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.

so the same as people said and saying that USR or keywords are bad
not because they cannot work, but they don't work the way GW is using them for 40k

"does not work" or "is bad" always in context on how GW is currently using those for 40k

 Lord Damocles wrote:
People aren't taking issue with anybody *liking* PL.

The argument isn't 'do you subjectively like PL or points more?' it's ' which of PL or points is objectively the better system?'

 kodos wrote:
no none is saying that power level cannot work if done right

just that GW failed to do it right and therefore we are having no improvement from the great reset and if GW does not want to do it properly, points are the better option

Multiple instances in this thread have shown you both to be incorrect but I'm not going to go back and pick out quotes from this thread because IMO that solves nothing and just ups the aggro.

That being said it is very much a trend that when people say "I like power/less granular points because it's simpler", the other side claims those people have helped ruin 40k and blame everyone else for making GW change from a granular points system for 40k to the fixed system. "It's the fault of Facebook dads" is my favorite one because it's so ludicrously nonsensical.
People aren't allowed to like power and if they do their reasons aren't considered valid or are picked apart line by line while the majority of their point is ignored, including parts where those who do like power agree that a granular system can work better. The pro-granular side also claims they are "objectively" right all the time.
Hardly what I'd call "not taking issue".

I have said it since the very beginning in this topic that the problem is that GW did not split up the units into different loadouts and therefore the system does not work

also giving examples, like Landspeeders, that GW did this for Marines but failed to do it for others

and in a world were a 5 point difference between an Assault Cannon and a Rocket Launcher in a Landspeeder is important enough to make them 2 different units, the argument not doing granular points fails, is GW is using them very granular

if we are talking about points or PL it is always about those used for the current rules in 40k, and not something "in general" and all the problems are with the current version of 40k, and not in general

because all those things work fine in other games, just not in 40k because somehow GW forgot to split up the units and thought people either won't notice or there will be enough white knights out there defending them as the perfect system because GW never makes mistakes

a 5 point difference for a Landspeeder is important enough to have its own datacard, but a 60 point difference for a Wraithknight is not, the system is objectively bad

or is this a subjective optionen why there cannot be a melee Wraithknight that is cheaper than the double gun Wraithknight while a Landspeeder must have its own unit because 5 points make a difference

if this is the perfect and much more simple system, than fething merge all those fething Marine Captains into a single unit
because there is no reason those are all on its own with their own rules and points if that system is supposed to be simpler

 kodos wrote:
if this is the perfect and much more simple system

You've literally just proved my point because nobody at any point has said the current or even power system was perfect.
Everything is always absolutes and collectively the anti-fixed number side of the discussion seems incapable of seeing it any other way.

 Gert wrote:

 kodos wrote:
if this is the perfect and much more simple system

You've literally just proved my point because nobody at any point has said the current or even power system was perfect.
Everything is always absolutes and collectively the anti-fixed number side of the discussion seems incapable of seeing it any other way.

Be fair, I've been accused of straddling the fence because I'm not a "true believer", or some such comments.

so your point is that the current system is flawed
good, so we are all agreeing now that

question is now how to solve that until GW comes with a solution in 11th (as fixes will come with the Codex and not for the Index)
either by splitting units up, which is difficult if not done by GW or having those units with upgrades points, and a community point system can be done

 kodos wrote:
so your point is that the current system is flawed

No, my point is currently that if you prefer the new system or power in 8th/9th you get vilified for it and told you are ruining the game/playing the game wrong. You placed the idea that the system is perfect onto my side of the discussion, an idea that nobody on this side of the discussion has actually supported or claimed is true. You're misrepresenting what has been said and using it to claim that your position is the correct one.

 Gert wrote:

 kodos wrote:
so your point is that the current system is flawed

No, my point is currently that if you prefer the new system or power in 8th/9th you get vilified for it and told you are ruining the game/playing the game wrong. You placed the idea that the system is perfect onto my side of the discussion, an idea that nobody on this side of the discussion has actually supported or claimed is true. You're misrepresenting what has been said and using it to claim that your position is the correct one.

Why is the opinion that the current system is flawed and needs to be fixed controversial, then?

I think the folks who are being told they are ruining the game are the ones who say it doesn't need fixing, not the ones who say it does.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is the opinion that the current system is flawed and needs to be fixed controversial, then?

It might be your opinion and it might be the opinions of many on Dakka but it isn't my opinion.

I think the folks who are being told they are ruining the game are the ones who say it doesn't need fixing, not the ones who say it does.

Cool, that's me. Please explain how I and my small group have ruined 40k by not playing it in any significant capacity since 8th launched with only two of us playing bits of 8th and the start of 9th before almost exclusively playing Horus Heresy? Really I want to know how our liking the way the points are done for 10th has utterly destroyed the game while having absolutely no input on how the game is designed.
This is rhetorical BTW, I really don't want any sort of reply to this question because it's just going to make me more disappointed.


The new system works for me because, unlike previous years, I am now working in a job with much greater time constraints. My two days off are now very specific and my hours are also unchanging, unlike before where I rarely if ever worked the same shift patterns which gave me a far more flexible schedule to work with. The system for 40k allows me to get more than a game in a month because I can just pick up whatever stuff is in a given box/case and go play without spending ages writing a list making sure everything is WYSIWYG.
In terms of balance, I've yet to play an edition of 40k or even HH where points have significantly changed the balance of a unit or army build. Unit, army, or game rules changes fix that better than any points changes ever will. Riptides dominated because the rules were good not because they were dirt cheap. Scatterbikes were broken because the rules were good not because they were of good points value
Instead of having to look at every single wargear option and balance all the points, it would be my hope that the 40k rules team can focus on making real changes to problems like Fate Dice or Deathguard/Admech.

 Gert wrote:
The system for 40k allows me to get more than a game in a month because I can just pick up whatever stuff is in a given box/case and go play without spending ages writing a list making sure everything is WYSIWYG.
In terms of balance, I've yet to play an edition of 40k or even HH where points have significantly changed the balance of a unit or army build. Unit, army, or game rules changes fix that better than any points changes ever will. Riptides dominated because the rules were good not because they were dirt cheap. Scatterbikes were broken because the rules were good not because they were of good points value.

Figure of speech, I know, but... it really does not take that much longer wether you use points or PL to create an army list. You still have to note down every upgrade each unit has, especially if you don't go with WYSIWYG. Which itself is not connected to PL or points and adhering or ignoring it works just the same way in both systems.

If you are unbothered by the perceived value differences from units under PL, I don't believe you would have a problem playing a 1900pts vs 2200pts game under points. As in "my buddy an I just drew together some quick lists without calculating every single unit to the last point" type of game. After all, unless both players bring the absolute maximum of upgrades for every unit AND picking the most expensive ones, that is what it actually boils down to behind the curtain. And then... I don't understand the advantage of quicker list writing either.

Saying that points don't help to balance things is not based in reality. If a scatterbike with an upgraded gun would have costed 200 points each, nobody would have bothered. 200 is the extreme to drive home the point. There exists a value where a unit is neither auto include nor auto exclude.

 Gert wrote:

The new system works for me because, unlike previous years, I am now working in a job with much greater time constraints.

Quite frankly if you can't add together a list without PL in half an hour, maybe 40k isn't the game for you, or maybe you can do that gak GW is pushing with their combat patrols and everything having a fixed loadout LOL

The first reply makes up extreme hypotheticals to make my position seem unreasonable and the second is just flat-out an attack on my person.
Man, I couldn't pick better examples of my point being right if I tried.

 Gert wrote:
The first reply makes up extreme hypotheticals to make my position seem unreasonable and the second is just flat-out an attack on my person.
Man, I couldn't pick better examples of my point being right if I tried.

It's not an attack on your person, it's just saying 40k isn't the game for you. Just because some of you don't want to do a little more math doesn't mean we should have a gak system in place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also your Riptide example is flat out wrong and not based in reality. Was the Ion Accelerator better than the other guns for an obnoxious 5 points in 7th, yes or no?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Gert wrote:

The new system works for me because, unlike previous years, I am now working in a job with much greater time constraints.

Quite frankly if you can't add together a list without PL in half an hour, maybe 40k isn't the game for you, or maybe you can do that gak GW is pushing with their combat patrols and everything having a fixed loadout LOL

Combat patrol so far has been a decent enough time from the games I've had. Easily get in a couple of quick fire games and it's actually fairly balanced seemingly (although not seen that many armies yet). Or am I reading too much into it by suggesting you disapprove of it as a game mode?

It really isn't very hard to figure out how praising PL and hating on pts online could have an effect on GW's developers. You could have always just paid for the most expensive options and picked up whatever was at hand without spending the points leftover after downgrading. Now we are all forced to not get any rebates after downgrading, to most that's a gak deal.

In terms of balance, I've yet to play an edition of 40k or even HH where points have significantly changed the balance of a unit or army build.

Stop saying things you know to be untrue. Armies that became 10% more expensive fell off. When Fire Raptors in 8th got a major drop they became amazing, when they added back all the pts that were removed they became bad again. Why are you being such a tricksy devil?

To get the arguments right Gert

You ever play the same list twice and you don't have a fixed army
So PL makes it easier to make up an army on the fly and let you ignore WYSIWYG

So yeah Combat Patrol is your game mode, fixed pre-made army list, 1 army a box, no thinking about anything before the game

 Gert wrote:
The first reply makes up extreme hypotheticals to make my position seem unreasonable...

1. Please sit down and make two lists. One with PL and one with points. I'm really curious how much longer it takes. Since time is a factor for you, I would like to see a number to know what we are talking about here.
2. 50 PL vs 50 PL does not equal the value of 2000pts vs 2000pts. Depending on the upgrades taken or not taken, it might very well skew in both directions where one player actually plays below 2000 und another one above it. If the fluctuation under PL is not a problem, why do you feel the need to spend significantly(?) more time to create a list with points? Why is "roughly 2000 points" less viable than 50 PL?

 Gert wrote:
Please explain how I and my small group have ruined 40k by not playing it in any significant capacity since 8th launched with only two of us playing bits of 8th and the start of 9th before almost exclusively playing Horus Heresy?

Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.

The new system works for me because, unlike previous years, I am now working in a job with much greater time constraints. My two days off are now very specific and my hours are also unchanging, unlike before where I rarely if ever worked the same shift patterns which gave me a far more flexible schedule to work with. The system for 40k allows me to get more than a game in a month because I can just pick up whatever stuff is in a given box/case and go play without spending ages writing a list making sure everything is WYSIWYG.

This is a perfect example of what we find so frustrating with PL advocates. You've made up a scenario to justify PL but it doesn't actually support PL. The vast majority of time involved in list building, regardless of which system you use, is figuring out what units you want for your strategy and what you want them equipped with. Adding up the points for everything is a very small minority of the time required, especially if like most people you're using Battlescribe or the official app and the list builder does all the math for you. I've even timed it just to make sure I'm not missing something and the total time savings by using PL to write a 2000 point/50 point list (by hand, no list builder used) was IIRC under a minute, maybe two minutes at most. It's a negligible time savings on a 2-4 hour 40k game.

And PL doesn't allow you to just pick up whatever random stuff is in a box because there's no guarantee that a random box of models will form a 50 point list, or even form legal units for a list. You still have to write your list, find and pack up appropriate models, etc. It's only "grab a box and go" if you do the planning work up front so on game day you have your standard 50 point army loaded in the right boxes every time. And if you're doing that you can do the same thing with your standard 2000 point army.

In terms of balance, I've yet to play an edition of 40k or even HH where points have significantly changed the balance of a unit or army build.

Only because, as you say, you have played very little of the editions where GW makes point changes. Obviously point changes didn't make a difference in 7th because once you got a codex those points never changed. But since GW has started making changes there have been lots of balance changes as a result of point changes. Just to give one of the more dramatic examples the day one errata for squats changed the army from "oh god nothing can beat this WTF was GW thinking" to "probably the best army in the game" using point adjustments across most of the codex.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Please explain how I and my small group have ruined 40k by not playing it in any significant capacity since 8th launched with only two of us playing bits of 8th and the start of 9th before almost exclusively playing Horus Heresy?

Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.

In fairness Dakka and Reddit aren't the majority of GW consumers, we have no idea what the silent majority thinks.

While I believe that upgrade points and points in general is better for a balanced game (especially if one of the players has a limited collection which includes a lot of suboptimal builds), but I do like how quick it is to build a list with the new system. It’s totally fine for casual games where you really don’t care if your 15 or so points short.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.

This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website. At best someone on the rules team might skim Reddit looking for memes but they know better than anyone that the opinions found online are not only often a minority but also heavily weighted to the extremes.
The rules team takes notice if loads of emails get sent to whatever inbox there is at GW headquarters. That's it. If you want someone to fight and have a go at, take it to the GW email system.

 Gert wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.

This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.

That's a big claim. Any proof?

Or is this a "Screw you guys, your opinions don't matter anyways?"

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.

This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.

That's a big claim. Any proof?

Considering that the majority of voices here fell into one of two camps, the first being "Feth PL!" and the other being "I don't use PL, but I don't care if it exists," if they were listening to Dakka, they wouldn't've done what they did.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.

This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.

That's a big claim. Any proof?

Or is this a "Screw you guys, your opinions don't matter anyways?"

Dakka spent the last 6 years claiming PL was a waste of space, the writers should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for having written it etc. Etc. Just as nearly every topic ends up being some form of "GW stupid, do XYZ instead", ranging from constructive to pure cess pit toxicity. They haven't magically started adopting things off here and often do the contrary to what the vocal minority of dakka wish.

I can't comment for other places but I'd wager they're more receptive to some sources than others. B&C is better moderated so might appeal to them, likewise the main subs on reddit often hold good analytical talk and content. So maybe those get a look in, but they also contain members of various pro groups and GW partners like goonhammer, so they have a finger in those pies anyway.

 Gert wrote:
This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website. At best someone on the rules team might skim Reddit looking for memes but they know better than anyone that the opinions found online are not only often a minority but also heavily weighted to the extremes.
The rules team takes notice if loads of emails get sent to whatever inbox there is at GW headquarters. That's it. If you want someone to fight and have a go at, take it to the GW email system.

So you say.

And it doesn't matter if they know online opinions are skewed because I doubt they're looking for honest feedback. The guy who wrote a whole WD article about how points based armies straight from a codex are bad and STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY isn't honestly evaluating the merits of different point systems, he's looking for confirmation of his existing biases. It's very obvious that from day one PL was supposed to be the only system, with the conventional point system being marginalized and then removed as soon as they could justify it.

Also, remember this post you made very recently?

 Gert wrote:
People aren't allowed to like power and if they do their reasons aren't considered valid or are picked apart line by line while the majority of their point is ignored, including parts where those who do like power agree that a granular system can work better. The pro-granular side also claims they are "objectively" right all the time.

It's pretty disappointing that you complain about opponents of PL ignoring the majority of a point but then focus on one minor part of my post, ignore the most important parts about how PL does not offer any meaningful time savings, and then declare that you're done with the discussion.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Considering that the majority of voices here fell into one of two camps, the first being "Feth PL!" and the other being "I don't use PL, but I don't care if it exists," if they were listening to Dakka, they wouldn't've done what they did.

Assuming they were reading in good faith. I think it's more likely, given their previous statements about points and competitive play, that they were not reading in good faith. "I hate PL" was dismissed as an angry minority of TFGs, "PL is great" was taken as a sign they're doing the right thing and supporting the True 40k Players against the competitive WAAC TFGs.

 bullyboy wrote:
While I believe that upgrade points and points in general is better for a balanced game (especially if one of the players has a limited collection which includes a lot of suboptimal builds), but I do like how quick it is to build a list with the new system. It’s totally fine for casual games where you really don’t care if your 15 or so points short.

Except that sometimes you're not 15 points short. Sometimes you're 45 points short, or 55 points short, or 60, and have nothing to spend it on.

Building lists in this new system isn't quick, it's tedious, because it's a jigsaw puzzle with parts that don't fit right, and all the edges are sharp.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Assuming they were reading in good faith. I think it's more likely, given their previous statements about points and competitive play, that they were not reading in good faith. "I hate PL" was dismissed as an angry minority of TFGs, "PL is great" was taken as a sign they're doing the right thing and supporting the True 40k Players against the competitive WAAC TFGs.

You mean during the "totally not ITC tournament esports edition"?

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.

This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.

That's a big claim. Any proof?

Or is this a "Screw you guys, your opinions don't matter anyways?"

Dakka spent the last 6 years claiming PL was a waste of space, the writers should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for having written it

And they should've, but Cruddace gonna Cruddace and he should've been fired YEARS ago

Dudeface wrote:
You mean during the "totally not ITC tournament esports edition"?

Modern 40k is not anywhere near what an e-sport needs or wants. Doing bare-minimum balance updates only feels like pandering to the e-sport crowd because GW used to fall short of even what a decent casual/narrative game needs and the mechanics are still shallow and bloated. The streamlining seems driven more by the marketing department replacing "sand box" design with "theme park" design tied strictly to box sales, PL is Jervis Johnson's ideal point system, and 10th's pseudo-PL is a blatant table flip over the community not embracing PL.

Dudeface wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.

This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.

That's a big claim. Any proof?

Or is this a "Screw you guys, your opinions don't matter anyways?"

Dakka spent the last 6 years claiming PL was a waste of space, the writers should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for having written it etc. Etc. Just as nearly every topic ends up being some form of "GW stupid, do XYZ instead", ranging from constructive to pure cess pit toxicity. They haven't magically started adopting things off here and often do the contrary to what the vocal minority of dakka wish.

I can't comment for other places but I'd wager they're more receptive to some sources than others. B&C is better moderated so might appeal to them, likewise the main subs on reddit often hold good analytical talk and content. So maybe those get a look in, but they also contain members of various pro groups and GW partners like goonhammer, so they have a finger in those pies anyway.

As you say, dakka is only a small piece of of online discussion. It would be ridiculous to suggest that GW only listens to dakka. But to claim that GW "doesn't care a fig" about the greater collection of online discussion spaces . . . Well that's a pretty big (and baseless) claim.

Of course they care. They of course won't take action on every little thing, and of course they'll read in with their own biases, etc. They may often act as if they don't care. But if they're any business worth their salt they'll care at leads some. And since we've seen GW occasionally react (and overreact) to community uproar, we know they're paying at least some attention.