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.

Andykp wrote:
My “condescending” comments were aimed purely at painting owl because that is all he has been doing now for a long time. And he seems content to tell me how I should play but incapable of seeing how anyone could like something he doesn’t.

Except that isn't at all what he has been doing. All he, and any of us supporting granular points, have done is point out that there are objective problems with PL and that they offer nothing that points don't also do, and do better. How you choose to play is irrelevant and I doubt most people particularly care; the point is that PL is a poorer structual baseline for all styles of play. A narrative focused campaign with a bunch of house rules can still be easily done with granular points, but PL is insufficient for a more balanced and potentially competitive style. PL is actively worse for everyone.

Andykp wrote:
I am sorry you are unhappy with it, and if you could bothered to scroll through the 80 page horror that is this thread (I don’t blame you if you don’t) my position on points this edition is that it worse then last edition. I liked the choice, the option people had for points or power levels. I used power levels but am grown up enough to see that doesn’t suit everyone. The way pick) to had got in the last 30 years they were an unnecessary pain in the arse. Not for me but if you played competitive or pick up games with strangers then they were probably better.

I stopped playing 40k years ago; I follow it's development now mainly out of morbid curiosity and because it was a setting I used to care a great deal for. As for this thread, I've watched it since the beginning. What I have mostly seen throughout it is PL advocates insisting that PL is fine because they like it, routinely failing to refute the objective fact that it is an inferior system with no actual advantages for any style of play, or offer any valid reason that anyone should just settle for medicority, and then usually flouncing out of the thread with a dramatic announcement of such.

Andykp wrote:
I get that you are upset but don’t go telling me that I would be better off playing with super granular points updated all the time to reflect the “meta”. This system isn’t exactly as I would want it but I can live with it. I will adapt and make it work. I am just suggesting you and the other angry people try a different way. If you have a didn’t like it or can’t because of your gaming group then that’s a shame. But if you can, it is surely better than polluting the internet with your disappointment.

I am not remotely upset. The 'meta' is not relevant here; the fact is that for the style of game you clearly prefer, granular points is better. No one is telling you you're 'playing wrong', they're telling you the objective fact that charging appropriately for upgrades works better for what you want. If you prefer not to care too much for the pistols characters hold or whatever arbitrary granularity limit you set, then it's fine within your own group to just...not bother with the points for those, if you all agree it doesn't matter enough. But going the other way is not possible, and there are plenty of folks who prefer every upgrade to be counted. Both ways of looking at the game are valid, but points is the better starting point for both styles. Not everyone has the same circumstances or the same access to a close-knit regular group, so 'good enough' for you or your group is, ironically, not good enough to be universal or a baseline.
'Polluting the internet with your disappointment' is a just another way to say 'no criticism or negativity allowed'. It does not help your case to try and shut down discussion. What you would have then is an echo chamber.

Andykp wrote:
Either way you do what you like, my comment was not directed at you at all, in fact I dint think I have ever encountered you in here before. But maybe try and a bit a little bit less judgmental.

I'll stop being judgemental when you stop ending your posts with condescending little swipes like this. As for my involvement,I do normally try to stay out of these discussions directly, but equally I tire of seeing the same flawed arguments getting repeated. Accepting mediocrity is never going to incentivize GW to do any better. Players and customers (including you) deserve better and should demand better.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

That's points, you are arguing in favour of scrapping PL and bringing back pts

No. You’ve fabricated both a definition for what a “systemic error” is and where the imaginary line between PL and “points” are. But I don’t share your unseen line drawn in your sandbox and you don’t get to yell out that I’m no longer on base and get tagged. Clearly this is not PL. The app has added customization beyond that. Because I think that a level of customization that is in place for some units, cost wise, but is not there for vehicles that take sponsons could be added, does not mean that I’m arguing for abandoning the conceptual structure in 10th.

But since you are advocating some simple and bland system where you aren’t paying for ammunition, you’re not choosing the skill level of your crew, you’re not picking which forge world or pattern your LRBT is from… then I’ve decided that’s too abstract to be points. We used to choose these things. We don’t now. You’ve crossed my imaginary line and I declare you to be PL lover and clearly scrapping all the choices we use to have and no longer caring about customization and incremental costs. Welcome to team PL! We bring in new players and hand them 5 cards, some models, and get right to the game. When they want to build an army they can do so quickly and it’s at a level familiar to them from other games. We have fun here

Don’t mistake yelling longer as people walk in and out of a room as having proven everyone wrong or being right. You might be…. or you just might just be squatting.

Or, you might be gaslighting. Just saying.

PL was fine when it was one of two optional systems. It isn't when it's forced down everyone's throat.

 Lobokai wrote:
You’ve fabricated both a definition for what a “systemic error” is

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. I've used a standard definition for "systemic error": an error caused by the system. PL contains systemic errors because things like the LRBT sponson issue are a direct result of how PL works. PL dictates that two options of obviously unequal value must be assigned the same point cost. You can argue that you personally don't care about that systemic error but it is indisputable fact that it is one, and one which does not happen in the traditional point system.

Clearly this is not PL.

It absolutely is. The fact that they changed the name from "power" to "points" doesn't change what the system is. It is still very much PL's concept of flat prices for units regardless of options.

The app has added customization beyond that.

No it hasn't. The app uses the exact same point system as the pdf points document.

But since you are advocating some simple and bland system where you aren’t paying for ammunition, you’re not choosing the skill level of your crew, you’re not picking which forge world or pattern your LRBT is from…

I am advocating no such thing. I have taken no position on the question of whether you should customize ammunition load, crew skill, etc, on a LRBT. That's a design question that has nothing to do with the question of how the point system should work. Please do not make straw man arguments.

Don’t mistake yelling longer as people walk in and out of a room as having proven everyone wrong or being right. You might be…. or you just might just be squatting.

Don't mistake pretending to be champion of a silent majority with actually having a valid argument. The poll in this thread shows very clearly that I'm in the majority on this issue.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I prefer points to PL, and PL to what 10th has.
But if your stance is “Anyone who disagrees with me is lying or stupid” you should probably reevaluate.

no one really said that
and when people in this topic say PL, they mean what 10th currently has as we miss a better term by now (I suggest to use FP, Fail Points)

the discussion is a different one, because claiming the current points are the only official possibility to play an easy game is wrong as other game modes exist
so replacing the old point system with a worse power level one to have 3 "I don't care" ways to play was not necessary

 Lobokai wrote:

That's points, you are arguing in favour of scrapping PL and bringing back pts

No. You’ve fabricated both a definition for what a “systemic error” is and where the imaginary line between PL and “points” are. But I don’t share your unseen line drawn in your sandbox and you don’t get to yell out that I’m no longer on base and get tagged. Clearly this is not PL. The app has added customization beyond that. Because I think that a level of customization that is in place for some units, cost wise, but is not there for vehicles that take sponsons could be added, does not mean that I’m arguing for abandoning the conceptual structure in 10th.

But since you are advocating some simple and bland system where you aren’t paying for ammunition, you’re not choosing the skill level of your crew, you’re not picking which forge world or pattern your LRBT is from… then I’ve decided that’s too abstract to be points. We used to choose these things. We don’t now. You’ve crossed my imaginary line and I declare you to be PL lover and clearly scrapping all the choices we use to have and no longer caring about customization and incremental costs. Welcome to team PL! We bring in new players and hand them 5 cards, some models, and get right to the game. When they want to build an army they can do so quickly and it’s at a level familiar to them from other games. We have fun here

Don’t mistake yelling longer as people walk in and out of a room as having proven everyone wrong or being right. You might be…. or you just might just be squatting.

You misquoted. Give an example of what would be a systemic error in points balance. What are the differences between 9th edition PL and 9th edition points? What are you referring to when you write of app customization? I don't use the GW 40k app. What is the conceptual structure in 10th? Upgrades should be made as equal as possible, if you can upgrade to either bolter sponsons or plasma sponsons both should have the same value and cost? I'm fine with that, I just want sponsons to cost pts, like they did in 5th edition, like they didn't do in PL or or do in 10th. Why would everyone pay for 5 turns of ammunition when the amount of ammunition you take it mandatory? Sponsons are not mandatory, therefore they should cost pts, sponsons =/= ammo. Making arguments on a forum isn't yelling, if you want to share your opinions without giving anyone the opportunity to directly respond make a blog, I've said this before. You can make a text to speech Youtube channel and ban comments or you can post once and then never read the thread again to make sure nobody points out any inconsistencies in your logic.

 kodos wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I prefer points to PL, and PL to what 10th has.
But if your stance is “Anyone who disagrees with me is lying or stupid” you should probably reevaluate.

no one really said that

They might as well have done tbh, it's the inability of a group to simply be able to say "oh cool, I don't like it but as long as you're enjoying yourself". There is only one way to play, it's the way they want to play and if you disagree you will be heckled.

the main problem with the current discussion is that people use "Power Level" but mean different things with it

as PL as synonym for the general system of fixed points per units, PL as the system GW used during 9th and PL as the points system used in 10th are very different things

Saying PL work, is true in context of a system with fixed points costs can work, as other games show, it is true in context that it was fine in 9th
but given that in 10th we have units that vary in options for 200 points but have a single cost assigned so are either over-costed or under-costed depending on the options you chose, they don't work

saying PL in general will work if GW updates the Indices and start splitting of the units with to many different options to assign the right point cost is something different than just saying "I like PL because they work"
because people will understand something different from the last sentence and claiming that a melee Wraithkight is worth the point cost is something that people take personally


one can like PL in general and the system in general is not bad and will work
but it does not work the way GW used it for 10th

but we also have the same level with universal special rules, when people claim that USRs are bad and do not work, but actually mean the way GW is using them for 7th did not work
same as Command Points did not work well the way GW used them and not they did not work in general

Dudeface wrote:
They might as well have done tbh, it's the inability of a group to simply be able to say "oh cool, I don't like it but as long as you're enjoying yourself". There is only one way to play, it's the way they want to play and if you disagree you will be heckled.

This is a discussion of the merits of the system, not asking for permission to use a flawed system. If PL fans don't want to have their system and arguments criticized then they're free to not engage in a discussion of its merits. They're free to have their private PL games without any interference at all. So spare us the enlightened centrist tone policing.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
They might as well have done tbh, it's the inability of a group to simply be able to say "oh cool, I don't like it but as long as you're enjoying yourself". There is only one way to play, it's the way they want to play and if you disagree you will be heckled.

This is a discussion of the merits of the system, not asking for permission to use a flawed system. If PL fans don't want to have their system and arguments criticized then they're free to not engage in a discussion of its merits. They're free to have their private PL games without any interference at all. So spare us the enlightened centrist tone policing.

The topic is "do you like it". If they like it, why do you feel compulsion to tell them they're wrong? Or can people only respond if they don't like it?

Dudeface wrote:
The topic is "do you like it". If they like it, why do you feel compulsion to tell them they're wrong? Or can people only respond if they don't like it?

Please don't try to make nonsensical arguments about the literal title of the thread. It is very obvious that, regardless of what the thread title technically says, this is a discussion of the merits of each system and nobody is treating it at as a simple yes/no question.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The topic is "do you like it". If they like it, why do you feel compulsion to tell them they're wrong? Or can people only respond if they don't like it?

Please don't try to make nonsensical arguments about the literal title of the thread. It is very obvious that, regardless of what the thread title technically says, this is a discussion of the merits of each system and nobody is treating it at as a simple yes/no question.

Well no, because naturally people ask why and then you lot jump in to tell people how wrong they are.

Dudeface wrote:
Well no, because naturally people ask why and then you lot jump in to tell people how wrong they are.

That's a very aggressive way of saying "people with opinions I disagree with participate in the discussion" but ok.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well no, because naturally people ask why and then you lot jump in to tell people how wrong they are.

That's a very aggressive way of saying "people with opinions I disagree with participate in the discussion" but ok.

It will be if you never stop to consider why the opposing viewpoint feels attacked or valued at every turn.

Are you happy for some people to be OK with the current points method and for them to be content with the game as GW offers? Are you OK with them coming in here and saying they're happy without wanting or having to debate it?

Dudeface wrote:
Are you happy for some people to be OK with the current points method and for them to be content with the game as GW offers? Are you OK with them coming in here and saying they're happy without wanting or having to debate it?

Are you happy for some people to hate the current points method and for them to be unhappy with the game as GW offers? Are you OK with them coming in here and saying they hate it without wanting or having to debate it?

The reality is that those of us who dislike PL are only continuing to post because people continue to post defenses of PL. Don't like it? Stop defending PL. You don't get to have a monopoly on the conversation and insist that everyone validate your opinions before they give their own.

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well no, because naturally people ask why and then you lot jump in to tell people how wrong they are.

That's a very aggressive way of saying "people with opinions I disagree with participate in the discussion" but ok.

It will be if you never stop to consider why the opposing viewpoint feels attacked or valued at every turn.

This is pretty ironic given the contents of your last few posts.

What are you even arguing about at this point?

He's not arguing anything and just hopes Jervis or Cruddace will see his post, and then provide a gift of plastic crack.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Are you happy for some people to be OK with the current points method and for them to be content with the game as GW offers? Are you OK with them coming in here and saying they're happy without wanting or having to debate it?

Are you happy for some people to hate the current points method and for them to be unhappy with the game as GW offers?

Yes, very.

Are you OK with them coming in here and saying they hate it without wanting or having to debate it?

Yes, very.

The reality is that those of us who dislike PL are only continuing to post because people continue to post defenses of PL. Don't like it? Stop defending PL. You don't get to have a monopoly on the conversation and insist that everyone validate your opinions before they give their own.

So the upshot is you just want the last word and you're obligated by your moral compass to tell people who are happy as they are, that they're wrong to be, is the upshot. You're lecturing me about not having a monopoly on conversation but you openly state your objective is to shut down anyone who isn't unhappy with the current system. "Agree or stop talking" is basically the same as you're accusing me of and if you think I should stop, then....

shortymcnostrill wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well no, because naturally people ask why and then you lot jump in to tell people how wrong they are.

That's a very aggressive way of saying "people with opinions I disagree with participate in the discussion" but ok.

It will be if you never stop to consider why the opposing viewpoint feels attacked or valued at every turn.

This is pretty ironic given the contents of your last few posts.

What are you even arguing about at this point?

This is another "hate GW or we hate you" echo chamber largely, you can't have other opinions in here. I say this as someone who would prefer granular points but can see other ways forwards, but I see people like Andykp who started out and has at great lengths politely explained "I like it more because it fits my needs" and that's simply unacceptable. Daed got heckled out to the point they stopped posting. People are allowed to like/not like something and deserve not to be told they're wrong for doing so, let people have fun how they want.

I've been certainly more narked of late but to be honest when you're constantly having to go into threads with people forever taking potshots and shouting down anything that isn't innately a complaint about something GW do/did, it wears you down. Bizzarely the news thread for Legends is the only thread I've seen be less of a shithole than elsewhere.

Dakka is infamous for it's black knights who stay here because they can openly whine and complain, with a few decent people in the midst.

So yes, you win ThePaintingOwl, I'll add my first comment in the thread from page 1 back in here and leave it at that.

Dudeface wrote:
No, solely because they half implemented something sensible as a concept (reducing needless side grades, consolidating some options in the same design space, making options equal but for different tasks hence enough needing different points).

They then proceeded to stop what seems like less than 5% of the way through the process and just thought "nahhh whatever sticks, sticks".

Even with what we have they could have made it better. Imagine if the battlewagon rather than being the same points for a naked transport, and a model with all the upgrades, now came with all the upgrades as a default loadout so could have a price tag appropriate and people needn't care about wysiwyg as every battlewagon is the same.

Dudeface wrote:
You're lecturing me about not having a monopoly on conversation but you openly state your objective is to shut down anyone who isn't unhappy with the current system.

Posting disagreement with claims someone makes is not shutting them down, it's how a discussion forum works. People are free to continue posting in defense of PL and I'm not going to do anything to stop them. I can't do anything to stop them as I am not a mod on this forum, and AFAIK nor are any of the other people who dislike PL.

This is another "hate GW or we hate you" echo chamber largely, you can't have other opinions in here.

Nonsense. Lots of people are posting things in support of GW. What we aren't tolerating is unchallenged opinions, this weird idea you seem to have that people are entitled to make claims about something and not have anyone disagree with them because seeing disagreement is somehow "shutting them down". You're the one who wants an echo chamber where anyone objecting to PL or criticizing the claims of its defenders first has to validate their opinions and reassure them that their way of playing is fine if it's what they like.

People are allowed to like/not like something and deserve not to be told they're wrong for doing so, let people have fun how they want.

And yet I don't see you objecting to Andykp trashing my proposed narrative list building system and insulting me for saying it's a better solution than PL. Why is it fine for him to tell me I'm wrong but not fine for me to tell him he's wrong?

Dakka is infamous for it's black knights who stay here because they can openly whine and complain, with a few decent people in the midst.

There you go again, insulting anyone who disagrees with you while simultaneously trying to claim some moral high ground that only your side is polite and reasonable. Do you really not see the double standard here?

To provide my own perspective from the pro-points camp - and not looking to put words in anyone else's mouth - I think the problem I have is pretty simple to explain.

When the points system was revealed, and it turned out to basically just be PL, I looked through it and was immediately disappointed by how bad it was. I thought a bit more about it and couldn't really see any advantage to the system, especially once I built a few lists and realised it wasn't even quicker, as I had first thought it might be. So when some people said they preferred it I was genuinely interested in finding out why. What had they seen that I had missed? What advantages were there for different groups.

This is where the problems started for me. Where justifications were provided they didn't seem to make much sense. In some cases they were just "I prefer it" without any explanation, which isn't conducive to discussion. Where justifications were given, it seemed like they were either not aligned with my experiences ("it's quicker") or they described things that weren't really an advantage of PL over points (all the "I don't care as much about exact balance" arguments fall into this category). There doesn't then seem to be much actual discussion when these issues are pointed out, with the pro-PL group usually just falling back on "I like it" or complaining about being told they're playing wrong, which I think is a disingenuous stance.

It feels like some people don't want to have a discussion or justify their position. That's fine, to a point, but it sort of misses the purpose of a discussion forum, particularly in a thread like this. You're not required to justify your position, but equally you shouldn't be surprised if people examine your reasoning and push back where they feel it doesn't make sense. That's just what a discussion forum is.

Slipspace wrote:
...
It feels like some people don't want to have a discussion or justify their position. That's fine, to a point, but it sort of misses the purpose of a discussion forum, particularly in a thread like this. You're not required to justify your position, but equally you shouldn't be surprised if people examine your reasoning and push back where they feel it doesn't make sense. That's just what a discussion forum is.

With regards to preference of one system over another, I do not believe there needs to be a quantifiable justification why someone would have a preference. A few times now in this thread people who enjoy the new system have given their reasons for enjoying it, and have subsequently been berated because "their opinion is not valid since it is not objective." But the entire concept of preference is not beholden to anyone's metric except the individual. Not everything needs to be nuanced or deep. Some people can just like something for the sake of liking it, others can be indifferent milk-toast on the matter, and some people can dislike something because it fails to meet whatever metric they deem as acceptable.

I do not believe this is a subject that can be quantified and applied to every individual in the hobby since everyone will have different weight to their rationale.

EDIT:
Some people want to just spread their enjoyment on the matter and are not looking for a debate. The vocal minority that attack anyone who says anything positive about GW decisions don't seem to understand that they are doing nothing but pushing away people from engaging in meaningful discussion. Why would someone want to extrapolate further and distil their ideas down to the quantifiable metric and make it digestible for the people who stick to ad-homonym attacks when it's much simpler to express their opinion as it relates to the Original Post and thread title, then leave.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
...
It feels like some people don't want to have a discussion or justify their position. That's fine, to a point, but it sort of misses the purpose of a discussion forum, particularly in a thread like this. You're not required to justify your position, but equally you shouldn't be surprised if people examine your reasoning and push back where they feel it doesn't make sense. That's just what a discussion forum is.

With regards to preference of one system over another, I do not believe there needs to be a quantifiable justification why someone would have a preference. A few times now in this thread people who enjoy the new system have given their reasons for enjoying it, and have subsequently been berated because "their opinion is not valid since it is not objective." But the entire concept of preference is not beholden to anyone's metric except the individual. Not everything needs to be nuanced or deep. Some people can just like something for the sake of liking it, others can be indifferent milk-toast on the matter, and some people can dislike something because it fails to meet whatever metric they deem as acceptable.

I do not believe this is a subject that can be quantified and applied to every individual in the hobby since everyone will have different weight to their rationale.

EDIT:
Some people want to just spread their enjoyment on the matter and are not looking for a debate. The vocal minority that attack anyone who says anything positive about GW decisions don't seem to understand that they are doing nothing but pushing away people from engaging in meaningful discussion. Why would someone want to extrapolate further and distil their ideas down to the quantifiable metric and make it digestible for the people who stick to ad-homonym attacks when it's much simpler to express their opinion as it relates to the Original Post and thread title, then leave.

You're opinions are totally valid. That just doesn't have anything to do with whether they are objective or not. Applying critical analysis doesn't invalidate you're enjoyment of a thing. You may love a movie for a ton of reasons, and I may write a 100 page dissertation about the cinematography being bad. Doesn't mean you have to stop liking the movie. Hell, it doesn't even mean I don't like the movie. Understanding things sometimes means being critical of a thing and standing outside of your personal preferences.

What a lot of us are trying to tell you is that while the current system is subjectively and improvement for you, it is objectively worse for other players. Taking away points for wargear takes away one of the tools the game has historically used to internally balance a unit. You can still balance a unit without it, but we've shown many specific examples of that not being executed well in the current indexes.

The follow up argument is that the old points for wargear system wasn't that much different for the pro-PL players than the current system. Such that if they added wargear cost to the game tomorrow, you could just ignore them and keep on as you've been doing. If a choice by GW is negatively impacting a lot of players (by like a 2/3rds margin to some degree according to the informal poll here) more than it's helping you...well, where do you want to go from there?

I'm going to cut Painting Owl some slack- in a very recent post (on this very page), he said this:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
They're free to have their private PL games without any interference at all.

It doesn't explicitly state that he would be willing to accept a system in which players can choose to use either points or PL, but it heavily implies he'd be okay with it.

And the funny thing is, if he had led with that, many "PL supporters" would have stopped arguing with him. We may explain why we like PL, but most of us don't really want to force anyone else to use it- most of us actually prefer the dual system solution, because we know it creates the greatest number of positive outcomes for the widest cross section of the player base.

I won't argue against anyone who advocates a dual system, even if I disagree with the reason they hate PL, or the reasons they prefer points. They are allowed to both hate PL and prefer points, just as we should be allowed to prefer PL. Neither side in this debate has to lose their preference in order to allow the possibility for the other side get what they want.

We just have to be able to allow both systems to exist, and we did that for two whole editions, without any real problems. Some folks claim the continuing existence of PL cuts into design time for the other game, but I'm not sure I buy that- in all of 8th/9th, I think PL was updated twice, whereas points was updated minimal twice per year. The former did not prevent the latter from occurring, so I think the design time argument in favour of the single system approach is on fairly shakey ground.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

EDIT:
Some people want to just spread their enjoyment on the matter and are not looking for a debate. The vocal minority that attack anyone who says anything positive about GW decisions don't seem to understand that they are doing nothing but pushing away people from engaging in meaningful discussion. Why would someone want to extrapolate further and distil their ideas down to the quantifiable metric and make it digestible for the people who stick to ad-homonym attacks when it's much simpler to express their opinion as it relates to the Original Post and thread title, then leave.

Red: And when confronted as to why the MAJORITY does want a reasoning as to why, they get attacked, by a minority claiming to be harassed. You know what this reminds me off? the classic everything is great type of cult or totalitarian argumentation form that orwell summarised pretty well. Because that is fundamentally the point where you are going here. He even had a nice name for that form: Deldenk and Delstop, because that is fundamentally where the "not looking for a debate" and ""spread their enjoyment"" end.

Underlined: As already shown, it's not GW in general that get's criticised, this is merely strawmanning and Ad -hominem on your basis. Au contraire you claim that you get pushed away? Yet you can't deal with the fact that oh wait more than a 3:1 ratio is against this new system? Newsflash, the majority doesn't have to bow to the minority, ever, not in any organisational form of society that is run on consent. Uncomfortable ain't it. Furthermore i want to highlight the Claiming of a "vocal minority" attacking "silent majority", that is such an old rethoric strategy that it was cancerous in the early 20s of the last century and even earlier and funnily enough and get's disproven easily when one looks at the top of this thread where the poll results are annonymusly placed in an clearly understandable fashion.Or when such systems are confronted by actual oppen visible results of democratic proceedings.

Blue: ah, the tried and true, project and accuse your own issues onto thine opponent. Also a tried and true classic.

PenitentJake wrote:

Some folks claim the continuing existence of PL cuts into design time for the other game,

I see an overall shift in released kits from generalist units that can be specialized(i.e. Tactical Squads) to units that can be built as one or two different datasheets with very minimal options(i.e. practically all Primaris releases). I'm more of a fan of the former versus the latter.

Though it's hard to say if this is product design leading game design or game design leading product design. Anyway for me it's a minor gripe. It feels slightly more gamey than fluffy, but as long as the models still look cool I can roll with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overall I think it's kind of ironic too, that if PL does effect the product development like this is leads to a more gamified outcome than a narrative driven one.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Red: And when confronted as to why the MAJORITY does want a reasoning as to why, they get attacked, by a minority claiming to be harassed. You know what this reminds me off? the classic everything is great type of cult or totalitarian argumentation form that orwell summarised pretty well. Because that is fundamentally the point where you are going here. He even had a nice name for that form: Deldenk and Delstop, because that is fundamentally where the "not looking for a debate" and ""spread their enjoyment"" end.

The majority in regards to this internet forum sure. It's dubious to claim the majority of hobbyist have an opinion deeper than a puddle on the subject. Games Workshop shares seem to corroborate this.

Underlined: As already shown, it's not GW in general that get's criticised, this is merely strawmanning and Ad -hominem on your basis. Au contraire you claim that you get pushed away? Yet you can't deal with the fact that oh wait more than a 3:1 ratio is against this new system? Newsflash, the majority doesn't have to bow to the minority, ever, not in any organisational form of society that is run on consent. Uncomfortable ain't it. Furthermore i want to highlight the Claiming of a "vocal minority" attacking "silent majority", that is such an old rethoric strategy that it was cancerous in the early 20s of the last century and even earlier and funnily enough and get's disproven easily when one looks at the top of this thread where the poll results are annonymusly placed in an clearly understandable fashion.Or when such systems are confronted by actual oppen visible results of democratic proceedings.

Go read pages 70-75 of this thread and then let me know that GW in general is not the scapegoat for every wrongdoing in these posters perspective. Again Majority on this forum, I agree. This forum as most other internet discussion networks represent a fraction of the majority of a hobby. Diablo IV is a great recent example, there is insane backlash across the chat space of the internet on how terrible this game is, yet the vast majority of the players do not care, and there are still queue times to login to their servers. The internet vocal majority is not representative of the hobby's population.

Blue: ah, the tried and true, project and accuse your own issues onto thine opponent. Also a tried and true classic.

You can scour this thread and find numerous examples of ad-hom attacks against people who are expressing their positive views of the points system change and the GW as a whole. I was even called a "shill" for GW when I mentioned that the priority in GW decision making process is sales, and not good rules.

This is not projection, it is observation. You too can observe as much if you read back even just the past 10 pages or so of this thread.

EDIT: I am aware that defending my statements will be taken as a admission of defeat or sign of weakness for the bloodhounds of anonymous internet discourse.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Red: And when confronted as to why the MAJORITY does want a reasoning as to why, they get attacked, by a minority claiming to be harassed. You know what this reminds me off? the classic everything is great type of cult or totalitarian argumentation form that orwell summarised pretty well. Because that is fundamentally the point where you are going here. He even had a nice name for that form: Deldenk and Delstop, because that is fundamentally where the "not looking for a debate" and ""spread their enjoyment"" end.

The majority in regards to this internet forum sure. It's dubious to claim the majority of hobbyist have an opinion deeper than a puddle on the subject. Games Workshop shares seem to corroborate this.

Underlined: As already shown, it's not GW in general that get's criticised, this is merely strawmanning and Ad -hominem on your basis. Au contraire you claim that you get pushed away? Yet you can't deal with the fact that oh wait more than a 3:1 ratio is against this new system? Newsflash, the majority doesn't have to bow to the minority, ever, not in any organisational form of society that is run on consent. Uncomfortable ain't it. Furthermore i want to highlight the Claiming of a "vocal minority" attacking "silent majority", that is such an old rethoric strategy that it was cancerous in the early 20s of the last century and even earlier and funnily enough and get's disproven easily when one looks at the top of this thread where the poll results are annonymusly placed in an clearly understandable fashion.Or when such systems are confronted by actual oppen visible results of democratic proceedings.

Go read pages 70-75 of this thread and then let me know that GW in general is not the scapegoat for every wrongdoing in these posters perspective. Again Majority on this forum, I agree. This forum as most other internet discussion networks represent a fraction of the majority of a hobby. Diablo IV is a great recent example, there is insane backlash across the chat space of the internet on how terrible this game is, yet the vast majority of the players do not care, and there are still queue times to login to their servers. The internet vocal majority is not representative of the hobby's population.

Blue: ah, the tried and true, project and accuse your own issues onto thine opponent. Also a tried and true classic.

You can scour this thread and find numerous examples of ad-hom attacks against people who are expressing their positive views of the points system change and the GW as a whole. I was even called a "shill" for GW when I mentioned that the priority in GW decision making process is sales, and not good rules.

This is not projection, it is observation. You too can observe as much if you read back even just the past 10 pages or so of this thread.

EDIT: I am aware that defending my statements will be taken as a admission of defeat or sign of weakness for the bloodhounds of anonymous internet discourse.

Criticism is not hate. Providing and receiving criticism can be healthy. How else do we improve?

And GW can be a successful company with bad rules. They make really good physical products. They make a lot of money managing their IP. It's not an insane take to say that the don't make the greatest rules. And personally I don't need their rules to be perfect. I'm ok with good enough. I think there's a lot of things about 10th edition that don't clear my personal bar for good enough. It's not irrevocably broken though. There's a path to improvement, but that requires being able to describe what is bad and what is good. I'm not here because I hate GW. I'm here because 40K is kind of a special game for me, and I would just like it to be a little less frustrating in the rules department.

I just came back from talking to every 40k player and they all hated PL and they wanted me note that they did not know a Tittliewinks22.

I talked with half the 40k design team (the other half doesn't play would you believe it?) and they said they didn't like PL and knew they had made a mistake with the new points, they'd get right on fixing it whenever time allowed. I was very pleased to hear this from the 40k design team, they wanted me to hand a bag of plastic crack to a fellow named Tittliewinks22, their most fervent shill who told anybody with criticism to shut up. They further told me that constructive criticism explaining flaws in their designs actually help them produce better rules in the future and they were hopeful that most of the things they tried with 10th will turn out well when they publish the real points.

I talked with a man of logic who worked at the local university and he told me that his dog had derived a method whereby it could determine whether the professor ought to put sponsons on his tanks in 10th edition. The dog would bark to put on sponsons and stay silent to put on sponsons. I was puzzled by the mighty intelligence of this dog, to think it was more logical than half the posters in this thread, what a wonderful thing.

I also talked with several fellows who insisted that all their friends would cheat when playing PL and that the most fervent PL fans were Tau players and frequent liars, now that I can believe.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. I've used a standard definition for "systemic error": an error caused by the system. PL contains systemic errors because things like the LRBT sponson issue are a direct result of how PL works. PL dictates that two options of obviously unequal value must be assigned the same point cost. You can argue that you personally don't care about that systemic error but it is indisputable fact that it is one, and one which does not happen in the traditional point system.

Well let me do the impossible and dispute it then. A system not working the way it is intended and causing equal harm to all parts of the greater system is a "systemic error". Now a SYSTEMATIC error is when there is a problem occurring somewhere in the system due to its design. You can assert that this is a "systemic" error, but that's purely opinion. Unless you have a quote from a game designer saying "Well crap, that's not what we wanted this to do, and it's ruining every unit in the game" your imagined systemic error might be that, but it's probably not. When you find a glitch or a bug, a singular specific instance(s) of "this part isn't working in this case" and it could be fixed in part and the rest of the system could keep doing its thing... that's not a systemic error, quite the opposite in fact. Just an error.

I might add, I agree on the singular case you keep bringing up. Sponsons are a large enough alteration to the game impact of almost every unit with them, that treating them as change in points does make sense. Personally, I'd have combined some of the LRBT and then treated it just like a bike squad and made the sponson option increase the points

But see.... see... that's an existing part of the system that would work to solve your concern. Because the system has a mechanic already in it that would largely mitigate the issue you're seeing, that shows it to be a systematic choice that could be fixed without altering the system as a whole. Ditto with more compelling stat-lines for some options (a position pretty consistently taken by most who like the current 10th ed structure). The system also allows for vanguards, for example, to have a separate datasheet when they gain jump packs... there's another way the system (working as designed) could treat LRBT with sponsons. Your main issue seems to be with the lack of these two options being used with LRBTs, sure, I agree. But the system can solve this issue

Clearly this is not PL.

It absolutely is. The fact that they changed the name from "power" to "points" doesn't change what the system is. It is still very much PL's concept of flat prices for units regardless of options.

Funny, on my app a bike squad without an attack bike is 160 points, and with it the cost is 215. Options do matter and we've added an additional level of points beyond PL. I'll pretend you said "weapon options", and yes. That this isn't working simply means that some of the weapon profiles should have be altered and GW being pigheaded about not adding A or BS improvements to many weapons was foolish. That's a design choice, not a system flaw. One of the largest problems with PL was that 4 different "PL 5" units could be vastly different in game impact and their ability to buy their points back on the pitch (a solid standard for evaluating many units' level of appropriate pricing), but "points", as you define it, has had they issue too. By adding another 10s place (maybe another 2, depending on which unit you pick), we've gained granulation and something that would cost 2 now has a much larger array of values it takes from total army construction... a very clear difference with PL. Unless you want to make the bizarre arguement that 1-20 = 1-2000. To equate the 10th edition system with PL is some serious intellectual dishonesty and is chucking strawmen all over the place. I've not seen anyone here saying "I liked PL and therefore I like 10th" (though I'll admit, though I've read many pages here, I have no intention of reading all 70+ pages to check). Your mislabeling of our position and then making a false equivalency robs you of any high ground to complain about strawmen, real or perceived.

The app has added customization beyond that.

mNo it hasn't. The app uses the exact same point system as the pdf points document.

I never said anything about the pdf, I said beyond simple PL, but whatever

I have taken no position on the question of whether you should customize ammunition load, crew skill, etc, on a LRBT. That's a design question that has nothing to do with the question of how the point system should work. Please do not make straw man arguments.

Right, strawmen would be so out of character for this discussion . But wait, you are exactly taking a position on a design question. It was decided years ago that we no longer cared about crew skill or forge world or pattern of LRBT, all of that became abstracted or ignored... the line of detail vs simplicity was moved. A design question on "where do points stop and specifics no longer matter." The 10th ed system just slides that line again. It is still points, not PL, they just moved the line a bit more. You've taken the position that you don't like that. That's fine. But to call things "proven" and "indisputable" is not accurate at all. I know the points system did have serious flaws. There is no deconstructable and usable matrix by which one can compute points in 9th. Many other games (GrimDark, Battletech, CAV, etc) have exactly this. 40k used to. That (the lack of reliable points calculation) would be an excellent example of a systemic flaw... but we're not using real definitions, so it doesn't matter. And if a system with core flaws is disqualified in your mind, then defending 9th edition 40k will be a sisyphean task... good luck with that.

Don't mistake pretending to be champion of a silent majority with actually having a valid argument. The poll in this thread shows very clearly that I'm in the majority on this issue.

Don't mistake agreeing with the majority on a poll (which has an 100% predictable outcome here on dakkadakka) as having the only argument (ON AN OPINION) that can be right. I'm sure you are with the majority on this. Well done. Another nice strawman btw, when did I ever claim to represent a majority? I'm explaining why I have my opinion, why the change was made, and why (in my opinion) it has validity. Clearly some people agree (poll numbers) and clearly those in my camp made persuasive arguments in the past as GW listened (in that horrible, half done, missing most of the point GW way).

I'm hardly some GW apologist. My signature has a link to a free 3rd party rules system for years and in this very thread I've advocated for better options than the rules GW sells alongside the models. 10th ed points structure could work well if better used and I agree that if an ATV or an attack bike increases that cost of a unit by 55-80 points then bolting 2 plasma cannons should probably do the same on a sub-200 point unit. GW needs to consistently treat adding new weapon platforms to a unit as being at the level of specificity to increase the cost.

I hope you can try to see the 10th ed structure through the market's eyes and why it could be an improvement (we all know its likely to bloat and mutate and be even more inconsistent the second the codices hit, but that's always been the GW pattern). If you don't/won't/can't then there is GDF and HH, both of which will give you exactly what you're coping with losing and do it far far better than that abomination that was 8th or 9th.

Until the codex inflation starts, I am thrilled to have a very easy-to-teach and easy-to-introduce official 40k ruleset that I can have a new player loving and comfortable with by the end of game 1 at a much higher rate than I've ever seen with this current generation of new players. I would have preferred a few more core changes, but knowing where GW is stealing their inspirations from and who they are polling for design changes, there's a good chance 11th will have some of those too.

I truly am sorry that this does not seem like an improvement to many (and in here, most) established players, and I'm very unhappy with some of the changes too. But being punished by GW for buying into their hobby is part and parcel and I truly hope that the good of it will out weigh the bad for you too.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

The majority in regards to this internet forum sure. It's dubious to claim the majority of hobbyist have an opinion deeper than a puddle on the subject. Games Workshop shares seem to corroborate this.

See it has already been brought up it is not an insignificant Number of people and part of the community. And quoting the share price in an age where the shares have been inflated because moneyprinters went into overheating due to covid and a questionable sociopolitical environment the last say 20-30 years including but not limited to eceonomy policies regarding fiat currencies etc... is not as indicative as you think it is.

Underlined: As already shown, it's not GW in general that get's criticised, this is merely strawmanning and Ad -hominem on your basis. Au contraire you claim that you get pushed away? Yet you can't deal with the fact that oh wait more than a 3:1 ratio is against this new system? Newsflash, the majority doesn't have to bow to the minority, ever, not in any organisational form of society that is run on consent. Uncomfortable ain't it. Furthermore i want to highlight the Claiming of a "vocal minority" attacking "silent majority", that is such an old rethoric strategy that it was cancerous in the early 20s of the last century and even earlier and funnily enough and get's disproven easily when one looks at the top of this thread where the poll results are annonymusly placed in an clearly understandable fashion.Or when such systems are confronted by actual oppen visible results of democratic proceedings.

Go read pages 70-75 of this thread and then let me know that GW in general is not the scapegoat for every wrongdoing in these posters perspective. Again Majority on this forum, I agree. This forum as most other internet discussion networks represent a fraction of the majority of a hobby. Diablo IV is a great recent example, there is insane backlash across the chat space of the internet on how terrible this game is, yet the vast majority of the players do not care, and there are still queue times to login to their servers. The internet vocal majority is not representative of the hobby's population.

I just did. I even went further back. None of this refutes at any stage my issues with your argument painting yourself and certain other posters as being attacked. I f.e. specifically pointed to my issues into the context of GW 40k rulesteam.
Further Diablo IV and the online community can be explained by the time required to reach the bland endgame. Probably an effect of higher rate of information. But inevitably the quality issues will be known, even for the "normies".. and we had a similar edition not so long ago a certain 6th.

Blue: ah, the tried and true, project and accuse your own issues onto thine opponent. Also a tried and true classic.

You can scour this thread and find numerous examples of ad-hom attacks against people who are expressing their positive views of the points system change and the GW as a whole. I was even called a "shill" for GW when I mentioned that the priority in GW decision making process is sales, and not good rules.

This is not projection, it is observation. You too can observe as much if you read back even just the past 10 pages or so of this thread.

EDIT: I am aware that defending my statements will be taken as a admission of defeat or sign of weakness for the bloodhounds of anonymous internet discourse.

I just did. I disagree with some posters, regardless of position. However what i can't stand is the type of nonsense your argumentation in that post reminded me off.