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 don't know about "having fun the wrong way" - but Jervis is surely right (and we have enough people on these forums complaining about "the tournament edition") that if the game becomes "tournament play or nothing" then there would be issues. The vast majority of GW's customers are not tournament players. In games where that has become the norm, they've often withered - as tournament players don't represent a sufficient ecosystem to keep sales going.

The problem is though, if GW have usually struggled to balance the game for "tournament play" then their "asymmetric scenarios" have often been completely off. Roleplaying and campaigns relating to what happens in game etc can be fun - but knowing that the attacker or defender of such and such a mission has won essentially from deployment, barring some deliberate attempt to lose, isn't.

I've seen numerous people try to set up a "last stand scenario" - but tailoring it so things go the distance, and the defender isn't either instantly tabled or completely fine, is actually quite difficult. Unless you are going to have a games master style intervention to just feed each side units - but at that point are you playing 40k, or just rolling dice for fun?

I have flashbacks to this battle in White Dwarf (circa 2000 or so) which pitched I think 1500 points of High Elves vs 3000 points of Goblins. Flash forward about 3 turns and the Elves get tabled beneath a tide of war machines, magic, fanatics and chariots combined with rear and flank charges. What would you expect?

"We'll nerf Ork BS for the next 25 years just to make our Rorke's Drift style scenario work" feels like a luxury GW have and the players don't.

Which is sort of where we come back to it. To my mind at least points - or PL - are a tool for trying to get a "fair game". Achieving this doesn't however mean every single unit or option needs to be pointed correctly. But it falls apart when whole factions are mis-pointed. "they get free plasma pistols on sergeants" is probably not the reason a faction is posting a 70%+ win rate. Its that the indexes were seemingly written with completely different senses of value. Which is why you are seeing an almost 7th edition style tier system develop so quickly a few weeks into 10th.

And I think that's where GW may face a backlash. Because the last 6 months or so of 9th was actually really quite good. And its been chucked for something which seems decidedly half baked. Simple, not fair.

Its interesting how "Competitive Indexhammer" in early 8th obviously was a broken mess - and became so as netlists proliferated down the food chain. But at least for a few weeks, there seemed this great creative relief to be rid of 7th's shackles. I'm not sure that's happening this time.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
If by how little you mean Zero Effort because he isn't on the 40K Rules team, then you are right!

He can still exert zero effort elsewhere? That doesn't change my statement on him or Cruddace.

I'm sure anyone can exert zero effort wherever they want. But this demonization of the designers shows more about the the complainer than the target of their complaints, especially when said bogeyman has been retired from Games Workshop for some time.

But feel free to complain about your favorite bogeyman rather than admit that GW just might have design goals that you don't agree with that are honest rather than born of laziness or incompetence. I say this because how you build your force for a game has a major impact on how the game runs. There are plenty of issues with their current datasheets and points methodology, but don't tell me they won't impact the models/units you see hitting the table. Units will be taking advantage of wargear options. It is easy to argue too much when every Space Marine Sergeant is packing a Thunderhammer or Power Fist, but Space Marines are always a problem when it comes to having too many options.

So the questions to ask are "What was GWs goal?" and "Did they attain it?". Whether they met your expectations isn't really something they would have bothered with very much.

You can call it "demonisation" all you like, but the fact remains that there are people in that studio who say one thing and do another. Cruddace wrote a terrible Tyranid Codex. It was reviled by Tyranid players, so much so that the man himself put his hands up and apologised and promised to do better next time. And then made one that was somehow worse. The 3.5 Codex was written by a guy who loved Iron Warriors, but didn't have much love for 1KSons, and as much as I love that book, it really shows in the final result (and his post-launch attitude: "An army with 2 wounds each has a lot going for it!").

If you don't have a studio champion, then chances are your army is fethed. It's that simple. And that is the fault of the writers.

Tyel wrote:

The problem is though, if GW have usually struggled to balance the game for "tournament play" then their "asymmetric scenarios" have often been completely off.

Which I've been saying for a while. I couldn't care less if someone does 6000 points of Tyranids vs 2000 points of Marines. If Marines can WIN that scenario, then how is 2000 points of each fair for just a basic game?

Jervis and Cruddace wouldn't understand that though, just gotta forge the narrative!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
If by how little you mean Zero Effort because he isn't on the 40K Rules team, then you are right!

He can still exert zero effort elsewhere? That doesn't change my statement on him or Cruddace.

So the questions to ask are "What was GWs goal?" and "Did they attain it?". Whether they met your expectations isn't really something they would have bothered with very much.

Their goals are to sell what's in the box as units, and people like you eat that up.

 alextroy wrote:
I'm sure anyone can exert zero effort wherever they want. But this demonization of the designers shows more about the the complainer than the target of their complaints, especially when said bogeyman has been retired from Games Workshop for some time.

As I said before: Jervis himself may no longer be at GW in any official capacity but the people he hired still are and presumably he was hiring people who agree with his opinions on game design. And it shouldn't be a controversial theory when "PL only" is a textbook Jervis-style design choice.

But feel free to complain about your favorite bogeyman rather than admit that GW just might have design goals that you don't agree with that are honest rather than born of laziness or incompetence.

Did you read the article I posted? That is not just "design goals I don't agree with", it's two pages of Jervis the narcissist telling people that their way of playing 40k is inferior and they need to be brought to enlightenment about the One True Way To Play that Jervis favors.

So the questions to ask are "What was GWs goal?" and "Did they attain it?". Whether they met your expectations isn't really something they would have bothered with very much.

Unless that goal is "tell people Jervis dislikes that they are not welcome in 40k" then no, they didn't meet their goals. PL is a failure at the purpose of a point system and offers nothing of non-trivial value in return.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Dai wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Or it's just that Cruddace and Jervis are bad at what they do

Their insane ramblings about game/rules design in White Dwarf are extremely illuminating.

JJ has been exclusively fantasy since the mid 90s hasn't he?

Still think managements "make it accessible for everyone" demands are probably more influential than any individual designers but who knows. I understand it but modern GW products are just something I am not really interested in, i give them a go but hasnt been a core ruleset i have been that interested in since 7th editions of both main games.

Tell that to 4th ed Dark Angels players...

Authored by Jervis "I've gutted this codex as my son cannot seem to understand how to add up wargear costs, so apparently no-one can" Johnson.

LMAO I thought that was just a rumor. I'd 100% believe it though.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
It's not just incompetence by Jervis, it's narcissism. See the article I posted earlier by Jervis, an extended rant about how anyone who enjoys points-based games with stock codex-legal armies and standard missions/terrain is having fun the wrong way and needs True Wargamers like him to enlighten the poor lost souls and allow them to see the One True Way To Play 40k. Making PL the only system is exactly what he would want to do, purely to tell the competitive players that they are not welcome in the community.

Excerpt:

"Something clearly needs to be done to teach players that tournament style play has its place, but it is a place well down in the pecking order of what constitutes a really good game."

This article is the most sensible thing you have posted this whole time. Thank I enjoyed reading it and agreed with every word.

Tyel wrote:
I don't know about "having fun the wrong way" - but Jervis is surely right (and we have enough people on these forums complaining about "the tournament edition") that if the game becomes "tournament play or nothing" then there would be issues. The vast majority of GW's customers are not tournament players. In games where that has become the norm, they've often withered - as tournament players don't represent a sufficient ecosystem to keep sales going.

Did you read the article? Jervis very directly says that even if everyone is having fun with tournament play they are doing it wrong and need to play the game the right way. If the game becomes "tournament play or nothing" it's only because that's what the majority of customers enjoy most, by definition it can't happen if the vast majority of customers are not tournament-style players. Jervis is just terrified that he is a minority and if he isn't allowed to enforce his style of play on everyone else they'll choose something he doesn't enjoy and he won't have anyone to play with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
This article is the most sensible thing you have posted this whole time. Thank I enjoyed reading it and agreed with every word.

Your agreement with Jervis' narcissistic ranting does more to undermine the claim that PL advocates are reasonable than anything I could ever say. That article is some of the most toxic gatekeeping that has ever been written and has no place in a healthy community.

Or it was dire prophecy that is sadly coming true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Others have taken over the gate keeping now.

Andykp wrote:
Or it was dire prophecy that is sadly coming true.

What, that if people aren't brought to True Wargaming Enlightenment they will be able to play the game in a way they enjoy and have fun doing it?

Others have taken over the gate keeping now.

Nobody is preventing anyone from playing non-tournament 40k. Play all the casual/narrative/etc games you like if that's what you enjoy. There is no equivalent to Jervis literally saying "STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY" and insisting that someone else's preferred game style must be marginalized.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Or it was dire prophecy that is sadly coming true.

What, that if people aren't brought to True Wargaming Enlightenment they will be able to play the game in a way they enjoy and have fun doing it?

Others have taken over the gate keeping now.

Nobody is preventing anyone from playing non-tournament 40k. Play all the casual/narrative/etc games you like if that's what you enjoy. There is no equivalent to Jervis literally saying "STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY" and insisting that someone else's preferred game style must be marginalized.

I've seen a lot of gatekeeping, or at least attempted gatekeeping, here on Dakka.
Often in regards to PL.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I've seen a lot of gatekeeping, or at least attempted gatekeeping, here on Dakka.
Often in regards to PL.

"Your arguments in support of PL are wrong" is not the same as "if you enjoy PL you should not be allowed to play". Has anyone actually argued the second in any meaningful numbers?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I've seen a lot of gatekeeping, or at least attempted gatekeeping, here on Dakka.
Often in regards to PL.

"Your arguments in support of PL are wrong" is not the same as "if you enjoy PL you should not be allowed to play".

Look through some of the older threads. There's a lot of "If you like PL, you don't deserve to play."
This thread has been light on that, which is good, but not all have been.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Look through some of the older threads. There's a lot of "If you like PL, you don't deserve to play."
This thread has been light on that, which is good, but not all have been.

I can't really comment on threads that I wasn't here for, but maybe you could post some links to the posts in question? Are we talking about a meaningful attempt at gatekeeping, or just a couple of vocal idiots getting shut down by everyone else?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Or it was dire prophecy that is sadly coming true.

What, that if people aren't brought to True Wargaming Enlightenment they will be able to play the game in a way they enjoy and have fun doing it?

Others have taken over the gate keeping now.

Nobody is preventing anyone from playing non-tournament 40k. Play all the casual/narrative/etc games you like if that's what you enjoy. There is no equivalent to Jervis literally saying "STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY" and insisting that someone else's preferred game style must be marginalized.

I've seen a lot of gatekeeping, or at least attempted gatekeeping, here on Dakka.
Often in regards to PL.

Pointing out PL is a bad idea conceptually and how it was executed isn't gatekeeping.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Or it was dire prophecy that is sadly coming true.

What, that if people aren't brought to True Wargaming Enlightenment they will be able to play the game in a way they enjoy and have fun doing it?

Others have taken over the gate keeping now.

Nobody is preventing anyone from playing non-tournament 40k. Play all the casual/narrative/etc games you like if that's what you enjoy. There is no equivalent to Jervis literally saying "STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY" and insisting that someone else's preferred game style must be marginalized.

I've seen a lot of gatekeeping, or at least attempted gatekeeping, here on Dakka.
Often in regards to PL.

Pointing out PL is a bad idea conceptually and how it was executed isn't gatekeeping.

I agree that discussions can be had in a civil way about why one prefers Balanced Points to PL, or why one prefers PL to Points.

And if we agree on that, then certainly we can also agree that Jervis pointing out that there are other ways to play than tournament styles, and the game evolved out of those other ways to play also isn't "toxic gatekeeping". If you've seen the warbands of the original GSC, including the scratch-built cult limo, or the deodorant bottle skimmer, it should be abundantly clear that the story-based campaign style play DID come first, and Jervis was pointing out (back in the days of Citadel Journal no less), that unless the company does something to promote narrative play, the original intent of the game could be lost.

And if you fast forward to 8th/9th, there were a great many Dakkanauts talking about tournament play's trickle down effect on every other style of play. Every single time I saw someone lamenting the flaws of matched, I'd always try to tell them about how much fun I was having with Crusade, and some of the Open War deck fellas would jump in and talk about how much fun they were having.

And the response was inevitably: "That's great for you, but people here only play 2k Matched with the latest Matched play Mission pack" - exactly what Jervis was warning against.

Nowhere in that article does it say "Jervis wants tournaments to end" or "Jervis wants to get rid of points" - what it said was that everyone should have the chance to explore the game as its designers originally envisioned it. Jervis certainly wanted GTs to continue- he invented the damn system FFS. He just didn't want people to forget that narrative campaign play still existed, and that it may offer rewards beyond those to be had from a night of balanced stand-alone pick-up games.

Wanting everyone to have the opportunity to try narrative campaign play, or even insisting that everyone should try it so they know what they're missing is not toxic gatekeeping. If it's "toxic" for Jervis to believe and write his belief that Narrative Campaign play is superior to stand-alone, point-balanced pick-up games, then it's toxic for people to believe and write that costed equipment is objectively better* than PL.

Either both statements are toxic, or neither statement is toxic.

* I chose the words carefully here: notice I said "objectively better" and not "more balanced" - clearly, costed equipment IS objectively a better tool for balance. The reason that doesn't make it objectively better is that where balance falls in one's list of priorities is itself subjective. People who have balance as a number one priority are obviously going to believe costed equipment is "better" - and for them, it will be. But for folks who have different priorities, they may not agree.

PenitentJake wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Or it was dire prophecy that is sadly coming true.

What, that if people aren't brought to True Wargaming Enlightenment they will be able to play the game in a way they enjoy and have fun doing it?

Others have taken over the gate keeping now.

Nobody is preventing anyone from playing non-tournament 40k. Play all the casual/narrative/etc games you like if that's what you enjoy. There is no equivalent to Jervis literally saying "STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY" and insisting that someone else's preferred game style must be marginalized.

I've seen a lot of gatekeeping, or at least attempted gatekeeping, here on Dakka.
Often in regards to PL.

Pointing out PL is a bad idea conceptually and how it was executed isn't gatekeeping.

I agree that discussions can be had in a civil way about why one prefers Balanced Points to PL, or why one prefers PL to Points.

And if we agree on that, then certainly we can also agree that Jervis pointing out that there are other ways to play than tournament styles, and the game evolved out of those other ways to play also isn't "toxic gatekeeping". If you've seen the warbands of the original GSC, including the scratch-built cult limo, or the deodorant bottle skimmer, it should be abundantly clear that the story-based campaign style play DID come first, and Jervis was pointing out (back in the days of Citadel Journal no less), that unless the company does something to promote narrative play, the original intent of the game could be lost.

And if you fast forward to 8th/9th, there were a great many Dakkanauts talking about tournament play's trickle down effect on every other style of play. Every single time I saw someone lamenting the flaws of matched, I'd always try to tell them about how much fun I was having with Crusade, and some of the Open War deck fellas would jump in and talk about how much fun they were having.

And the response was inevitably: "That's great for you, but people here only play 2k Matched with the latest Matched play Mission pack" - exactly what Jervis was warning against.

Nowhere in that article does it say "Jervis wants tournaments to end" or "Jervis wants to get rid of points" - what it said was that everyone should have the chance to explore the game as its designers originally envisioned it. Jervis certainly wanted GTs to continue- he invented the damn system FFS. He just didn't want people to forget that narrative campaign play still existed, and that it may offer rewards beyond those to be had from a night of balanced stand-alone pick-up games.

Wanting everyone to have the opportunity to try narrative campaign play, or even insisting that everyone should try it so they know what they're missing is not toxic gatekeeping. If it's "toxic" for Jervis to believe and write his belief that Narrative Campaign play is superior to stand-alone, point-balanced pick-up games, then it's toxic for people to believe and write that costed equipment is objectively better* than PL.

Either both statements are toxic, or neither statement is toxic.

* I chose the words carefully here: notice I said "objectively better" and not "more balanced" - clearly, costed equipment IS objectively a better tool for balance. The reason that doesn't make it objectively better is that where balance falls in one's list of priorities is itself subjective. People who have balance as a number one priority are obviously going to believe costed equipment is "better" - and for them, it will be. But for folks who have different priorities, they may not agree.

Jervis is incorrect though. Jervis was concerned about any matched play period and wanted everything to be a narrative scenario, despite not having the cognitive skills to write a game that could work even in an even scenario.

PenitentJake wrote:
And if we agree on that, then certainly we can also agree that Jervis pointing out that there are other ways to play than tournament styles, and the game evolved out of those other ways to play also isn't "toxic gatekeeping".

If that had been all he had said then yes, it would have been fine. But that isn't what he said and it's pretty dishonest to imply otherwise. Here is an actual quote from him:

"Something clearly needs to be done to teach players that tournament style play has its place, but it is a place well down in the pecking order of what constitutes a really good game."

It's right there in black and white: people are having fun the wrong way and something needs to be done to put their favorite way to play in its proper place at the bottom. The whole article is an extended rant about how his way of playing is the superior one and anyone who claims to enjoy something else is just a poor deluded victim who needs to be brought to true enlightenment.

If it's "toxic" for Jervis to believe and write his belief that Narrative Campaign play is superior to stand-alone, point-balanced pick-up games, then it's toxic for people to believe and write that costed equipment is objectively better* than PL.

Either both statements are toxic, or neither statement is toxic.

They are not even remotely equivalent statements. The superiority of narrative play is a subjective opinion Jervis has, the superiority of the conventional point system in accomplishing the purpose of a point system is objective fact. And aside from that they aren't even remotely equivalent in importance. Tournament-style play is a defining part of how people enjoy the game, PL is a minor detail of how a small part of the game is implemented and nobody considers it central to their play style and enjoyment. There are "tournament players", there are no "equipment is free" players.

The only way you get to any equivalence between the two is if you treat PL as a symbol for some kind of "casual player" identity, where PL is embraced because it is the "casual system" and any attack on it is an attack on casual players.

*I chose the words carefully here: notice I said "objectively better" and not "more balanced" - clearly, costed equipment IS objectively a better tool for balance. The reason that doesn't make it objectively better is that where balance falls in one's list of priorities is itself subjective. People who have balance as a number one priority are obviously going to believe costed equipment is "better" - and for them, it will be. But for folks who have different priorities, they may not agree.

And the thing we keep coming back to here is that even if you don't prioritize balance PL is a bad system. The sole advantage it offers over the conventional point system is a negligible time savings in adding up point totals, and even if that's your priority an even simpler system like "each player takes 10 units and 3 characters" does just as good a job as PL but saves more time.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


It's right there in black and white: people are having fun the wrong way and something needs to be done to put their favorite way to play in its proper place at the bottom. The whole article is an extended rant about how his way of playing is the superior one and anyone who claims to enjoy something else is just a poor deluded victim who needs to be brought to true enlightenment.

Has anyone guessed his Dakka handle yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

They are not even remotely equivalent statements. The superiority of narrative play is a subjective opinion Jervis has, the superiority of the conventional point system in accomplishing the purpose of a point system is objective fact.

My opinion is objective fact! Right after your epiphany about people having fun the "wrong" way.

Breton wrote:
My opinion is objective fact! Right after your epiphany about people having fun the "wrong" way.

It's not just opinion that PL isn't something I like, it's objectively bad at the goal of a point system. As I posted earlier:

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 is objectively bad at this because it contains inherent systemic errors that can not be fixed (at least without major reductions in the scope of the game to accommodate it). It objectively contains more errors than the point system GW already had and gains next to nothing in return for including those errors. That's why every defense of PL eventually comes down to "I like PL and that should be enough".

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
My opinion is objective fact! Right after your epiphany about people having fun the "wrong" way.

It's not just opinion that PL isn't something I like, it's objectively bad at the goal of a point system. As I posted earlier:

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 is objectively bad at this because it contains inherent systemic errors that can not be fixed (at least without major reductions in the scope of the game to accommodate it). It objectively contains more errors than the point system GW already had and gains next to nothing in return for including those errors. That's why every defense of PL eventually comes down to "I like PL and that should be enough".

My Opinion is objective fact because my opinion is objectively fact is quite the logic chain. Points is objectively bad at this because it contains inherent systemic errors that can not be fixed (at least without major reductions in the scope of the game to accommodate it). It objectively contains more errors than the PL system GW already had and gains next to nothing in return for including those errors. That's why every defense of Points eventually comes down to "I like Points and that should be enough".

Breton wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
My opinion is objective fact! Right after your epiphany about people having fun the "wrong" way.

It's not just opinion that PL isn't something I like, it's objectively bad at the goal of a point system. As I posted earlier:

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 is objectively bad at this because it contains inherent systemic errors that can not be fixed (at least without major reductions in the scope of the game to accommodate it). It objectively contains more errors than the point system GW already had and gains next to nothing in return for including those errors. That's why every defense of PL eventually comes down to "I like PL and that should be enough".

My Opinion is objective fact because my opinion is objectively fact is quite the logic chain. Points is objectively bad at this because it contains inherent systemic errors that can not be fixed (at least without major reductions in the scope of the game to accommodate it). It objectively contains more errors than the PL system GW already had and gains next to nothing in return for including those errors. That's why every defense of Points eventually comes down to "I like Points and that should be enough".

As someone who is fine with PL existing in addition to points, I've gotta say you're wrong on this, Breton.
For a system like 40k, points are capable of producing much better balance than PL is. Whether or not that's worthwhile is up to the gamer.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
And if we agree on that, then certainly we can also agree that Jervis pointing out that there are other ways to play than tournament styles, and the game evolved out of those other ways to play also isn't "toxic gatekeeping".

If that had been all he had said then yes, it would have been fine. But that isn't what he said and it's pretty dishonest to imply otherwise. Here is an actual quote from him:

"Something clearly needs to be done to teach players that tournament style play has its place, but it is a place well down in the pecking order of what constitutes a really good game."

It's right there in black and white: people are having fun the wrong way and something needs to be done to put their favorite way to play in its proper place at the bottom. The whole article is an extended rant about how his way of playing is the superior one and anyone who claims to enjoy something else is just a poor deluded victim who needs to be brought to true enlightenment.

I don't even need to read the article to know you are taking that statement out of context to prove your point. So just for kicks, I read the whole article like you asked and I am correct.

This "toxic gatekeeping" statement was the bridge between the first part of the article where he wonders why tournament-style gaming and realized that GW and himself were the cause and his desire to find ways to promote narrative-style gaming. He honestly believes there is a more enriching style of gaming that the company has not been promoting over the more simplistic version of the game.

And funnily enough, you can see the long-term fruit of that line of thought in the Chapter Approved: Leviathan Mission Deck. Rather than a one-scenario line-up-and-shoot tournament you have 5 deployment methods, 9 Primary Missions, 12 Mission Cards, 16 Secondary Objectives (than can be played 2 ways), and 3 Gambits. A tournament-style game couldn't get more narrative unless there were descriptions for every possible combination of cards.

The fault, dear ThePaintingOwl, is not in Jervis Johnson, but in ourselves, for we are the players.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
My opinion is objective fact! Right after your epiphany about people having fun the "wrong" way.

It's not just opinion that PL isn't something I like, it's objectively bad at the goal of a point system. As I posted earlier:

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 is objectively bad at this because it contains inherent systemic errors that can not be fixed (at least without major reductions in the scope of the game to accommodate it). It objectively contains more errors than the point system GW already had and gains next to nothing in return for including those errors. That's why every defense of PL eventually comes down to "I like PL and that should be enough".

My Opinion is objective fact because my opinion is objectively fact is quite the logic chain. Points is objectively bad at this because it contains inherent systemic errors that can not be fixed (at least without major reductions in the scope of the game to accommodate it). It objectively contains more errors than the PL system GW already had and gains next to nothing in return for including those errors. That's why every defense of Points eventually comes down to "I like Points and that should be enough".

As someone who is fine with PL existing in addition to points, I've gotta say you're wrong on this, Breton.
For a system like 40k, points are capable of producing much better balance than PL is. Whether or not that's worthwhile is up to the gamer.

I'm OK with them coexisting as well. But (I think) System X works better than System Y is not objective fact, no matter which system is System X or Y. We've had 9 or so editions of points that people didn't like, and a whole lot of people who chase big numbers trying to claim a Lascannon is objectively better than a plasma cannon is objectively better than a heavy bolter etc.

Breton, a five-man Devastator Squad with five Bolters is not the equivalent of a five-man Devastator Squad with one Bolter and four Heavy Bolters.
I don't think you can find a single situation where you're doing less damage with Heavy Bolters than Bolters. Points value the two squads differently. PL does not.

Whether or not you think it's worth the extra effort to make points balanced is opinion.
Whether or not they can be considerably better balanced is not.

Breton wrote:
My Opinion is objective fact because my opinion is objectively fact is quite the logic chain. Points is objectively bad at this because it contains inherent systemic errors that can not be fixed (at least without major reductions in the scope of the game to accommodate it). It objectively contains more errors than the PL system GW already had and gains next to nothing in return for including those errors. That's why every defense of Points eventually comes down to "I like Points and that should be enough".

Taking a cheap shot with word substitutions is easy but that doesn't make it true. The conventional point system objectively doesn't have the systemic errors that PL has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
But (I think) System X works better than System Y is not objective fact, no matter which system is System X or Y.

It is objective fact in some cases. A LRBT with plasma sponsons, a heavy stubber, and a hunter-killer missile is an objectively stronger unit than a LRBT with none of those things and PL assigning them the same point cost is an inherent systemic error which does not exist in the conventional point system. And it is not a trivial error which can be dismissed as too small to care about, it is a ~30-40% difference in value that is being ignored.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
This "toxic gatekeeping" statement was the bridge between the first part of the article where he wonders why tournament-style gaming and realized that GW and himself were the cause and his desire to find ways to promote narrative-style gaming. He honestly believes there is a more enriching style of gaming that the company has not been promoting over the more simplistic version of the game.

Do you really not see the difference between these two statements?

"We haven't been supporting narrative gaming well enough, we should do some cool narrative stuff for people who want that."

and

"Tournament players need to be taught that tournament play is inferior and Real Wargamers don't do any of that stuff."

Narrative play getting support is great, narcissistic statements about how everyone but True Wargamers is having fun the wrong way are not.

 alextroy wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
And if we agree on that, then certainly we can also agree that Jervis pointing out that there are other ways to play than tournament styles, and the game evolved out of those other ways to play also isn't "toxic gatekeeping".

If that had been all he had said then yes, it would have been fine. But that isn't what he said and it's pretty dishonest to imply otherwise. Here is an actual quote from him:

"Something clearly needs to be done to teach players that tournament style play has its place, but it is a place well down in the pecking order of what constitutes a really good game."

It's right there in black and white: people are having fun the wrong way and something needs to be done to put their favorite way to play in its proper place at the bottom. The whole article is an extended rant about how his way of playing is the superior one and anyone who claims to enjoy something else is just a poor deluded victim who needs to be brought to true enlightenment.

The fault, dear ThePaintingOwl, is not in Jervis Johnson, but in ourselves, for we are the players.

Oh gak, now we're not just beating around the bush, now we're directly blaming the players!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
My opinion is objective fact! Right after your epiphany about people having fun the "wrong" way.

It's not just opinion that PL isn't something I like, it's objectively bad at the goal of a point system. As I posted earlier:

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 is objectively bad at this because it contains inherent systemic errors that can not be fixed (at least without major reductions in the scope of the game to accommodate it). It objectively contains more errors than the point system GW already had and gains next to nothing in return for including those errors. That's why every defense of PL eventually comes down to "I like PL and that should be enough".

My Opinion is objective fact because my opinion is objectively fact is quite the logic chain. Points is objectively bad at this because it contains inherent systemic errors that can not be fixed (at least without major reductions in the scope of the game to accommodate it). It objectively contains more errors than the PL system GW already had and gains next to nothing in return for including those errors. That's why every defense of Points eventually comes down to "I like Points and that should be enough".

As someone who is fine with PL existing in addition to points, I've gotta say you're wrong on this, Breton.
For a system like 40k, points are capable of producing much better balance than PL is. Whether or not that's worthwhile is up to the gamer.

I'm OK with them coexisting as well. But (I think) System X works better than System Y is not objective fact, no matter which system is System X or Y. We've had 9 or so editions of points that people didn't like, and a whole lot of people who chase big numbers trying to claim a Lascannon is objectively better than a plasma cannon is objectively better than a heavy bolter etc.

Hey Breton, is a Tactical Squad with two Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with one Grav Gun and one Grav Cannon?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Breton, a five-man Devastator Squad with five Bolters is not the equivalent of a five-man Devastator Squad with one Bolter and four Heavy Bolters.

I did not say 5 bolters. Or Devastator Squad. I said they're arguing a Lascannon is objectively better than a Plasma Cannon is objectively better than Heavy Bolter. Making up something you wish someone would have said because it's easier to poke holes in is objectively called a straw man.

I don't think you can find a single situation where you're doing less damage with Heavy Bolters than Bolters. Points value the two squads differently. PL does not.

The situation where the unit has to move every turn to keep its heartrate above 50, or else have a heartattack while heavy weapons are move or fire. As long as we're reducing to the absurd in defense of a strawman, we might as well include some Speed and Crank pop culture references.

Whether or not you think it's worth the extra effort to make points balanced is opinion.
Whether or not they can be considerably better balanced is not.

Whether or not they can be considerably better balanced... BY POINTS is. The perceived superiority of the Lascannon to the Plasma Cannon to the Heavy Bolter is causing the demand for points. The perception itself is caused by previous editions featuring MSU Elites (And people who don't think any deeper than this one is 5 points more so it's just better) which is neither points nor PL. It is still early to make this call, but signs point to more of larger units being potentially viable this edition. If the meta shifts to 10 blobs of 20 bases, the Heavy Bolter starts looking like its "better" than the lascannon. To everyone who thinks deeper than S12 is better than S5. And that's what I was making fun of right there. Until you tried to trot out the naked Devastator Squad. The idea that something is objectively better because of a subjective situational setup.

How many bolters are in the Devastator Squad box? How many right arms that will properly match up with bolter/stormbolter/combi-weapon right fists? Is it even possible to make the 5 Bolter Devs necessary for a 10 man Dev Squad using a second Dev Squad box? Do the assembly instructions mention making the Sergeant 5 times?

You can argue the exact values of a Plasma Cannon vs. a Lascannon vs. a Missile Launcher.
You can't argue that a Heavy Bolter equals a Bolter-not in good faith, at least. Even on the move, a Heavy Bolter averages more hits at a higher Strength, AP, and Damage.
But PL values a Bolter equally to a Heavy Bolter, in a Devastator Squad. Or a Tactical Squad.

Breton wrote:
The perceived superiority of the Lascannon to the Plasma Cannon to the Heavy Bolter is causing the demand for points.

So is the objective superiority of a LRBT with sponsons, a hunter-killer missile, and a heavy stubber vs. a LRBT with none of those things. So is the objective superiority of a crisis suit with three burst cannons and a shield generator vs. a crisis suit with a single burst cannon. And you can't dismiss those examples of PL's inherent systemic errors by talking about different roles or metagames.