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.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.

Would you agree that you can have a house rule not to play netlists?

That's not a house rule. House rules would be like the House rule my playgroup uses that allows me to run a custom made Nob in my Ork list that has 8 slugga's. (btw he has never ever done a single wound). House rules add or modify the official rules. Refusing to play against someone who copy/pasta's a list they found on BoLS is not exactly the same as imposing some form of list building restriction like a house ruled FOC.

What is the difference between restricting people to building weak lists vs restricting people to lists that adhere to a FOC?

 vict0988 wrote:
½ is a natural fraction right? So Kroot could cost 7½ and that'd be fine for the 9YO army playing 40k outside Combat Patrol and Open Play?

In the short list of examples from MFM I provided earlier, you have 1/2, 3/4, 1/3 and there are also things like 1/11. Be my guest explaining to little Timmy why he has to do things like converting fractions to common denominator to be able to build an army and push some toy soldiers. Oh, and while you're at it, explain to him what 0,09(09) means if you want to switch to decimals after all. Hiding fractions is way more preferable for GW than exposing them to their target audience.

And as I wrote earlier, and everybody just skipped over: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles. I'm old enough to have exactly zero faith in general population's ability to perform even the simplest math, when half of them don't even know what the proper order of operations is.

Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.

 catbarf wrote:
Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.

I'm back in school for mathematics and still won't make a list without an app now.

 catbarf wrote:
Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.

Not so long ago there was a thread here along "name three things in wargames, that are a no-go for you". Mandatory app was the highest ranking objection.

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.

No, the argument was that playing with an agreement to not use optimized lists is a house rule. They don't just happen to not use all of the most powerful options, they have an unwritten agreement that they will deliberately avoid them and make specific choices instead. That's what makes it a house rule.

Andykp wrote:
I think we are close to all agreeing that a two system solution is the answer

Not at all. You continue to want a two system solution because you want PL to exist but you haven't provided any real justification for it beyond "I like it" and you reject the point system that does an even better job of accomplishing your stated goals. At best you have provided an argument for a 10+ system solution, where every conceivable point system is used in parallel no matter how niche its audience is.

Also, if PL took such minimal effort to create then why do you need GW to provide it for you? Just make your own PL system with an equally trivial amount of effort.

Andykp wrote:
It’s just a ball ache to keep up with, an army you designed and painted is all of a sudden over or under the points? And where are they? Online, in an app, is the pdf I have the latest version and then they tried to charge you for the points. I cannot be arsed with any of that. I like simple, and that is not simple. If I was more bothered about balance and all that it would be worth the hassle but I’m not, all that doesn’t help me have a better game.

If you don't care about balance then why does it matter if the points change? So what if your 2000 point list is now 2150 points, just keep playing in 2000 point games.

nou wrote:
go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.

Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.

 catbarf wrote:
Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.

Yep. And if Timmy can't handle the basic addition and subtraction involved in writing a list he sure as hell isn't going to be able to understand 40k's dice math and be able to play the game in any meaningful way.

 Trickstick wrote:

nou wrote:
go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.

Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.

That's not ambiguous. It's basic math.

And a social contract is not a houserule.

 Trickstick wrote:

nou wrote:
go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.

Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.

Thank you for prooving my point. There is exactly zero ambiguity in this equation and order of operations is obligatory knowledge in fourth grade here. Yes, you learn order of operations ONLY at 11. And some of you expect people at that age to fluently add natural fractions...

nou wrote:

I don’t really expect you to understand, that GW does not aim at adults only, and that people are not born with the innate understanding of fractions, either natural nor decimal. I don’t know how it’s in the only country in the world that still uses natural fractions for tool sizes, but here kids only learn about decimal fractions at 12 y.o.

You may also want to do a quick search on social media for one of those „math riddles” like „2+2*2=…” and see just how many people of all ages not only answers wrong, but then endlessly discuss, that they are right.

There are neither fractions nor decimals used in making a 40k army. Basic arithmetic of whole numbers is all that's required.

If order of operations is difficult I think that's a problem outside of 40k. Git gud!

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

nou wrote:
go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.

Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.

That's not ambiguous. It's basic math.

And a social contract is not a houserule.

Social contract is taking a shower before you go to the store and not throw slurs at your opponent. Social contract is not "you're not allowed to use XYZ models you built".

nou wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.

Not so long ago there was a thread here along "name three things in wargames, that are a no-go for you". Mandatory app was the highest ranking objection.

Nobody said anything about making the app mandatory.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

nou wrote:
go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.

Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.

That's not ambiguous. It's basic math.

And a social contract is not a houserule.

Social contract is taking a shower before you go to the store and not throw slurs at your opponent. Social contract is not "you're not allowed to use XYZ models you built".

Social contract can and should include “Do your best to make the game good for all parties involved.”

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

What's wrong with Combat Patrol?

Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.

You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.

Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.

Do you have any metrics or evidence of it's imbalance? I'm not convinced it is but have you played any? Is this just your anecdotal opinion?

It's supposed to be balanced around the unit loadouts, that's the point. In terms of the rest, it's a smaller size game for smaller spaces with quick set up and play time.

If you're done dodging the question, is it a superior concept to playing at small points, or do you suppose to dictate a game size?

Try hating less stuff, try listing things about the game you like for once.

Aside from knowing a bunch of people who have been playing the format (and who have quickly discovered how unbalanced it is) it doesn't really take much data to see where the problems could arise. The Guard one is playing with like 200-300 less points than pretty much everything else and let me tell you, the specific Guard datasheets and rules in there have most certainly not been boosted up to compensate.

Other fun ones are the Dark Angels and Daemons ones. The DA have a Redemptor which many other patrols have 0 ways of deal with and the Daemons one just has so many surprisingly tanky + killy bodies that it can just roll over people with them having 0 counterplay to it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

nou wrote:
go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.

Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.

That's not ambiguous. It's basic math.

And a social contract is not a houserule.

Social contract is taking a shower before you go to the store and not throw slurs at your opponent. Social contract is not "you're not allowed to use XYZ models you built".

Social contract can and should include “Do your best to make the game good for all parties involved.”

"Make the game good for all parties" is the job of GW, not us customers. You seem to forget that as do the others that defend mediocre and below rules.

A game can be balanced on a razors edge and it will still be possible for your opponent to make a game a miserable experience. The game designer cannot force you to be a good opponent. That is a job for each and every player in each and every game ever created.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

nou wrote:
go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.

Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.

That's not ambiguous. It's basic math.

And a social contract is not a houserule.

Social contract is taking a shower before you go to the store and not throw slurs at your opponent. Social contract is not "you're not allowed to use XYZ models you built".

Social contract can and should include “Do your best to make the game good for all parties involved.”

"Make the game good for all parties" is the job of GW, not us customers. You seem to forget that as do the others that defend mediocre and below rules.

Would you rather play a mediocre game with an awesome person, or a perfect game with an absolute craphead?

I think GW should do more work to make the game balanced, without needing people to play down in list-making for a fair game.
I don't plan on playing much of any 10th Edition, because the rules just don't do it for me.

But, if someone chooses to play a game with someone else (literally any game-could be 40k, could be charades, could be Magic, anything) it's on everyone involved to make sure everyone has a good time.
In 40k, that means that sometimes you shouldn't take your hardest list. Sometimes it means ignoring the tactically optimal thing for a more in-character action. But no game is going to be good to play if your opponent makes you miserable.

 alextroy wrote:
A game can be balanced on a razors edge and it will still be possible for your opponent to make a game a miserable experience. The game designer cannot force you to be a good opponent. That is a job for each and every player in each and every game ever created.

This is technically true but we're talking about "bad opponent" issues that are a direct result of game design problems. It's not GW's fault if your opponent moves an extra 1" and hasn't bathed in weeks, it is GW's fault when stuff is unbalanced and you need a bunch of unwritten rules about "fair" lists to have an enjoyable game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
In 40k, that means that sometimes you shouldn't take your hardest list. Sometimes it means ignoring the tactically optimal thing for a more in-character action. But no game is going to be good to play if your opponent makes you miserable.

This is all a direct result of GW's inability to make a good game. It is not a problem with better games.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
A game can be balanced on a razors edge and it will still be possible for your opponent to make a game a miserable experience. The game designer cannot force you to be a good opponent. That is a job for each and every player in each and every game ever created.

This is technically true but we're talking about "bad opponent" issues that are a direct result of game design problems. It's not GW's fault if your opponent moves an extra 1" and hasn't bathed in weeks, it is GW's fault when stuff is unbalanced and you need a bunch of unwritten rules about "fair" lists to have an enjoyable game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
In 40k, that means that sometimes you shouldn't take your hardest list. Sometimes it means ignoring the tactically optimal thing for a more in-character action. But no game is going to be good to play if your opponent makes you miserable.

This is all a direct result of GW's inability to make a good game. It is not a problem with better games.

Would you rather play a mediocre game with an awesome opponent, or an awesome game with an absolute craphead of an opponent?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

"Make the game good for all parties" is the job of GW, not us customers. You seem to forget that as do the others that defend mediocre and below rules.

That is incredibly selfish of you.

Its also[u] our respinsibility.Our opponents. Our communities. Our games. Our time. We are a part of the equation, not helpless bystanders. Ruining the other persons evening can absolutely be on you and how you choose to play.

Saying 'don't be a dick' and/or advocating for accomodation within the games we play isn't defending poor rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Would you rather play a mediocre game with an awesome opponent, or an awesome game with an absolute craphead of an opponent?

What does that have to do with anything? Why do I have to choose between two bad options?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Would you rather play a mediocre game with an awesome opponent, or an awesome game with an absolute craphead of an opponent?

What does that have to do with anything? Why do I have to choose between two bad options?

Working to make sure everyone involved in a game has a good time should be what you do when playing-regardless of the game's quality.
Your response (that they're both bad) shows that even with an amazing game, a bad opponent is still a recipe for an unenjoyable experience.

Should GW do better? Yes.
Does that mean players have no responsibility at all? No.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Working to make sure everyone involved in a game has a good time should be what you do when playing-regardless of the game's quality.
Your response (that they're both bad) shows that even with an amazing game, a bad opponent is still a recipe for an unenjoyable experience.

Should GW do better? Yes.
Does that mean players have no responsibility at all? No.

I still don't see what this has to do with anything even tangentially related to the topic of this thread. "Take a shower before going to the store" has nothing to do with game design and certainly has nothing to do with point systems.

nou wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.

Not so long ago there was a thread here along "name three things in wargames, that are a no-go for you". Mandatory app was the highest ranking objection.

Little Timmy's primary social media platforms are Tiktok, Youtube, Instagram, and Reddit. He doesn't participate in forums, and he's certainly not going to DakkaDakka, home of the grognards who have been playing for longer than he's been alive, to participate in their polls.

He doesn't like doing fractional math, but he always has his phone with him and is perfectly willing to use an optional app to help play the game. He likely prefers it over having to write things out on obsolete media like paper.

His generational cohort has been raised on inherently competitive recreational activities like e-sports, and he is likely much more okay with granular listbuilding, seasonal updates, and a focus on balanced competitive play than the older and more casual players here for whom wargaming is a primarily social activity.

If you don't want to do fractional math but also aren't willing to use an optional app, just say so. Little Timmy will be fine, and any concern over his ability to handle fractional math is misplaced.

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

nou wrote:
go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.

Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.

That's not ambiguous. It's basic math.

And a social contract is not a houserule.

Social contract is taking a shower before you go to the store and not throw slurs at your opponent. Social contract is not "you're not allowed to use XYZ models you built".

Social contract can and should include “Do your best to make the game good for all parties involved.”

"Make the game good for all parties" is the job of GW, not us customers. You seem to forget that as do the others that defend mediocre and below rules.

Would you rather play a mediocre game with an awesome person, or a perfect game with an absolute craphead?

The latter, because the game already has crapheads. At least if the latter were true, I already have enough friends to discuss the actual awesome game, and at least ACTUAL social contract will ensure they will have at least taken a shower beforehand. I can deal with a gakky attitude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Would you rather play a mediocre game with an awesome opponent, or an awesome game with an absolute craphead of an opponent?

What does that have to do with anything? Why do I have to choose between two bad options?

Does that mean players have no responsibility at all? No.

No, players don't have a responsibility AT ALL outside basic social norms. It has nothing to do with the game, and frankly my friends DO abandon gak games, because why would awesome people try to make a bad game work? That's not our job as customers, and you should NOT suggest otherwise.

you need to play with the right people, that have the same mindset about how games are played, for the game to be fun is just a polite way of saying "the game sucks"

any game can be fun with the right people and if you only play with the right people you don't need to play the popular one at all

the main point of 40k is that you can easily find someone to play
but if this is further limited because it is not fun playing against random people but only with a fixed group, no real reason to go with 40k in the first place

I really liked the 2+2*2 argument, it puts things into perspective, I can see how 5*18+10 is even harder and would therefore lead to illegal lists or just a lot of frustration. I will also confess I often made mistakes before I started using an app and that might not be a thing if I used PL and did lists by hand. Calculators driven by sunlight might stop being available at clubs because of the prevalence of smartphones and in the event of a solar flare I can see people still wanting to play 40k without electricity since they would be unable to gakpost on Dakka and be driven to write lists on paper and without a calculator. But to protect us against that case we should have physical rules.

nou wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
½ is a natural fraction right? So Kroot could cost 7½ and that'd be fine for the 9YO army playing 40k outside Combat Patrol and Open Play?

In the short list of examples from MFM I provided earlier, you have 1/2, 3/4, 1/3 and there are also things like 1/11. Be my guest explaining to little Timmy why he has to do things like converting fractions to common denominator to be able to build an army and push some toy soldiers. Oh, and while you're at it, explain to him what 0,09(09) means if you want to switch to decimals after all. Hiding fractions is way more preferable for GW than exposing them to their target audience.

And as I wrote earlier, and everybody just skipped over: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles. I'm old enough to have exactly zero faith in general population's ability to perform even the simplest math, when half of them don't even know what the proper order of operations is.

You don't believe the difference between 1/3, 3/4 and 1/2 matters so what are you trying to say? You know I will just pull the Uno reverse of sponsons on you every time you try to mention such meaningless stuff. I don't think for a second GW knows that 7,5 is the right cost for a Kroot, it might be as little as 5, neither GW nor I know that. 10th edition has probably been balanced in the old way of throwing some stuff on the table, watching how things shake out and then the designers give their best guess what things are worth. With a system as terrible as that there is no way the difference between 7,5 and 8 says anything meaningful. Guard Conscripts did not need to be 3,5 pts, they needed to be 4 pts, you'll also notice we don't have units under 5 pts anymore. Conscripts also didn't have variable unit sizes so they could be 20 models for 69 pts. While it would be good and nice to have finer pts, 5,25 pts is not the sort of fine balance acts GW engages in on purpose, all the things you mentioned were done on accident, although it would be interesting to hear GW say they went with set unit sizes to get half points without using half points, it'd be quite clever.

Don't Polish children use grosz to pay for stuff? That's 1/100 of a zloti, so using half a point should be easy. I think Combat Patrol and Open Play is more correct for small children, even PL is wasting time with them.

 kodos wrote:


any game can be fun with the right people

Any game also doesn't cost triple to quadruple digits. Having fun with people in Monopoly costs how much?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 kodos wrote:


any game can be fun with the right people

Any game also doesn't cost triple to quadruple digits. Having fun with people in Monopoly costs how much?

Does monopoly or the price of it impact the points system in 40k 10th edition?