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.

So basically the endless circular argument is just that this method is better for getting newer players into the game.

But PL already existed previously.

So why ditch points entirely and force everyone onto PL-but-called-points. You could always introduce the game using PL before and everyone else could use points.

This is similar to the arguments surrounding easy modes in games, specifically games made by Fromsoftware, and how they must be included in order to facilitate newer players, completely disregarding that by implementing such mechanics could often easily damage the experience for every other player. The best example of this is in New N' Tasty, the remake of Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus. In that remake they added difficulty modes, the easiest one having a health system so the player wouldn't just die in one hit. To facilitate this they made the triangle button a health display. The issue is, in the original the triangle button was used for making short hops/jumps, which is very important in a cinematic platformer where exact movements are crucial. You could still do the hop/jump, but now it was this awkward directional move button press + the jump button at the same time. Anyone who has tried to do a kick in Dark Souls knows how finnicky such a move actually is over just pressing one button.

So, to accommodate "newer" players, the entire control scheme of the game is completely fethed. And a person who wants to play on Normal (the actual main intended difficulty) or Hard is stuck with terrible jump controls and a now useless triangle button, because you don't get health in those modes so the triangle button prompt has nothing to show you. There were other solutions they could have done here, including un-used buttons on the controller for the health display, but they didn't. They chose the worst one to try and facilitate new players but just ruined the experience for everyone, new players included as they'd quickly get frustrated with some of the jumping puzzles/segments because of the ass controls.

So a new player in 40k might might find the game easier to access, but if they stick around for long enough and slowly get better at the game, gain knowledge on it, get deeper into the mechanics, how well do you really think they're going to view the current points system. Especially as some of their early choices for weapon loadouts, which were just done on the basis of looking cool, get more and more obviously bad to them as the accrue more experience. You can be as casual as you like, but only the most braindead beer and pretzel chucking dice at table trogs will claim to unaffected by trap choices and ultra-bad units. Everyone has a certain level of tolerance for that kind of thing and for example even the most casual, inexperienced Aeldari players in 9th weren't playing Dark Reapers.

And if this is all for new players, then how do you explain 9th and its supposed complexity bringing in more new blood than ever before and being, by all metrics, the most successful edition they'd ever launched. Can't just blame the pandemic lockdowns here either; tons of new people were still getting into the game in 2022.

I thought the new player thing is Combat Patrol, without any points at all

It’s a continuation of GW wanting 40K to be everything and nothing all at once.

As well as very poor management of the game and setting as a whole.
Things like knights and flyers being pushed into the game without good planing, I think has lead to a lot of issues we now are dealing with.
Like this and the way they are dealing with points and the way army’s are constructed in game.

Rules layering without any thought to the meta game as well is all over the place.

The game isn’t new player friendly in any way and I don’t think these points do anything much to help.
Each of its potential advantages come with issues that GW didn’t bother to care about.

 Bosskelot wrote:
And if this is all for new players, then how do you explain 9th and its supposed complexity bringing in more new blood than ever before and being, by all metrics, the most successful edition they'd ever launched. Can't just blame the pandemic lockdowns here either; tons of new people were still getting into the game in 2022.

I thought 9th was the best edition, but there were constant complaints that it was too complicated/too bloated/too frequently updated, and so new/infrequent players couldn't follow. I'm not surprised GW has listened to them.

I think PL/no wargear costs is an inferior way to balance the game to having points because it gives GW one less lever to pull. But late 9th shows you can have a (relatively) balanced and fun game with it being applied to certain factions. For example we had that long thread about Marines - and while I think they were top tier, I don't they broke the game.

Fixed unit sizes could, potentially at least, give a more balanced system than when the optimal position is to shave a few models from a max squad to then buy other units. (I.E. take 3 units of 8 and a character rather than 10). Not sure this is more fun for players exactly for the reasons mentioned. I.E. you discover you are 25~ points over and can't then just leave a model or two behind. But in terms of balance, saying this is either a unit of 5 or 10 should give you a clearer idea of what this unit is, and so it should in turn be easier to decide on a points value relative to everything else.

Unfortunately 10th isn't remotely balanced, because GW don't seem to have thought about it. I don't really care about what Jervis Johnson wrote circa 2002. I think its a far more legitimate complaint to talk about Stu Black giving interviews where he said "we've gone through every datasheet" (or something to that effect).

Technically that's true I guess. But this was clearly a rush job, without any sort of consistency across the factions. You've talked about this elsewhere - some factions/units moved across from 9th to 10th without much change. Some got reductions in damage output - losing attacks, strength and/or AP - but maybe got a bit cheaper as a consequence. Others got nerfed unto the ground because screw you I guess.

"PLification" is not why Eldar and GSC are at 70%~ win rates (after you take out mirrors) and DG/LoV are struggling to maintain 30%. Its because the points are massively wrong relative to the capabilities of said factions. I think if points were better, and factions were therefore nearer the supposed desirable 45/55 win rate split - with say no worse than 40/60 for any given faction matchup - then there would be a lot less hostility and willingness to accept "nuPoints".

 Lobokai wrote:
Everyone I know who spends a large part of their hobby focus on bringing in new players in North America, likes the potential for the changes.

That's an interesting thing to say given that you had a 5x better retention rate with X-Wing and its standard point system. It sounds like the point system is not the issue but you're desperately hoping that anything will fix 40k's retention issues and focusing on minor details like the point system lets you avoid the hard work of trying to make the rest of the game newbie-friendly. But in reality two things are still true no matter how much you ignore them:

1) The point system should never be relevant in a new player's experience. All of their learning games should be played with pre-made forces where the teacher has done all the work up front and the newbie can focus 100% on the on-table game. Building a list should not be introduced until well after the point where the newbie's first impression has been formed and they've made some purchasing decisions. You're doing a poor job of selling 40k by introducing the wrong stuff too early in the process.

2) A slightly simpler point system is slightly easier to learn up front but can have catastrophic consequences for player retention later. In the traditional point system an excited newbie who jumps straight into building their models without knowing what options are best won't have a perfect list but at least they will have appropriate point costs to balance it out somewhat and minimize the damage. In a PL system a newbie who builds the wrong options can be harshly punished for it, being stuck with a clearly sub-optimal choice with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. And once they find out their expensive models are wasted and suitable only for the trash can they're very often angry about it and far less likely to keep buying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
I think if points were better, and factions were therefore nearer the supposed desirable 45/55 win rate split - with say no worse than 40/60 for any given faction matchup - then there would be a lot less hostility and willingness to accept "nuPoints".

Maybe. The system would still suck and be obviously inferior but maybe people would tolerate bad design if it was the only instance of bad design instead of merely one layer of bad design on a giant pile of it. But I don't think it would be all that much of a difference. Faction win rates only consider external balance while PL's defects are about internal balance. Addressing external balance doesn't do anything to touch the frustration over LRBT sponsons, mandatory plasma pistols and thunder hammers, etc.

(The difference between external and internal balance is why GW loves faction win rate as their primary metric, it hides a lot of major balance problems and makes them look better.)

1) The point system should never be relevant in a new player's experience. All of their learning games should be played with pre-made forces where the teacher has done all the work up front and the newbie can focus 100% on the on-table game. Building a list should not be introduced until well after the point where the newbie's first impression has been formed and they've made some purchasing decisions.

I know that stores and GW would love that. Noob spends 700-1000$ on an army, and then starts to learn how the real game looks like, which given the number of trap choices, and even trap armies means that the potential that he will have to spend another 700-1000$ to fix or get a proper army is huge. I am not sure how many players would stay in the game, after finding out that they spend so much money on a non functional models though. GW games already have horrible retention rate, so maybe that aspect is unimportant.

its a circular argument, however its also a tad academic as I can't see the "wargear is free!" changing until 11th roles round

to fix it now would mean making codex units significantly cheaper to put points in for wargear and then you start to get a lot of issues as you have some armies paying for stuff and some not until all have a codex. I mean they could do it, but with the direction GW have been going I highly doubt they will

Karol wrote:
I know that stores and GW would love that. Noob spends 700-1000$ on an army, and then starts to learn how the real game looks like, which given the number of trap choices, and even trap armies means that the potential that he will have to spend another 700-1000$ to fix or get a proper army is huge. I am not sure how many players would stay in the game, after finding out that they spend so much money on a non functional models though. GW games already have horrible retention rate, so maybe that aspect is unimportant.

Teaching games are played with borrowed models before the new player buys anything. Nobody is spending $700-1000 on an army before they've played their first game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
its a circular argument, however its also a tad academic as I can't see the "wargear is free!" changing until 11th roles round

to fix it now would mean making codex units significantly cheaper to put points in for wargear and then you start to get a lot of issues as you have some armies paying for stuff and some not until all have a codex. I mean they could do it, but with the direction GW have been going I highly doubt they will

The whole purpose of making a separate points document was so that point changes don't require updating the codex. GW could overhaul the entire system and put up a new points document tomorrow if they wanted. The only thing blocking them is their own stubborn unwillingness to admit that PL was a stupid idea.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Karol wrote:
I know that stores and GW would love that. Noob spends 700-1000$ on an army, and then starts to learn how the real game looks like, which given the number of trap choices, and even trap armies means that the potential that he will have to spend another 700-1000$ to fix or get a proper army is huge. I am not sure how many players would stay in the game, after finding out that they spend so much money on a non functional models though. GW games already have horrible retention rate, so maybe that aspect is unimportant.

Teaching games are played with borrowed models before the new player buys anything. Nobody is spending $700-1000 on an army before they've played their first game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
its a circular argument, however its also a tad academic as I can't see the "wargear is free!" changing until 11th roles round

to fix it now would mean making codex units significantly cheaper to put points in for wargear and then you start to get a lot of issues as you have some armies paying for stuff and some not until all have a codex. I mean they could do it, but with the direction GW have been going I highly doubt they will

The whole purpose of making a separate points document was so that point changes don't require updating the codex. GW could overhaul the entire system and put up a new points document tomorrow if they wanted. The only thing blocking them is their own stubborn unwillingness to admit that PL was a stupid idea.

well that and either trying to have the same bit of kit cost the same army wide, or have a huge document to have all the different "identical wargear with a different name" stuff listed under each item

could it be done, probably, doubt it will because as you note its a stubbornness issue, they did with with AoS1 and had to roll back, they tried with "PL" on 8th etc

leopard wrote:
could it be done, probably

No "probably" about it, it's literally what GW did in 9th with the point documents. Each unit had all of its options listed with individual point costs and it worked just fine. The only thing standing in the way of going back to that system is GW's stubborn refusal to admit that PL sucks.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

leopard wrote:
could it be done, probably

No "probably" about it, it's literally what GW did in 9th with the point documents. Each unit had all of its options listed with individual point costs and it worked just fine. The only thing standing in the way of going back to that system is GW's stubborn refusal to admit that PL sucks.

I mean, we've not even hit the first formal points review, no books out yet. Its not 100% they won't introduce gear costs in a codex until we see one, although neither outcome would surprise.

But the point (lol) is that the edition isn't even 3 months old, they've not ruled out anything explicitly nor agreed to anything. They could change yet.

If we just wait and see...

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

leopard wrote:
could it be done, probably

No "probably" about it, it's literally what GW did in 9th with the point documents. Each unit had all of its options listed with individual point costs and it worked just fine. The only thing standing in the way of going back to that system is GW's stubborn refusal to admit that PL sucks.

its basically how every codex and armybook used to work

for %REASONS% they decided to drop that for the indexes used for 10th 40k's launch, it seems unlikely they would do that if they then planned to put individual points back

especially since at least the first three/four codexes are likely already on order for printing or even the first one/two in containers on their way back

so if they have points that was the intention, if they lack points and its a pure "you need to download this" it suggests panic

the main risk they really have is some of the larger event organisers coming out with a parallel point system (possible?) and they end up losing control over it through their own refusal to do it right

Where is the advantage?? God knows! doesn’t seem to be one, it’s worse than power levels for me and worse for tournament players points wise. If you read he post of mine you quoted you will find the 10th system isn’t something I wanted or called for. Bring back power levels and points I say. Two state solution all the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The PL side has treated every argument and inquiry as an affront to their religion, stop playing the victim.

Very few people have taken any sort of "I support the official rules" or "GW knows what they're doing" or even said 10th edition's approach is balanced and flawless.

You don't need to say that 10th is flawless to say something wrong. Saying that you like PL and therefore PL is not objectively worse is silly.

There are no white knights here to unhorse

Except for all the white knights that say that GW employees cannot be criticized for failing to do their job and the only acceptable answer to a lack of quality is money grubbers and tight schedules or a silent majority like 10th ed PL. These are veteran game designers that need to learn or let the community do the pts for them and then simply publish the results, doing PL is not good enough.

The question was and is "do we like the 10th ed approach to unit upgrades". The answer for some is "yes". We try to explain why... people try to prove opinions wrong (which is just dumb) and then can't comprehend why that approach is met with resistance.

It's not the opinions that are proven wrong, but rather the facts backing those opinions up. If you say you like PL because it lets you make a list in 59 seconds and it takes you 59 minutes to make a pts list then you are lying. If you say that you like PL because it allows you to change your wargear after selecting the mission and seeing your opponent's list you're lying. You can just say you like writing down your lists by hand and would rather cut the math for list building in half and save a minute that's fine, people's subjective preference and lack of standards for how balanced games need to be for you to have fun is 100% cool. Just don't come here and say that PL is a good system or a better system, it's clearly not and GW not knowing this is what has led to us only have PL in 10th. Do you think all 60% that answered they don't like 10th's approach cannot have fun with 10th edition? No, that'd be ridiculous. They just want sponsons to cost pts, there really is nothing to be opset at about that. When I say that a ruler with millimetre marks in addition to centimetre marks is objectively better you don't have to get mad because you use a ruler for your wood shop that only has centimetre marks and no millimetre marks.

No one is getting mad about points existing or people wanting them. We are getting mad at how rude and obnoxious some people are being in response people saying that they like something. No one is saying PL are “better” than points, it just it works better for some people. To use your ruler analogy (because we really needed ANOTHER stupid analogy), what markings the ruler has on don’t matter if you don’t use it measure things and just use it to draw straight lines.

If the last 80 odd pages are a anything to go by this will get a response saying that pl aren’t drawing straight lines but are in fact poking your eyes out with the ruler or something equally stupid.

And to start calling anyone who enjoys the game a white knight is internet banality at its worst. I love 40K, that’s why I have played it for 30+ years, but I can criticise it and have in this and other threads.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If we just wait and see...

Piss and moan now and/or piss and moan later really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

And to start calling anyone who enjoys the game a white knight is internet banality at its worst. I love 40K, that’s why I have played it for 30+ years, but I can criticise it and have in this and other threads.

You misunderstand, you're a white Knight if you suggest or accept any possibility other than the rules designers having a room temp IQ.

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If we just wait and see...

Piss and moan now and/or piss and moan later really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

And to start calling anyone who enjoys the game a white knight is internet banality at its worst. I love 40K, that’s why I have played it for 30+ years, but I can criticise it and have in this and other threads.

You misunderstand, you're a white Knight if you suggest or accept any possibility other than the rules designers having a room temp IQ.

Or maybe the designers are good and management is enforcing unreasonable demands.

Dudeface wrote:

You misunderstand, you're a white Knight if you suggest or accept any possibility other than the rules designers having a room temp IQ.

This is not an appropriate way to speak about other human beings. You can dislike the state of the game. You can be frustrated at what seem like obvious errors, or things that 'should' have been done differently. But in a company the size of GW, there are any number of factors that affect the quality of the final product that are entirely outside the control of the people writing the rules.

By all means be critical of the end product. But you can do so without insulting people. It does nothing positive for the discussion, and just reinforces the perception of toxicity in the community. Be better.

 vict0988 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I can manage to get my head around someone enjoying a different thing from me, I can imagine the current situation isn’t great for them. I am not just assuming that because I like a thing anyone else who says they don’t like it is either stupid or a liar. You don’t see that consideration or respect from the other side. The very fact that there are sides is stupid as feth.

I don't say people are liars because they say they like PL, I say they are liars because they say it takes them seconds to make a PL list or because they say it takes them an hour to make a pts list or because they say you were allowed to switch wargear whenever you liked in PL.

So is this like having your answer rejected for not phrasing it in the form of a question on Jeopardy?
If I were to leave out specific #s & just say that "I like it because it takes me less time using PL than it did when using pts." would you still claim I'm lying?

Yes, because (as someone who has used both systems) it's not actually true.

Having to Tetris-fit your army together is slower than having to choose what minor options to fill or drop.

Now if you don't Tetris-fit your army together, that's fine - but you'll be playing an imbalanced game, at which point you might as well just throw together what you intend to take and get roughly there in a points system too without fiddling with the details.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, because (as someone who has used both systems) it's not actually true.

...for you.

Different people process things differently, and what's easier for you isn't necessarily the easiest option for someone else. So when someone says that they find it easier to do something in a way you personally don't find easiest, it's generally more productive to assume that they're just, you know, not you, rather than that they're lying.

 insaniak wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, because (as someone who has used both systems) it's not actually true.

...for you.

Different people process things differently, and what's easier for you isn't necessarily the easiest option for someone else. So when someone says that they find it easier to do something in a way you personally don't find easiest, it's generally more productive to assume that they're just, you know, not you, rather than that they're lying.

I agree with this ultimately, but I think that's been raised earlier in the 80 page thread - the "it's subjective" argument against it.

Seeing it again in this context makes me believe that they genuinely think it is a good objective reason for PL, giving it the appearance of having at least some objective redeeming qualities.

I don't think anyone here is contesting that PL feels better or is subjectively faster for folks or whatever. Just its objective merits and demerits.

Edit:
I mean, I think it is fundsmentally impossible to accuse someone of lying about subjective things (or at least, is folly to do so) so perhaps there has been a miscommunication, but my understanding is that there was a claim that PL was (objectively) faster and that's a reason to (subjectively) like it.

And in that context I think it is worth pointing out that PL is not (objectively) faster at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
... but my understanding is that there was a claim that PL was (objectively) faster and that's a reason to (subjectively) like it.

And in that context I think it is worth pointing out that PL is not (objectively) faster at all.

Based on what data? The argument here seems to be more over the definition of 'objective' rather than which system people actually find faster. But 'objectively faster' doesn't inherently mean 'faster for everyone'...

If I personally can put together a list faster using PL than using points, then, for me, PLs are objectively faster. The fact that you may have a different result doesn't change that... The speed difference is measurable, and if it exists, then it is objective fact.

Yeah. some people here say points are “objectively better at everything,” which is untrue.

If even one person finds PL easier than points, then points are worse there. I do agree that points are better (or at least able to better) at balance than PL… but not everyone values that super highly.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah. some people here say points are “objectively better at everything,” which is untrue.

If even one person finds PL easier than points, then points are worse there. I do agree that points are better (or at least able to better) at balance than PL… but not everyone values that super highly.

Well, people are saying points are objectively better at everything that can be objectively measured...
(Which is inherent in the term objectively)

To say that that is untrue is a lie... Or if it isn't, proof is needed.

Andykp wrote:
Two state solution all the way.

But why only two systems? This is something neither you nor any of the other PL defenders have managed to answer. Why shouldn't we have five different point systems, or ten systems? Why not have every possible system that anyone has ever thought of so that every player can be happy?

To use your ruler analogy (because we really needed ANOTHER stupid analogy), what markings the ruler has on don’t matter if you don’t use it measure things and just use it to draw straight lines.

That's an excellent analogy. You claim you just want a straight edge to draw lines and the markings don't matter. I offer you a ruler with no markings at all that costs half as much. Not only do you reject something that should be a clear improvement if your claim about "I only draw straight lines" is accurate, you insist that it's such an obviously stupid idea that I must be trolling for suggesting it.

Power levels were great for getting new people to start playing. When I restarted back in 8th my collection was minimal and I just wanted to try things out. Power level let me get a feel for the game without having to fuss about stuff I didn’t understand anyway. Later on I switched to using points more often, but against new players (often with my models) I’d always go PL just so that we could make a list on the spot and get going. Spending 10 min explaining every point and detail would overwhelm new players. I couldn’t even get them to care about relics and such at first.

In any case, PL coexisting with points doesn’t hurt anything so the massive disdain for PL is largely irrational IMO, and I don’t know why people care so much. The current system is bad, sure, but the previous system was fine.

"Why do you care so much?" is a terrible non-argument.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Why do you care so much?" is a terrible non-argument.

If I’m having fun, and you’re trying to stop me then yes it is valid.

Andykp wrote:

Spoiler:

 kodos wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Are more people affected positive or negativ by the points change?

Andykp wrote:

End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?

I have fun playing Warpath Firefight so it would be best 40k is removed and all people play Firefight instead, I don't see the point why other would want to still play 40k instead of Firefight so don't see why that system should exist
/S

I have never argued for the removal of a points system system, quite the opposite, I have argued for the two system solution. That way both sides get what they want, most people who have argued in defence of power levels have said that.

I can manage to get my head around someone enjoying a different thing from me, I can imagine the current situation isn’t great for them. I am not just assuming that because I like a thing anyone else who says they don’t like it is either stupid or a liar. You don’t see that consideration or respect from the other side. The very fact that there are sides is stupid as feth.

If gw did a you turn and went back to the old way of having only points like they were before, I could live with that, like I can with this half way house we have now. I played for 7 editions before power levels were an option. It’s not make or break for me.

There are downsides to classic points, and downsides to power level. I can see that and say it without contradicting anything I have said on here before. All I am asking that the pro points side (power level deniers) open their minds a bit and see that what matters to them doesn’t to others. What is frustrating and has been since power levels came in is the dismissal of others experiences and rudeness that is directed at anyone who said as much as “l like them”.

We had a 3 system solution, Powerlevel, Points and Open Play
Those were replaced by "Points but worse than Powerlevel"

So were is the advantage that everyone must play now something that is in the middle of Powerlevel and Open Play?
That some still have fun? That the others have something to look forward to 11th? That we must accept that GW made the perfect game and casuals are told by competitive player that they are just haters if they cannot see how much more fun 40k is and should stop criticise and just play the game?

Where is the advantage?? God knows! doesn’t seem to be one, it’s worse than power levels for me and worse for tournament players points wise. If you read he post of mine you quoted you will find the 10th system isn’t something I wanted or called for. Bring back power levels and points I say. Two state solution all the way.

GW saved time on balancing their game and writing numbers down, I hope the community will make it clear that's not good enough, I think you should write GW and ask for your two-way solution, at least if GW changes nuPoints to PL we can stop having the argument over whether 10th really uses PL.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The PL side has treated every argument and inquiry as an affront to their religion, stop playing the victim.

Very few people have taken any sort of "I support the official rules" or "GW knows what they're doing" or even said 10th edition's approach is balanced and flawless.

You don't need to say that 10th is flawless to say something wrong. Saying that you like PL and therefore PL is not objectively worse is silly.

There are no white knights here to unhorse

Except for all the white knights that say that GW employees cannot be criticized for failing to do their job and the only acceptable answer to a lack of quality is money grubbers and tight schedules or a silent majority like 10th ed PL. These are veteran game designers that need to learn or let the community do the pts for them and then simply publish the results, doing PL is not good enough.

The question was and is "do we like the 10th ed approach to unit upgrades". The answer for some is "yes". We try to explain why... people try to prove opinions wrong (which is just dumb) and then can't comprehend why that approach is met with resistance.

It's not the opinions that are proven wrong, but rather the facts backing those opinions up. If you say you like PL because it lets you make a list in 59 seconds and it takes you 59 minutes to make a pts list then you are lying. If you say that you like PL because it allows you to change your wargear after selecting the mission and seeing your opponent's list you're lying. You can just say you like writing down your lists by hand and would rather cut the math for list building in half and save a minute that's fine, people's subjective preference and lack of standards for how balanced games need to be for you to have fun is 100% cool. Just don't come here and say that PL is a good system or a better system, it's clearly not and GW not knowing this is what has led to us only have PL in 10th. Do you think all 60% that answered they don't like 10th's approach cannot have fun with 10th edition? No, that'd be ridiculous. They just want sponsons to cost pts, there really is nothing to be opset at about that. When I say that a ruler with millimetre marks in addition to centimetre marks is objectively better you don't have to get mad because you use a ruler for your wood shop that only has centimetre marks and no millimetre marks.

No one is getting mad about points existing or people wanting them. We are getting mad at how rude and obnoxious some people are being in response people saying that they like something. No one is saying PL are “better” than points, it just it works better for some people. To use your ruler analogy (because we really needed ANOTHER stupid analogy), what markings the ruler has on don’t matter if you don’t use it measure things and just use it to draw straight lines.

If the last 80 odd pages are a anything to go by this will get a response saying that pl aren’t drawing straight lines but are in fact poking your eyes out with the ruler or something equally stupid.

And to start calling anyone who enjoys the game a white knight is internet banality at its worst. I love 40K, that’s why I have played it for 30+ years, but I can criticise it and have in this and other threads.

GW have been mad about pts existing for a long time. I conjecture that a small vocal minority of PL players convinced GW that sponsons don't need to cost pts and the conversation about balance in 9th got focussed too much around external balance because of GW's stupid 45-55 heuristic so while the PL datasheets of Guard and SM had the possibility of breaking the game, they ended up not doing that so everyone thought it was fine, especially because it was so later in the edition and we knew 10th was coming in 6-12 months so there wasn't a big enough riot. Do you know how rude it is to lie to people and not apologize when you're caught in a lie? Do you know how obnoxious it is to claim to be shouted down while doing that exact thing yourself? Nobody has called anyone who enjoys 40k a white knight, see this is the strawmanning gak you've been putting out. People that think the company or the people who work there are beyond criticism are white knights. If you like Justin Bieber you're fine, if you defend Justin Bieber spitting on a fan you're a white knight.

Dandelion wrote:
If I’m having fun, and you’re trying to stop me then yes it is valid.

You're trying to stop me from having fun, do you not see a problem with that?