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.

Tyel wrote:
"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".

the difference here is or the problem we have with the arguments is that "a system cannot work at all" is mixed with "GW suck at making games"

GW is not able to write a good game no matter what system they use and instead of targeting GW as a company trying to sell a bad product, people target the default system.

that matched play points did not work was not a points problem but is a GW problem.
that nu-points are not working is not a points problem but a GW problem
that Universal Special Rules did not work is not a USR problem but a GW problem
that 40k is not balanced is not because a game with so many units can never be balanced but because GW decided to add too many units

so yes, Powerlevel can work if done right, yes granular points are better than PL if done right

problem is just GW cannot or does not want to do it right, so best would be to stop playing their games until the get the message that they need to put some effort into it rather than making a new one every 3 years

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

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?

I would like to point out, no one wants to stop granular points from existing.
There’s folk who want PL in addition to points. Whereas there’s lots of points fanatics who want PL gone entirely.

 vict0988 wrote:
... The small vocal minority of PL players convinced GW that sponsons don't need to cost pts ...

Did they, though? What evidence do you have that this came from player feedback?

Dandelion wrote:

 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.

And besides, I find it curious that you would treat this as a debate anyway. I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m just suggesting that people should consider the importance (or lack thereof) of all this back and forth. Some people like things a certain way, and berating them or calling them liars is just unnecessary. Maybe granular points are objectively better, but people would need to discover that themselves instead of being told as much.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I would like to point out, no one wants to stop granular points from existing.

except for GW

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

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?

But I’m not, so no problems here.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I would like to point out, no one wants to stop granular points from existing.
There’s folk who want PL in addition to points. Whereas there’s lots of points fanatics who want PL gone entirely.

My fun requires a game with a single unified point system and the two system "solution" is taking away my fun. Why is that any less valid than a claim that the 30 seconds saved in writing a list with PL is essential for fun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:
But I’m not, so no problems here.

You absolutely are. My fun is based on having a single unified point system for the game, and by your own arguments you can't question that.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

My fun requires a game with a single unified point system .... .

No, it doesn't.

If you're not interested in discussing this seriously, feel free to move on.


Folks, there is no need to engage with this. Let's stick to the topic, hmm?

 insaniak wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
... The small vocal minority of PL players convinced GW that sponsons don't need to cost pts ...

Did they, though? What evidence do you have that this came from player feedback?

You're right, I have no proof of that. I edited my prior message to show this is mere conjecture on my part. Thank you.

Dandelion wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 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.

And besides, I find it curious that you would treat this as a debate anyway. I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m just suggesting that people should consider the importance (or lack thereof) of all this back and forth. Some people like things a certain way, and berating them or calling them liars is just unnecessary. Maybe granular points are objectively better, but people would need to discover that themselves instead of being told as much.

When the calculator company starts releasing calculators that treat pi as 3,2 I have a problem. I'm not going to say that the calculator company doesn't have the ultimate and largest responsibility to use the right number for pi, but trying to convince vocal advocates of using 3,2 with logical arguments also makes sense.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

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?

I would like to point out, no one wants to stop granular points from existing.
There’s folk who want PL in addition to points. Whereas there’s lots of points fanatics who want PL gone entirely.

It has already been established there are PL fanatics that want anyone who don't like PL gone because they're playing the game wrong by caring about whether sponsons cost pts. The number of people that want PL gone is tiny, if GW agreed to never get rid of pts I wouldn't advocate for getting rid of PL, but I guessed right when I said GW would like to scrap points entirely. You're free to believe that no amount of people saying "I like PL I think pts takes too long" is going to change the least bit for GW, we'll just have to agree to disagree until we get some word from GW on why they went with this and whether they looked at the number of PL players and people's opinions on the system. We have seen with both the changes during 8th and 9th and especially changes for 10th that GW is very receptive to player feedback, this is why I think it'd be nice if we could cause a wave of support for getting pts back. Strategically it would have been a better idea to argue in favour of the 2-system solution the entire way, I'll have to take that into consideration in the future whether it is worth getting hung up on arguing about objectivism and logic.

- removed

 vict0988 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

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?

I would like to point out, no one wants to stop granular points from existing.
There’s folk who want PL in addition to points. Whereas there’s lots of points fanatics who want PL gone entirely.

It has already been established there are PL fanatics that want anyone who don't like PL gone because they're playing the game wrong by caring about whether sponsons cost pts. The number of people that want PL gone is tiny, if GW agreed to never get rid of pts I wouldn't advocate for getting rid of PL, but I guessed right when I said GW would like to scrap points entirely. You're free to believe that no amount of people saying "I like PL I think pts takes too long" is going to change the least bit for GW, we'll just have to agree to disagree until we get some word from GW on why they went with this and whether they looked at the number of PL players and people's opinions on the system. We have seen with both the changes during 8th and 9th and especially changes for 10th that GW is very receptive to player feedback, this is why I think it'd be nice if we could cause a wave of support for getting pts back. Strategically it would have been a better idea to argue in favour of the 2-system solution the entire way, I'll have to take that into consideration in the future whether it is worth getting hung up on arguing about objectivism and logic.

Who here, in this thread or forum at large, has advocated for the removal of points?

 vict0988 wrote:

When the calculator company starts releasing calculators that treat pi as 3,2 I have a problem. I'm not going to say that the calculator company doesn't have the ultimate and largest responsibility to use the right number for pi, but trying to convince vocal advocates of using 3,2 with logical arguments also makes sense.

Person A says pi is 3.14
Person B says pi is 3.14159
Both are technically wrong but no one really cares. The extra precision from the additional digits is quickly lost when you start using it on real projects.

I round pi to 3 occasionally for quick mental math. I also occasionally used PL for quick matchups. Not always, but it helped sometimes.
For the record, I am against the current point system.

Dandelion wrote:

 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.

No-one is.

But removing points and replacing it with PL is actively stunting my enjoyment of the game.

I'll refer back to my previous post in the thread; ruining the game experience of everyone else to accommodate newer players/other small minorities isn't good games design. PL was fine when it was an option. It actively ruins the game and will keep on causing problems over the edition now that it is the only option. Recently I had to break the bad news to someone who bought a large Aeldari army second-hand; all of those shuriken weapons glued down to vehicles and such are now an active detriment because you're being charged for bright lances instead.

I agree.

I was more so talking about people who wanted PL gone even though they could easily ignore it. And as I said the current system is just bad.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Who here, in this thread or forum at large, has advocated for the removal of points?

just read the first pages, there are again some in the middle of the topic but harder to find.
thing is, points are already removed, so defending the new system, that removed points, as superior is identical to advocating for the removal of points

 kodos wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Who here, in this thread or forum at large, has advocated for the removal of points?

just read the first pages, there are again some in the middle of the topic but harder to find.
thing is, points are already removed, so defending the new system, that removed points, as superior is identical to advocating for the removal of points

There's 2 people in the first 3 pages, who had fairly bad takes on it in honesty, although they did mention "points are poorly implemented", which is not only a weak argument but the same one used against the current system ironically.

But thank you insaniak for stepping in to cool it off.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

2 issues with that claim.
1. That may well be dependant upon the army and collection you own. Armies with broader profile spread and therefore broader spread of PL-pts cost will inevitably have a far easier time than armies that don't. And thanks to gw introducing armies like knights. That is questionable. Even in old granular points you'd run into this issue but it was easier to alleviate fill up points. Or eliminate wargear.

2. Objective insofar as the counter claim is also verifyably true. And going on a limb, i actually would state since the armies are often pretty homogenous in profile spread that you may very well find more armies not being able to easily replace things in a list.

Armies with low profile spread include i rekon: Marines, custodes, Knights both flavours, SoB, Drukhari. GSC. That is not a negliable quanitity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

When the calculator company starts releasing calculators that treat pi as 3,2 I have a problem. I'm not going to say that the calculator company doesn't have the ultimate and largest responsibility to use the right number for pi, but trying to convince vocal advocates of using 3,2 with logical arguments also makes sense.

Person A says pi is 3.14
Person B says pi is 3.14159
Both are technically wrong but no one really cares. The extra precision from the additional digits is quickly lost when you start using it on real projects.

I round pi to 3 occasionally for quick mental math. I also occasionally used PL for quick matchups. Not always, but it helped sometimes.
For the record, I am against the current point system.

The current system is the worst of both systems.

PL would work better if we had a mechanical level of depth that 40k doesn't have at which point opportunity cost associated with choices especially on special and heavy weaponry unit type etc would balance forces and 40k never came close to having such a mechanical depth. Pts are bad because for some inane (greed, because recuring revenue through rulessales is a thing) reason GW restarts new editions all 3 years instead of refining the points and frankly has with the wriathknight incident and certain questionable pts cost a very wierd behaviour in regards to what is worth xyz, especially with the mechanically less deep 40k since 8th edition but bolt on rules on demand "unforseen" issues apear in every codex in specific situations and combinations enabled due to the widening of rules that are subfaction rules, etc.

Not Online!!! wrote:

PL would work better if we had a mechanical level of depth that 40k doesn't have at which point opportunity cost associated with choices especially on special and heavy weaponry unit type etc would balance forces and 40k never came close to having such a mechanical depth.

On this, I can agree, somewhat. It doesn't have to be mechanical depth specifically, but for my money PL should be built around a system where all of the available options are equally useful.

The system GW seem to be going for is one for players who don't care at all about balance and just want a rough framework to build a list. Which is also where I think some of the misunderstanding about whether or not it is faster comes from... The messing about when the list goes one point over the max that had been suggested as a problem to solve is only a thing if you're trying to optimize your list. Otherwise, you either ignore the point over, or you drop a unit and get on with the game. No point juggling required.

Whether or not this system appeals to enough of the customer base to pay off for them is, I guess, something we'll find out over the next couple of years.

Pts are bad because for some inane (greed, because recuring revenue through rulessales is a thing) reason GW restarts new editions all 3 years.. .

I've been thinking about this, and I'm wondering if this is actually at least partly responsible for the shift to a less precise system, driven by GW corporate rather than the studio. Previously, they've had to spend a bunch of time preparing for a new edition revising points costs for everything, and that process ideally needs to be reviewed with every new release. Scrapping individual points costs for a less precise system means no longer having to 'waste' studio resources redoing stuff, leaving more time to work on new stuff instead.

if you need to build up the point system from 0 every 3 years, going with a system that cost less money and time to be written is preferred from a company point of view
also talking the customers into a system of "don't care" by marketing helps to reduce the demand from their site (of the players stop asking for balance and well written rules, there is a lot of money to be saved)

and that this was one reason behind it is shown on how in the Indices are handled as how different certain units are someone just thought it was easier and cheaper but realised it is even more work if done for the first time and therefore it was even more simplified as planned (comparing Landspeeder and Crisis suits)

I am glad insaniak stepped in here thank you.

No one is trying to stop anyone having fun, none of us PL “fanatics” are calling for everyone to use PL and none of us made GW decide to use a points scheme that they have used for years with AoS. So the attacks and slurs are wholly uncalled for.

I think if you were using PL (8th and 9th) then adjusting to the new system is not so hard. But if you weren’t then it’s a bigger adjustment. The thing that seems to baffle people not used to PL is that all the things they complain about it, aren’t that relevant to the pope, who embraced it.

They say it’s the death of wysiwyg but in my group that more important than ever, we don’t do counts as, I wouldn’t play my leman Russ tanks as having sponsons because they don’t, and more importantly I am happy to play them without even though they are free because I prefer how they look without them. If I bought a new leman Russ I wouldn’t build with all the free options on it either. We don’t game the system.

This is not saying anyone who does is wrong or waac it is just another equally valid way of playing.

If Gw are going down this route as the only option then it would work better if all the upgrades had equal value but different roles, like I have seen in aos where the unit can have two melee weapon choices, one deadlier but one less deadly but with more range, or a shield to improve survivability so that they were tactical choices for those that like to play competitively.

 insaniak wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
... The small vocal minority of PL players convinced GW that sponsons don't need to cost pts ...

Did they, though? What evidence do you have that this came from player feedback?

First there was no PL.

Then there was PL, but only optional and/or Crusade.

Now there's PL masquerading as Points, and I don't think anyone called for any of those changes.

 insaniak wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

PL would work better if we had a mechanical level of depth that 40k doesn't have at which point opportunity cost associated with choices especially on special and heavy weaponry unit type etc would balance forces and 40k never came close to having such a mechanical depth.

On this, I can agree, somewhat. It doesn't have to be mechanical depth specifically, but for my money PL should be built around a system where all of the available options are equally useful.

The system GW seem to be going for is one for players who don't care at all about balance and just want a rough framework to build a list. Which is also where I think some of the misunderstanding about whether or not it is faster comes from... The messing about when the list goes one point over the max that had been suggested as a problem to solve is only a thing if you're trying to optimize your list. Otherwise, you either ignore the point over, or you drop a unit and get on with the game. No point juggling required.

Whether or not this system appeals to enough of the customer base to pay off for them is, I guess, something we'll find out over the next couple of years.

I only see locally, that HH gains massive ammounts of players. 40k this edition atleast looks to go the same way 6th / 7th went in regards to how it is percieved by the local community and i mean the general community, ranging from basically only painting to tournament goers. The playing population looks at it and sees that it is disfunctional on a basic level. The swift intervention in regards to the WK and eldar that needed to happen but crippled the units due to the problem of the PL-Pts being a sledgehammer and every problem consequently turning in GW's rulesdesigner eyes into fenceposts, just highlighted the issues tied to it being an ungranular system by design.

As for the mechanical depth. The issue is, to facilitate that all weapons are worth a close enough to equal cost, requires for all the weapons to have a use. However between the ridicoulsly bad S-T table, lackluster moralemechanics, lackluster covermechanics, etc, why would you ever take something else than an AT weapon unless you have an anti infantry weapon with an absurd RoF. For those weapons to actually be on parity and therefore a question of how you want to specialise a squad there needs to be an incentive and ability to do so. Hence the kit restrictions, for exemple the traitor guardsmen recently going back to 3 specials but only 1 of x y z is moronical.
So long cover is not relevant so long weapons that would work well against cover like nade launchers and flamers won't be relevant. So long surpression and morale are not relevant so long Hb's and stubbers and mortars won't be relevant.

Pts are bad because for some inane (greed, because recuring revenue through rulessales is a thing) reason GW restarts new editions all 3 years.. .

I've been thinking about this, and I'm wondering if this is actually at least partly responsible for the shift to a less precise system, driven by GW corporate rather than the studio. Previously, they've had to spend a bunch of time preparing for a new edition revising points costs for everything, and that process ideally needs to be reviewed with every new release. Scrapping individual points costs for a less precise system means no longer having to 'waste' studio resources redoing stuff, leaving more time to work on new stuff instead.

No, i think it's more ... questionable in motive than mere time saving.
Recently the outer circle highlighted the fact that GW claims that the community and GW do interact in a two-way system on warcom. Now you can think about the Aussie saltmine what you want , but he is perfectly on the number in regards that this is a bold faced lie to it's shareholders by GW, because there IS no interaction on warcom from the community torwards GW. Twitch stream interactions are behind a paywall aswell, and Facebook is so heavily moderated that when R&H got legended and people asked justifyably WTF is going on and suddendly comments go missing. That is not two-way communication.

To me, this system looks like:
1. create Pts/PL-system as cheap and fast as possible, hence 1 system that isn't taxing to create. Saving Hours = $£€CHF whatevs.
2. solving the problems from the too fast created pts system by moving pts up and down and avoiding touching the core rules as much as possible.
3. make a replacement of the system necessary by introducing changes and add ons in the last part of the edition.
4. replacing edition, claim that you listened to the community, make some PR fluff up.
5. repeat steps 1-4.

There was no reason at the end of 8th for 9th which shifted just barely enough in the core rules, which could've however been done changing the rules in 8th already.
9th was also more strict on soup and had a more stringent detachment system.
10th magically has basically no detachment system at all.
11th will solve the 10th issue of the detachment system and probably reimplement PL or play around again. (prognosis)


Ontop of that the archaic codex after codex after codex release cycle to pad numbers over a buissness years between quartals and consequently the possibility to have lower ammount of designers due to a timetable. And you get the typicall codex-creep which as highlighted above is just a feature to facilitate the need for a solution of a problem of your own design.

It's like video games artificially increasing the grind and then selling you boosters for xp etc. BTW gw also took quite a bit of inspiration from the Videogames industry with the "DLC-ification" of campaigns f.e. there was no reason for that many PA books, nvm that half the contents in there were in essence just cut content.

^Yah, that's 100% what it feels like. Born of coorperate cynicism and financial structures, and extremely little good-faith game design.

Improved accessibility in general was a solid move of 8th edition, but the churn has proven, at least to me, that their motives are not about improvement, but raw sales however they can get them.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Yah, that's 100% what it feels like. Born of coorperate cynicism and financial structures, and extremely little good-faith game design.

Improved accessibility in general was a solid move of 8th edition, but the churn has proven, at least to me, that their motives are not about improvement, but raw sales however they can get them.

This is he GW mission statement for their own website.

“ We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world, to engage and inspire our customers, and to sell our products globally at a profit. We intend to do this forever. ”

Key bit for me, “miniatures”. They use the games to inspire their customers to sell more miniatures. They don’t say “we make the best war games in the world”. The games are means to an end. They aren’t meant to be the best, they are meant to be inspiring and accessible.

Here is another quote from the site,

“ The more fun and enjoyable we make our games, the more customers we attract and retain, and the more miniatures our customers want to buy. ”

Fun and enjoyable, not balanced and competitive. For some people the two things are the same, but not all. And it is clear that the games are designed to attract new customers.

I’m not saying anyone wanting a super tight competitive wargame is doing 40K wrong and should play something else, not at all. But if that is what you want, 40K is not that, has never been that and isn’t going to be that. Please play, the more the merrier but manage your expectations. 40K the game is a mass market vehicle for selling great models. This new way of doing points fits that model precisely, they haven’t made a mistake doing this it isn’t laziness or incompetence, it’s a business choice.

Andykp wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Yah, that's 100% what it feels like. Born of coorperate cynicism and financial structures, and extremely little good-faith game design.

Improved accessibility in general was a solid move of 8th edition, but the churn has proven, at least to me, that their motives are not about improvement, but raw sales however they can get them.

This is he GW mission statement for their own website.

“ We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world, to engage and inspire our customers, and to sell our products globally at a profit. We intend to do this forever. ”

Key bit for me, “miniatures”. They use the games to inspire their customers to sell more miniatures. They don’t say “we make the best war games in the world”. The games are means to an end. They aren’t meant to be the best, they are meant to be inspiring and accessible.

Here is another quote from the site,

“ The more fun and enjoyable we make our games, the more customers we attract and retain, and the more miniatures our customers want to buy. ”

Fun and enjoyable, not balanced and competitive. For some people the two things are the same, but not all. And it is clear that the games are designed to attract new customers.

I’m not saying anyone wanting a super tight competitive wargame is doing 40K wrong and should play something else, not at all. But if that is what you want, 40K is not that, has never been that and isn’t going to be that. Please play, the more the merrier but manage your expectations. 40K the game is a mass market vehicle for selling great models. This new way of doing points fits that model precisely, they haven’t made a mistake doing this it isn’t laziness or incompetence, it’s a business choice.

now we are going the way of the lacy excuse why they don't need to be better

all the above is true and would not be a problem, if GW would not charge a premium price for their rules
if they would be just a miniature company and rules would be there to inspire people, all the rules would be free and by sure not being replaced by something new every 3 years

if they are not a rules making company, no reason to make a new army book every 3 years or change rules for a new edition
there are other companies focused on miniatures and not on games, they also have rules but made free ones once and never changed them again (except for adding FAQ/Errata)

GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that

Andykp wrote:
. . .this it isn’t laziness or incompetence, it’s a business choice.

1: It's possible to make lazy and incompetent business choices.

2: They've lost my business.

3: Sometimes decisions made for the sake of business can result is worse products.

Andy, you could've saved the wear-and-tear on your keyboard by Ctrl+C/+V-ing "GW claims to be a models company, not a rules company" from one of the 10,000 posts where that argument has been used.

Though, to be fair, I could've also Ctrl+C/+V-ed one of the 100,000 responses that rebuts that very well-trod and frankly weak argument.

I'll probably catch flak for this, but I think this thread woke up a bit because a mod is posting in it. Not sure if the mod was following or not (I'm guessing not given how rowdy things got) but not one of the recent arguments are new, all of this has been rehashed in the previous pages.

 kodos wrote:


GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that

Well good news for you! The rules for 10e are free.
So what's your complaint about cost again?

Oh, I did no know that they released the mission cards and scenarios for free now, got a link because I cannot find them on WC?

Also were did they announce that faction rules will be free?

 kodos wrote:

GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that

If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.