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.

nekooni wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I would add you need to be careful branding people as "normal" though.

But people who play with points are the norm? I don't see how it can be seen any other way...

People or behaviours being "abnormal" suggests they're doing something wrong, and by calling the majority the normal people you're calling the others abnormal. Not a big deal in this context, though.

We must have very different definitions of the word normal. Pl players are literally by definition abnormal. Not being normal has nothing to do with right or wrong. A normal opinion for someone to have can also be wrong. Regardless it's off topic etc.

Nothing more I can add that hasn't been said already.

It’s just very divisive language to use. Probably deliberately so.

Any evidence for which system was used most in 8th or 9th or just your anecdotal evidence. It’s what you saw so it’s the norm?

Either way, it’s the only way now, so we are all “normal” now.

Andykp wrote:
It’s just very divisive language to use. Probably deliberately so.

Any evidence for which system was used most in 8th or 9th or just your anecdotal evidence. It’s what you saw so it’s the norm?

Either way, it’s the only way now, so we are all “normal” now.

If you had to guess a percentage of pl players what would you guess? I think we know even high estimates would be a low number.

Currently we are forced to conform yes, hence why you see a lot of complaints. If the change is permanent and popularity holds then one day it may well become the normal mindset but hopefully they change course. I suspect the tournament scene and constant updates planned will change the current index state closer to the old system. But I don't truly know obviously.

Hopefully it does though. Who knows.

Swastakowey wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It’s just very divisive language to use. Probably deliberately so.

Any evidence for which system was used most in 8th or 9th or just your anecdotal evidence. It’s what you saw so it’s the norm?

Either way, it’s the only way now, so we are all “normal” now.

If you had to guess a percentage of pl players what would you guess? I think we know even high estimates would be a low number.

Currently we are forced to conform yes, hence why you see a lot of complaints. If the change is permanent and popularity holds then one day it may well become the normal mindset but hopefully they change course. I suspect the tournament scene and constant updates planned will change the current index state closer to the old system. But I don't truly know obviously.

Hopefully it does though. Who knows.

I hope they go back to the system solution, then everybody wins. Doubt it though. So for now I have to suffer annoying updates to points and you have to suffer not playing because you don’t like the points system.

As for estimates, you or me don’t KNOW. so let’s stop guessing and why not agree that the way either of us plays is perfectly valid for that person. Even if you choose not to play at all.

Andykp wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It’s just very divisive language to use. Probably deliberately so.

Any evidence for which system was used most in 8th or 9th or just your anecdotal evidence. It’s what you saw so it’s the norm?

Either way, it’s the only way now, so we are all “normal” now.

If you had to guess a percentage of pl players what would you guess? I think we know even high estimates would be a low number.

Currently we are forced to conform yes, hence why you see a lot of complaints. If the change is permanent and popularity holds then one day it may well become the normal mindset but hopefully they change course. I suspect the tournament scene and constant updates planned will change the current index state closer to the old system. But I don't truly know obviously.

Hopefully it does though. Who knows.

I hope they go back to the system solution, then everybody wins. Doubt it though. So for now I have to suffer annoying updates to points and you have to suffer not playing because you don’t like the points system.

As for estimates, you or me don’t KNOW. so let’s stop guessing and why not agree that the way either of us plays is perfectly valid for that person. Even if you choose not to play at all.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the way you play, there is nothing wrong with playing open play or homebrewing a balance patch to improve upon GW's mistakes with pts if you're having fun then you're doing it right. But criticism of GW's products is part of spurring on better products, criticism of the producers is probably for the most part counterproductive and driven by indignation/anger. When I see a moldline on a model I'm going to take that as a mistake, even if Bennybob's favourite part of Warhammer is cleaning up mold lines or in a slightly more reasonable case Bennybob simply doesn't care about mold lines, it's still a flaw in GW's production model that should be fixed. GW should not be creating regular kits and extra mold lines kits. They should just make kits without mold lines, if you want to introduce extra mold lines then you can do so with greenstuff and then have fun removing it again before assembly. Now if GW could go over to making everything in failcast but remove all mold lines then that'd be an expensive mistakes

How different does a pts system need to be and how many adherents should the system have for GW to spend energy producing and hosting it? You said you don't like changes right? So GW should keep an unchanging pts list up. What about people that want 1 or 4 changes a year instead of GW's promised 2? Should GW host every version of a pts document they've issued for the current edition? Mission sets often have major impacts on unit viability, should GW create a new pts document for every new mission set they release?

I see a whole lot of people on both sides making sweeping assumptions about what "normal" players are or what they do. Really, we all have no idea what the global "normal" is, we just have a general idea based on the communities we take part in.

I tend to agree that the more matched play point system is probably more popular based on the fact that most 40k social media that gains popularity is based on the matched play system. Narrative play absolutely has a place and frankly I find that a hell of a lot more interesting than matched play for media but it is hard to deny that matched play gets more views.

The loudest voices in this thread need to take a step back and look at things because I don't think that people are necessarily arguing against each other but against their perception of the opposition.

I don't think that most pro-PL people really care if there were two system nor would most pro-points players care if there were two system. Ultimately most complaints boil down to GW being unable to create any kind of system that is decently balanced. Pro-PL players take the approach that it is up to them and their community to police balance and make sure that no one is looking to blow everyone else out of the water. Pro-points people want a system where they can pick up a game anywhere in the world and have a relative understanding of what to expect. Both sides would be happy if GW could get their act together and actually accomplish any given task related to rules with some level of competence.

If they could make all options neutral and viable, PL would be just fine.

If they could appropriately point things out, points would be fine.

GW can do neither.

If narrative was the dominate way to play, and was the thing that shapes the sells of GW models. GW would not create or support match play. The problem with the index/reset is that GW in order to save time, and with very little care for their players, forced everyone in to a sytem, which has practicaly no good sides, but has a ton of bad sides. And we are going to be stuck with it till the codex start rolling out. Which I guess is good for people who will get their in the next few months, but not very good for people who will have to wait a year or two for their book.

Also making the game worse for people who play and care about the game, to placate a group of people who claim they don't care about the rule system or the game would just be stupid.

The fact that regular points don't bring a perfect balance state is not an argument in favour of implementing a system which is even more unbalanced. Which point problems did making the system in 10th a PL one fix? Besides for some reason making eldar extremly undercosted and some armies extremly overcosted ?

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Ultimately most complaints boil down to GW being unable to create any kind of system that is decently balanced. Pro-PL players take the approach that it is up to them and their community to police balance and make sure that no one is looking to blow everyone else out of the water. Pro-points people want a system where they can pick up a game anywhere in the world and have a relative understanding of what to expect. Both sides would be happy if GW could get their act together and actually accomplish any given task related to rules with some level of competence.

Regardless of what level of competence the creator has, having a rule that says options cannot cost points is a bad idea. 6 Predator datasheets is far too much and neither mandatory upgrades nor abilities replacing points cost reductions removes the issue that some options ought to cost pts. The problem is not the execution, the problem is the plan.

If you planned to build a castle on top of a bad foundation and the castle falls over it makes sense to say "in the future we should build on solid ground", that the castle was also shoddily built points out that just because you don't find the right place to build a foundation does not mean that you will build an otherwise perfect castle. The fact that PL is so close to pts makes it worse, because the foundation for good balance in 10th wasn't 10 kilometers away in a bad tactical position, it's 50 meters to the side where there is solid ground instead of sand for foundation, the castle has all the same tactical benefits whether it is in one place or the other, GW just went with the place with a bad foundation. Maybe the castle doesn't fall over, but the best case scenario is that the castle is as good as it would have been on a solid foundation, there is no reason to build it on the bad foundation. PL fans either need to explain the significant benefits of PL or they ought to accept that points are objectively better, even if their own personal preferences are in favour of using the objectively worse system. We would still be complaining about Wraithknights if we had points, but we'd have 1000 more very viable options and 1000 more borderline viable options and maybe 5 viable options lost (options with less power costing more points than options with more power like when the 9th edition Drukhari codex was launched with cheap D3+3 dark lances and expensive disintegrator cannons).

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Narrative play absolutely has a place and frankly I find that a hell of a lot more interesting than matched play for media but it is hard to deny that matched play gets more views.

Narrative play and PL are not the same thing. People have been playing narrative games for decades using the traditional point system and continue to do so in everything that isn't 10th edition 40k. Making PL the default for Crusade was done to attempt to boost the popularity of PL by tying it to a desirable system, not because it does anything whatsoever to make narrative play work better. And the most common house rule for Crusade was putting it back to the normal point system, with the majority of narrative content online doing it that way.

I don't think that most pro-PL people really care if there were two system nor would most pro-points players care if there were two system.

Why only two systems? Why not five systems? Why not ten systems? Why should there be any limit on the number of point systems GW supports?

If they could make all options neutral and viable, PL would be just fine.

This is an impossible task because PL by design does not permit it to happen. A laspistol and a plasma pistol can not be equal without violating the lore and so PL will always assign at least one of them an incorrect point cost and the plasma pistol will always be a mandatory pick (unless you are deliberately taking bad options).

ThePaintingOwl wrote:Why only two systems? Why not five systems? Why not ten systems? Why should there be any limit on the number of point systems GW supports?

You come up with the other systems then. You're the only one asking for it - I look forward to your pitches of them in Proposed Rules.
Enlighten us on these systems you so definitely want, and definitely aren't just using as a strawman.

This is a bad faith argument, and you know it. Nothing hurts you from there being a second system. Why the slippery slope? Were you expecting some kind of point here? But, if it's what you want to hear, yes. I would rather there be twenty different systems than one.
Satisfied?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Narrative play and PL are not the same thing. People have been playing narrative games for decades using the traditional point system and continue to do so in everything that isn't 10th edition 40k. Making PL the default for Crusade was done to attempt to boost the popularity of PL by tying it to a desirable system, not because it does anything whatsoever to make narrative play work better. And the most common house rule for Crusade was putting it back to the normal point system, with the majority of narrative content online doing it that way.

Agreed. I really, really like narrative games and Crusade. If given the option between a (good) points system and PL, I would choose points 9 times out of 10.

I don't think that most pro-PL people really care if there were two system nor would most pro-points players care if there were two system.

Why only two systems? Why not five systems? Why not ten systems? Why should there be any limit on the number of point systems GW supports?

Respectfully, the reason here is convenience/ease of setting up games. It's quicker and easier to prep lists and pick up impromptu games at the store if you only have to account for 1 or 2 styles of list building. Having to write my list 10 different ways and discuss which style my opponent prefers to play would add a little bit of inconvenience to the process. And that's assuming that people are generally comfortable using any/most of those systems; if people have strong opinions and refuse to play games using certain list building systems, then you're potentially looking at a fractured player base.

(In my experience, while most people I talk to preferred points, they were also usually fine switching to PL for those rare occassions that someone preferred it.)

If they could make all options neutral and viable, PL would be just fine.

This is an impossible task because PL by design does not permit it to happen. A laspistol and a plasma pistol can not be equal without violating the lore and so PL will always assign at least one of them an incorrect point cost and the plasma pistol will always be a mandatory pick (unless you are deliberately taking bad options).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You come up with the other systems then. You're the only one asking for it - I look forward to your pitches of them in Proposed Rules.
Enlighten us on these systems you so definitely want, and definitely aren't just using as a strawman.

Traditional (pre-9th) points.

Classic 8th/9th PL.

10th pseudo-PL.

10th pseudo-PL with "high impact" upgrades given point costs.

10th pseudo-PL with per-model costs instead of fixed unit sizes.

10th pseudo-PL with both "high impact" costs and per-model costs.

Don't bother calling any of these straw man arguments, all of them are things that have been advocated by at least one person other than me in this thread.

Nothing hurts you from there being a second system.

Nope. Redundant point systems waste developer time and needlessly split the community, creating a completely unnecessary point of pre-game negotiation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Respectfully, the reason here is convenience/ease of setting up games. It's quicker and easier to prep lists and pick up impromptu games at the store if you only have to account for 1 or 2 styles of list building. Having to write my list 10 different ways and discuss which style my opponent prefers to play would add a little bit of inconvenience to the process. And that's assuming that people are generally comfortable using any/most of those systems; if people have strong opinions and refuse to play games using certain list building systems, then you're potentially looking at a fractured player base.

But this exact argument also applies to removing PL and only using the traditional point system, which is the exact point I was making.

So which one(s) do YOU advocate for, Owl?
If you're arguing in good faith, then you should argue for what you believe in and not bring up other systems as a distraction.

You are so looking for enemies you aren't even reading to understand ThePaintingOwl.

By no means am I praising PL, I really have no use for the system and think that points is better all around for everyone. With that said, I also don't care if people like PL and would rather use it. Don't pretend that if GW did away with PL and focused all of their efforts on points that they would all of a sudden make a working system. They suck at points, they suck at PL, I just don't begrudge people who find PL to be more intuitive.

I definitely would rather have a point system granular enough to actually make things a real choice rather than an obvious choice, the problem is that in a game of 40ks size there is no way to make that las pistol and plasma pistol equally viable via points because they are such insignificant pieces of the entire army. Ultimately a plasma pistol vs a las pistol on every single sergeant that can take them in a points based system isn't going to make a huge difference, in a guard army you are looking at what, 6 plasma pistols on units that are probably gonna die before they can even use them?

Crisis Suits and Sponsons are much better arguments because those definitely impact the game and not having them cost points is a huge problem, especially Crisis Suits. Crisis Suits have so many options that you can run bare bones to fully decked out with all three hard points plus drones and systems, those two options really need to cost different amounts.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So which one(s) do YOU advocate for, Owl?
If you're arguing in good faith, then you should argue for what you believe in and not bring up other systems as a distraction.

I advocate for exactly one point system for the entire game, and the traditional point system is the only candidate that fills this role adequately.

If we're going to have a multi-system solution where redundant point systems are added to the game to appease a minority then we should give everyone the system they want, not just one specific group of PL fans. Anyone who comes up with a point system they like should have it supported by GW. And if that's an unwieldy mess that highlights all of the flaws with having multiple point systems, well, my preferred solution is right there waiting to be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
the problem is that in a game of 40ks size there is no way to make that las pistol and plasma pistol equally viable via points because they are such insignificant pieces of the entire army.

Obviously false. If you could upgrade every sergeant and character in your army to have a plasma pistol for +1 point (total, not per pistol) it would be an auto-take option. If you had to pay 100 points for each pistol it would be a never-take option. So there is clearly some cost between those two extremes that accurately represents the value of the plasma pistol and makes the decision to take one a matter of personal preference instead of recognizing the obvious balance error and taking the more powerful option.

ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You come up with the other systems then. You're the only one asking for it - I look forward to your pitches of them in Proposed Rules.
Enlighten us on these systems you so definitely want, and definitely aren't just using as a strawman.

Traditional (pre-9th) points.

Classic 8th/9th PL.

10th pseudo-PL.

10th pseudo-PL with "high impact" upgrades given point costs.

10th pseudo-PL with per-model costs instead of fixed unit sizes.

10th pseudo-PL with both "high impact" costs and per-model costs.

Don't bother calling any of these straw man arguments, all of them are things that have been advocated by at least one person other than me in this thread.

Cite each one, and also cite that this person wanted it AS WELL AS every other option - because just citing them in isolation, and ignoring that many of these were proposed as mediations, appeasements, and ideal SINGLE variations, doesn't support the statement that ONLY you have made that there should be 10+ game systems that exist in unison.

Go ahead. Put your money where your mouth is.

Nothing hurts you from there being a second system.

Nope. Redundant point systems waste developer time and needlessly split the community, creating a completely unnecessary point of pre-game negotiation.

That's not the same argument you just made in the same post. That's two different answers. Which one is it, so I can entertain the idea of taking you seriously.

Unless you're clearly just admitting to arguing in bad faith?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So which one(s) do YOU advocate for, Owl?
If you're arguing in good faith, then you should argue for what you believe in and not bring up other systems as a distraction.

I advocate for exactly one point system for the entire game, and the traditional point system is the only candidate that fills this role adequately.

So why bring up this 10+ system? You're the only one asking for it, yet you're also treating it as if that's what everyone's asking for. Aka, a strawman.

Andykp wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:
PL isn’t about taking viable or whatever options, it’s about taking what works for you. Be it because it’s cool, looks good, is a model you have always liked or because it’s an effective choice. Not all things are about utility.

The purpose of a resource-based force-building system is to assign costs that reflect the relative utility of each unit or option, ensuring that competently-made lists of equal resource value will have comparable performance on the tabletop. If it doesn't do that, it's failing at its one job.

Frankly, the idea that a unit that sucks due to bad pricing is okay because maybe it 'works for you' is a total cop-out. If it's cool, looks good, or is a model you've always liked none of that matters one iota for its actual effectiveness on the tabletop, and the points/PL ought to reflect its actual value, not force you to choose between either the unit you like or the one that's actually worth the price.

And here is more evidence of those that hate PL missing the point of it.

I don't hate PL, as I've said repeatedly. The point of PL is to be a balancing mechanism that is simpler to use than points. That's all it is.

Not everything in casual gaming is about raw utility, but we are talking about a system that does nothing besides rate units according to their raw utility. PL is not an art piece, or a creative writing exercise, or a measurement of how many vowels are in a unit's name- it's supposed to put a price on each unit that represents its relative value.

By now I get the distinct sense that the people defending PL are really just using it as a symbol for defending the style of casual, no-stakes social gameplay that they prefer. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, or using PL to quickly arrange casual games- that's what I've used it for in the past. But the 'you just don't get it' line whenever people point out that the balancing mechanism isn't providing balance gets old.

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:
PL isn’t about taking viable or whatever options, it’s about taking what works for you. Be it because it’s cool, looks good, is a model you have always liked or because it’s an effective choice. Not all things are about utility.

The purpose of a resource-based force-building system is to assign costs that reflect the relative utility of each unit or option, ensuring that competently-made lists of equal resource value will have comparable performance on the tabletop. If it doesn't do that, it's failing at its one job.

Frankly, the idea that a unit that sucks due to bad pricing is okay because maybe it 'works for you' is a total cop-out. If it's cool, looks good, or is a model you've always liked none of that matters one iota for its actual effectiveness on the tabletop, and the points/PL ought to reflect its actual value, not force you to choose between either the unit you like or the one that's actually worth the price.

And here is more evidence of those that hate PL missing the point of it.

I don't hate PL, as I've said repeatedly. The point of PL is to be a balancing mechanism that is simpler to use than points. That's all it is.

Not everything in casual gaming is about raw utility, but we are talking about a system that does nothing besides rate units according to their raw utility. PL is not an art piece, or a creative writing exercise, or a measurement of how many vowels are in a unit's name- it's supposed to put a price on each unit that represents its relative value.

By now I get the distinct sense that the people defending PL are really just using it as a symbol for defending the style of casual, no-stakes social gameplay that they prefer. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, or using PL to quickly arrange casual games- that's what I've used it for in the past. But the 'you just don't get it' line whenever people point out that the balancing mechanism isn't providing balance gets old.

I only use that line when people clearly don’t get it.

Andykp wrote:


I only use that line when people clearly don’t get it.

Doesn't really seem to be an accurate take, and generally the PL-advocates have displayed a lack of understanding of balance, theory, and game mechanics relative to those they're arguing against.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cite each one

No.

So why bring up this 10+ system?

To point out the double standard held by "two system" advocates. They are perfectly capable of understanding why having multiple point systems is a bad idea when it comes to dismissing point systems other than PL but promptly forget all of those arguments when it comes to the alternative point system they want to include. Every argument in favor of having two systems to include PL applies just as well to all those other systems and you can not advocate including PL but not the others.

Andykp wrote:

Spoiler:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:
PL isn’t about taking viable or whatever options, it’s about taking what works for you. Be it because it’s cool, looks good, is a model you have always liked or because it’s an effective choice. Not all things are about utility.

The purpose of a resource-based force-building system is to assign costs that reflect the relative utility of each unit or option, ensuring that competently-made lists of equal resource value will have comparable performance on the tabletop. If it doesn't do that, it's failing at its one job.

Frankly, the idea that a unit that sucks due to bad pricing is okay because maybe it 'works for you' is a total cop-out. If it's cool, looks good, or is a model you've always liked none of that matters one iota for its actual effectiveness on the tabletop, and the points/PL ought to reflect its actual value, not force you to choose between either the unit you like or the one that's actually worth the price.

And here is more evidence of those that hate PL missing the point of it.

I don't hate PL, as I've said repeatedly. The point of PL is to be a balancing mechanism that is simpler to use than points. That's all it is.

Not everything in casual gaming is about raw utility, but we are talking about a system that does nothing besides rate units according to their raw utility. PL is not an art piece, or a creative writing exercise, or a measurement of how many vowels are in a unit's name- it's supposed to put a price on each unit that represents its relative value.

By now I get the distinct sense that the people defending PL are really just using it as a symbol for defending the style of casual, no-stakes social gameplay that they prefer. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, or using PL to quickly arrange casual games- that's what I've used it for in the past. But the 'you just don't get it' line whenever people point out that the balancing mechanism isn't providing balance gets old.

I only use that line when people clearly don’t get it.

Please, elaborate. And, please, keep in mind that you're responding to someone who believes that the two system approach should have been maintained.

Edit: Somehow I left a violin playing orkmoticon in my reply.

Andykp wrote:


Who said anything about “anti-competence”, oh, only you. I dont know why. I actually said “competent is enough”. So what is your point? That everyone want to master their hobby or that no one wants to be incompetent, that’s two different points.

"Anti-competence" is my assessment of a viewpoint. When someone says they want the choice of whether or not to put a plasma pistol on a space marine sergeant to be a non-choice because they want the chance of the plasma blowing up on them to be more likely than them having a positive effect on the game, then I can safely call the viewpoint anti-competence. It's the idea that skill and ingenuity on and off the table should be punished.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cite each one

No.

So why bring up this 10+ system?

To point out the double standard held by "two system" advocates. They are perfectly capable of understanding why having multiple point systems is a bad idea when it comes to dismissing point systems other than PL but promptly forget all of those arguments when it comes to the alternative point system they want to include. Every argument in favor of having two systems to include PL applies just as well to all those other systems and you can not advocate including PL but not the others.

PL was literally "median point cost /20", so much wasted dev time there. I don't understand how or can be a lazy system that's too flat and simple, yet take too much effort away.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Spoiler:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:
PL isn’t about taking viable or whatever options, it’s about taking what works for you. Be it because it’s cool, looks good, is a model you have always liked or because it’s an effective choice. Not all things are about utility.

The purpose of a resource-based force-building system is to assign costs that reflect the relative utility of each unit or option, ensuring that competently-made lists of equal resource value will have comparable performance on the tabletop. If it doesn't do that, it's failing at its one job.

Frankly, the idea that a unit that sucks due to bad pricing is okay because maybe it 'works for you' is a total cop-out. If it's cool, looks good, or is a model you've always liked none of that matters one iota for its actual effectiveness on the tabletop, and the points/PL ought to reflect its actual value, not force you to choose between either the unit you like or the one that's actually worth the price.

And here is more evidence of those that hate PL missing the point of it.

I don't hate PL, as I've said repeatedly. The point of PL is to be a balancing mechanism that is simpler to use than points. That's all it is.

Not everything in casual gaming is about raw utility, but we are talking about a system that does nothing besides rate units according to their raw utility. PL is not an art piece, or a creative writing exercise, or a measurement of how many vowels are in a unit's name- it's supposed to put a price on each unit that represents its relative value.

By now I get the distinct sense that the people defending PL are really just using it as a symbol for defending the style of casual, no-stakes social gameplay that they prefer. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, or using PL to quickly arrange casual games- that's what I've used it for in the past. But the 'you just don't get it' line whenever people point out that the balancing mechanism isn't providing balance gets old.

I only use that line when people clearly don’t get it.

Please, elaborate. And, please, keep in mind that you're responding to someone who believes that the two system approach should have been maintained.

Edit: Somehow I left a violin playing orkmoticon in my reply.

The standard response from some on here to PL is that if it exists it must be abused, if you can take all the optimal upgrades everyone surely would all the time. It’s automatically seen a system that would allow any “normal” player no agency in their list design because you have it include everything, because everyone using would do the same.

Missing the point that the people who PL appeals to and is likely used by don’t want to do that, don’t approach list building from that perspective and will include what units that want regardless of relative power or optimisation. They ignore the fact it isn’t used in pick up games with strangers really, it is used by groups who play each other often and generally have a understanding of the types of games they want to play. This is where and how power level is used and works. Outside if this kind of mutually agreed environment I will happily admit PL is not great. (And by power level I mean 8th/9th power level, not 10th points).

Which why is why I agree with you that a tow system solution would work best because the new points work like power level so not great for pick up games or for people who will see it as a rule to exploited to take the “best” load out possible every time.

For me and my group it won’t be to bad because we are used to this kind of system and it works well for us. But I can see why the others are so unhappy.

The other thing they don’t seem to get is that with power level used by a group of like minded folk who are happy discuss army composition before the game and for them all to design armies with the idea of an enjoyable game for all as the goal, a balanced game is achieved, I would argue more successfully than with points. I say this because we enjoy gripping close games where a few dice rolls or decisions decide the fate of your army in most battles we have, very rarely is one side stomped. Where all I heard for two editions from most the posters arguing for points so vehemently is how unbalanced the game is and how one sided games are all the time. Meanwhile I was enjoying great thematic balanced enjoyable games with the same system just approached differently. Which is why I disagree with the notion that points are objectively better than power level, because that in no way reflects my experiences.

I hope that explains my point, and I will also add it is always lovely to see sgt smudge join a debate, they always manage to very clearly and calmly articulate points I am trying to make but much better than I ever could.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cite each one

No.

So why bring up this 10+ system?

To point out the double standard held by "two system" advocates. They are perfectly capable of understanding why having multiple point systems is a bad idea when it comes to dismissing point systems other than PL but promptly forget all of those arguments when it comes to the alternative point system they want to include. Every argument in favor of having two systems to include PL applies just as well to all those other systems and you can not advocate including PL but not the others.

PL was literally "median point cost /20", so much wasted dev time there. I don't understand how or can be a lazy system that's too flat and simple, yet take too much effort away.

Don’t forget the valuable space it took up in the data sheet. It can’t be allowed to exist!

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cite each one

No.

So why bring up this 10+ system?

To point out the double standard held by "two system" advocates. They are perfectly capable of understanding why having multiple point systems is a bad idea when it comes to dismissing point systems other than PL but promptly forget all of those arguments when it comes to the alternative point system they want to include. Every argument in favor of having two systems to include PL applies just as well to all those other systems and you can not advocate including PL but not the others.

PL was literally "median point cost /20", so much wasted dev time there. I don't understand how or can be a lazy system that's too flat and simple, yet take too much effort away.

None of the options ThePaintingOwl suggested are high effort, so why PL and not all the others?

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:


Who said anything about “anti-competence”, oh, only you. I dont know why. I actually said “competent is enough”. So what is your point? That everyone want to master their hobby or that no one wants to be incompetent, that’s two different points.

"Anti-competence" is my assessment of a viewpoint. When someone says they want the choice of whether or not to put a plasma pistol on a space marine sergeant to be a non-choice because they want the chance of the plasma blowing up on them to be more likely than them having a positive effect on the game, then I can safely call the viewpoint anti-competence. It's the idea that skill and ingenuity on and off the table should be punished.

So a definition you have arbitrarily applied to something that no one else uses. That a helpful addition to the discussion, let us know when you make more rules people have to adhere to in order to play the game right.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cite each one

No.

So why bring up this 10+ system?

To point out the double standard held by "two system" advocates. They are perfectly capable of understanding why having multiple point systems is a bad idea when it comes to dismissing point systems other than PL but promptly forget all of those arguments when it comes to the alternative point system they want to include. Every argument in favor of having two systems to include PL applies just as well to all those other systems and you can not advocate including PL but not the others.

PL was literally "median point cost /20", so much wasted dev time there. I don't understand how or can be a lazy system that's too flat and simple, yet take too much effort away.

None of the options ThePaintingOwl suggested are high effort, so why PL and not all the others?

Because PL is both the one referred to in points of comparison, has previously existed and is being discussed as a viable addition.

The rest is irrelevant whataboutism.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cite each one

No.

So why bring up this 10+ system?

To point out the double standard held by "two system" advocates. They are perfectly capable of understanding why having multiple point systems is a bad idea when it comes to dismissing point systems other than PL but promptly forget all of those arguments when it comes to the alternative point system they want to include. Every argument in favor of having two systems to include PL applies just as well to all those other systems and you can not advocate including PL but not the others.

PL was literally "median point cost /20", so much wasted dev time there. I don't understand how or can be a lazy system that's too flat and simple, yet take too much effort away.

None of the options ThePaintingOwl suggested are high effort, so why PL and not all the others?

We are arguing for a return to how things were in 8th or 9th. A return to a status quo, something that would make you guys happy surely, you could all pay for your plasma pistols and sponsons and net list to your hearts content. And we could use a system that is tried and tested and familiar, we know it works because we have used it for years.

You are the ones suggesting something new and different. The onus is on you to justify it not on us to explain it away. If any of the ten or a million systems you are claiming to be good ideas are actually I good we have said we would consider them but none of them are something I am prepared to but time in to trialing. Again that’s on owl.

There’s our proposal with clear justification, what’s the justification for yours? I suspect as you are clearly arguing in bad faith with this there isn’t one, but the onus really is on you to justify your suggestion.

In short, what dudeface said ^^^^^

Dudeface wrote:
Because PL is both the one referred to in points of comparison, has previously existed and is being discussed as a viable addition.

The rest is irrelevant whataboutism.

Previous existence is irrelevant. Ideas should be evaluated on their own merits, and if new ideas are better than old ones then relics of the past should be discarded. And any argument against all of the other point systems I listed applies equally well to PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Which is why I disagree with the notion that points are objectively better than power level, because that in no way reflects my experiences.

But your experiences are the result of the collaborative attitude towards list building, not the merits of the point system you used. The traditional point system would have worked even better, providing a more accurate starting point for your collaboration at a negligible cost in time to create a list. PL did not in any way contribute to your success.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
You are the ones suggesting something new and different.

No, we're suggesting the point system that was used for the majority of 40k's existence: a single point system, conventional upgrade costs. It is the system that functions best and there is no good argument for having multiple point systems to cater to a small minority, most of whom don't even get significant value out of having a second point system.

If any of the ten or a million systems you are claiming to be good ideas are actually I good we have said we would consider them but none of them are something I am prepared to but time in to trialing.

They aren't good ideas. They're terrible ideas that are all inferior to the traditional point system and should not be implemented. But so is PL and any argument against the other systems applies equally well to PL. And any argument in support of PL applies equally well to the alternative systems, other than "I personally like PL".

If they are all bad ideas why are you suggesting them?

Do you have a source for your data that those that used PL were a tiny minority? I’ll answer for you, no.

And finally, you are finally admitting that you think we all have to play the game your way to enjoy it properly. Took 90 pages but we finally got the truth from you. We are doing it wrong and you are doing it right so we should be stopped. Thanks jervis.

End of the day thanks for admitting that what you want is for us to have to play your way, the “right” way or no way. Never mind what we enjoy or prefer. Cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cite each one

No.

So why bring up this 10+ system?

To point out the double standard held by "two system" advocates. They are perfectly capable of understanding why having multiple point systems is a bad idea when it comes to dismissing point systems other than PL but promptly forget all of those arguments when it comes to the alternative point system they want to include. Every argument in favor of having two systems to include PL applies just as well to all those other systems and you can not advocate including PL but not the others.

PL was literally "median point cost /20", so much wasted dev time there. I don't understand how or can be a lazy system that's too flat and simple, yet take too much effort away.

I’m pretty sure even I could get excel to do that for me!