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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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)

Even if the objective parts you list are truly objective, how much they matter is not. How much weight you give them as a consideration is subjective.

vict0988 wrote:Logic. If you don't like objective facts you can call it logical facts instead.

I feel that's a fair response, is it a fac trhe game is unpleasant? I'd say not, is it a fact the point system is worse for everyone? Again no. Is it harder to balance and has reduced scope to do so? Yes, that is objectively true. Is it impossible to salvage at this point? No, but I don't know if GW have the vision or will.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

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)

Matching lore is often subjective (see bolter porn), clarity and consistency of rules issues is objective, regards the abstractions that strays into the opinion if it is defensible. Objective balance based on datasets is of course an objective indicator.

Not a bad list, the thing that hits me is the tolerance limit on how far those can be pushed to make a game "objectively bad" because a lot of those arenot clear cut yes/no.

ThePaintingOwl wrote:
"Does this accomplish the goal it is intended to accomplish" is a pretty good way to look at it
[Snip]

Largely covered above, the only issue I have e is that your goal might not be the same as GW's goal, which we don't have. I agree it's categorically worse for nuanced balance in the confines of existing options. Again, is it bad enough is an interesting point.

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

And what's your criteria for deciding who does or does not understand game design? This is being reductive to indicate that you're deciding this for you. You're expressing a subjective opinion again.

Dudeface wrote:

And what's your criteria for deciding who does or does not understand game design? This is being reductive to indicate that you're deciding this for you. You're expressing a subjective opinion again.

Basically, are they able to effectively design to accomplish their goals. GW clearly can't, as indicated by their flailing and reactionary attempts at balancing. If they were competent they wouldn't do that.

Hecaton wrote:

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.

The way to deal with people like that is simple, don’t play them. Not an issue, I wouldn’t want to play people like that at any game, no matter how balanced. They sound unpleasant.

As for the units you mentioned above, never were an issue for me and my group, we had eldar armies in there and it wasn’t a problem, probably because we were all like minded, communicated and had the same goal, a fun narrative game. So I would say we didn’t deal with them because they weren’t a problem. For us.

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.

But that is not true. If someonething is unfun for 10 people and is fun for 1, then it is not fun. It is objectivly unfun. I would maybe get it if, in our example, 40% of people liked PL, 50% didn't and 10% weren't sure. But this is not the case, and the examples of PL having a negative impact on both unit choices, modeling or even simple things learning the game and unit loads outs, are numerous. I don't even get the part about how much simple it is suppose to be. How is 8+11, easier to "math" then 140+60. Regular points don't require people an indepth knowladge of factorials or higher math.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp 810334 11562660 wrote:

As for the units you mentioned above, never were an issue for me and my group, we had eldar armies in there and it wasn’t a problem, probably because we were all like minded, communicated and had the same goal, a fun narrative game. So I would say we didn’t deal with them because they weren’t a problem. For us.

|So another words you are not playing the game, you are inventing your own. What are you doing then in a thread about the game, its actual rules and how they impact people?

nou wrote:

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.

Oh I spent a lot of money on GW up until pretty recently. Late 8th gave me pause when they released a SECOND Marine codex in 2 years. 9th created more disappointments and my spending slowed considerably. Seeing how they're treating the game in late 9th and early 10th, I've stopped spending on GW completely. Not because I dislike the hobby, because I'm still painting the models I already own, and I'm playing alternative rulesets. I absolutely would give GW more money if they showed signs of improving. But I've lost faith in them.

They don't just lose me, they lose my enthusiasm for their ecosystem, which over the years has brought a number of people into the hobby. I also start to discourage others from investing into GW rules, and advocate instead for other systems.

I'm under no illusion that GW will be greatly affected by little ol' me, surely. But I'm definitely not the only one.

Karol 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.

But that is not true. If someonething is unfun for 10 people and is fun for 1, then it is not fun. It is objectivly unfun. I would maybe get it if, in our example, 40% of people liked PL, 50% didn't and 10% weren't sure. But this is not the case, and the examples of PL having a negative impact on both unit choices, modeling or even simple things learning the game and unit loads outs, are numerous. I don't even get the part about how much simple it is suppose to be. How is 8+11, easier to "math" then 140+60. Regular points don't require people an indepth knowladge of factorials or higher math.

Yeah that’s not how having fun works, it’s personal. Yes a group dynamic can influence your enjoyment of something but you are not dependent on a consensus to enjoy something. If you can not understand that some people, maybe a minority, enjoy things you don’t then there is a lot more wrong here than how we add up our armies.

Dudeface wrote:
Is it impossible to salvage at this point?

Yes, because the errors with PL/pseudo-PL are systemic errors. They are an inevitable and unchangeable result of deliberate design choices. They can not be fixed without abandoning the fundamental concept of PL and going back to the conventional point system.

Largely covered above, the only issue I have e is that your goal might not be the same as GW's goal, which we don't have. I agree it's categorically worse for nuanced balance in the confines of existing options. Again, is it bad enough is an interesting point.

But what rational goal could GW possibly have that would justify PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do, while offering no non-trivial benefit in return? The only thing I can thing of would be virtue signalling about something like Jervis Johnson's infamous "you're having fun the wrong way" rant, where PL/pseudo-PL is the "better" system because deliberately rejecting balance is a way of demonstrating a commitment to a morally superior way of playing the game.

Karol 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.

But that is not true. If someonething is unfun for 10 people and is fun for 1, then it is not fun. It is objectivly unfun. I would maybe get it if, in our example, 40% of people liked PL, 50% didn't and 10% weren't sure. But this is not the case, and the examples of PL having a negative impact on both unit choices, modeling or even simple things learning the game and unit loads outs, are numerous. I don't even get the part about how much simple it is suppose to be. How is 8+11, easier to "math" then 140+60. Regular points don't require people an indepth knowladge of factorials or higher math.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp 810334 11562660 wrote:

As for the units you mentioned above, never were an issue for me and my group, we had eldar armies in there and it wasn’t a problem, probably because we were all like minded, communicated and had the same goal, a fun narrative game. So I would say we didn’t deal with them because they weren’t a problem. For us.

|So another words you are not playing the game, you are inventing your own. What are you doing then in a thread about the game, its actual rules and how they impact people?

How am I not playing the game?

Andykp wrote:

The way to deal with people like that is simple, don’t play them. Not an issue, I wouldn’t want to play people like that at any game, no matter how balanced. They sound unpleasant.

As for the units you mentioned above, never were an issue for me and my group, we had eldar armies in there and it wasn’t a problem, probably because we were all like minded, communicated and had the same goal, a fun narrative game. So I would say we didn’t deal with them because they weren’t a problem. For us.

When you say they weren't a problem, what do you mean? Like you saw your opponent with some overpowered units and you and they came to a consensus they should play under the points limit to accommodate that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
But what rational goal could GW possibly have that would justify PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do, while offering no non-trivial benefit in return? The only thing I can thing of would be virtue signalling about something like Jervis Johnson's infamous "you're having fun the wrong way" rant, where PL/pseudo-PL is the "better" system because deliberately rejecting balance is a way of demonstrating a commitment to a morally superior way of playing the game.

That has been a thing for people on this site before - by saying they hate balance/tournament balance they're saying they're a particular kind of player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Yeah that’s not how having fun works, it’s personal. Yes a group dynamic can influence your enjoyment of something but you are not dependent on a consensus to enjoy something. If you can not understand that some people, maybe a minority, enjoy things you don’t then there is a lot more wrong here than how we add up our armies.

Right but certain kinds of having fun (like the aforementioned bad sport who needs an unfair advantage to have fun) shouldn't be supported by gaming companies. As much as GW seems to support that kind of person right now.

Andykp wrote:
If you can not understand that some people, maybe a minority, enjoy things you don’t then there is a lot more wrong here than how we add up our armies.

But why do you enjoy it? This is the frustrating thing that comes up with PL advocates all the time, they always fall back on "but I have fun with it" as if that should immediately end the discussion and put the need for PL beyond any dispute. There's never any convincing answer to why PL is more fun, how anything the person enjoys about the game follows from the structure of the PL system. The closest I've ever seen is what seems to be some kind of vague belief that because PL is used in GW's narrative rules PL is the "casual" system and "casual" games are more fun therefore PL must be more fun.

(I suppose technically I've seen people defend PL because their particular army gets a power increase by being able to exploit PL's particular balance issues but that kind of WAAC attitude isn't really a defense of PL itself, all of them would happily use the conventional point system if that was the system that gave them the biggest advantage.)

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Is it impossible to salvage at this point?

Yes, because the errors with PL/pseudo-PL are systemic errors. They are an inevitable and unchangeable result of deliberate design choices. They can not be fixed without abandoning the fundamental concept of PL and going back to the conventional point system.

Largely covered above, the only issue I have e is that your goal might not be the same as GW's goal, which we don't have. I agree it's categorically worse for nuanced balance in the confines of existing options. Again, is it bad enough is an interesting point.

But what rational goal could GW possibly have that would justify PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do, while offering no non-trivial benefit in return? The only thing I can thing of would be virtue signalling about something like Jervis Johnson's infamous "you're having fun the wrong way" rant, where PL/pseudo-PL is the "better" system because deliberately rejecting balance is a way of demonstrating a commitment to a morally superior way of playing the game.

To salvage it they would need to reduce and rebalance options for parity or an absence of choice to fit with the fixed points.

In terms of their goal, if it was "create an army building system that is simpler for us to build an app for, constrains units to box sizes and makes it easier for people to assemble the models however they please without having to juggle points", they were a lot closer.

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.

Do you agree that the current implementation of PL does not take into account the differences in loadouts for units?
Do you agree that some loadouts (f.e. Leman Russ without sponsons vs. Leman Russ with sponsons, Hunter-killer missile and stuff) are worse than others?
Do you agree that the difference between the loadouts is not just "a little bit" but borders on "extreme" in some cases? (f.e. all boltgun Devastators vs. Devastators with 4 heavy weapons?)

Objectively you would have to say "YES" to every single question here. And if you do and still say that it does not bother you, then a balanced game is not in your interest. I would say that your opinion in a discussion about one of the quintessential levers for balance in the game is therefore not quite helpful, as it basically boils down to "I don't care enough to not like it".

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Is it impossible to salvage at this point?

Yes, because the errors with PL/pseudo-PL are systemic errors. They are an inevitable and unchangeable result of deliberate design choices. They can not be fixed without abandoning the fundamental concept of PL and going back to the conventional point system.

Largely covered above, the only issue I have e is that your goal might not be the same as GW's goal, which we don't have. I agree it's categorically worse for nuanced balance in the confines of existing options. Again, is it bad enough is an interesting point.

But what rational goal could GW possibly have that would justify PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do, while offering no non-trivial benefit in return? The only thing I can thing of would be virtue signalling about something like Jervis Johnson's infamous "you're having fun the wrong way" rant, where PL/pseudo-PL is the "better" system because deliberately rejecting balance is a way of demonstrating a commitment to a morally superior way of playing the game.

This is where the difference arises, your second point. “PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do”

What you want a point system to do, and what I want it to do are different. I want it give me a rough idea of force that is roughly comparable to another. I don’t want it it to break down the cost of every little thing regardless of how insignificant. I just want to know that the army I have is roughly equivalent to another. I don’t want balance or any that bs, because these armies are going on a game board we have decided looks cool and fun, but may favour one side more than the other, the armies will consist of units chosen because they suit the battle we want to have not to maximise their effectiveness against my opponents. Points don’t need to be precise and balanced and granular for me.

If you entering a tournament and have prize money etc at stake, then yes, you want points to do something very different. So even what pi) to are intended to do is subjective.

Andykp wrote:

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

Well, maybe it isn't worse for you, but it absolutely CAN make it worse for you.

When GW screws up, it can have big effects locally. Imbalances make for homogenous armies showing up to game nights. People might not be having as much fun and don't show up as much to events. And at worst it can destroy local communities. It's very rare that I see games being played at my FLGS anymore, when there used to be 4-6 tables going every 40K night during better times. Right now, locally it's the lowest turnout for games I've ever seen. During 8th we had a boom. 7th was played but not nearly as much as 5th-6th.

Dudeface wrote:

To salvage it they would need to reduce and rebalance options for parity or an absence of choice to fit with the fixed points.

In terms of their goal, if it was "create an army building system that is simpler for us to build an app for, constrains units to box sizes and makes it easier for people to assemble the models however they please without having to juggle points", they were a lot closer.

I would agree with the first two parts there. I don't know anything about app development but I'll admit it's possible. I think making the game revolve around box unit sizes is a good thing, though you can make allowances for tweaking that. What it *doesn't* allow for is people assembling the models however they please - we've got the wraithknight loadouts, as well as the situation I've got with my ork vehicles where not having wrecking balls on everything is hosing myself. And I'm a relatively experienced player. Noobs would get fethed over by this. That's a big problem.

 Insectum7 wrote:

nou wrote:

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.

Oh I spent a lot of money on GW up until pretty recently. Late 8th gave me pause when they released a SECOND Marine codex in 2 years. 9th created more disappointments and my spending slowed considerably. Seeing how they're treating the game in late 9th and early 10th, I've stopped spending on GW completely. Not because I dislike the hobby, because I'm still painting the models I already own, and I'm playing alternative rulesets. I absolutely would give GW more money if they showed signs of improving. But I've lost faith in them.

They don't just lose me, they lose my enthusiasm for their ecosystem, which over the years has brought a number of people into the hobby. I also start to discourage others from investing into GW rules, and advocate instead for other systems.

I'm under no illusion that GW will be greatly affected by little ol' me, surely. But I'm definitely not the only one.

See, I’m in a somewhat similar but at the same time opposite boat. I don’t play official rules since late 7th, and currently the rules I play with no longer even resemble what people consider 40K. But at the same time I have spent more money on models, than during the time I played with official rules. And I have drawn multiple people into the hobby, by helping them realise, that models, lore and rules are separate aspects of the hobby. And GW will get my money, and my group’s money as long as they make models we like. Because „the game” is just a part of the experience.

@Hecaton: you thinking about yourself, that you understand game design never ceases to amuse me

Andykp wrote:

The way to deal with people like that is simple, don’t play them. Not an issue, I wouldn’t want to play people like that at any game, no matter how balanced. They sound unpleasant.

As for the units you mentioned above, never were an issue for me and my group, we had eldar armies in there and it wasn’t a problem, probably because we were all like minded, communicated and had the same goal, a fun narrative game. So I would say we didn’t deal with them because they weren’t a problem. For us.

When you say they weren't a problem, what do you mean? Like you saw your opponent with some overpowered units and you and they came to a consensus they should play under the points limit to accommodate that?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

@Hecaton: you thinking about yourself, that you understand game design never ceases to amuse me

I mean Chad Jensen broke that gak down to me when I was 13 and I've been learning ever since. The fact that some random dude on a forum like you thinks they understand game design better than me is insulting to me.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

To salvage it they would need to reduce and rebalance options for parity or an absence of choice to fit with the fixed points.

In terms of their goal, if it was "create an army building system that is simpler for us to build an app for, constrains units to box sizes and makes it easier for people to assemble the models however they please without having to juggle points", they were a lot closer.

I would agree with the first two parts there. I don't know anything about app development but I'll admit it's possible. I think making the game revolve around box unit sizes is a good thing, though you can make allowances for tweaking that. What it *doesn't* allow for is people assembling the models however they please - we've got the wraithknight loadouts, as well as the situation I've got with my ork vehicles where not having wrecking balls on everything is hosing myself. And I'm a relatively experienced player. Noobs would get fethed over by this. That's a big problem.

No, it does objectively allow you to build that ork vehicle however you like, what it doesn't do (currently) is assure you the options are of parity looping back into the first point.

I kept out of this discussion for nearly 40 pages because joining it is pointless (see what I did there!).

The people who want more granular points systems are entitled to that want. But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way. Wanting PL and that style seems so alien to them they cannot begin to understand it. There is no point in me trying to explain my position to them. Perhaps the biggest difference is I don’t play war games to win, I dont care who wins or loses. When you can grasp that basic principle, that the game is about the story not a victory, then how much a las pistol costs over a bolt pistol becomes less important.

Hecaton, when I say they weren’t a problem, I mean I dint remember either of those things benign an issue at all, let alone one we had to do anything about. I remember at one point I had a knight (the one with the plasma cannon and volcano cannon thing) that each time I brought it it dominated games, so I stopped bringing it. I was fine with this by the way. Didn’t mind at all.

Andykp wrote:

This is where the difference arises, your second point. “PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do”

What you want a point system to do, and what I want it to do are different. I want it give me a rough idea of force that is roughly comparable to another. I don’t want it it to break down the cost of every little thing regardless of how insignificant. I just want to know that the army I have is roughly equivalent to another. I don’t want balance or any that bs, because these armies are going on a game board we have decided looks cool and fun, but may favour one side more than the other, the armies will consist of units chosen because they suit the battle we want to have not to maximise their effectiveness against my opponents. Points don’t need to be precise and balanced and granular for me.

If you entering a tournament and have prize money etc at stake, then yes, you want points to do something very different. So even what pi) to are intended to do is subjective.

The problem is that in order to have a fair game, the points system *does* need to be that granular.

Back in 8th or whatever when Iron Hands were amazing there was this local kid who had Iron Hands because he thought cyborgs were cool. He had them when they were bad and he had been collecting them since he was 13. All of a sudden they became overpowered and nobody wanted to play against him. That's a failure of balance, and a failure that fuzzy pointing mechanisms like you're advocating for can't fix. Teenagers are not going to want to re-balance the game on the fly, even if they have the know-how, they'll just go play video games instead. So it's *bad* for new players to have gak and unbalanced pointing mechanisms.

Dudeface wrote:
To salvage it they would need to reduce and rebalance options for parity or an absence of choice to fit with the fixed points.

I suppose that's true, if GW did a further culling of options and removed things like the ability to take a LRBT without sponsons it would remove the biggest issues with PL. Building the range of possible options based on the point system vs. building the point system to handle the range of options is a completely backwards way of doing things but it would technically result in a system without those balance issues.

In terms of their goal, if it was "create an army building system that is simpler for us to build an app for, constrains units to box sizes and makes it easier for people to assemble the models however they please without having to juggle points", they were a lot closer.

None of those three things are reasonable goals.

Making it easier to build the app is simply absurd. Speaking as a software engineer it's absolutely hilarious how GW's supposed professional developers are incapable of making something as basic as a list building app. It's the software equivalent of deciding that because your local sandwich shop's employees can't correctly count the number of meat slices to put on each sandwich you're going to remove everything but bread and lettuce from the menu. The real solution here is better developers, not warping the game around the incompetence of the existing clowns.

Constraining units to box sizes has no value. Why is it bad if someone brings a 9-man tactical squad and doesn't use one of the models in the box? And even if it is bad why have this awkward middle ground where the 9-man squad is legal and sometimes desirable (such as for transport capacity reasons) but has a deliberately incorrect point cost?

Making it easier to assemble models how you like is a goal that is hurt by PL. With the conventional point system I can build my LRBT based on what looks cool and it's fine. If I don't like how sponsons look I don't pay for them. If I want melta sponsons instead of heavy bolters I pay more for them because they're more effective. GW may not always get the cost right but at least in theory the system makes every choice balanced and whatever I pick is valid. But with PL it's very easy to screw up your models. If I build that LRBT without sponsons I'm simply wrong and I have a clearly sub-optimal unit because I didn't do the research up front and identify that not taking sponsons is a fake option that PL deliberately punishes.

Dudeface wrote:

No, it does objectively allow you to build that ork vehicle however you like, what it doesn't do (currently) is assure you the options are of parity looping back into the first point.

I could build it however I liked under points to. Nothing in PL lets me do things I couldn't in points, and there are things in PL I can't do without screwing myself in gameplay.

Andykp wrote:
What you want a point system to do, and what I want it to do are different. I want it give me a rough idea of force that is roughly comparable to another. I don’t want it it to break down the cost of every little thing regardless of how insignificant. I just want to know that the army I have is roughly equivalent to another. I don’t want balance or any that bs, because these armies are going on a game board we have decided looks cool and fun, but may favour one side more than the other, the armies will consist of units chosen because they suit the battle we want to have not to maximise their effectiveness against my opponents. Points don’t need to be precise and balanced and granular for me.

This is exactly what I mean. You say "PL makes my game more fun" but what you really mean is "PL doesn't make my game worse". At no point in this process does PL improve your game or do anything the conventional point system can't do. If PL didn't exist at all you'd play your games exactly the same way and have just as much fun.

Andykp wrote:
I kept out of this discussion for nearly 40 pages because joining it is pointless (see what I did there!).

The people who want more granular points systems are entitled to that want. But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way. Wanting PL and that style seems so alien to them they cannot begin to understand it. There is no point in me trying to explain my position to them. Perhaps the biggest difference is I don’t play war games to win, I dont care who wins or loses. When you can grasp that basic principle, that the game is about the story not a victory, then how much a las pistol costs over a bolt pistol becomes less important.

What story is told by the player with 3 crisis suits each with a single burst cannon being mowed down the player with 3 crisis suits each having 3 burst cannons?

In power level, and in the idiotic points that is 10th edition, both of those units cost the exact same, despite one having literally 3 times the firepower.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

This is where the difference arises, your second point. “PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do”

What you want a point system to do, and what I want it to do are different. I want it give me a rough idea of force that is roughly comparable to another. I don’t want it it to break down the cost of every little thing regardless of how insignificant. I just want to know that the army I have is roughly equivalent to another. I don’t want balance or any that bs, because these armies are going on a game board we have decided looks cool and fun, but may favour one side more than the other, the armies will consist of units chosen because they suit the battle we want to have not to maximise their effectiveness against my opponents. Points don’t need to be precise and balanced and granular for me.

If you entering a tournament and have prize money etc at stake, then yes, you want points to do something very different. So even what pi) to are intended to do is subjective.

The problem is that in order to have a fair game, the points system *does* need to be that granular.

Back in 8th or whatever when Iron Hands were amazing there was this local kid who had Iron Hands because he thought cyborgs were cool. He had them when they were bad and he had been collecting them since he was 13. All of a sudden they became overpowered and nobody wanted to play against him. That's a failure of balance, and a failure that fuzzy pointing mechanisms like you're advocating for can't fix. Teenagers are not going to want to re-balance the game on the fly, even if they have the know-how, they'll just go play video games instead. So it's *bad* for new players to have gak and unbalanced pointing mechanisms.

Disagree, I have had many a fair game without the points being that granular, there are many ways to make a fair game, points being one. Can’t comment on iron hands in particular, never played them but I am sure someone could have made an iron hands Army that wasn’t all conquering. If I remember right there were certain builds of these powerful armies that were the problem.

Andykp wrote:
I kept out of this discussion for nearly 40 pages because joining it is pointless (see what I did there!).

The people who want more granular points systems are entitled to that want. But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way. Wanting PL and that style seems so alien to them they cannot begin to understand it. There is no point in me trying to explain my position to them. Perhaps the biggest difference is I don’t play war games to win, I dont care who wins or loses. When you can grasp that basic principle, that the game is about the story not a victory, then how much a las pistol costs over a bolt pistol becomes less important.

Hecaton, when I say they weren’t a problem, I mean I dint remember either of those things benign an issue at all, let alone one we had to do anything about. I remember at one point I had a knight (the one with the plasma cannon and volcano cannon thing) that each time I brought it it dominated games, so I stopped bringing it. I was fine with this by the way. Didn’t mind at all.

Oh no, we see it and understand it.

It's just really dumb if you're at all concerned about balance.

Also, at least during 8th and 9th, one had a choice. Now it's just forced on the rest of us.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To salvage it they would need to reduce and rebalance options for parity or an absence of choice to fit with the fixed points.

I suppose that's true, if GW did a further culling of options and removed things like the ability to take a LRBT without sponsons it would remove the biggest issues with PL. Building the range of possible options based on the point system vs. building the point system to handle the range of options is a completely backwards way of doing things but it would technically result in a system without those balance issues.

In terms of their goal, if it was "create an army building system that is simpler for us to build an app for, constrains units to box sizes and makes it easier for people to assemble the models however they please without having to juggle points", they were a lot closer.

None of those three things are reasonable goals.

Making it easier to build the app is simply absurd. Speaking as a software engineer it's absolutely hilarious how GW's supposed professional developers are incapable of making something as basic as a list building app. It's the software equivalent of deciding that because your local sandwich shop's employees can't correctly count the number of meat slices to put on each sandwich you're going to remove everything but bread and lettuce from the menu. The real solution here is better developers, not warping the game around the incompetence of the existing clowns.

Constraining units to box sizes has no value. Why is it bad if someone brings a 9-man tactical squad and doesn't use one of the models in the box? And even if it is bad why have this awkward middle ground where the 9-man squad is legal and sometimes desirable (such as for transport capacity reasons) but has a deliberately incorrect point cost?

Making it easier to assemble models how you like is a goal that is hurt by PL. With the conventional point system I can build my LRBT based on what looks cool and it's fine. If I don't like how sponsons look I don't pay for them. If I want melta sponsons instead of heavy bolters I pay more for them because they're more effective. GW may not always get the cost right but at least in theory the system makes every choice balanced and whatever I pick is valid. But with PL it's very easy to screw up your models. If I build that LRBT without sponsons I'm simply wrong and I have a clearly sub-optimal unit because I didn't do the research up front and identify that not taking sponsons is a fake option that PL deliberately punishes.

Yup as above, unless number of options goes away or is controlled to fit the points, sponson gate will continue.

I agree it's unlikely the driver for the points was the app but it wouldn't surprise me that they churned it out double time and in order to support the release a choice was made to sacrifice something. I've had the luxury of working with many devs who claims to be able to do something in a sprint and yet 4 sprints later they're needing help from external teams to understand something. Agree good devs make a difference but we know they don't pay top dollar.

The unit size thing I don't mind personally, I get it's easier to price a Lieutenant if you know they're only ever going to be buffing units of 5 or 10 etc rather than worrying about weird breakpoints in between, it also stops 9/19 model units being the defacto norm due to blast.

Still, either they need to sort their gak out the ass backwards way and strip the options, or point them imo, but that's subjective and I'm still unconvinced the new system is objectively bad so much as objectively worse.

Andykp wrote:
But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way.

Because Power Level is always more imbalanced. Because PL offers no advantages over a points system. Because PL is always inferior to a game where more granular choices and representing things with points. It is an objectively inferior system, and the points changes that we got this week prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You liking it better is largely irrelevant.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
What you want a point system to do, and what I want it to do are different. I want it give me a rough idea of force that is roughly comparable to another. I don’t want it it to break down the cost of every little thing regardless of how insignificant. I just want to know that the army I have is roughly equivalent to another. I don’t want balance or any that bs, because these armies are going on a game board we have decided looks cool and fun, but may favour one side more than the other, the armies will consist of units chosen because they suit the battle we want to have not to maximise their effectiveness against my opponents. Points don’t need to be precise and balanced and granular for me.

This is exactly what I mean. You say "PL makes my game more fun" but what you really mean is "PL doesn't make my game worse". At no point in this process does PL improve your game or do anything the conventional point system can't do. If PL didn't exist at all you'd play your games exactly the same way and have just as much fun.

Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me. And that what’s I liked about pl, you had the choice. Pick which worked best for you.

The new system I don’t mind the lack of upgrade costs at all, I don’t like that the points will change every 3 months. I would rather have power levels back and points more granular for those that want that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way.

Because Power Level is always more imbalanced. Because PL offers no advantages. Because PL is always inferior to a game where more granular choices and representing things with points. It is an objectively inferior system, and the points changes that we got this week prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You liking it better is largely irrelevant.

No, me liking it is all that matters to me. Pl was an option, a choice. My group using it was because we liked it better. We didn’t care what you liked because we don’t know you or play or have anything to do with you.

Everyone can say it objective as angrily as you all like, it just isn’t.