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.

PenitentJake wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
But I can't abide people saying that granular points are objectively better.

You can feel however you like about the claim but it's still true. I've posted this definition multiple times before but it's still true:

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.

When I play the game, my goal is to have fun telling a story with models. A system in which changing the loadout of one unit affects the composition and loadout of other units interferes with my ability to do that, so whether or not it is better at its intended purpose, it is still not the system I prefer to use. It is not better for me. It is not better for Andy. It is not better for Axel. And we don't care if it's better at it's intended purpose, because none of us ascribe as much value to the accomplishment of that purpose is you do.

So why do you even need a point system?

Real News wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
GW may not make a lot of money directly from the rulebooks but the game is the reason why most people are buying the miniatures. Take away the rules and GW is a dead company.

I doubt that's even true. Plenty of people buy the miniatures just to paint them. And there are a million other wargames out there with better rules. The IP, the associated fluff and the aesthetic (in other words, marketing) help GW sell the product, but the product is what it is. Seems highly probable that the business is thinking of the rules as another marketing accessory to help sell the product, and it's an interchangeable accessory that can be emphasized or de-emphasized on a whim. Maybe today they want to put resources into the rules, then tomorrow they decide to shift resources to focus on fluff or IP-lawyering or advertising instead.

"Take away the rules and GW is a dead company" ignores the fact that they just did take away the rules. Right now there are no valid official rules for 40k that you can pay for. If they decided not to bother releasing the new marine and nid codices, and let players soldier on with nothing but the free get-you-by rules forever, it wouldn't be the best move from a marketing standpoint but they certainly wouldn't be a dead company.

GW's lack of interest in rules-writing is self-evident in the rules themselves. Nobody can read the Munitorum Field Manual and think "Wow, GW put time and effort into this!" Maybe they'll sell more Eldar for the time being due to the lack of balancing, but if I were going to put money on it I'd say that was purely an accident.

They tried it with age of sigmar and it nearly smothered it in its crib.

This is not quite as bad as AoS on release. But it is bad and it will hurt sales.

Games Workshop needs to be careful the game is the draw that everything orbits around, withought the game these minis are nic nacs, I don't collect nic nacs nore do I care about the lore of nic nacs, withought the game thses are no diffrent. If games workshops removed the game compleatly they would change it back in a day or go bankrupt in a year.

Hopefully they will understand this.

PenitentJake wrote:
Better at intended purpose =/= better.

No, that's literally what "better" means.

When I play the game, my goal is to have fun telling a story with models. A system in which changing the loadout of one unit affects the composition and loadout of other units interferes with my ability to do that, so whether or not it is better at its intended purpose, it is still not the system I prefer to use.

Sure. But what you are saying here is "I do not desire points-based list construction". And that's fine! Not everyone has to care about balancing two equivalent forces free from story/balance/etc constraints. But the solution is not to use an objectively bad point system like PL, it's to abandon the entire concept of points-based list construction. An approach like "take 6 units and 3 characters each" will be far better than PL at accomplishing your stated goals.

As for your obstinance on the Ferari; in Andy's post, he said he puts his dog in the boot of a car- a hatchback in his case. If the car were not a hatchback, keeping a dog in the boot of the car would be unethical, not matter how big the boot is. The hatchback is what Andy needs, not just because it's big enough for his dog, but also because it allows him to take a quick glace at his dog in the rearview to check in on him, and also because it allows the dog to see, hear and smell Andy at all times.

Yes, I get that real cars work that way. The point is that it's a poor analogy for points vs. PL. PL offers no meaningful advantage over traditional points in any situation where points-based list construction is desirable, only a tiny time savings comparable to bragging about 0.1 cubic inch of additional trunk space on a car.

Here's a more accurate analogy: you're hyping up the virtues of the hatchback over the Ferrari because the hatchback has fewer gaps in the floor so it's easier to get a watertight seal on everything and allow the car to float, which is really important because you love fishing and need to be able to get out to the middle of the lake. While yes, that may technically be true you're overlooking a much better solution: get a boat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:
In 9th ed. Crusade you chose the units from your roster after rolling for the mission, so the time savings was more relevant than it would be in conventional matched play with fixed lists. You'd pull the units from your roster that fit the mission and add up on the fly at the table.

Not true at all. In Crusade you don't add up individual upgrade costs at the table, that's all done when a unit is assigned to your roster and those upgrades are locked in. In both systems you have a single number for a unit's point cost on your roster, the only time savings is that it takes that fraction of a second less time to type "6" into the calculator instead of "125".

I have to say it is funny how some of you keep saying "granular points are objectively better" when you haven't proved that. I'm not saying they may not be better or preferable, but you can say they are objectively better without proving that.

Pulling out one unit's PL Points as an example of why PL Points are bad in that case doesn't prove your point. That proves that in that instance, granular points allows you to better differentiate the power level of that unit in two specific configurations.

But the big questions are in what ways are Granular Points better or worst than PL Points when creating balance at an army level? There are pros and cons to both systems, not that you Granular Points guys seem willing to accept anything more than "it save you a few seconds" as a benefit.

Give me an honest and comprehensive pros and cons for both systems before you tell me on is objectively better than the other. After all, based on impact in the game, how many points should a wargear upgrade for an AM Infantry Squad for a Bolt Pistol over the standard Las Pistol? Remember you are backtracking from a fully upgraded squad 9-10 model squad at 65 points.

I personally don't actually care which way GW goes. I am pleased that the current system encourages the use of wargear on units. I am displeased that they left so many vastly unequal choices on units. There is a solid case when you roll out your Leman Russ as to whether you want a Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, or Heavy Flamer hull weapon. The only value in not taking sponson weapons is "my model doesn't have sponsons". That is a really bad execution failure on GWs part if they want PL Points to be the standard. Still all I care about is can my friends and I use the points they have given to build roughly balanced armies.

Here is some proof:

My army of 10 russes with no sponsons and hull heavy bolters goes up against an army of 10 russes with hull lascannons and sponson multi-meltas.

Is the game balanced, assuming all factors are equal? The points are equal, after all.

In 4th edition this would be >500 pts different between the two lists. (Russes were 150, Russes with Lascannons and MM sponsons were something like 200-210).

Comprehensive pro/con list:
Pros:
???
Cons:
Has no hope of ever being a balanced engagement.

In 4th:
Pros:
- even if points are off now, they can be adjusted to make it fairer, and they already start fairer!

Cons:
Harder to add up??

Thank you for not playing. That is exactly the type of edge case that doesn't actually prove anything other than one datasheet is badly written. Come back with a real set of pros and cons and we can talk.

I mean it isn't like an army of Russes with no Sponsons and Heavy Bolters would be screwed by an army of Russes with Lascannons and Multi-Melta Sponsons if they both brought the same points in 9th Edition points.

 alextroy wrote:
Thank you for not playing. That is exactly the type of edge case that doesn't actually prove anything other than one datasheet is badly written. Come back with a real set of pros and cons and we can talk.

Lmao what a dodge.

"That doesn't count because I say so, fnar fnar"

How's this:

Any army of units that don't have upgrades vs any army of units that took all the upgrades?
Devastators with bolters vs devastators with heavy Weapons?

Keepers of Secrets with nothing vs Keepers of Secrets with shields?

Baneblades with 0 sponsons vs Baneblades with max sponsons...

I mean really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
Thank you for not playing. That is exactly the type of edge case that doesn't actually prove anything other than one datasheet is badly written. Come back with a real set of pros and cons and we can talk.

I mean it isn't like an army of Russes with no Sponsons and Heavy Bolters would be screwed by an army of Russes with Lascannons and Multi-Melta Sponsons if they both brought the same points in 9th Edition points.

The 10 sponsonless russes could bring much much much more support.... Like 2 entire russes more.

Another edge case. Who bring an army with no upgrades?

Whatever points system you use, it is meant to be used in the real world. It doesn't matter if you can bring 5 Devastators with Boltguns because nobody would actually do that.

If all you want to do is use edge cases to prove yourself right, then there isn't really any conversation to be had here. If you want to talk pros and cons, stop concentrating on specific datasheets and never will happen scenarios and and let's talk pros and cons.

 alextroy wrote:
Another edge case. Who bring an army with no upgrades?

Whatever points system you use, it is meant to be used in the real world. It doesn't matter if you can bring 5 Devastators with Boltguns because nobody would actually do that.

If all you want to do is use edge cases to prove yourself right, then there isn't really any conversation to be had here. If you want to talk pros and cons, stop concentrating on specific datasheets and never will happen scenarios and and let's talk pros and cons.

Edge cases?

Most of my Baneblades have one set of sponsons or no sponsons at all.

Most of my Keepers are modeled with the open hand - the "nothing" option this edition.

Most of my Russes (all but 3) have no sponsons.

These "edge cases" are the life I live, if I want to play WYSIWYG without damaging my beautifully painted minis.

The benefit with 'edge cases' is that they serve to very clearly illustrate a point.

The point in question is still present whether you have one Leman Russ or ten Leman Russes, but it is more obviously demonstrable with the exaggerated edge case.


But of course everybody actually understands that, and people are only feigning ignorance...

 alextroy wrote:
I have to say it is funny how some of you keep saying "granular points are objectively better" when you haven't proved that.

Every page since this thread started has proof.

 alextroy wrote:
I have to say it is funny how some of you keep saying "granular points are objectively better" when you haven't proved that.

Is a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon strictly better than a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns, yes or no?
Is a CSM Squad with 1 Heavy Bolter and 1 Chaincannon better than a CSM Squad with 1 Heavy Bolter and 1 Flamer, yes or no?
Is a Death Company Squad with all Power Swords better than a Death Company Squad with all Chainswords, yes or no?

There, those aren't fringe cases either so you can't go "nuh uh they don't count".

Those are defiantly Pros for Points and Cons for PL. But that isn't the end of the story. You are concentrating on you and those specific models. But you are ignoring any other Cons for Points or Pros for PL because PL specifically hurts those models. You are too busy looking at your personal trees to even look at the forest.

We all know GW botches the execution of PL when they made stupid mistakes like free Sponsons and removing Sinistrous Hand from the Keeper of Secrets. Those execution errors do not mean Points are objectively better, although they definitely start the case.

Here's a simple set of Pros and Cons that expanded could prove (or disprove) the case for Granular Points being objectively better:

Granular Points
Pro: Can account for power difference in major not taken options (Sponson or no Sponson).
Con: Has major issues determining value for minor wargear differences (Las Pistol or Bolt Pistol).

Power Level Points
Pro: Prevents ruthless optimization of armies through fixed unit sizes (You get 5 or 10, not 7 because that is just enough to do the job and saves you points)
Con: Poor Datasheet design can result in units with drastically different effect on the game for a fixed point value (Sponson or no Sponson)

 alextroy wrote:
Those are defiantly Pros for Points and Cons for PL. But that isn't the end of the story. You are concentrating on you and those specific models. But you are ignoring any other Cons for Points or Pros for PL because PL specifically hurts those models. You are too busy looking at your personal trees to even look at the forest.

We all know GW botches the execution of PL when they made stupid mistakes like free Sponsons and removing Sinistrous Hand from the Keeper of Secrets. Those execution errors do not mean Points are objectively better, although they definitely start the case.

Here's a simple set of Pros and Cons that expanded could prove (or disprove) the case for Granular Points being objectively better:

Granular Points
Pro: Can account for power difference in major not taken options (Sponson or no Sponson).
Con: Has major issues determining value for minor wargear differences (Las Pistol or Bolt Pistol).

I wouldn't say it has "major issues". Unless you are willing to prove that 1ppm to upgrade a laspistol to a bolt pistol is major.

What would you say the pros and cons are for PL by the same standards?
Pros: ?????
Cons: has even more major, indeed insurmountable, issues with major differences in wargear (sponson or no sponsons

 alextroy wrote:

Con: Has major issues determining value for minor wargear differences (Las Pistol or Bolt Pistol).

Bolt Pistol is worth 1-2 points more and this was mathematically proven already as a fine upgrade for the point you'd spend on it, yet wasn't mandatory at the same time.

WOW that was super hard to figure out.

 alextroy wrote:
Another edge case. Who bring an army with no upgrades?

GK. You could put a thunder hammer in prior edition on every model. But it cost so many points you just wouldn't do it. You wouldn't take heavy weapons on strikes or interceptors, because they had bad stats, cost points and the GK model would lose his melee weapon without a refund.
In 10th some genius bumped up the cost of GK units as if they are were running max heavy weapons and max thunder hammers. And then forgot, or some other dude did it, that all the weapons have a single profile.

GW adds costs to units based on some sort of alegorythm, but they don't read their own rules and what the units do. And somehow we end up with purgation squads costing more then desolators.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I wouldn't say it has "major issues". Unless you are willing to prove that 1ppm to upgrade a laspistol to a bolt pistol is major.

That is just a quick and easy example. There are more is A really worth X points when B is worth Y points examples as there are units with upgrades in 40K.

And I edited my last email to include the PL Points Pros and Cons I lost due to website wonkiness.

 alextroy wrote:

Pro: Prevents ruthless optimization of armies through fixed unit sizes (You get 5 or 10, not 7 because that is just enough to do the job and saves you points)

You will have to prove this to me for me to believe it, especially since it can also go in the Pro column for points (points has nothing to do with unit size- as you can see from 9th when IG infantry squads were 10 models and 10 models only without using PL).

So try picking a pro that is actually a result of PL and not just a game design change that has always been the case for some armies, points/PL or not.

Edit:
Heck, basic IG squads were 10 models and 10 models only back in 4th edition, well before PL was even conceived

Karol wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Another edge case. Who bring an army with no upgrades?

GK. You could put a thunder hammer in prior edition on every model. But it cost so many points you just wouldn't do it. You wouldn't take heavy weapons on strikes or interceptors, because they had bad stats, cost points and the GK model would lose his melee weapon without a refund.
In 10th some genius bumped up the cost of GK units as if they are were running max heavy weapons and max thunder hammers. And then forgot, or some other dude did it, that all the weapons have a single profile.

GW adds costs to units based on some sort of alegorythm, but they don't read their own rules and what the units do. And somehow we end up with purgation squads costing more than desolators.

Yeah. GW did screw the pooch on the last two versions of Grey Knights. But they have always been bad at getting this army right. I can only guess they don't want to put the effort into the army to actually give it the tools to operate at the right points level.

But isn't this more a case against Granular Points? If you screw up the points and the rules, people just don't use things. In PL Points, you don't have to worry about not getting refunded for losing your Force Weapon if switching to the Heavy Weapon gives you a useful capability because the unit cost stays the same.

No it isn't. Because before If I didn't have the models to run an ancient and apothecary in every squads (not that they were squad upgrades, they were heroes, in 8th or 9th) or didn't want to pay for an over priced psycanon, I did not have to do it. Now GK were overcosted anyway, but that is a separate matter. Now a GK player has no such option. The cost of those weapons are baked in to the unit cost, so not taking them is equal to something like paying for 10 terminators, but running a 6 model squad.

PL doesn't make worry about "refunding", because it always makes me pay for it. What ever I do so or not. And this pre checking if taking the specific weapon is a sound option to begin with.

To give a different example. Should a hvy bolter razorback cost the same as a lascanon armed one? Should they be costed like the marine options, where part of all marine point costs is the assumption that Oath of the Moment exists, in armies that don't have OotM?

I was planning on not logging in tonight and ignoring forums. I came home and built my Simulacrum Dom. I had four more plain bolter women I was planning to build- two with Celestian helmets to rep the Chamber Militant group and two with bare heads to rep the Palatine's escort.

And then I ran out of freakin' glue. So now I'm bored and here I am.

To folks who ask why I use a point system at all, there are two answers: a) while I don't care about the minutiae of balance that points are better at providing, I do care to have the approximate balance that PL provides... More importantly though, Crusades escalation mechanic (supply limit) is predicated upon PL/ points. Furthermore, game size rules, such as number of allowable detachments, table size, and starting CP were also based on PL.

Obviously, some of that is no longer relevant in 10th (starting CP, allowable detachments)... But the point is that the PL/Point value isn't just used for army construction- it has other in game effects.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
But the solution is not to use an objectively bad point system like PL, it's to abandon the entire concept of points-based list construction. An approach like "take 6 units and 3 characters each" will be far better than PL at accomplishing your stated goals.

No it wouldn't, because both Knights and min-sized canon-fodder infantry are "units" - by your rules, one person could bring 3 generic Ork bosses 6 minimum sized units of grots while the other brings three named character and six super heavies. PL isn't accurate to the minutiae, but it's accurate enough to prevent THAT kind of imbalance, while your proposed solution solution is not.

Also, as I explained to everyone else above, the PL/Point rating has significant impacts on escalation and Crusade play that go beyond list construction, meaning that even IF I accepted your proposed solution (which I don't), I'd still need a rating system in order to grow my army via the supply limit crusade mechanic.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

PL offers no meaningful advantage over traditional points in any situation where points-based list construction is desirable

I told the story of my sisters for a second time in my last post because after re-reading the first instance of that story, I could see how someone might have missed the point. I told again to be more clear, but you still aren't seeing it. So this time, I'm just going to state the point without retelling the story, and we'll see if it sinks in:

A PL TYPE SYSTEM ALLOWS YOU TO MODIFY THE LOADOUT OF A SINGLE UNIT WITHOUT AFFECTING THE REST OF THE ARMY AT ALL

This is a meaningful advantage. It may not be a priority for you, but it is a HUGE deal for me. My preference for a PL-type system never had anything to do with saving time- it was always about being able to modify one unit without modifying any of the others... And that is a feature that systems with costed equipment are just not capable of providing.

 alextroy wrote:

Here's a simple set of Pros and Cons that expanded could prove (or disprove) the case for Granular Points being objectively better:

Granular Points
Pro: Can account for power difference in major not taken options (Sponson or no Sponson).
Con: Has major issues determining value for minor wargear differences (Las Pistol or Bolt Pistol).

PL Con: Doesn't even try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

A PL TYPE SYSTEM ALLOWS YOU TO MODIFY THE LOADOUT OF A SINGLE UNIT WITHOUT AFFECTING THE REST OF THE ARMY AT ALL

It benefits the lazy? Is that the argument?

Or to rephrase it:

"A PL type system allows you to take upgrades without having to account for the additional utility, power or advantage it provides in any way, and you don't have to give anything else up in your army, or sacrifice any other choices you have made, to achieve this increase in ability/power."

That ain't a "pro"...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or to rephrase it:

"A PL type system allows you to take upgrades without having to account for the additional utility, power or advantage it provides in any way, and you don't have to give anything else up in your army, or sacrifice any other choices you have made, to achieve this increase in ability/power."

That ain't a "pro"...

Boom, headshot.

PenitentJake wrote:


To folks who ask why I use a point system at all, there are two answers: a) while I don't care about the minutiae of balance that points are better at providing, I do care to have the approximate balance that PL provides... More importantly though, Crusades escalation mechanic (supply limit) is predicated upon PL/ points. Furthermore, game size rules, such as number of allowable detachments, table size, and starting CP were also based on PL.

1. It's not going to be approximate when it can't do a bare minimum
2. Who cares about Crusade? $5 says Crusade would function better with traditional points anyway

 Insectum7 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

A PL TYPE SYSTEM ALLOWS YOU TO MODIFY THE LOADOUT OF A SINGLE UNIT WITHOUT AFFECTING THE REST OF THE ARMY AT ALL

It benefits the lazy? Is that the argument?

Dude it ain't about lazy, it's about the story.

A unit has an experience on the battlefield that necessitates a change in its load out out for the next game. None of the other units have an experience that require a change of load out. A costed equipment system does not allow me as a storyteller to deal with this. If I change the equipment of the affected unit as required by the story, I must also change at least one of the other units, even though there's no story based reason to do this.

A PL type system does allow me to change the load of one unit without affecting the load out of the others. If all you ever play is stand-alone pick-up games, you'll never encounter a situation like this, but it's quite common in the campaigns we play, so we prefer a system that lets us deal with it when it happens.

Laziness has nothing to do with it. Time has nothing to do with it. We put a fair amount of work into our campaigns... Ain't one of us I'd call lazy, and if time was an issue, I'd just avoid spending as much time as I do feeding trolls on the Internet to make up the difference.

Ah yes, in your "stories" units just get better and therefore should get upgrades for free in PL, which doesn't accurately reflect the new unit's actual power. Got it.

 alextroy wrote:
Another edge case.

"Once you dismiss every example of PL's failures as an 'edge case' there are no examples of PL failing" is not nearly as compelling an argument as you seem to think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
Dude it ain't about lazy, it's about the story.

Then why are you using a point system at all? Why are you adding a character to your SoB army for the sole purpose of matching the arbitrary point total of the DE force? If the character wasn't already in your force for lore reasons why should she suddenly appear just because the DE have more points in their force? Play the game with the force dictated by lore even if the point totals don't match and you're at a disadvantage.

You keep saying "it's all about the story" but you are remarkably reluctant to break out of the matched play with points-based list construction mindset and do something genuinely story-focused.

PenitentJake wrote:


Dude it ain't about lazy, it's about the story.

A unit has an experience on the battlefield that necessitates a change in its load out out for the next game. None of the other units have an experience that require a change of load out. A costed equipment system does not allow me as a storyteller to deal with this. If I change the equipment of the affected unit as required by the story, I must also change at least one of the other units, even though there's no story based reason to do this.

A PL type system does allow me to change the load of one unit without affecting the load out of the others. If all you ever play is stand-alone pick-up games, you'll never encounter a situation like this, but it's quite common in the campaigns we play, so we prefer a system that lets us deal with it when it happens.

Laziness has nothing to do with it. Time has nothing to do with it. We put a fair amount of work into our campaigns... Ain't one of us I'd call lazy, and if time was an issue, I'd just avoid spending as much time as I do feeding trolls on the Internet to make up the difference.

So it works for the games you play. Maybe it doesn't work for the games other people play. I think it's better to have both options available, instead of GW forcing people to do things your way. Instead GW is pushing a points system that's just a multiplicative of the PL system, which isn't useful for anybody.

PenitentJake wrote:

To folks who ask why I use a point system at all, there are two answers: a) while I don't care about the minutiae of balance that points are better at providing, I do care to have the approximate balance that PL provides... More importantly though, Crusades escalation mechanic (supply limit) is predicated upon PL/ points. Furthermore, game size rules, such as number of allowable detachments, table size, and starting CP were also based on PL.

Obviously, some of that is no longer relevant in 10th (starting CP, allowable detachments)... But the point is that the PL/Point value isn't just used for army construction- it has other in game effects.

Ok. That's fair.

I told the story of my sisters for a second time in my last post because after re-reading the first instance of that story, I could see how someone might have missed the point. I told again to be more clear, but you still aren't seeing it. So this time, I'm just going to state the point without retelling the story, and we'll see if it sinks in:

A PL TYPE SYSTEM ALLOWS YOU TO MODIFY THE LOADOUT OF A SINGLE UNIT WITHOUT AFFECTING THE REST OF THE ARMY AT ALL

This is a meaningful advantage. It may not be a priority for you, but it is a HUGE deal for me. My preference for a PL-type system never had anything to do with saving time- it was always about being able to modify one unit without modifying any of the others... And that is a feature that systems with costed equipment are just not capable of providing.

But this. This feels like self deception. You know from this thread and others that traditional points are more precise in gauging the combat power of a given force. There have been several examples of very large deltas between basic units and fully upgraded ones. As part of your story you are adding power to a unit, but because of how those upgrades are costed/not costed you can pretend that the overall strength of the army is unchanged and this alleviates the need to decrement some other unit in order to stay balanced with whatever opposing force you have. You know your army is stronger than before, but you're happy that the imprecision of the points system gives you permission to ignore it. GW says it's still the same 1000 points and that makes it official. I get that not having to change other parts of the army is seen as a benefit, but why is there no interest in acknowledging that the power of the army has increased?

This reminds me of other arguments from the last few years about narrative play, PL and the crusade system. Competitive players can't understand why the narrative players need/want GW's permission to do narrative games. Whereas the narrative gamers are seeking legitimacy and recognition that they exist from GW and happily embrace whatever narrative framework they can get however flawed it may be.