is interesting - it's actually a failure on GW's part, because they refuse to expand production even though they could save massive amounts of money by moving production to the US.

nou wrote:
The bottom line is, that mine, or anyone elses personal preference about PLs/points, cinematic vs streamlined, narrative vs competitive focus etc are unimportant in this context. Statistics matter, GW income structure matters, they will design their product (of which "the game" is only a part of) with the broad audience in mind. At this point this means "as far from 9th ed complexity and bloat as possible" to reach to boardgaming population and lower entry point.

I'm not complaining about streamlining. But because PL produces such a gakky game experience compared to points, it's clear GW is making the wrong move. Again, what happens if somebody buys a wraithknight as their first big mini and puts it together with sword and board? The current setup is *not* friendly to that player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?

People who actually understand game design. Which, at this point, clearly doesn't include the GW design team and their cheerleaders.

And this is my point made perfectly, some on here will just shout that you, you are wrong to enjoy something that they don’t, wrong wrong WRONG. Boring.

It’s an utter crock. I have enjoyed every game played without points as much or more so than those with points. Every single one! And guess what, I have played for long enough to remember when you had things that cost 1/2 a point, so have experienced both plenty. All the reasons you want points for every upgrade and thing are not important to me, they don’t matter to me.

They clearly matter to you a great deal, hence the anger and insults and vitriol. But because something matter so much to doesn’t mean it should matter to anyone else. Get over yourselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.

By the same token, simply saying 'I like [thing]' isn't an argument for the quality or benefits of [thing].

I’ve had this argument many times over with pl, and have said why I like it better, but it’s entirely my opinion and the reasons make it better for me and not everyone else, I’m not going to go in to them again because as I have said they won’t convince anyone and they aren’t meant to. It’s subjective, and for the way I play it suits me better, but for others it doesn’t and is “worse”. I am ok with that.

What do you say when someone gives objective reasons for PL being worse? Just say "I understand PL is making my gameplay worse, but I gain an ineffable and unquantifiable benefit from using it, so I will persist in doing so"?

It isn’t making it worse for me, I know you can’t grasp that, but it isn’t.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Plus this is very close to saying, just because I am having fun, this makes the edition fun.

For me it is fun so far. FOR ME! I am not saying hecaton or any other person should have fun how I do. Fun is entirely subjective.

Andykp wrote:
It isn’t making it worse for me, I know you can’t grasp that, but it isn’t.

How do you deal with something like the wraithknight loadouts or voidweavers being 5 PL through to the end of 9th? Just have a game where one side has a massive advantage?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

For me it is fun so far. FOR ME! I am not saying hecaton or any other person should have fun how I do. Fun is entirely subjective.

Some people only have fun if their army is overpowered and they can stomp their opponent into the ground with no tactics and then taunt them. Those people *shouldn't* have fun. It's an extreme example but good game design is not just about fun. Some people don't enjoy objectively good games.