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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why are people so deadset on convincing others that their experiences don't matter, and they'd be better off with something they've already had and chose to do differently?

Because having multiple redundant point systems is bad design and PL has no reason to exist. It offers, at best, a very small advantage to a minority of players, nowhere near enough to offset the benefits of having a single point system.

Explain what exactly is harmed by PL existing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Explain what exactly is harmed by PL existing.

Because now we all suffer having to use it.

Swastakowey wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Explain what exactly is harmed by PL existing.

Because now we all suffer having to use it.

Not with PL being the ONLY system-that's part of the reason I'm not playing 10th.
But with PL being in existence alongside points.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Explain what exactly is harmed by PL existing.

Because now we all suffer having to use it.

Not with PL being the ONLY system-that's part of the reason I'm not playing 10th.
But with PL being in existence alongside points.

I think everyone has said that's fine.

Swastakowey wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Explain what exactly is harmed by PL existing.

Because now we all suffer having to use it.

Not with PL being the ONLY system-that's part of the reason I'm not playing 10th.
But with PL being in existence alongside points.

I think everyone has said that's fine.

Not even close.

People like Owl are hellbent against PL existing, even alongside points.

Andykp wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Proven by the fact that I had more fun using power level than points for the last 2 editions.

"I had more fun eating a McDonalds burger on vacation than eating a nice burger that night my wife announced she was divorcing me to hook up with my dad, this proves that the McDonalds burger is better."

Odd analogy but in that instance, yes. Sorry to hear about your wife/dad.

And here you change the subject because otherwise you'd have to admit you've been wrong for 90+ pages...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why are people so deadset on convincing others that their experiences don't matter, and they'd be better off with something they've already had and chose to do differently?
Again, I prefer points to PL. But I'm not hurt by the existence of PL in addition to more granular points.

Live and let live.

I am. Because the community didn't vociferously stamp out PL enough in 9th, we got stuck with it for 10th.

Also a number of andykps points are just erroneous. With the insults and lying on his part I'm surprised he's still here.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, you advocated for 10+ systems of points, unless you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.

This entire thread is full of Bad Faith unfortunetly. Every time someone uses the term "objective" when describing why they prefer one system over another, I wince.

The objective of both systems is to achieve balance. Points is objectively better at that task over Power Level.

If balance is not your objective, you might find PL easier/quicker, in which case you might prefer it. But that doesn't stop traditional points being objectively better at it.

Hope that clears things up.

Hmm, I disagree. PL doesn’t have balance as it’s objective, it’s more about setting game sizes. At least, that’s how I use it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Explain what exactly is harmed by PL existing.

Wasted developer time and needlessly making "which point system will we use" a point of pre-game negotiation.

What is harmed by the other point systems I mentioned being used as well as PL? Or do you support 40k having 5-10 (or more!) separate point systems?

Dandelion wrote:
Hmm, I disagree. PL doesn’t have balance as it’s objective, it’s more about setting game sizes. At least, that’s how I use it.

Well "game size" does translate rather directly to "value of competing armies", it's the same thing. It stops you from bringing a 50 PL army against a 100 PL one. It also says "unit X is higher value than unit Y". It's a tool for balance, just rougher than points.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Explain what exactly is harmed by PL existing.

Wasted developer time and needlessly making "which point system will we use" a point of pre-game negotiation.

What is harmed by the other point systems I mentioned being used as well as PL? Or do you support 40k having 5-10 (or more!) separate point systems?

Yes, I'm sure the hour spent calculating [MIN POINTS+MAX POINT]/10 could've made 40k a perfectly balanced game. If only they knew!

I'd imagine that, much like my area, the general culture is already known. Some places will prefer points, some will prefer PL, but I doubt that it'd be more than a minute of discussion on which system to use.

And I'm in the same stance I was at the start of the thread-points are my preferred method, but I'm totally fine with PL being alongside it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd imagine that, much like my area, the general culture is already known. Some places will prefer points, some will prefer PL, but I doubt that it'd be more than a minute of discussion on which system to use.

You imagine, but not creatively enough. For example, I had an attempt at a Crusade campaign fail because people couldn't agree on which point system to use. That only happens when the game has redundant point systems in the first place, had PL not existed this would never have been a problem.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd imagine that, much like my area, the general culture is already known. Some places will prefer points, some will prefer PL, but I doubt that it'd be more than a minute of discussion on which system to use.

You imagine, but not creatively enough. For example, I had an attempt at a Crusade campaign fail because people couldn't agree on which point system to use. That only happens when the game has redundant point systems in the first place, had PL not existed this would never have been a problem.

Yes. I am 100% sure that is the singular reason it failed. There is absolutely no chance that anything else could've caused it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. I am 100% sure that is the singular reason it failed. There is absolutely no chance that anything else could've caused it.

So now you're accusing me of lying? Nice double standard there.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Hmm, I disagree. PL doesn’t have balance as it’s objective, it’s more about setting game sizes. At least, that’s how I use it.

Well "game size" does translate rather directly to "value of competing armies", it's the same thing. It stops you from bringing a 50 PL army against a 100 PL one. It also says "unit X is higher value than unit Y". It's a tool for balance, just rougher than points.

Sure. But think of it this way, if I want to play a small game, I can set it to 25PL. If I end up with 26PL vs 24PL I’m not going to be bothered by the discrepancy and I can just play a game. If I’m willing to overlook that discrepancy, why would I care about plasma pistols or sponsons?
I’m not using the system to get the best possible balance, I’m going for a ballpark and running with it.

Now, you say, why can’t I just use points? It’s effectively the same thing but more precise. Yes, I could use points, but I don’t care to. The match is already uneven, why should I add up all the small points to determine the same thing? The precision of points has become unnecessary.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. I am 100% sure that is the singular reason it failed. There is absolutely no chance that anything else could've caused it.

So now you're accusing me of lying? Nice double standard there.

Or being mistaken.

I can believe that someone who seems irrationally angry at PL blaming it for something that could be scheduling issues, or just lack of enthusiasm.
I also have little reason to believe you're arguing in good faith.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. I am 100% sure that is the singular reason it failed. There is absolutely no chance that anything else could've caused it.

So now you're accusing me of lying? Nice double standard there.

I suspect that if y’all couldn’t agree on the points, then the crusade probably wouldn’t have lasted long anyway.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I can believe that someone who seems irrationally angry at PL blaming it for something that could be scheduling issues, or just lack of enthusiasm.

Yeah, I just imagined the part where we had an argument about which system to use, neither side wanted to give in and use the other system, and that's where the idea ended. It must be scheduling issues that caused that.

I also have little reason to believe you're arguing in good faith.

There it is, there's that double standard I expect. Complain endlessly about the anti-PL side "invalidating experiences", turn around and accuse me of lying and arguing in bad faith because my experiences aren't convenient for your beliefs.

Dandelion wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. I am 100% sure that is the singular reason it failed. There is absolutely no chance that anything else could've caused it.

So now you're accusing me of lying? Nice double standard there.

I suspect that if y’all couldn’t agree on the points, then the crusade probably wouldn’t have lasted long anyway.

This is a good point.

ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I can believe that someone who seems irrationally angry at PL blaming it for something that could be scheduling issues, or just lack of enthusiasm.

Yeah, I just imagined the part where we had an argument about which system to use, neither side wanted to give in and use the other system, and that's where the idea ended. It must be scheduling issues that caused that.

I also have little reason to believe you're arguing in good faith.

There it is, there's that double standard I expect. Complain endlessly about the anti-PL side "invalidating experiences", turn around and accuse me of lying and arguing in bad faith because my experiences aren't convenient for your beliefs.

I believe people and take them at face value unless given reason to distrust them.
Considering this is the first I've heard of it, from a known PL-hater, who doesn't have any posts to my knowledge even talking about doing Crusade...

 JNAProductions wrote:
I believe people and take them at face value unless given reason to distrust them.
Considering this is the first I've heard of it, from a known PL-hater, who doesn't have any posts to my knowledge even talking about doing Crusade...

"I trust people, unless it's convenient for me to not."

I'm sorry if I haven't published the story of my entire history with 40k for you to analyze but it's very obvious that your reason for distrusting me is that you don't agree with the things I'm saying and find it convenient to pretend I'm lying.

The reason I distrust you is because you've shown yourself to argue whatever you think will sound good to your point, not what you actually believe.

See the whole "Ten systems" thing.
It's possible that you were going to have a successful Crusade, and literally the only thing that stopped it was your refusal to use PL despite that being what Crusade is written using. But it's awfully convenient that it comes up now.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But it's awfully convenient that it comes up now.

It came up before, but a certain biased moderator decided to delete the post and accuse me of lying.

See the whole "Ten systems" thing.

Which you apparently failed to understand.