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.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

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 a single burst cannon vs. a crisis suit with three burst cannons and a shield generator. And you can't dismiss those examples of PL's inherent systemic errors by talking about different roles or metagames.

No, but I can chalk it up to the first release of the first edition GW did this in compounded by GW always missing some of these things. How many threads have there been about whatever Wombo-Combo Flavor of the Month being "wrong" because Subfaction P'tal isn't pointed properly with these wombo-combos in mind? Its just unintended consequences over and over. How many rules evolutions can be traced back to that sort of thing? Guilliman Parking Lot to CORE? Loyal 32 leading to Paying for Formations instead of getting points for formations - and soup restrictions? The creation of the OC Stat as either a fix for "Troop Taxes" or Building Armies with points vs Scoring Points with Models or both? GW making a boneheaded screwup - or even a more understandable one like the LR/Sponson thing - is not points or power level. There's a Primaris Space Marine captain GW gave out for free in some magazine that isn't covered by the Primaris Captain datasheet. That's not points or power level, that's GW pulling a GW screwup, and an unintended consquence of trying to put army creation on rails strict enough to "control" the players.

Breton wrote:
No, but I can chalk it up to the first release of the first edition GW did this in compounded by GW always missing some of these things. How many threads have there been about whatever Wombo-Combo Flavor of the Month being "wrong" because Subfaction P'tal isn't pointed properly with these wombo-combos in mind? Its just unintended consequences over and over. How many rules evolutions can be traced back to that sort of thing? Guilliman Parking Lot to CORE? Loyal 32 leading to Paying for Formations instead of getting points for formations - and soup restrictions? The creation of the OC Stat as either a fix for "Troop Taxes" or Building Armies with points vs Scoring Points with Models or both? GW making a boneheaded screwup - or even a more understandable one like the LR/Sponson thing - is not points or power level. There's a Primaris Space Marine captain GW gave out for free in some magazine that isn't covered by the Primaris Captain datasheet. That's not points or power level, that's GW pulling a GW screwup, and an unintended consquence of trying to put army creation on rails strict enough to "control" the players.

This is not something GW missed, it is an inherent systemic error that PL can not even in theory fix. The two LRBT options are indisputably not equal in value but PL is incapable of assigning them anything other than the same point cost. No matter what number GW gives for their point cost, no matter how much thought they put into it, no matter how much data they analyze, at least one of the two point costs must be wrong. The only thing GW can possibly do to make this work under PL is to remove one of the options from the game, further culling player choices until nothing is left but the few options PL can support.

The conventional point system had no such systemic error. GW may have erred in setting the initial costs for each option but the system itself was capable of getting both of them right with enough evaluation and fine-tuning. This is why PL is an objectively worse system.

 JNAProductions wrote:
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.

Well, I didn't. You tried to lie to everyone I did. I didn't mention platform, opportunity cost, or even faction, let alone a specific unit of that faction. Once you brought it up - I created an equally ridiculous scenario and you just dropped the Move-Or-Fire part. A Heavy Bolter that can move or fire and always moves has zero shots. Now tell me again - how many bolters-and-compatible-arm-bits are in the Devastator Squad box. How is little Timmy so stupid he makes a Devastator Squad with 5 bolters out of the Devastator Box despite the assembly instructions, the box art, and such a modelling genius he can do it despite the box contents?

Breton wrote:
How is little Timmy so stupid he makes a Devastator Squad with 5 bolters out of the Devastator Box despite the assembly instructions, the box art, and such a modelling genius he can do it despite the box contents?

The fact that some of the systemic errors in PL are so obvious that nobody will ever be stupid enough to fail to exploit them does not excuse the error. The reality of the situation is this:

The conventional point system can assign the correct point cost to both a devastator squad with bolters and a devastator squad with heavy weapons.

PL can not.

PL is an objectively worse system.

Breton, which is worth more: A squad of five Devastators with five guys armed with Bolters, or a squad of five Devastators with four armed with Heavy Bolters and the Sergeant having a Bolter?

It's not a complicated question. It's not a hard question. It's not a trick question.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


This is not something GW missed, it is an inherent systemic error that PL can not even in theory fix. The two LRBT options are indisputably not equal in value but PL is incapable of assigning them anything other than the same point cost. No matter what number GW gives for their point cost, no matter how much thought they put into it, no matter how much data they analyze, at least one of the two point costs must be wrong. The only thing GW can possibly do to make this work under PL is to remove one of the options from the game, further culling player choices until nothing is left but the few options PL can support.

The conventional point system had no such systemic error. GW may have erred in setting the initial costs for each option but the system itself was capable of getting both of them right with enough evaluation and fine-tuning. This is why PL is an objectively worse system.

You think GW intentionally forgot people might have Leman Russ Tanks without sponsons from earlier editions? Setting aside - for the moment - that "gak happens" and each new edition rotates some models on the shelf and some models into the carrying case for almost every faction: Assigning them a stat boost for not having the sponsons sure sounds like a theory that would balance the points. You realize they've been doing minor tweaks to stats and abilities for 9 editions now, and those minor stat/rule changes are responsible for the 15ish point differences between a Predator and a Gladiator Lancer? Out of curiosity have you ever looked up the difference between Objective and Subjective??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Breton, which is worth more: A squad of five Devastators with five guys armed with Bolters, or a squad of five Devastators with four armed with Heavy Bolters and the Sergeant having a Bolter?

It's not a complicated question. It's not a hard question. It's not a trick question.

How many bolters are in the box? Its not a complicated question. Its not a hard question. Its not a trick question.

I'm not entirely sure. I think there's one for the sergeant, but there might be another one somewhere floating around.

I answered your question-now answer mine.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
How is little Timmy so stupid he makes a Devastator Squad with 5 bolters out of the Devastator Box despite the assembly instructions, the box art, and such a modelling genius he can do it despite the box contents?

The fact that some of the systemic errors in PL are so obvious that nobody will ever be stupid enough to fail to exploit them does not excuse the error. The reality of the situation is this:

The conventional point system can assign the correct point cost to both a devastator squad with bolters and a devastator squad with heavy weapons.

PL can not.

PL is an objectively worse system.

The fact that nobody would do this because everyone knows from the box art, the instruction book, and the sprue contents that isn't what you're supposed to do with a Devastator squad doesn't mean this made up impossible situation isn't proof of a flaw! Just because people make 2,000 point lists doesn't mean someone stupid enough to make a 1500 point list isn't a flaw with points over PL.

Breton wrote:
You think GW intentionally forgot people might have Leman Russ Tanks without sponsons from earlier editions?

I don't think they forgot. I think they were well aware that the option exists, that's why it exists in the rules for the LRBT. But that has nothing to do with the situation here:

The conventional point system can assign the correct point cost to both a LRBT with sponsons and a LRBT without sponsons.

PL can not.

PL is an objectively worse system.

Assigning them a stat boost for not having the sponsons sure sounds like a theory that would balance the points.

PL requires a design constraint that not taking sponsons must give some other buff to make up for it.

The conventional point system does not.

PL is an objectively worse system.

Out of curiosity have you ever looked up the difference between Objective and Subjective??

Of course I have. Do you dispute the fact that the LRBT variants having the same point cost is objectively an error, and that the error is objectively a direct result of how PL functions? Therefore demonstrating that PL is objectively worse at the goal of a point system?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
The fact that nobody would do this because everyone knows from the box art, the instruction book, and the sprue contents that isn't what you're supposed to do with a Devastator squad doesn't mean this made up impossible situation isn't proof of a flaw! Just because people make 2,000 point lists doesn't mean someone stupid enough to make a 1500 point list isn't a flaw with points over PL.

Once again: the fact that nobody would be stupid enough to fail to take advantage of a pricing error in PL by taking the objectively worse set of upgrades does not mean the error doesn't exist.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm not entirely sure. I think there's one for the sergeant, but there might be another one somewhere floating around.

I answered your question-now answer mine.

There's one for the sergeant. The Sergeant and the 4 heavies are worth 120. The other 5 optional bolter guys are worth 80. That's why there's a price difference between the first five and the second five. Now lets move on to the rest of the question - If there's one in the box, how is Stupid Little Timmy making 5 Bolter Marines out of a Dev Squad box?

Breton wrote:
If there's one in the box, how is Stupid Little Timmy making 5 Bolter Marines out of a Dev Squad box?

Because "Stupid Little Timmy" understands that conversions are part of the hobby and only building things from a single box is GW marketing nonsense.

And once again: the fact that nobody would be stupid enough to fail to take advantage of a pricing error in PL by taking the objectively worse set of upgrades does not mean the error doesn't exist.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm not entirely sure. I think there's one for the sergeant, but there might be another one somewhere floating around.

I answered your question-now answer mine.

There's one for the sergeant. The Sergeant and the 4 heavies are worth 120. The other 5 optional bolter guys are worth 80. That's why there's a price difference between the first five and the second five. Now lets move on to the rest of the question - If there's one in the box, how is Stupid Little Timmy making 5 Bolter Marines out of a Dev Squad box?

They're not-they found themselves with five left over Bolter dudes when making a list, and decided to make them a Devastator Squad because Tactical Squads cannot be taken as five strong units.

Now, answer my question. Which is worth more-five Devastators with five Bolters, or five Devastators with four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


Once again: the fact that nobody would be stupid enough to fail to take advantage of a pricing error in PL by taking the objectively worse set of upgrades does not mean the error doesn't exist.

The fact that the PL system requires significant additional workarounds to reach the same flexibility as a points system clearly demonstrates it is inferior. Additional workarounds are additional constraints, they increase the amount of $stuff someone has to remember to play the game correctly, the increase rules cruft that needs to be tended whenever you do FAQs, Errata and new rules, and they increase the 'attack surface' for rules interactions that can be broken, have unintended consequences, do not work right in the RAW and so on. Over 2000+ datasheets, this is a non-negligible amount of extra things and unhealthy for the game.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm not entirely sure. I think there's one for the sergeant, but there might be another one somewhere floating around.

I answered your question-now answer mine.

There's one for the sergeant. The Sergeant and the 4 heavies are worth 120. The other 5 optional bolter guys are worth 80. That's why there's a price difference between the first five and the second five. Now lets move on to the rest of the question - If there's one in the box, how is Stupid Little Timmy making 5 Bolter Marines out of a Dev Squad box?

I'm just wondering if you're going to claim that the Heavy Bolters are worth the same as the Grav Cannons as if the Sustained Hits 1 was worth more than the S6 and D3 LMAO

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
You think GW intentionally forgot people might have Leman Russ Tanks without sponsons from earlier editions?

I don't think they forgot. I think they were well aware that the option exists, that's why it exists in the rules for the LRBT. But that has nothing to do with the situation here:

The conventional point system can assign the correct point cost to both a LRBT with sponsons and a LRBT without sponsons.

PL can not.

PL is an objectively worse system.

Again, I beg of you look up the defintion of Objective vs Subjective.

Assigning them a stat boost for not having the sponsons sure sounds like a theory that would balance the points.

PL requires a design constraint that not taking sponsons must give some other buff to make up for it.

So getting a 5++ - or extra move, A second Datasheet for No Sponson Models, or even extra models - for not having the doodad glued onto the model is a totally different design constraint than getting X points back for not having the the doodad glued onto the model? And lets get back to the Gak Happens - maybe its time to shelve your Sponsonless LRBT for ones with Sponsons for an edition. Happens to everyone.

The conventional point system does not.

PL is an objectively worse system.

Repeating the same My Opinion is Objective Fact claim doesn't make it true.

Out of curiosity have you ever looked up the difference between Objective and Subjective??

Of course I have. Do you dispute the fact that the LRBT variants having the same point cost is objectively an error, and that the error is objectively a direct result of how PL functions? Therefore demonstrating that PL is objectively worse at the goal of a point system?

Do I dispute? No, Yes, Yes - No I don't dispute it was an error, its not related to how PL Functions in fact similar errors have showed up in 9 editions of points, and PL is neither worse nor better, plus you still don't know what objectively means.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
The fact that nobody would do this because everyone knows from the box art, the instruction book, and the sprue contents that isn't what you're supposed to do with a Devastator squad doesn't mean this made up impossible situation isn't proof of a flaw! Just because people make 2,000 point lists doesn't mean someone stupid enough to make a 1500 point list isn't a flaw with points over PL.

Once again: the fact that nobody would be stupid enough to fail to take advantage of a pricing error in PL by taking the objectively worse set of upgrades does not mean the error doesn't exist.

The fact that the error doesn't exist on any lists doesn't mean the error doesn't exist! The fact that nobody takes 20 100 point characters doesn't mean its not an error they allow you take 20 100 point characters! Oh wait. That's points. That's not an error, right?

Breton wrote:
Again, I beg of you look up the defintion of Objective vs Subjective.

I have. The error is objectively true, as is its absence in the other system. As is the fact that PL has additional design constraints that do not exist in the conventional point system. These things are all objective facts that make PL a worse system.

So getting a 5++ - or extra move, A second Datasheet for No Sponson Models, or even extra models - for not having the doodad glued onto the model is a totally different design constraint than getting X points back for not having the the doodad glued onto the model?

Yes, because those options also exist in the conventional point system. The conventional point system can balance sponsons vs. no sponsons with buffs for not taking sponsons OR it can balance them by setting different point costs. PL can only use one of those methods, making it an objectively worse system.

And lets get back to the Gak Happens - maybe its time to shelve your Sponsonless LRBT for ones with Sponsons for an edition. Happens to everyone.

PL creates inherent systemic errors where the only possible fix is "don't use that model anymore".

The conventional point system does not.

PL is an objectively worse system.

No I don't dispute it was an error, its not related to how PL Functions in fact similar errors have showed up in 9 editions of points

It is absolutely and objectively an error directly caused by how PL functions! The error exists because PL is by definition incapable of setting a correct point cost for the two options. In the conventional point system the error can be fixed by getting the points right through iterative balance, in PL at least one of them must be incorrect.

And yes, errors in applying point systems have existed for 9 editions. Those errors also exist in PL, on top of the systemic errors created by PL's limitations. PL is an objectively worse system with objectively more errors.

The fact that the error doesn't exist on any lists doesn't mean the error doesn't exist! The fact that nobody takes 20 100 point characters doesn't mean its not an error they allow you take 20 100 point characters! Oh wait. That's points. That's not an error, right?

"Pre-nerf fate dice are fine, anyone who isn't stupid will play Eldar."

PL creates errors that do not have to exist in a better point system and that makes it objectively worse. The fact that those errors are so obvious that everyone will always take the best choice under PL does not make the error go away.

Uh oh, Bretons put up the brick wall of stubborness again.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm not entirely sure. I think there's one for the sergeant, but there might be another one somewhere floating around.

I answered your question-now answer mine.

There's one for the sergeant. The Sergeant and the 4 heavies are worth 120. The other 5 optional bolter guys are worth 80. That's why there's a price difference between the first five and the second five. Now lets move on to the rest of the question - If there's one in the box, how is Stupid Little Timmy making 5 Bolter Marines out of a Dev Squad box?

They're not-they found themselves with five left over Bolter dudes when making a list, and decided to make them a Devastator Squad because Tactical Squads cannot be taken as five strong units.

Now, answer my question. Which is worth more-five Devastators with five Bolters, or five Devastators with four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter?

Pretty sure I just did - and you even quoted it :The Sergeant and the 4 heavies are worth 120. The other 5 optional bolter guys are worth 80

So they're not Devastator marines, they're just five left over models pretending to be Devastator Marines? Sounds like a problem with Timmy's miniature collection not army generation. Are we blaming PL for the Land Raider Ultra going to Legends? For the free captain no longer having rules? Do you want to backpedal into the LRBT/Sponsons thing like the guy who doesn't know the difference between Objective and Subjective?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Uh oh, Bretons put up the brick wall of stubborness again.

Uh oh, the people who agree with you are conflating objective fact with the opinion you like again.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

PL creates inherent systemic errors where the only possible fix is "don't use that model anymore".

The conventional point system does not.

Never in the history of points has a model ever been consigned to the shelf due to its points vs rules?

Breton wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

PL creates inherent systemic errors where the only possible fix is "don't use that model anymore".

The conventional point system does not.

Never in the history of points has a model ever been consigned to the shelf due to its points vs rules?

Is there a reason you're ignoring my question?
I answered yours.

Breton wrote:
Never in the history of points has a model ever been consigned to the shelf due to its points vs rules?

Let me highlight the important part of that statement for you:

PL creates inherent systemic errors where the only possible fix is "don't use that model anymore".

In the conventional point system you can fix the issue by adjusting the point costs so that both are viable and the model can come off the shelf again.

In PL you can not, at least one of the options must have the incorrect point cost and "just accept that you won't get to use that model this edition" seems like a reasonable thing to say.

PL is an objectively worse system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
Uh oh, the people who agree with you are conflating objective fact with the opinion you like again.

Additional systemic errors in PL are objective fact, not opinion.

Additional design constraints in PL are objective fact, not opinion.

It says a lot that you keep focusing on the "objective" part of the criticism of PL and have nothing to say in defense of the system itself, only poorly supported attempts to argue that the conventional point system is also bad or that PL's errors are fine because they're so obvious that nobody would ever fall victim to them.

Just want to chime in and say that it is absurd to take the physical contents of the Devastator box as a defense for PL.

Try to build the additional 5 boltgun Marines out of a second box.

Whoopsie

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

PL creates inherent systemic errors where the only possible fix is "don't use that model anymore".

The conventional point system does not.

Never in the history of points has a model ever been consigned to the shelf due to its points vs rules?

Is there a reason you're ignoring my question?
I answered yours.

Well mostly because that wasn't a reply to you? But partly because I haven't seen you ask a question I haven't answered and you didn't quote while lying about whether I answered it?

Painting owl here is guilty of exactly what he is so upset at Jervis for doing, this thread has been the painting owl show for the last dozen pages of them ranting about how they are objectively right, there way is objectively better than anyone else’s and we are all having fun wrong. They must be seriously irony impaired not to see that.

The very fact that there are loads of people on here arguing that match play style points are the “best” way to play and all other systems should be measured against that is a proof that what jervis foretold has come to pass.

And, my leman Russ tanks don’t have sponsons (the horror!)

Which is worth more: A squad of five Devastators with five Bolters, or a squad of five Devastators with four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is worth more: A squad of five Devastators with five Bolters, or a squad of five Devastators with four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter?

Current points system they are the same.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Just want to chime in and say that it is absurd to take the physical contents of the Devastator box as a defense for PL.

Try to build the additional 5 boltgun Marines out of a second box.

Whoopsie

Its not a defense of PL - because the 5 Bolter Devs isn't really a critique of PL its just some wildly stretched out edge case scenario based more on Little Timmy not having enough models, not the points or PL cost of those models.

Andykp wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is worth more: A squad of five Devastators with five Bolters, or a squad of five Devastators with four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter?

Current points system they are the same.

That is a statement of the current situation with points, but also not what I meant.
Which is worth more in the game?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is worth more: A squad of five Devastators with five Bolters, or a squad of five Devastators with four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter?

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm not entirely sure. I think there's one for the sergeant, but there might be another one somewhere floating around.

I answered your question-now answer mine.

There's one for the sergeant. The Sergeant and the 4 heavies are worth 120. The other 5 optional bolter guys are worth 80. That's why there's a price difference between the first five and the second five. Now lets move on to the rest of the question - If there's one in the box, how is Stupid Little Timmy making 5 Bolter Marines out of a Dev Squad box?

They're not-they found themselves with five left over Bolter dudes when making a list, and decided to make them a Devastator Squad because Tactical Squads cannot be taken as five strong units.

Now, answer my question. Which is worth more-five Devastators with five Bolters, or five Devastators with four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter?

Pretty sure I just did - and you even quoted it :The Sergeant and the 4 heavies are worth 120. The other 5 optional bolter guys are worth 80

Does this help?

Nah, you dance around the question.

Want to play a game where you only get 3 squads of Devastators with boltguns and I only get 3 squads with whatever selection of 4 heavy weapons per squad I want? Does it sound fair? They cost the same, after all.