I expect our group to use both, but probably power points more often than not because it saves time. Some of my groups players are notorious for not bringing lists to our games and ends up spending an hour building their list before we get to play, so I think power points will save us a lot of time in that regard.
BlaxicanX wrote: I couldn't possibly care less about what system other people use to play the game. I am however interested in understanding thought processes.
To that end I've yet to see any kind of logically consistent argument for why using power is more simple or faster than using points.
There's also no consistent argument for why points are more balanced than power levels.
I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.
Azreal13 wrote: What nonsense. Points are more balanced than PL because they offer a greater degree of granularity.
Whether items are pointed correctly isn't the same argument, and applies equally to PL.
You're just asserting there's a connection between granularity and balance, when there's no such thing.
Of course there is.
Guardsman A with Lasgun costs 10 points or 1 power (arbitrary numbers.)
Guardsman B with Plasma Gun costs 17 points or 1 power, because power doesn't change with equipment.
Given the Plasma gun is just about better in any conceivable situation, points much better represent that improved efficacy and therefore offer better balance.
Greater granularity offers more opportunity for balance. Power doesn't work for this while there remain objectively better or worse options, because when those options don't have an advantage or drawback (i.e. they require a greater or lesser investment in list resources) they then become unbalanced choices. Power would work fine for balance if all options were just equal but different, but while there remain greater or lesser choices, points function much more effectively.
You just said yourself, granularity offers the opportunity for balance - there is no direct connection. If GW flubs the points cost on models, there is no increased balance.
Which is, as I've already said, a different argument.
Power Levels can be equally shoddy and cause imbalance, but points still remains the superior system to give the best opportunity for balance to happen.
Elbows wrote: You just said yourself, granularity offers the opportunity for balance - there is no direct connection. If GW flubs the points cost on models, there is no increased balance.
A system doesn't have to be perfectly balanced to be MORE balanced then another system. You're making a strawman.
Lobukia wrote: If you want to play power level, do that.
If you don't, dont.
Clearly in pickup play, both can potentially create very one sided games. Truthfully I'll be surprised if more than 4 people in my local meta even want to do power levels. But I'll have a coupe 100PL lists ready to go and a couple 2k, and probably overlap a vast majority of the units between the 4.
Really don't see the big deal. I can have fun on either side of a rout. If one method seems horribly unbalanced, I'll ask for games of the other.
An open mind is a fortress with its doors unlocked and unguarded!
Elbows wrote: I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.
Like I said, the main appeal of power level is proving a point about how superior you are for using it, not anything to do with it being a functioning system that is better than the alternative.
Elbows wrote: I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.
But that's cutting your nose off to spite your face, the only person that hurts is you.
Points advocates are thinking about the good of the whole community,
Elbows wrote: I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.
But that's cutting your nose off to spite your face, the only person that hurts is you.
Points advocates are thinking about the good of the whole community,
I like power Levels more today than I did the last time I posted on this thread.
I don't like this, 18 points for a Mek gun, 32 points to make it a Bubble chukka and 15 more points for the crew. (62) That's a single artillery with 4 random stats, two of which are chosen by my opponent and all for 62 points. Or, I could get all of that for 3 points of power level. Points costs create the so called "unusable units". The only down side to not using points is having to buy units in assigned increments. So, I can't field 25 Storm Boys.
I can live with that.
warhead01 wrote: I like power Levels more today than I did the last time I posted on this thread.
I don't like this, 18 points for a Mek gun, 32 points to make it a Bubble chukka and 15 more points for the crew. (62) That's a single artillery with 4 random stats, two of which are chosen by my opponent and all for 62 points. Or, I could get all of that for 3 points of power level. Points costs create the so called "unusable units". The only down side to not using points is having to buy units in assigned increments. So, I can't field 25 Storm Boys.
I can live with that.
1PL is approximately equivalent to 20pts. 62pts for a 3PL unit is dead on.
What's weird is when you do something like take a squad of Deathwatch Veterans with bolters and chainswords (95pts) and have to pay 9PL for them because the people who wrote the PL estimate are assuming you're going to take four frag cannons (another 120pts) for every five Deathwatch models.
Elbows wrote: I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.
Like I said, the main appeal of power level is proving a point about how superior you are for using it, not anything to do with it being a functioning system that is better than the alternative.
It isn't better than the alternative. The main point isn't to prove how superior you are for using it. Power level is a quick-and-dirty approach to the game that makes list-building a lot faster and works well enough in probably 85-90% of cases (with the remaining cases being odd unit sizes, units with too many upgrade options (e.g. Deathwatch), and typos (why is Coteaz (100pts) 4PL and Greyfax (85pts) 5PL?)).
The other thing this thread seems to be missing is that there's absolutely no reason to permit playing a PL list against a points list. Make your games "50PL or 1,000pts", or "100PL or 2,000pts", and everyone can build a list the way they want to without screwing anything up. And the writers erred on the side of making PL costs too high, so while it may be a less exact method of list-building it's also at least a slight handicap to the guy who chooses to use PL most of the time.
There is the old maxim: good gaming requires tough decisions.
Power levels avoid that. That was my problem with 7th. There were too many things that were vastly better than others, both internally inside a codex, and codex to codex.
I can only repeat myself... When playing outside Matched Play, regular points often have unnecessary granularity. My question from my initial reply in this thread remained unanswered for the last three pages: are exact-to-point ballanced armies worth the fuss in a Meatgrinder scenario?
To give some of you a perhaps easier to understand example from outside of 40K: if I'm making a typical leather top hat, I can calculate the lenght of material used for circumference of the top by using PI value of 3,14. I don't need better approximation, I don't gain antyhing from better approximation. If I make the same top hat for a quick and dirty cosplay made of foam, I can even manage with PI=3 and stretch the foam a bit during assembly. If I'm making a sculpture of a top hat from welded stainless steel, I might have to use PI=3,1415 or even PI=3,14159 depending on the scale of the sculpture. Points vs Power Levels is the same case of "good enough approximation of ballance for the task at hand". Is there any post in this thread, that advocates using "naked" Power Levels for high level tournament or tournament preparation games?
nou wrote: I can only repeat myself... When playing outside Matched Play, regular points often have unnecessary granularity. My question from my initial reply in this thread remained unanswered for the last three pages: are exact-to-point ballanced armies worth the fuss in a Meatgrinder scenario?
To give some of you a perhaps easier to understand example from outside of 40K: if I'm making a typical leather top hat, I can calculate the lenght of material used for circumference of the top by using PI value of 3,14. I don't need better approximation, I don't gain antyhing from better approximation. If I make the same top hat for a quick and dirty cosplay made of foam, I can even manage with PI=3 and stretch the foam a bit during assembly. If I'm making a sculpture of a top hat from welded stainless steel, I might have to use PI=3,1415 or even PI=3,14159 depending on the scale of the sculpture. Points vs Power Levels is the same case of "good enough approximation of ballance for the task at hand". Is there any post in this thread, that advocates using "naked" Power Levels for high level tournament or tournament preparation games?
I'd say that's pretty reasonable, but at the same time, I don't think points are nearly as bad as some people are making them out to be. I would be willing to bet that, no matter how long list-making takes, doing it with points won't take more than five minutes more. Whether you take a minute or an hour, I'm pretty sure that's the case, since the kind of people who take an hour to make lists aren't taking that hour because they're dumb and can't add-they're taking an hour because they're weighing pros and cons of various units and loadouts. The actual math doesn't take much time, regardless.
So while I'm fine with other people using PL, I'll be sticking with the greater granularity (and hopefully balance, but eh, GW) of points.
But, as Lobukia said, power levels remove many of the toughest decisions from list building, making them ideal for stepping new players into the game, and for setting up things like Apocalypse games, where the granularity becomes tedium when you're working out what IG Squad #15 and Leman Russ Tank #12 has.
Elbows wrote: I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.
Like I said, the main appeal of power level is proving a point about how superior you are for using it, not anything to do with it being a functioning system that is better than the alternative.
Elbows wrote: I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.
Like I said, the main appeal of power level is proving a point about how superior you are for using it, not anything to do with it being a functioning system that is better than the alternative.
Yep, and I'm fine with that.
Yeah... That's a toxic attitude right there.
To the people who legitimately prefer PL or don't care one way or the other-that's totally fine, your gaming, you have fun with it.
To anyone doing PL or points out of spite... Grow up.
Azreal13 wrote: Yeah, posting in a public discussion forum is essentially an open invitation for other people to express their opinion, so you already did.
But I'd cordially invite you to stop on this tangent at this point, as, honestly, it isn't going anywhere good is it?
I'm fairly entertained.
Besides, JNA's point has feth all to do with the discussion as well.
I'm a little confused by the idea that people are making lists on the fly before games? Like this game is stupid expensive, i usually spend a couple months carefully crafting a list I'm happy with before i buy my first model for it.
I don't like that power levels imply a friendly more low key system but it's really just as, if not more, abusable than points are. People are absolutely going to calculate out what units with the most effective upgrades are being charged the least for and it's going to make for even more one sided games as inexperienced players use their starter army with few upgrades represented by WYSIWYG are being charged extra power for what they could be taking but aren't able to field.
I don't like that power level will probably have an entirely different set of most power efficient units compared to a faction's most point efficient units, which means to play both to best effect you would need to buy almost 2 armies worth of models.
And I super incredibly hate that this splits the player base, that i can be at a FLG and have a kid ask me if I have a 70 power army to play with him, and that now i have to do the extra leg work of either trying to help him make a pointed list or myself a powered list that is fairly matched to his or worse need to explain that i'm not really interested in power level games and have to turn him away.
I'd like to feel ambivalently about power level for people that want to use it but it is actively hurting my hobby experience more than it is helping it.
Actinium wrote: I'm a little confused by the idea that people are making lists on the fly before games? Like this game is stupid expensive, i usually spend a couple months carefully crafting a list I'm happy with before i buy my first model for it.
t.
There's a mindset that collects lists and a mindset that collects armies.
FWIW, I've never subscribed to the idea of collecting lists, it leaves you vulnerable to edition changes, Codex updates, even FAQs in these enlightened times. I'll collect an army, a faction that appeals to me across a number of aspects, and as a consequence I'll have a pool of models I can choose from when drawing up a list, and can easily draw up or modify a list at short notice.
To anyone who believes power levels support the notion of piling on as many upgrades as possible, you are missing the point.
Power levels allow you to not be NEGATIVELY impacted by choosing options as opposed to trying to shoehorn in the best possible ones. The best options are always based on cost per damage. Always. That means that often times a weapon will be cast aside due to being to weak compared to another. Power level doesn't care.
Look at the difference between grav guns and plasma guns last edition. Everyone said to take grav because of how much more efficient it was in points compared to plasma. I however like plasma more. With power points the choice is based purely on personal taste.
But the grav squads in 7th were objectively way better? So everyone that can is going to pay the same power for the better thing and punish the people that prefer plasma weapons or more extreme the 'heavy bolters look cool' guy. The 'heavy bolters look cool' guy would be disadvantaged in points games too but at least he'd be paying a little less and taking more of something else.
Actinium wrote: I'm a little confused by the idea that people are making lists on the fly before games? Like this game is stupid expensive, i usually spend a couple months carefully crafting a list I'm happy with before i buy my first model for it.
I don't like that power levels imply a friendly more low key system but it's really just as, if not more, abusable than points are. People are absolutely going to calculate out what units with the most effective upgrades are being charged the least for and it's going to make for even more one sided games as inexperienced players use their starter army with few upgrades represented by WYSIWYG are being charged extra power for what they could be taking but aren't able to field.
I don't like that power level will probably have an entirely different set of most power efficient units compared to a faction's most point efficient units, which means to play both to best effect you would need to buy almost 2 armies worth of models.
And I super incredibly hate that this splits the player base, that i can be at a FLG and have a kid ask me if I have a 70 power army to play with him, and that now i have to do the extra leg work of either trying to help him make a pointed list or myself a powered list that is fairly matched to his or worse need to explain that i'm not really interested in power level games and have to turn him away.
I'd like to feel ambivalently about power level for people that want to use it but it is actively hurting my hobby experience more than it is helping it.
What you wrote may be a key to a lot of misunderstandings in this thread - me and my wife own about 10,000 points total worth of various Eldar factions, Tyranids and Genestealer Cults (and slowly starting AdMech and Necrons), yet we usualy played 7th ed at 1100-1500pts level, with lists changing every week. We usually played 2-4 games over a weekend, totaling 100+ games between ourselves alone in 2016. If you add games with other players in our small group, it might be clearer why cutting time on listbuilding using Power Levels for narrative/asymmetric scenarios is usefull to us - we can simply fit more other parts of life in a week spending less time on 40K preparations or fit more, more varied 40K games in a single weekend making new lists "on the fly" and learning new edition not by mathhammering but by quickly gaining intuitive tabletop experience. Many people posting on dakka play less than a dozen times in a year (I made a poll about games frequency couple of months ago) and more often than not do so with complete strangers - such discrepancies within a single discussion lead to many confusions, because people often assume, that other people play 40K for exact same reasons in exact same way as they do (or as people in their FLGS do, or as most players do, whatever their bias is). I can't even imagine how bored with 40K would I be if someone sadistic forced me to play those 100+ times with the same opponent, on the same (even if modular) table, using same lists (even perfectly painted ones), always in a Matched Play, Eternal War, perfectly ballanced style...
Another thing leading to many further confusions is an assumption made by some, that choosing any of viable ways of having fun with 40K automatically mean, that you despise any other way... Or that there is The Only True Way of playing 40K, whichever way this may be...
Power levels most of the time. Points if my opponent insists. Most of the cool alternative rules and unusual scenarios are written for power levels and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
Actinium wrote: But the grav squads in 7th were objectively way better? So everyone that can is going to pay the same power for the better thing and punish the people that prefer plasma weapons or more extreme the 'heavy bolters look cool' guy. The 'heavy bolters look cool' guy would be disadvantaged in points games too but at least he'd be paying a little less and taking more of something else.
Exactly. It's ridiculous to say that the differences in value between different upgrade choices are a reason to use a point system that prices all upgrades equally (at zero points), those differences in power are a major reason for using the conventional point system with different point costs for each upgrade.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: If you add games with other players in our small group, it might be clearer why cutting time on listbuilding using Power Levels for narrative/asymmetric scenarios is usefull to us - we can simply fit more other parts of life in a week spending less time on 40K preparations or fit more, more varied 40K games in a single weekend making new lists "on the fly" and learning new edition not by mathhammering but by quickly gaining intuitive tabletop experience.
It really doesn't let you do this. If you're playing that many games you're probably very familiar with your army, which means using the full point system is going to take maybe five minutes per game, at most. That's 10-20 minutes even under the most favorable assumption for time, not long enough to make any meaningful difference in how much other stuff you can do.
Actinium wrote: I'm a little confused by the idea that people are making lists on the fly before games? Like this game is stupid expensive, i usually spend a couple months carefully crafting a list I'm happy with before i buy my first model for it.
I don't like that power levels imply a friendly more low key system but it's really just as, if not more, abusable than points are. People are absolutely going to calculate out what units with the most effective upgrades are being charged the least for and it's going to make for even more one sided games as inexperienced players use their starter army with few upgrades represented by WYSIWYG are being charged extra power for what they could be taking but aren't able to field.
I don't like that power level will probably have an entirely different set of most power efficient units compared to a faction's most point efficient units, which means to play both to best effect you would need to buy almost 2 armies worth of models.
And I super incredibly hate that this splits the player base, that i can be at a FLG and have a kid ask me if I have a 70 power army to play with him, and that now i have to do the extra leg work of either trying to help him make a pointed list or myself a powered list that is fairly matched to his or worse need to explain that i'm not really interested in power level games and have to turn him away.
I'd like to feel ambivalently about power level for people that want to use it but it is actively hurting my hobby experience more than it is helping it.
You do that? I just sort of impulse buy things I like. That's how I end up with too many Leman Russes and not enough Chimerae. So then, because I have quite a few Russes and not-quite-a-few Chimerae, I sit down and write Armoured Battlegroup lists as opposed to Mechvets lists.
But you're missing the point of power level. If your computing the most power-efficient army, then I'm going to wait for you to recompute it's points cost. You're clearly not in the spirit of game as played with power levels. It's like bringing a jetboat to a concrete canoe event. Power is a rough gauge, for applications like apocalypse games, asymmetric narrative games, and facilitating play with new players who don't have the experience to craft a detailed list and don't know if they need a flamer or a storm bolter or a meltagun.
Also, as others said, PLx20=Points, so a 70 PL army is approximately a 1400 point army.
nou wrote: If you add games with other players in our small group, it might be clearer why cutting time on listbuilding using Power Levels for narrative/asymmetric scenarios is usefull to us - we can simply fit more other parts of life in a week spending less time on 40K preparations or fit more, more varied 40K games in a single weekend making new lists "on the fly" and learning new edition not by mathhammering but by quickly gaining intuitive tabletop experience.
It really doesn't let you do this. If you're playing that many games you're probably very familiar with your army, which means using the full point system is going to take maybe five minutes per game, at most. That's 10-20 minutes even under the most favorable assumption for time, not long enough to make any meaningful difference in how much other stuff you can do.
Of course you know better how much time it takes me or how long it should take, no matter the particular circumstances of any scenario played... You don't play too many Aspect Warrior based Eldar games, do you? It can sometimes take 30+ minutes to figure out some interesting new composition of "not smaller than some minimum" blocks to fit nicely into a rigid point limit. Which of course is fun in it's own way, but I welcome having a well defined alternative, especially when it comes with nice "shorctut" narrative scenarios to use alongside in one neat package.
And how I'm supposed to be familiar with what my 8th ed army do to the same extent as I'm familiar what my 7th ed units do, when I'm only a couple games into entirely new mechanics, efficiencies and points/power level values?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Power is a rough gauge, for applications like apocalypse games, asymmetric narrative games, and facilitating play with new players who don't have the experience to craft a detailed list and don't know if they need a flamer or a storm bolter or a meltagun.
None of these things benefit from a less-accurate point system.
Apocalypse "games" don't need points, or even any kind of rules at all. Pile models all over the table, then put them back in their boxes as quickly as you can. Once all of the models have been removed (or you've spent enough hours "playing" that you get tired of it) tell yourself how much fun you had playing Apocalypse. It's the exact same experience as a real "Apocalypse" game, but with none of the tedious worrying about what the rules are.
Asymmetric narrative games are harder to balance with a less-accurate point system. You know there's asymmetry in the game, but it helps to know exactly how much asymmetry is in the army strengths so you can balance it with the scenario rules and give each player a 50/50 chance of winning. And, at best, using the less-accurate point system is saving maybe a minute or two of setup time compared to the better point system, so you're gaining nothing by using it.
Newbie teaching games are using pre-made lists created by the more experienced player anyway, so the newbie doesn't even know what point system was used. And making all upgrades cost zero points doesn't help them figure out that question. They still have to decide which is the better weapon, even if the costs are equal, and making the wrong choice still creates a weaker unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: Of course you know better how much time it takes me or how long it should take, no matter the particular circumstances of any scenario played...
I know how long basic addition takes, and once you know the point costs of your most common units/upgrades there's no meaningful difference between adding 20+15+10 and 400+300+200.
You don't play too many Aspect Warrior based Eldar games, do you? It can sometimes take 30+ minutes to figure out some interesting new composition of "not smaller than some minimum" blocks to fit nicely into a rigid point limit.
I honestly have no idea how you can spend that much time trying to figure out a list, especially for a "casual" game where you don't really care about winning or precise competitive balance. Just put together some units and call it good enough, you don't need to spend a bunch of time deciding between 10-model and 12-model units or 11 and 11.
And how I'm supposed to be familiar with what my 8th ed army do to the same extent as I'm familiar what my 7th ed units do, when I'm only a couple games into entirely new mechanics, efficiencies and points/power level values?
Obviously a new edition changes things, but if you're playing as many games as you claim you're probably going to start remembering your most common points pretty quickly (just like you'll start remembering your most common power levels).
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Power levels allow you to not be NEGATIVELY impacted by choosing options as opposed to trying to shoehorn in the best possible ones. The best options are always based on cost per damage. Always. That means that often times a weapon will be cast aside due to being to weak compared to another. Power level doesn't care.
Look at the difference between grav guns and plasma guns last edition. Everyone said to take grav because of how much more efficient it was in points compared to plasma. I however like plasma more. With power points the choice is based purely on personal taste.
...Unless you prefer a stripped down unit. Then you need to pay for upgrades you're not taking, or take upgrades you don't want.
And how does taking weapons for a flat cost (often free) make people any less prone to or capable of taking whichever is the most efficient (in this case, strongest, rather than best for the investment as with paid for upgrades)?
Apocalypse "games" don't need points, or even any kind of rules at all. Pile models all over the table, then put them back in their boxes as quickly as you can. Once all of the models have been removed (or you've spent enough hours "playing" that you get tired of it) tell yourself how much fun you had playing Apocalypse. It's the exact same experience as a real "Apocalypse" game, but with none of the tedious worrying about what the rules are.
Seriously?
I have a lot of fun playing large games with lots of tanks.
And, I've explained how PL is great for new players already. It's like the shallow end of the swimming pool, if you will. There's a lot of depth of 40k, and a massive amount of "being good" at the game is in list building and weighing the costs and benefits of upgrade. Building a list for a new player is like putting floaties on them so there's no way to sink, useful if they can't swim, but a hindrance if they can but aren't good enough to go where their feet can't touch the bottom. Power Level lets them build their own list without me having to look over their shoulder.
I have a lot of fun playing large games with lots of tanks.
Yes, seriously. Every single Apocalypse game I've played has been a tedious slog, even when the organizers were enforcing timed phases instead of letting a single phase take an hour or more. The table is too packed with models for movement to matter (other than the occasional charge directly forward across the neutral space), there's seldom any objective beyond "kill some stuff", and all you do is roll dice back and forth until the game ends. It's kind of fun to see the spectacle of that many models on the table at once, but as a game Apocalypse sucks.
And, I've explained how PL is great for new players already. It's like the shallow end of the swimming pool, if you will. There's a lot of depth of 40k, and a massive amount of "being good" at the game is in list building and weighing the costs and benefits of upgrade. Building a list for a new player is like putting floaties on them so there's no way to sink, useful if they can't swim, but a hindrance if they can but aren't good enough to go where their feet can't touch the bottom. Power Level lets them build their own list without me having to look over their shoulder.
And, I've explained why your argument doesn't work. Making upgrades cost zero points doesn't remove the cost-benefit analysis. You still have to figure out if, say, a flamer is better than a plasma gun, and if you make the weaker choice then your unit is not as good as if you'd made the correct choice. Anyone who can figure out how to make a functioning list with less-accurate points can do the same with more-accurate points.
Also, remember that new players are often limited in what they have available if you want to play by WYSIWYG rules. Ignoring the cost of upgrades means that a new player who lacks the models for the optimal unit configuration suffers from overpriced units, on top of having missing upgrade slots, because the point cost of a unit assumes that you're taking those upgrades. But when you count the cost of upgrades the new player isn't paying for upgrades they can't bring, their units are less powerful but cost fewer points to compensate. So in this situation the newbie trying to build a list with the less-accurate point system is going to be at a disadvantage compared to playing the game with the conventional point system.
I have a lot of fun playing large games with lots of tanks.
Yes, seriously. Every single Apocalypse game I've played has been a tedious slog, even when the organizers were enforcing timed phases instead of letting a single phase take an hour or more. The table is too packed with models for movement to matter (other than the occasional charge directly forward across the neutral space), there's seldom any objective beyond "kill some stuff", and all you do is roll dice back and forth until the game ends. It's kind of fun to see the spectacle of that many models on the table at once, but as a game Apocalypse sucks.
And, I've explained how PL is great for new players already. It's like the shallow end of the swimming pool, if you will. There's a lot of depth of 40k, and a massive amount of "being good" at the game is in list building and weighing the costs and benefits of upgrade. Building a list for a new player is like putting floaties on them so there's no way to sink, useful if they can't swim, but a hindrance if they can but aren't good enough to go where their feet can't touch the bottom. Power Level lets them build their own list without me having to look over their shoulder.
And, I've explained why your argument doesn't work. Making upgrades cost zero points doesn't remove the cost-benefit analysis. You still have to figure out if, say, a flamer is better than a plasma gun, and if you make the weaker choice then your unit is not as good as if you'd made the correct choice. Anyone who can figure out how to make a functioning list with less-accurate points can do the same with more-accurate points.
You clearly haven't been playing the same Apocalypse games I've been playing. We use the floor of a large room for about 6000 points. There are a number of objectives across the board, and at each break we score them. There are approximately 3 breaks [Lunch, Mid-day, Dinner] and a final round of scoring in the evening before we clean up. At 6000 points, turns don't take that long. Most infantry is mounted up or in reserve, if it exists at all. 5000-6000 points works well, because each player can bring 2500 to 3000 points of things, and there's plenty of space on the board to do things. Typically a player side consists of a team of two, and two players also helps to speed the game up since we can resolve shooting twice as fast.
You also clearly don't routinely play 40k with people who, before meeting you, didn't even know that tabletop miniatures wargaming is a thing that exists. I think Power Levels will work well for this purpose. Many people I play with are challenged as to whether or not they want to use a squad of terminators. Considering the upgrades they're allowed to take would make their brain melt.
Oh hell no. Aside from the gameplay issues (short-ranged/slow units ever getting to interact with each other on that large a space) that sounds like an exercise in masochism. Pain from kneeling to play on the floor all day, broken models if someone makes a single careless step, etc.
You also clearly don't routinely play 40k with people who, before meeting you, didn't even know that tabletop miniatures wargaming is a thing that exists. I think Power Levels will work well for this purpose.
No, I don't, but I still don't see how using a bad point system is better than using a good point system. All of the difficulties in learning the better point system apply to the bad one, the only difference is a very small amount of basic addition to do in list construction. You'd have a point if power levels involved fixed unit configurations and stripped out a lot of the customization, but all of the work of figuring out how to equip a unit is still there. And, arguably, there's more work to do with power levels because you don't have upgrade costs as a guide. If a flamer costs 5 points and a plasma gun costs 15 points it's very obvious that your choice is between a cheaper but less-powerful weapon and an awesome gun that costs more to equip. When both weapons cost zero points you don't have that guide, and if you accidentally pick the flamer because you don't understand how to analyze the choices yet you're over-paying for your unit.
Oh hell no. Aside from the gameplay issues (short-ranged/slow units ever getting to interact with each other on that large a space) that sounds like an exercise in masochism. Pain from kneeling to play on the floor all day, broken models if someone makes a single careless step, etc.
You also clearly don't routinely play 40k with people who, before meeting you, didn't even know that tabletop miniatures wargaming is a thing that exists. I think Power Levels will work well for this purpose.
No, I don't, but I still don't see how using a bad point system is better than using a good point system. All of the difficulties in learning the better point system apply to the bad one, the only difference is a very small amount of basic addition to do in list construction. You'd have a point if power levels involved fixed unit configurations and stripped out a lot of the customization, but all of the work of figuring out how to equip a unit is still there. And, arguably, there's more work to do with power levels because you don't have upgrade costs as a guide. If a flamer costs 5 points and a plasma gun costs 15 points it's very obvious that your choice is between a cheaper but less-powerful weapon and an awesome gun that costs more to equip. When both weapons cost zero points you don't have that guide, and if you accidentally pick the flamer because you don't understand how to analyze the choices yet you're over-paying for your unit.
Hammerheads, Leman Russes, Flyrants, Doomsday Arks, Shadowswords, Heirophants, and Basilisks have never had a problem.
We've also done it on a Ping-Pong table to alleviate the hands-and-knees aspect, but that becomes overcrowded at 5000 points. The games store also sometimes pushes together 3 realm-of-battle boards if it's an event, but that only happens once in a while.
The problem with Apoc is that you have to gather at someone's house, because you can't really do it at the LGS. In order for enough people to play to compensate the LGS for letting you take up all the space all day long, you'd need a bigger space than the LGS has.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Power is a rough gauge, for applications like apocalypse games, asymmetric narrative games, and facilitating play with new players who don't have the experience to craft a detailed list and don't know if they need a flamer or a storm bolter or a meltagun.
None of these things benefit from a less-accurate point system.
Apocalypse "games" don't need points, or even any kind of rules at all. Pile models all over the table, then put them back in their boxes as quickly as you can. Once all of the models have been removed (or you've spent enough hours "playing" that you get tired of it) tell yourself how much fun you had playing Apocalypse. It's the exact same experience as a real "Apocalypse" game, but with none of the tedious worrying about what the rules are.
Asymmetric narrative games are harder to balance with a less-accurate point system. You know there's asymmetry in the game, but it helps to know exactly how much asymmetry is in the army strengths so you can balance it with the scenario rules and give each player a 50/50 chance of winning. And, at best, using the less-accurate point system is saving maybe a minute or two of setup time compared to the better point system, so you're gaining nothing by using it.
Newbie teaching games are using pre-made lists created by the more experienced player anyway, so the newbie doesn't even know what point system was used. And making all upgrades cost zero points doesn't help them figure out that question. They still have to decide which is the better weapon, even if the costs are equal, and making the wrong choice still creates a weaker unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: Of course you know better how much time it takes me or how long it should take, no matter the particular circumstances of any scenario played...
I know how long basic addition takes, and once you know the point costs of your most common units/upgrades there's no meaningful difference between adding 20+15+10 and 400+300+200.
You don't play too many Aspect Warrior based Eldar games, do you? It can sometimes take 30+ minutes to figure out some interesting new composition of "not smaller than some minimum" blocks to fit nicely into a rigid point limit.
I honestly have no idea how you can spend that much time trying to figure out a list, especially for a "casual" game where you don't really care about winning or precise competitive balance. Just put together some units and call it good enough, you don't need to spend a bunch of time deciding between 10-model and 12-model units or 11 and 11.
And how I'm supposed to be familiar with what my 8th ed army do to the same extent as I'm familiar what my 7th ed units do, when I'm only a couple games into entirely new mechanics, efficiencies and points/power level values?
Obviously a new edition changes things, but if you're playing as many games as you claim you're probably going to start remembering your most common points pretty quickly (just like you'll start remembering your most common power levels).
Realy, I just give up...
You are obviously right about one thing though, basic addition is trivial. But I leave to you figuring out why exactly your answer to this part of my post was utterly ignorant in the context of my posts in this thread... Which may be hard for someone who thinks, that the problem with deep understanding of game mechanics of new 40K edition boils down to remembering point/power level costs of things...
Hmmm... I find power levels very usefull to teach people to play and the basis of making a balanced army, not because people are making a list from 0 and selecting all the wargear of their units.
Is more like Heroscape. You give that person a number of pre-made units, you say him or her how many points are you gonna play, and you let pick the units.
"You have here 5 squads of Space Marines, 4 tanks, 3 Characters and 2 squads of bikes. You can choose units to 30 Power Level"
That way you let them began the process of listbuilding without having to care about upgrades and weapons. The models are already made.
Thats why Heroscape is a game so good to teach new people how to Wargame. They have freedom to make their army, but they have still choice without entering in more complicated things as choosing the full loadout of a Tactical Squad + Sargeant.
That way, mi 8 years old niece learned that picking the Orc Leader in raptor alongside the squad of Orc archers and Orc warriors was better than Picking the Orc leader, the dragon and the Giant Robot, because the Orc Leader can give +1 dice of attack to the orcs. Even if both of those armies where the same number of points.
When 80% of the people you play with are using your own armies, is actually a very usefull tool, because they can pick units but not the loadout of them.
Galas wrote: "You have here 5 squads of Space Marines, 4 tanks, 3 Characters and 2 squads of bikes. You can choose units to 30 Power Level"
That way you let them began the process of listbuilding without having to care about upgrades and weapons. The models are already made.
This works just as well with conventional points. You build the units and add up their point costs, and only present the newbie with the total for each unit.
Lansirill wrote: So, how many people that think that points are just plain better than power levels have played 10-15 games using both systems to get a feel for how they actually work out? How many people that think that power levels are useful have played 10-15 games using power levels to get a feel for how balanced they are?
I know I have an impression that one group has more experience with the two systems, but I'm also a bit biased towards that group so I thought I'd ask in case I'm just seeing what I want to see.
This is just fanning the flames at this point. I mean, you outright state here that you're only hoping to have your viewpoint reaffirmed.
This ain't a discussion anymore, people are too entrenched. We've got strawmanning and scapegoating all over the place. Somebody called it earlier that this got political too fast, there's too many vocal extremists on both sides. I guess we'll just have to learn to live with the new divide - not a fan of how GW puts these sorts of things in place without thinking of how it can separate their player base.
Actually, I was more hoping to have my viewpoint checked. I mean, I certainly *expected* it to be affirmed, since I came to it based on what I've already seen but I could be wrong. (For what it's worth, it seems like 'Team Power Levels are OK' has played a game or two with power levels and 'Team Points Are Best' has not tried using power levels. Since nobody was interested in answering I don't feel like I need to keep my opinion to myself to avoid biasing anyone.)
Frankly, I don't really care too much about the points system; it'll exist, it'll be flawed, it'll be the standard, and I'll deal with it just like I always have. I'm very curious to see how well power levels work out though, because it seems like a good system for breaking out suboptimal toys without getting terribly punished for it. Sure you can do that with points as well, but power levels might work better. If I can see it working out for other people, then I don't have to do *all* of the hard work of seeing how good (or bad) the system is myself.
Galas wrote: "You have here 5 squads of Space Marines, 4 tanks, 3 Characters and 2 squads of bikes. You can choose units to 30 Power Level"
That way you let them began the process of listbuilding without having to care about upgrades and weapons. The models are already made.
This works just as well with conventional points. You build the units and add up their point costs, and only present the newbie with the total for each unit.
You are correct, but for children is much easier to add small numbers as PL to 60 than points for a 1k army for example.
Galas wrote: You are correct, but for children is much easier to add small numbers as PL to 60 than points for a 1k army for example.
Possibly true, though I would wonder why you think that a game with the level of brutal violence and suffering of 40k is something that is appropriate for small children who still struggle with simple addition...
Or that a child can have sufficient intellect to understand the game to the point where a list building technique of any colour is needed, but isn't able to do the simple addition.
Galas wrote: You are correct, but for children is much easier to add small numbers as PL to 60 than points for a 1k army for example.
Possibly true, though I would wonder why you think that a game with the level of brutal violence and suffering of 40k is something that is appropriate for small children who still struggle with simple addition...
Typical western double standards I don't explain the dept of the lore to new comers. Ones are the good guys, others are the funny green guys, other are elfs, other are bugs that eat things, etc... Isn't like I expose children to all of the horrors about the Cherubin, Servitors, Slaanesh and all of that, etc...
Azreal13 wrote: Or that a child can have sufficient intellect to understand the game to the point where a list building technique of any colour is needed, but isn't able to do the simple addition.
I'm here only to speak for myself, but I have teach how to play both to adults and children, all of them totally newcomers for Wargames, and normally they can grasp the basics of the game without a problem, but put them in front of a codex and tell them to buy a army and they normally have much more problems with that. And others just don't care, they want to play with some units, but don't want to learn all the different weapon profiles and special rules, etc...
I know Peregrine than you have big traumas with "Casual at all costs" type of players, but theres people out there that are genuine casuals, they only want to throw some dice with nice miniatures. (But to be honest normally in that case we even play without points at all)
I'm not here to say that Power Levels are better than Points, they aren't in any shape or form. But to me they are gonna be usefull.
Expecting someone to be able to draw up an army list from a Codex =\= being able to add up the points cost. If you can't add, especially without limitation on using aides, then you're not old enough/smart enough to grasp the game.
Galas wrote: I'm here only to speak for myself, but I have teach how to play both to adults and children, all of them totally newcomers for Wargames, and normally they can grasp the basics of the game without a problem, but put them in front of a codex and tell them to buy a army and they normally have much more problems with that. And others just don't care, they want to play with some units, but don't want to learn all the different weapon profiles and special rules, etc..
Someone who has trouble with those things is going to have the exact same problems with power levels. Replacing a point system with a slightly less accurate point system doesn't change anything here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Typical western double standards I don't explain the dept of the lore to new comers. Ones are the good guys, others are the funny green guys, other are elfs, other are bugs that eat things, etc... Isn't like I expose children to all of the horrors about the Cherubin, Servitors, Slaanesh and all of that, etc...
If you aren't going to explain the lore then why play 40k at all? The lore is the whole point of the game, without it you've just got a terribly written and poorly balanced mess with no redeeming qualities.
Well. One day, I played the game (In a very simple form and with many rules wrong, but wathever) with a pseudo-illiterate70 years old person, so I think the kind of people that I normally play with has other kinds of needs.
Galas wrote: I'm here only to speak for myself, but I have teach how to play both to adults and children, all of them totally newcomers for Wargames, and normally they can grasp the basics of the game without a problem, but put them in front of a codex and tell them to buy a army and they normally have much more problems with that. And others just don't care, they want to play with some units, but don't want to learn all the different weapon profiles and special rules, etc..
Someone who has trouble with those things is going to have the exact same problems with power levels. Replacing a point system with a slightly less accurate point system doesn't change anything here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Typical western double standards I don't explain the dept of the lore to new comers. Ones are the good guys, others are the funny green guys, other are elfs, other are bugs that eat things, etc... Isn't like I expose children to all of the horrors about the Cherubin, Servitors, Slaanesh and all of that, etc...
If you aren't going to explain the lore then why play 40k at all? The lore is the whole point of the game, without it you've just got a terribly written and poorly balanced mess with no redeeming qualities.
Actually, changing big numbers for little numbers has a big impact.
And about the lore... don't everybody has the same tastes as you Peregrine. I do, but not everyone.
If I once taught a blind paraplegic to play, none of anything I needed to do to accommodate their limitations has any relevance on the broader discussion.
Galas wrote: Actually, changing big numbers for little numbers has a big impact.
It really doesn't. If you have the intellectual ability and maturity to play 40k at all you can add up either set of numbers equally well, especially now that everyone is carrying a calculator in their pocket.
And about the lore... don't everybody has the same tastes as you Peregrine. I do, but not everyone.
If someone doesn't have the same tastes as me then why would they play 40k? The rules are pretty clearly a mess by objective standards of game design, the cost is much higher than the competition, and GW shows no apparent interest in fixing these problems. We put up with these problems because the lore is awesome, and we want to keep playing in the 40k universe. But for someone who doesn't care about the lore what's the appeal?
Asymmetric narrative games are harder to balance with a less-accurate point system. You know there's asymmetry in the game, but it helps to know exactly how much asymmetry is in the army strengths so you can balance it with the scenario rules and give each player a 50/50 chance of winning. And, at best, using the less-accurate point system is saving maybe a minute or two of setup time compared to the better point system, so you're gaining nothing by using it.
Normally, I'd agree with you here. The caveat, unfortunately, is that GW has all but said that their point system doesn't work outside the narrowly defined scope of equally pointed sides operating within the framework of the six Eternal War and Maelstrom of War missions using the six deployment maps.
Granted, they haven't actually said it doesn't work outside that scope, but the way they've laid things out and how we've seen them play very strongly implies it.
Which is a shame because there's all sorts of neat things you can do with point systems in terms of rewards and handicaps in a narrative campaign to keep it exciting (and to prevent one lucky or more skilled player from shutting everyone out early on).
On the other-other hand (oh, hell, I think I'm a genestealer) I don't know that power levels can't be made to serve. And until I know that points don't utterly fall apart outside the narrow use GW has designed them for, I think any campaign I organize will need to use power levels.
Galas wrote: Basically because the miniatures aren't theirs and playing games is a strong social activity that can be fun even if the game is mediocre.
I know, I know, is a filthy casual mentality, but it exist.
Casual has nothing to do with anything. It's this ridiculous mentality that PL has any meaningful inherent advantage to the casual player over points that's at issue.
Well, PL are basically the point sistem of Age of Sigmar. If that system is tagged as a "abomination of a game for casual and mentally dissabled people" for some people, I assume it probably has some "casual feeling" add to it.
But I'm going in circles, just as this discussiong has goes por 13 pages. The funny thing is that I agree with you, the regular point system is better in every regard compared with Power Level system.
I only said that Power Level is gonna be usefull for me for the nature of the people I play with. You can interpret that as if I try to put the specifical over the general, but that wasn't my intention.
Trollsmyth wrote: Normally, I'd agree with you here. The caveat, unfortunately, is that GW has all but said that their point system doesn't work outside the narrowly defined scope of equally pointed sides operating within the framework of the six Eternal War and Maelstrom of War missions using the six deployment maps.
Granted, they haven't actually said it doesn't work outside that scope, but the way they've laid things out and how we've seen them play very strongly implies it.
That's a nonsense claim for GW to make. If a more accurate point system doesn't work outside that narrow scope then a less accurate point system certainly isn't going to work. There is no possible way that you can improve the function of the game by reducing the accuracy of its point costs, so there's no way that power levels could ever be a better system regardless of the mission.
But, as Lobukia said, power levels remove many of the toughest decisions from list building, making them ideal for stepping new players into the game, and for setting up things like Apocalypse games, where the granularity becomes tedium when you're working out what IG Squad #15 and Leman Russ Tank #12 has.
Good point. I have no problem with power levels. If someone likes that form of list building,I'll meet them there. There's some computer games I'll do the "one button level up" on. But I personally like the fine tuning in 40k
Oh by the Emperor and all His saints, you are dense.
List building is an important part of the game. It dictates what tactical options you have available to you on the field, and is more influential in deciding the victor of any given game than any other factor.
For this reason, points are entirely unsuitable for introducing players to the world of miniatures wargaming. Not to the world of Warhammer 40k, to the entire hobby.
List building is a fundamentally challenging process, and the difficulty increases with detail. It's natural to us, we have years and years, some of us decades, of experience. But when you're stepping into the hobby, and the most complicated game you've previously played is Risk, it's daunting. It's not that selecting upgrades is a fundamentally different process than selecting units, but it does present an added degree of complexity. Power Level dis-entwines the two: you select your units, then you select upgrades for them to specialize them. With Points, you do this together, since a unit can be exchanged for an upgrade or an upgrade exchanged for a unit. How many times have you been building a list and wondered whether to spend the last 40 points of a set of Tank Sponsons, or to drop a Meltagun from a Vets squad and buy a squad of Guardsmen, or to drop the Meltagun and buy another set of guns for the Baneblade, etc. With power level they come from a different pool of "currency", if you would. Taking a Leman Russ Tank doesn't deny the opportunity to buy Meltaguns for a Veterans squad, so there aren't as many opportunity costs to consider when picking units and picking upgrades. The cost of picking Plasma Cannon sponsons is not having Heavy Bolter Sponsons.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: List building is a fundamentally challenging process, and the difficulty increases with detail. It's natural to us, we have years and years, some of us decades, of experience. But when you're stepping into the hobby, and the most complicated game you've previously played is Risk, it's daunting. It's not that selecting upgrades is a fundamentally different process than selecting units, but it does present an added degree of complexity. Power Level dis-entwines the two: you select your units, then you select upgrades for them to specialize them. With Points, you do this together, since a unit can be exchanged for an upgrade or an upgrade exchanged for a unit. How many times have you been building a list and wondered whether to spend the last 40 points of a set of Tank Sponsons, or to drop a Meltagun from a Vets squad and buy a squad of Guardsmen, or to drop the Meltagun and buy another set of guns for the Baneblade, etc. With power level they come from a different pool of "currency", if you would. Taking a Leman Russ Tank doesn't deny the opportunity to buy Meltaguns for a Veterans squad, so there aren't as many opportunity costs to consider when picking units and picking upgrades. The cost of picking Plasma Cannon sponsons is not having Heavy Bolter Sponsons.
No, you don't get it. You do the exact same thing with the less-accurate point system. You still have to evaluate which upgrades you want to take. You still have to evaluate which units are powerful enough for their point cost to be justifiable. Taking sponsons on your LRBT may not deny the opportunity to take melta vets, but you'd better correctly identify the optimal sponson choice or your LRBT is going to be paying too many points for its guns. Having to add up the point cost of your upgrade choices is trivial once you reach the level of understanding of the game required to identify the correct upgrade choices, even under the assumption that all upgrades cost zero points.
And making point increments come in whole-unit blocks makes it harder to finish building a list, not easier. If you're 5 points over in a 1500 point game you can say "plasma vets are good, but I can take melta vets instead and save 15 points, bringing me below the point limit". If you're 5 power over you have no choice, you have to remove an entire unit and be significantly under the point limit. Now you have to re-shuffle everything else about your unit choices, hoping to find the right combination that gets to the point limit without going over.
Peregrine wrote: That's a nonsense claim for GW to make. If a more accurate point system doesn't work outside that narrow scope then a less accurate point system certainly isn't going to work. There is no possible way that you can improve the function of the game by reducing the accuracy of its point costs, so there's no way that power levels could ever be a better system regardless of the mission.
Not necessarily. It's entirely reasonable to assume that the further outside the proscribed bounds you get, the worse discrepancies in actual utility between equally-pointed units get. If that is the case, a system of measure that's less granular with more wiggle-room built into it might actually be more accurate in measuring relative utility.
Again, I don't know this is GW's reasoning; I'm making the best guess I can from what they have told us. It could simply be that they don't want to invest the time and effort into ambush and siege missions necessary to balance them to the point where people who really care about that will be satisfied; power level could totally be guesstimates deemed good enough for "casual" play. But even if that's the case, it implies the Narrative missions will be exercises in frustration for folks only interested in Matched play. And if that's the case, then I'll save myself a lot of headache by making sure folks know that my campaign isn't going to be that rigorous by declaring it's using Power Levels.
And all that having been said, if GW comes out and says Power Levels exist only to make the math easier, I'll dump 'em like a hot potato. ;p
You don't have to correctly identify anything with power level, that is what YOU don't understand.
Power level doesn't punish you for taking an under powered unit, it allows you to field what you want without worrying if it is too weak for the cost. If someone wants to make all of their units bare bones with no upgrades, then that is on them. But I have never once, in any format, in any battle report or table seen a person field un-upgraded units that weren't simply filling up points, or ran out of them and wanted to field something else.
Power levels allow people to field the models they feel look cool without being penalised for taking sub optimal choices.
Heavy bolters lover isn't choosing the weakest option in the arsenal in 8th edition, he is choosing a weapon to threaten hordes. Weapons have more definitive targets now with the advent of multiple damage per hit in the game.
Trollsmyth wrote: It's entirely reasonable to assume that the further outside the proscribed bounds you get, the worse discrepancies in actual utility between equally-pointed units get. If that is the case, a system of measure that's less granular with more wiggle-room built into it might actually be more accurate in measuring relative utility.
No, it isn't reasonable at all. It's completely absurd, on the level of saying "this ruler marked in 1mm increments is less accurate than the one that is otherwise exactly identical but marked in 1cm increments, depending on the size of the object you're measuring". There is no conceivable situation where making point costs less accurate makes them work better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Power levels allow people to field the models they feel look cool without being penalised for taking sub optimal choices.
Uh, no. This is just hilariously wrong. Making all upgrades cost zero points doesn't change the fact that some units/upgrades will be more point-efficient than others, and it doesn't change the fact that someone who takes point-efficient units will have an advantage over someone who takes less-efficient units.
Heavy bolters lover isn't choosing the weakest option in the arsenal in 8th edition, he is choosing a weapon to threaten hordes. Weapons have more definitive targets now with the advent of multiple damage per hit in the game.
This has nothing to do with making all weapon upgrades cost zero points, it's about making the relative value of weapons equal. This kind of thing is easily reflected by having heavy bolters cost the same number of points as the weapons they are equivalent to.
Given timing and placement, this seems to directed at yours truly. But I'm going to assume it's not since I completely agree with the thrust of what you're saying.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: List building is a fundamentally challenging process, and the difficulty increases with detail. It's natural to us, we have years and years, some of us decades, of experience. But when you're stepping into the hobby, and the most complicated game you've previously played is Risk, it's daunting. It's not that selecting upgrades is a fundamentally different process than selecting units, but it does present an added degree of complexity. Power Level dis-entwines the two: you select your units, then you select upgrades for them to specialize them. With Points, you do this together, since a unit can be exchanged for an upgrade or an upgrade exchanged for a unit. How many times have you been building a list and wondered whether to spend the last 40 points of a set of Tank Sponsons, or to drop a Meltagun from a Vets squad and buy a squad of Guardsmen, or to drop the Meltagun and buy another set of guns for the Baneblade, etc. With power level they come from a different pool of "currency", if you would. Taking a Leman Russ Tank doesn't deny the opportunity to buy Meltaguns for a Veterans squad, so there aren't as many opportunity costs to consider when picking units and picking upgrades. The cost of picking Plasma Cannon sponsons is not having Heavy Bolter Sponsons.
No, you don't get it. You do the exact same thing with the less-accurate point system. You still have to evaluate which upgrades you want to take. You still have to evaluate which units are powerful enough for their point cost to be justifiable. Taking sponsons on your LRBT may not deny the opportunity to take melta vets, but you'd better correctly identify the optimal sponson choice or your LRBT is going to be paying too many points for its guns. Having to add up the point cost of your upgrade choices is trivial once you reach the level of understanding of the game required to identify the correct upgrade choices, even under the assumption that all upgrades cost zero points.
And making point increments come in whole-unit blocks makes it harder to finish building a list, not easier. If you're 5 points over in a 1500 point game you can say "plasma vets are good, but I can take melta vets instead and save 15 points, bringing me below the point limit". If you're 5 power over you have no choice, you have to remove an entire unit and be significantly under the point limit. Now you have to re-shuffle everything else about your unit choices, hoping to find the right combination that gets to the point limit without going over.
Just to illustrate the point, my Leman Russ tanks are not modeled with any kind of sponson. I consider the cost to equip the tanks with sponsons at all to not be worth the opportunity cost of more Guardsmen [or a Wyvern]. I do not consider the Leman Russ tank to be a desirable platform for any of the weapons it's eligible to equip as sponsons.
Now, with Points, the opportunity cost of equipping my Leman Russ Battle Tank with a set of Plasma Cannons could be:
A set of Heavy Bolters for this tank
A set of Multimeltas for this tank
A set of Heavy Flamers for this tank
Any set of sponsons for a different tank
2 Plasmaguns for infantry units
3 Meltaguns for infantry units
A Lascannon for infantry units
A Sentinel
Meltabombs and a Demolition charge for Veterans
Upgrading the tank to be a Tank Commander
A Priest
A Commissar
Their cost could also go towards affording another Wyvern or Manticore or squad of Troopers.
By comparison, the opportunity cost of buying a Leman Russ a set of Plasma Cannons under Power Level is:
A set of Heavy Bolters
A set of Multimeltas
A set of Heavy Flamers
That's a dramatic decrease in the opportunity cost of equipping the tank with sponsons. Now, instead of having to consider all the things you could get instead to tank sponsons, it's only relevant to consider the tank's purpose. Multimeltas help it hunt tanks, Heavy Bolters help it kill infantry from far away, Heavy Flamers help it kill infantry better than Heavy Bolters but only work up close, and Plasma Cannons help it kill both tanks and infantry but not better than the other options at either. Most of this time, this is answered anyway by the question: "Why did I bring a Leman Russ?" You don't have to consider if a pair of Multimeltas on this Leman Russ you brought to attack enemy tanks would be better at attacking enemy tanks than a pair of Meltaguns in a Veterans squad, or a Lascannon in a Heavy Weapons squad.
That's significantly reduced critical decision making when building your list.
Given timing and placement, this seems to directed at yours truly. But I'm going to assume it's not since I completely agree with the thrust of what you're saying.
No! It's not directed at you.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: You don't have to correctly identify anything with power level, that is what YOU don't understand.
Power level doesn't punish you for taking an under powered unit, it allows you to field what you want without worrying if it is too weak for the cost. If someone wants to make all of their units bare bones with no upgrades, then that is on them. But I have never once, in any format, in any battle report or table seen a person field un-upgraded units that weren't simply filling up points, or ran out of them and wanted to field something else.
Power levels allow people to field the models they feel look cool without being penalised for taking sub optimal choices.
Heavy bolters lover isn't choosing the weakest option in the arsenal in 8th edition, he is choosing a weapon to threaten hordes. Weapons have more definitive targets now with the advent of multiple damage per hit in the game.
I run a great many of my units un-upgraded. A Basilisk, Manticore, or Wyvern doesn't benefit from any upgrades, and any upgrades on a Leman Russ Demolisher or Leman Russ Battle Tank would be wasted. I also like bare-bone guardsmen squads, because a Plasmagun doesn't benefit from FRF-SRF and costs 15 points.
Only because you're including false options to make the first list longer. There's a basic rule in 40k that you never leave primary weapon slots (IOW, stuff related to a unit's role, not random things like an IG sergeant's power fist option) empty, unless there's some special rule (like the ordnance rule) that prevents you from using them. Even a basic understanding of the LRBT tells you that you're always taking sponsons now that 8th has removed the ordnance rule, so the only question is identifying which sponsons are best. And that is the same question under both point systems.
(And yes, there might be rare edge-case situations where you have to drop a unit's primary weapon to gain a huge benefit elsewhere, but that kind of fine-tuning is way beyond the scope of a newbie's first "get something vaguely reasonable on the table" attempts.)
Only because you're including false options to make the first list longer. There's a basic rule in 40k that you never leave primary weapon slots (IOW, stuff related to a unit's role, not random things like an IG sergeant's power fist option) empty, unless there's some special rule (like the ordnance rule) that prevents you from using them. Even a basic understanding of the LRBT tells you that you're always taking sponsons now that 8th has removed the ordnance rule, so the only question is identifying which sponsons are best. And that is the same question under both point systems.
(And yes, there might be rare edge-case situations where you have to drop a unit's primary weapon to gain a huge benefit elsewhere, but that kind of fine-tuning is way beyond the scope of a newbie's first "get something vaguely reasonable on the table" attempts.)
Really? All my Leman Russ tanks, including my Vanquishers, are modeled without sponsons. I never use them at all. I'd say not taking them is an incredibly valid option.
Also, I'm not going to be mounting sponson in 8th. Just because you can have them doesn't mean you should have them. They're not a primary weapon, and if I bought the Leman Russ for it's sponson options, I could have bought a Hellhound variant for half the price.
As an aside I wonder if there are enough 8th lists posted over in that section to see if we can't analyze the discrepancy between PL-cost and points-cost on a large scale, maybe get a concrete figure for just how inexact they are.
After reading through the rulebook a few more times and playing 3 games, it's obvious that GW is really pushing power levels as their primary system. If anything, it reads like matched play and points are kind of tacked on and a nuisance to them. I imagine it wasn't part of the original plan but they grudgingly decided to support it.
Currently there is no reason you can't simply use points instead of power levels, but it is interesting that for most of the book they assume you're using power levels. I didn't really pick up on it the first time through.
Now that I've used both, I'm fine with the idea of power levels, although it would be worlds better with a slightly more granular approach. If units just had 1-2 tiers of upgrades each costing a power level or two (as a handful already do), it would be so much better. Considering just how important having heavy weapons are in this edition, you need those upgrades. Despite the fact that nothing is immune to anything now, it's functionally not much different. Yeah, I can shoot bolters at your knight and at least have a chance of doing a damage, but that's not going to take it down.
Basically, I'm fine with not worrying about the difference between a meltagun, plasma gun, or grav gun. But having a tactical squad cost the same when one has all the bling the squad and the sergeant can bring and the other has nothing just doesn't jive with me. There's a massive difference in some units concerning their upgrades, which really hits home when you play with the new rules.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Really? All my Leman Russ tanks, including my Vanquishers, are modeled without sponsons. I never use them at all. I'd say not taking them is an incredibly valid option.
It really wasn't a valuable option in 7th, because of how the Heavy USR worked. Since you could move and fire all of your weapons at full BS (except with ordnance LRBTs) those sponson guns were one of the best deals in the codex, and you'd have to have an incredibly good reason not to take them. Even basic HBs were going to out-perform pretty much any other use of those points over the length of a full game. So maybe there's some weird edge case where you are so absurdly tight on points that you're willing to consider cutting the sponsons to get a vital unit/upgrade elsewhere, but that kind of obsessive fine-tuning is beyond the scope of what a newbie is going to be dealing with.
Also, I'm not going to be mounting sponson in 8th. Just because you can have them doesn't mean you should have them. They're not a primary weapon, and if I bought the Leman Russ for it's sponson options, I could have bought a Hellhound variant for half the price.
Then you're really making a mistake. Now that the LRBT's main guns have been nerfed so heavily you have to make up for it with the sponson and hull guns (which now have a 360* arc) or you're taking a garbage unit that isn't worth anywhere near its cost. Every single LRBT should have sponsons of some kind, the only question is which ones to pick. If you don't want to take sponsons then yes, take a Hellhound or Manticore or whatever instead.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Really? All my Leman Russ tanks, including my Vanquishers, are modeled without sponsons. I never use them at all. I'd say not taking them is an incredibly valid option.
It really wasn't a valuable option in 7th, because of how the Heavy USR worked. Since you could move and fire all of your weapons at full BS (except with ordnance LRBTs) those sponson guns were one of the best deals in the codex, and you'd have to have an incredibly good reason not to take them. Even basic HBs were going to out-perform pretty much any other use of those points over the length of a full game. So maybe there's some weird edge case where you are so absurdly tight on points that you're willing to consider cutting the sponsons to get a vital unit/upgrade elsewhere, but that kind of obsessive fine-tuning is beyond the scope of what a newbie is going to be dealing with.
Also, I'm not going to be mounting sponson in 8th. Just because you can have them doesn't mean you should have them. They're not a primary weapon, and if I bought the Leman Russ for it's sponson options, I could have bought a Hellhound variant for half the price.
Then you're really making a mistake. Now that the LRBT's main guns have been nerfed so heavily you have to make up for it with the sponson and hull guns (which now have a 360* arc) or you're taking a garbage unit that isn't worth anywhere near its cost. Every single LRBT should have sponsons of some kind, the only question is which ones to pick. If you don't want to take sponsons then yes, take a Hellhound or Manticore or whatever instead.
I got most of my Russes in 5th. I built my tanks without sponsons, because I didn't see a compelling reason to have them, and they've forever been without them.
I argue with the assertion that buying sponsons on a Leman Russ is a must. I've never equipped my Leman Russ tanks with sponsons, and it's worked out really well. Multimeltas don't mesh with the Vanquisher's range, nothing meshes with the Battle Cannon or Demolisher Cannon, the Punisher doesn't need additional Heavy Bolters, the Executioner is crap and sponsons only exacerbate it's problem, the Eradicator is crap so it doesn't matter, the Annihilator is just like the Vanquisher, and I don't like the Exterminator because it never does anything, like the Eradicator.
If you're not taking the Russ for it's primary gun, don't take it. A Hellhound is 110 points and a Leman Russ with Heavy Flamers is slightly over 200. A Devil Dog is 130, a Leman Russ Vanquisher with Multimeltas is 217. Hellhounds and Devil Dogs are fast enough to use their Inferno Cannon/Melta Cannon on the opening round, Russes aren't.
Anyway, this is besides the point. Russes are bad, and they've been bad since 6th happened.
Too bad, because you're wrong. It's unfortunate that you bought some tanks in 5th and they won't be WYSIWYG with the correct setup in later editions, but sponson guns are an amazing deal and mandatory on the non-ordnance* tanks. Vanquishers wanted multimeltas because of the vast increase in anti-tank firepower (and range isn't a huge issue when everyone wants to get up close against IG tanks) and mitigation of the fatal "one BS 3 shot" problem, Executioners wanted plasma cannons if you took them at all, Punishers and Exterminators wanted heavy bolters for maximum volume of fire. Nowhere else in the IG codex were you going to get the level of firepower that LRBT sponsons offered for that low a point cost.
*Yes, the ordnance ones skipped the sponsons, but a rule that says "you can only fire one weapon" is one of those really obvious things that even a newbie can get without much trouble.
A Hellhound is 110 points and a Leman Russ with Heavy Flamers is slightly over 200. A Devil Dog is 130, a Leman Russ Vanquisher with Multimeltas is 217. Hellhounds and Devil Dogs are fast enough to use their Inferno Cannon/Melta Cannon on the opening round, Russes aren't.
Then take Hellhounds instead of LRBTs. Seriously, look at the math people have done, a LRBT without sponson guns averages a pathetic number of wounds against pretty much any target. If you aren't buying the sponson guns you have a slightly cheaper tank that does nowhere near enough damage for its cost, and doesn't belong in any sensible list.
And of course this demonstrates my point nicely: figuring out how to use the complete point system is easy, figuring out the best strategy is hard. You're an experienced player struggling to understand basic IG strategy, what point system you use to add up your army list is pretty much irrelevant. Using power levels instead of points may force you to make the correct choice because there is no other option available, but that still doesn't fix the underlying problem of not knowing why it is the correct choice.
Too bad, because you're wrong. It's unfortunate that you bought some tanks in 5th and they won't be WYSIWYG with the correct setup in later editions, but sponson guns are an amazing deal and mandatory on the non-ordnance* tanks. Vanquishers wanted multimeltas because of the vast increase in anti-tank firepower (and range isn't a huge issue when everyone wants to get up close against IG tanks) and mitigation of the fatal "one BS 3 shot" problem, Executioners wanted plasma cannons if you took them at all, Punishers and Exterminators wanted heavy bolters for maximum volume of fire. Nowhere else in the IG codex were you going to get the level of firepower that LRBT sponsons offered for that low a point cost.
*Yes, the ordnance ones skipped the sponsons, but a rule that says "you can only fire one weapon" is one of those really obvious things that even a newbie can get without much trouble.
A Hellhound is 110 points and a Leman Russ with Heavy Flamers is slightly over 200. A Devil Dog is 130, a Leman Russ Vanquisher with Multimeltas is 217. Hellhounds and Devil Dogs are fast enough to use their Inferno Cannon/Melta Cannon on the opening round, Russes aren't.
Then take Hellhounds instead of LRBTs. Seriously, look at the math people have done, a LRBT without sponson guns averages a pathetic number of wounds against pretty much any target. If you aren't buying the sponson guns you have a slightly cheaper tank that does nowhere near enough damage for its cost, and doesn't belong in any sensible list.
And of course this demonstrates my point nicely: figuring out how to use the complete point system is easy, figuring out the best strategy is hard. You're an experienced player struggling to understand basic IG strategy, what point system you use to add up your army list is pretty much irrelevant. Using power levels instead of points may force you to make the correct choice because there is no other option available, but that still doesn't fix the underlying problem of not knowing why it is the correct choice.
I was the one who did the Leman Russ firepower output simulations. I know that their gun sucks, and as I pointed out, you're not "getting a good deal" on sponsons. You're getting 3 Heavy Flamers and 12 wounds [and a dud for a gun] for 200 points when you could be getting 4 heavy flamers, 2 of which are +1STR and deal double damage, and 22 wounds for 20 points more.
Okay, here's the thing: sticking sponsons onto a tank in 5th isn't the same waste of points it became in later editions. Lumbering Behemoth lets you ignore the Ordnance rule [specifically, it can fire it's turret weapon in addition to any other weapons it would be able to fire, so long as it stayed below 6" move], basically, so a stationary tank can use all it's sponsons and hull gun. When it lost that, it lost the ability to use it's sponsons at all. I didn't build the tanks with sponsons because I didn't see value in adding 6 more S5AP4 shots onto my tank. I have a turret Battle Cannon and hull Lascannon [because, at that time, the Battle Cannon was effective against tanks and infantry, and the 15 point Lascannon would help it kill tanks]. Or a turret Vanquisher Cannon and hull Lascannon. Multimeltas would be out of melta range, so I might as well spend the points on giving vets or guardsmen meltas instead, because they would be in melta range, and would therefore get more value out of the 30 points.
And anyway, clearly, we, experienced IG players with at least hundreds of games played, have to debate the efficacy of upgrade options for our tanks, do you expect a player who has never seen a Leman Russ before to have half a clue what's worth the points to give it? [though it is pretty obvious, on a straight PL comparison, that even a fully upgraded Leman Russ is straight-out worse than 2 Hellhounds PL for PL, just as it is Point-for-Point.]
And, actually, I've had the sponsons argument with other IG players. I maintain no sponsons is the way to run it. First off, if you bought the tank for any weapon other than the main gun, you overpaid. Secondary weapons are niceties. Second off, I don't believe in multirole units. This tank shoots tanks, that other one shoots infantry. Most of my in-person discussion revolve around the fact a Punisher with Las and Multimeltas can attack tanks if it has no target for the Punisher cannon. I say that, if it's shooting tanks, it's not shooting the Punisher cannon, and therefore ~150 points aren't doing the job you brought it for this turn. If it legimitately has no target for the Punisher cannon, fire something else first, crack a transport, then fire the Punisher. If there's no target by the end of the turn, you've either won the game or you've lost the game.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: And anyway, clearly, we, experienced IG players, have to debate the efficacy of upgrade options for our tanks, do you expect a player who has never seen a Leman Russ before to have half a clue what's worth the points to give it?
No, of course they won't get it, and that's my whole point! You, as an experienced player, can't figure it out, so a newbie is still going to be stuck on figuring out how the LRBT works. If upgrades cost points they're going to make the wrong choice because they don't understand. If all upgrades are free they're going to make the correct choice because it's no longer legal to take the LRBT without sponsons, but they're still not going to understand which sponsons are best or why they are mandatory. They're still likely to get frustrated with trying to figure out the right answer and just throw some random upgrades on the table to get the game started. Making the point system less accurate isn't helping the situation because it isn't addressing the core problem.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: And anyway, clearly, we, experienced IG players, have to debate the efficacy of upgrade options for our tanks, do you expect a player who has never seen a Leman Russ before to have half a clue what's worth the points to give it?
No, of course they won't get it, and that's my whole point! You, as an experienced player, can't figure it out, so a newbie is still going to be stuck on figuring out how the LRBT works. If upgrades cost points they're going to make the wrong choice because they don't understand. If all upgrades are free they're going to make the correct choice because it's no longer legal to take the LRBT without sponsons, but they're still not going to understand which sponsons are best or why they are mandatory. They're still likely to get frustrated with trying to figure out the right answer and just throw some random upgrades on the table to get the game started. Making the point system less accurate isn't helping the situation because it isn't addressing the core problem.
Okay, in 8th edition, yes, Leman Russes need sponsons. If that's what you're trying to say, I agree. In 6th and 7th editions, they didn't, which is what I'm trying to say. Do you agree? I will also concede that, in 5th, sponsons were efficient at getting guns, but I also found them to be overkill, which make them inefficient.
However, because they need sponsons, they're crap. With sponsons, they're still crap. Compare for yourself 2 Hellhounds versus 1 Leman Russ with Flamer sponsons and you'll see what I mean.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: However, because they need sponsons, they're crap. With sponsons, they're still crap. Compare for yourself 2 Hellhounds versus 1 Leman Russ with Flamer sponsons and you'll see what I mean.
Again, demonstrating my point very nicely. Using a less-accurate point system doesn't make it any easier for the newbie to identify that LRBTs are worse than Hellhounds no matter how you equip the LRBTs.
No, it isn't reasonable at all. It's completely absurd, on the level of saying "this ruler marked in 1mm increments is less accurate than the one that is otherwise exactly identical but marked in 1cm increments, depending on the size of the object you're measuring". There is no conceivable situation where making point costs less accurate makes them work better.
The measure of a unit's utility isn't universal but relative. Therefore, it is not as simple as measuring length or height. Since GW insists on giving each unit a single score, regardless of opponent, terrain, etc, there is, by necessity, a margin of wiggle-room within each numerical score. And it does you no good to measure out to the hundredths place when your margin of error is plus-or-minus five.
The further you get from the ideal case, the worse your margin of error gets. GW's ideal case is the twelve missions and six deployment charts that are approved for Matched Play. Deviating from those increases your margin of error. And since every measure is relative, that deviation is unequal across the vast range of things that have been given points. In other words, not only do the points become less and less accurate, the lack-of-accuracy is different for each unit, weapon, etc.
If this still sounds absurd to you, all I can suggest is that you get in touch with someone who works in the hard sciences for a living and ask them about standard deviations, significant digits, and how a measurement can be "too accurate" to be useful.
Of course, this is all assuming GW got some folks with strong backgrounds in statistics and quantitative analysis to derive their point values. If all they did was play some games and eyeball the numbers, then all of this is academic. And, again, if GW comes out and says Power Level is just a simplification to aid in pick-up games, it can be easily tossed aside for a narrative campaign where players plan out their armies in advance of each battle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dosiere wrote: After reading through the rulebook a few more times and playing 3 games, it's obvious that GW is really pushing power levels as their primary system. If anything, it reads like matched play and points are kind of tacked on and a nuisance to them. I imagine it wasn't part of the original plan but they grudgingly decided to support it.
Deep in my heart-of-hearts, I fear this is the case. I've been playing these games off-and-on since it was called Rogue Trader and GW has always had, at best, an ambivalent attitude towards the sort of competitive play championed on the interwebs. And sometimes it's been downright hostile.
If, as you suggest, they tacked on a points-system grudgingly, it's probably not terribly good. They likely played some games, eyeballed things, sent it to their playtesters (who, it just so happens, are extremely passionate about competitive play), adjusted according to the feedback they got, and considered that good enough for now. When the online meta decides that x is just not worth the points and y is far too overpowered, they'll nudge the point values and publish the new points in their Chapter Approved. Rinse-and-repeat regularly for each new meta. The appearance of accuracy will be far more valuable than actual accuracy, as will not quite being accurate enough, since that will allow them to keep publishing new Chapter Approveds.
Meanwhile, most of the stuff coming out from White Dwarf and being given away free on their fancy new community website will assume Power Level play, since that's where their hearts are. They'll lean on the tournament organizers to come up with new missions and goodies for Matched Play.
Which wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily, though I suspect it'll drive an even deeper wedge between the "Casual" and "Competitive" fandoms.
Trollsmyth wrote: The further you get from the ideal case, the worse your margin of error gets. GW's ideal case is the twelve missions and six deployment charts that are approved for Matched Play. Deviating from those increases your margin of error. And since every measure is relative, that deviation is unequal across the vast range of things that have been given points. In other words, not only do the points become less and less accurate, the lack-of-accuracy is different for each unit, weapon, etc.
Yes, I agree that points may be less accurate outside of the official matched play missions, but that doesn't provide any evidence that power levels are more accurate. You can't just assume that a failure of points means that power levels must win by default, all of your criticism here applies just as much to power levels.
Of course, this is all assuming GW got some folks with strong backgrounds in statistics and quantitative analysis to derive their point values.
The wedge between casual and competitive has always been deep though. The online forum wars between the two sides has already passed to legend like in 2005.
While I disagree with his extremism, I find the pro-points arguments led by Peregrine to be a bit more logically sound than the pro-powerlevel arguments.
Even for someone who's relatively new to it, I can't really see why power level is somehow easier than points.
Judging by the really weird points values, I think they may have used an algorithm to price stuff, just like people who make homebrew units do. That's worrying, somehow.
auticus wrote:The wedge between casual and competitive has always been deep though. The online forum wars between the two sides has already passed to legend like in 2005.
I was there, the day that Competicus killed the Funperor.
Its like consoles vs PC's, one system is clearly superior in every way but console fanboys will deny the truth against all evidence.
Yeah consoles are easier to use but you'll be stuck at 30fps while the PC master race is on 120 with all settings on ultra a second screen playing a 4k movie as you pwn noobs on your fully programmable keyboard.
Personally, I don't have a problem with power levels per se; seems like a good way to jump in and get a game going without getting bogged down in the fine detail of list building. But having dug into it a bit, it's kind of all over the place. Was throwing some lists together this afternoon and the Ork/GSC lists were running at an average of ~16 pts/PL, whereas the Marine one was skating more around the 21 mark. So obviously there's something of a disparity there (to the tune of about 30% of your points, which is not insignificant). And then you've got things that cost the same amount of points having a 100% PL disparity when you compare their points (looking at you, Tankbustas and Lootas). So while I like the idea of PL in theory, having looked into the implementation I'm less keen.
Melissia wrote: While I disagree with his extremism, I find the pro-points arguments led by Peregrine to be a bit more logically sound than the pro-powerlevel arguments.
Even for someone who's relatively new to it, I can't really see why power level is somehow easier than points.
It's not really that it's easier, although it is; as well as faster. The main benefits of powerlevels over points are A) It reinforces the idea that the game you are playing is not meant to be taken seriously and B) offers a different meta than points.
Because let's be real, points do not, have not, will not ever equal balance. The ONLY thing points do is reduce variance between lists in terms of efficacy and dictate the metagame. Playing powerlevels offers a different metagame with (slightly) higher variance that will let players do something different if the points meta gets stale.
It's options and giving players MORE options is never a bad thing.
(Side note:All of the pro points arguments revolve around the assumption that points are more balanced than powerlevels because of the granularity. Do we know this is true? I mean it seems like it should be but have we actually done any significant testing?)
(Side note:All of the pro points arguments revolve around the assumption that points are more balanced than powerlevels because of the granularity. Do we know this is true? I mean it seems like it should be but have we actually done any significant testing?)
All fair points, but this in particular. It'll be interesting to see if enough people who are really into pushing the game hard enough to potentially break it look at power levels enough to see how this shakes out.
I was against power levels, and had many of the same ....reservations....that others mention here.
HOWEVER - after actually making lists and playing games (and reading a LOT more) - THEY ARE FINE.
in fact, they are awesome.
It radically shifts how you construct lists - you are more taking units that you want to take, as opposed to number crunching and worrying about and trying to maximize every little point.
I cannot stress this more : PLAY ACTUAL GAMES with them.
Trollsmyth wrote: The further you get from the ideal case, the worse your margin of error gets. GW's ideal case is the twelve missions and six deployment charts that are approved for Matched Play. Deviating from those increases your margin of error. And since every measure is relative, that deviation is unequal across the vast range of things that have been given points. In other words, not only do the points become less and less accurate, the lack-of-accuracy is different for each unit, weapon, etc.
Yes, I agree that points may be less accurate outside of the official matched play missions, but that doesn't provide any evidence that power levels are more accurate. You can't just assume that a failure of points means that power levels must win by default, all of your criticism here applies just as much to power levels.
Of course, this is all assuming GW got some folks with strong backgrounds in statistics and quantitative analysis to derive their point values.
This is almost certainly an incorrect assumption.
This seems like a good post to quote for a contention I've been thinking about making for the past few pages:
Points-based granularity is ideally-suited for balancing units. Keyword: <IDEALLY>
Power levels are potentially more PRACTICAL for producing balance (or the closest semblance we'll get).
If you accept that the designers aren't getting deep into the math to determine points (as you seem to) then isn't it completely possible that the ideal balance offered by points is being squandered and that the simplicity of power levels would actually produce a more balanced game?
Designing a point-based system requires thousands more decisions on the part of the designer, and therefore thousands more opportunities to get those points wrong. If you accept that hundreds of those thousands of decisions are made wrong then the overall amount of "bad balance" in the system seems to scale up much more aggressively than it would in the power level format.
For example, it seems unlikely that the power level of a unit would be off by more than one or two power points in either direction. Meanwhile, it seemed to be commonly accepted that some things in 7th edition were improperly costed by, like, 100 points or more. Disclaimer: I quit 7th after one game on release day, so my understanding may be flawed, but I feel like I've seen many arguments to that effect (ie. that the Wraithknight was at least 100 points undercosted).
100 points equates to 0.07% of "bad balance" in a 1500 point game.
2 power points of "bad balance" in a 75 power point list is only 0.03%
Furthermore, maxing out upgrades in power level games also seems to erode the effects of bad balance decisions in design. You're always paying for the best version of a unit instead of exposing yourself to design mistakes.
Lastly, assuming the designers aren't doing the math, it just seems way easier to balance small-integer costs (even if it's half-accidental).
ERJAK wrote: It's not really that it's easier, although it is; as well as faster.
It's actually harder and slower, given the lack of granularity in choices.
ERJAK wrote: The main benefits of powerlevels over points are A) It reinforces the idea that the game you are playing is not meant to be taken seriously
Compared to points, power levels takes options away, from my perspective.
ERJAK wrote: (Side note:All of the pro points arguments revolve around the assumption that points are more balanced than powerlevels because of the granularity. Do we know this is true? I mean it seems like it should be but have we actually done any significant testing?)
My arguments are about ease of use, honestly. I think points are easier to use than power levels, for the simple reason that it's easier to adjust points to meet a goal without changing which units you're bringing, than it is to adjust power levels without changing what units you're bringing.
But aside from that-- from my perspective, points actually are more balanced. Because each upgrade option is costed individually, you pay for them. This means factions like Sisters of Battle who have almost no upgrade options worth taking simply pay for those that are worth taking and then save points on not taking the rest. In power levels... upgrades aren't accounted for. A space marine captain with chainsword and bolt pistol is just as costly as a space marine captain with combiplasma and thunder hammer. This really adds up for armies that have lots of good upgrade options. And really hurts armies that don't. But points? These upgrade choices have a cost. You can argue the cost is too high, or too low. But they HAVE a cost. In power level, there is no cost.
tl;dr: If all upgrades were equally valuable, power levels might have an argument about balance. But they're NOT all equally powerful.
My arguments are about ease of use, honestly. I think points are easier to use than power levels, for the simple reason that it's easier to adjust points to meet a goal without changing which units you're bringing, than it is to adjust power levels without changing what units you're bringing.
I don't think you're being fair-minded/imaginative about what those goals might be, though.
For example, "I want to use at least two tactical squads with transports, one squad each of devastators and assault marines, and three tanks" is a perfectly legitimate goal, especially for a new player. With power points you can slap that list together in seconds and determine how many leftover points you have for other stuff, and everything will be maximally efficient. With traditional points you might calculate the cost of fully-upgraded versions of your core units, then see you have 167 points leftover, and maybe there's a 184 HQ you could include, but then you'd have to drop some tacticals, etc.
And this last bit is 100% personal aesthetics, but I'm excited that power points will be able to produce a table full of loaded squads. I'm sick of the rag-tag min-maxed vibe. It has it's place, but there will still be something cool about seeing full-size squads with all the weapons options filled.
Altruizine wrote: For example, "I want to use at least two tactical squads with transports, one squad each of devastators and assault marines, and three tanks" is a perfectly legitimate goal, especially for a new player. With power points you can slap that list together in seconds
Unless that list exceeds the agreed upon powerlevel points. In which case they can't. Because unlike points, powerlevel doesn't adjust easily to small changes.
ERJAK wrote: It's not really that it's easier, although it is; as well as faster.
It's actually harder and slower, given the lack of granularity in choices.
ERJAK wrote: The main benefits of powerlevels over points are A) It reinforces the idea that the game you are playing is not meant to be taken seriously
Compared to points, power levels takes options away, from my perspective.
ERJAK wrote: (Side note:All of the pro points arguments revolve around the assumption that points are more balanced than powerlevels because of the granularity. Do we know this is true? I mean it seems like it should be but have we actually done any significant testing?)
My arguments are about ease of use, honestly. I think points are easier to use than power levels, for the simple reason that it's easier to adjust points to meet a goal without changing which units you're bringing, than it is to adjust power levels without changing what units you're bringing.
But aside from that-- from my perspective, points actually are more balanced. Because each upgrade option is costed individually, you pay for them. This means factions like Sisters of Battle who have almost no upgrade options worth taking simply pay for those that are worth taking and then save points on not taking the rest. In power levels... upgrades aren't accounted for. A space marine captain with chainsword and bolt pistol is just as costly as a space marine captain with combiplasma and thunder hammer. This really adds up for armies that have lots of good upgrade options. And really hurts armies that don't. But points? These upgrade choices have a cost. You can argue the cost is too high, or too low. But they HAVE a cost. In power level, there is no cost.
tl;dr: If all upgrades were equally valuable, power levels might have an argument about balance. But they're NOT all equally powerful.
Your 'perspective' means doggak without actual relevant play experience to back it up. You would honestly be more convincing if you said a gypsy woman told you points were more balanced. At least then I'd be getting the opinion of someone who has a chance of knowing what they're talking about.
But as for the rest of the tripe lets just take it one by one shall we? 1. You're completely making stuff up here, powerlevel list take 20seconds to do points take a few minutes. Not a huge difference but obviously in favor of powerlevels. 2. No one cares if you use power levels or not really. 3. Different is different, if it's something you're looking for it's good, if it's not, meh doesn't matter. Some people will be looking for it though so good for them. 4. Powerlevels can't possibly take anything away from points because they're totally different systems. What, are you worried that powerlevels will rise up off the book and force you to play them like a people puppet or are you just deliberately missing the point to be unpleasant?
And to cap it all off, points do not, will not, have not ever made a balanced game. Even warmachine, a game whose only purpose for even existing is balance, still has units and options that are significantly better or worse than others. Points create META and that is all they do.
Well, if you're going to be rude and obnoxious, I'm just gonna block you. I'm not in the mood for more confrontational nonsense, literally saying "your opinion is worth dog droppings" because I disagree with you. Christ, man, this is a freaking dice game about moving plastic soldiers around a four foot by four foot board. Calm the feth down!
It radically shifts how you construct lists - you are more taking units that you want to take, as opposed to number crunching and worrying about and trying to maximize every little point.
I don't see that, honestly.
When a system allows you to take options for free, the end result is going to be that there is no logical reason to not take the best available options. That doesn't encourage taking the units you want to take (certainly not as well as a reasonably balanced points system would)... it just encourages taking the most powerful available options.
It radically shifts how you construct lists - you are more taking units that you want to take, as opposed to number crunching and worrying about and trying to maximize every little point.
I don't see that, honestly.
When a system allows you to take options for free, the end result is going to be that there is no logical reason to not take the best available options. That doesn't encourage taking the units you want to take (certainly not as well as a reasonably balanced points system would)... it just encourages taking the most powerful available options.
How many concepts have you tossed out the window because they cost to many points that might be fun to do. Has you even seen anyone ever take a Shrike List with his Fluffy Vanguard Body Guard with Paired Lighting Claws and Jump Packs? I did once (Using Proxies of course) and found them to be quite effective, though a huge points sink. Most people would just look at the points and just say no, because either they were 'To Expensive To Use' or you would not spend the day hearing people say 'How Cool' it was, but 'How Could You Waist Points Like That'.
I have had people call me a Scrub for playing what I want to play. Power Levels take some of the Stigma away from just playing what you want, good or bad.
Anpu42 wrote: How many concepts have you tossed out the window because they cost to many points that might be fun to do.
Honestly? None. But I have had to adjust my list to match. Granted, I also play three armies that don't have many options to customize characters to begin with-- which is exactly the kind of army that would be hurt the most by not having to pay points for upgrades.
Yours isn't a good argument for power levels being more balanced, however. The only way having zero cost for upgrades is balanced, is if upgrades are equally valuable.
If a barebones Space Marine captain with chainsword and bolt pistol is worse off than a Space Marine captain with a relic power sword of killingyouness, a forcefield of invincibility, and a combiweapon of blastingyourfaceoff-- all while both options cost the exact same-- then quite odd to argue it's balanced. What's your definition of balance?
Anpu42 wrote: How many concepts have you tossed out the window because they cost to many points that might be fun to do.
Honestly? None. But I have had to adjust my list to match. Granted, I also play three armies that don't have many options to customize characters to begin with-- which is exactly the kind of army that would be hurt the most by not having to pay points for upgrades.
Yours isn't a good argument for power levels being more balanced, however. The only way having zero cost for upgrades is balanced, is if upgrades are equally valuable.
If a barebones Space Marine captain with chainsword and bolt pistol is worse off than a Space Marine captain with a relic power sword of killingyouness, a forcefield of invincibility, and a combiweapon of blastingyourfaceoff-- all while both options cost the exact same-- then quite odd to argue it's balanced. What's your definition of balance?
I am not arguing they are more balanced or less balanced or anything like that.
What power Lets let you do is just play what you want and have an idea of how close the armies Might Be. There are many of us out there that like that idea. Yes some people will just take everything they can and I see nothing wrong with that.
I also have no problems with the Points/Matched Play crowd, I fact I hope everyone who plays that way has a great time. How ever even under Points you will still have WAAC and TFG showing up. Point will not stop that and never will.
With Power Levels, we know that is what is going to happen and accept that and moved on. From what I can see us PLP (Power Level People) will have WAAC/TFG showing up from day one. However seeing that most of us PLP are causal players who just want to have fun WAAC/TFG will probably just leave and go back to points.
I know this might seem offensive to some how I am putting this, I don't mean to. But if you look back it is the same pattern just about every time. Someone says they like Power Levels and then the a number of post saying how bad they are and even calling us 'To Stupid' to be able to deal with Points. Again sorry for seeming Whiny, but we want to have fun like you and it seems many can not be happy unless...well we conform. And yes I know this is the internet...
It radically shifts how you construct lists - you are more taking units that you want to take, as opposed to number crunching and worrying about and trying to maximize every little point.
I don't see that, honestly.
When a system allows you to take options for free, the end result is going to be that there is no logical reason to not take the best available options. That doesn't encourage taking the units you want to take (certainly not as well as a reasonably balanced points system would)... it just encourages taking the most powerful available options.
Have you done it? Have you actually made the lists and played the game with power levels?
No?
The end result is you are taking the units configured in ways you want to explore - to see what works best, or with your playstyle.
The new system is brilliant - so many upgrades don't always have a better weapon (some do) - most are just...different.
With power levels, you just take the unit - you can figure out the wargear when you are unpacking the army.
"hmmm....you know, I usually don't take that...why don't I".
Yes, if a player is the WAACC type, sure, maybe they will 100% of the time take the maxed unit (not always an obvious choice) - but if they have any creativity - they will recognize the freedom to explore the options.
And finally - gw has said repeatedly, the power levels are based upon taking upgrades.
Our definition doesn't matter. Dakka's concept of balance is alien to GW. And they have a proven track record of failing to understand it. GW's definition is; a close enough game to have a laugh with a mate. Power Levels might work better simply because it matches GW's mind set better. The rough point values in AoS work like that and I think for the most part they work well.
I would like to point out that my statement that people only take bare bones units in order to shoehorn more points efficient models into their army has not been invalidated.
Also, taking the most expensive upgrades on a unit because they are free will leave you at a severe tactical disadvantage. A lascannon will do you very little compared to a heavy bolter when fighting Tyranids. A grav gun will not do much against guardsmen compared to a plasma gun. Power levels provide incentive for you to take what you think you'll need in the game, not simply choose the most cost effective option.
Hell, choosing a bare bones unit has a tactical advantage of its own. If all you want the unit to do is screen you from enemies, then a lack of gear would make your opponent not want to shoot at them because the other units provide more of a threat.
That option is purely a tactical one. It has less to do with ensuring a points efficient list and more to do with building your list towards a tactical goal on the tabletop. Anyone who is just maxing out regular points in a powerlevel list is actually putting themselves at a disadvantage, not creating an imbalance.
Load up on multimelta and grav guns in every unit, enjoy losing most games against a list built towards synergy with an eye towards possible threat occurrence.
If a barebones Space Marine captain with chainsword and bolt pistol is worse off than a Space Marine captain with a relic power sword of killingyouness, a forcefield of invincibility, and a combiweapon of blastingyourfaceoff-- all while both options cost the exact same-- then quite odd to argue it's balanced. What's your definition of balance?
It's really easy to prove that neither points nor power levels are perfectly balanced. Yes, these two captains have the same PL and one is obviously better. There are also several threads in this forum talking anout all the units and options that are under or over priced. Look at Dire Avengers, Razorbacks, or Ork ranged weapons. The points are a mess.
So when there are plenty of counter examples proving neither system is balanced, how should we choose? You could try to evaluate which is more or less balanced. One system just having more numbers than the other doesn't mean much to me.
I'd like to see the worst abuses. What does an efficient PL list look like? An efficient points list?
My opinion is that efficient PL lists will be more obvious. If you want a better PL army, take relic blades instead of chainswords, plasma pistols instead of bolt pistols, etc. Sure, it's possible to make a weaker list, but as long as it is obvious how to make a strong list, actual games are more likely to be between strong lists, and they might even be balanced. If you have to leave your plain captain home, it's a small loss. There's still a xhance 100 PL of Space Marines grinds 100 PL of Orks into the ground. I don't believe everyone will be equal.
Points are going to take more work to min/max. This is the real list building cost, not arithmetic. Net lists don't just materialize out of the Warp. Once the meta game settles in, how much balance will matched play have? Who wants to bet that matched play won't result in over half the models being useless in a short amount of time? That half the armies won't be trash tier? Will more armies be viable with points, or with PL? Do you think that there won't be tons of list-building traps for people to accidentally give themselves huge handicaps? Will the traps be more avoidable with points, or with PL?
I have absolutely no confidence in that second system resulting in more balanced than the first one. I've played games with granular points all my life. A handful of them felt balanced. I don't see how PL could possibly be worse.
But hey, I understand, if it's really obvious how to make a powerful PL army, you don't get to feel superior to your opponent for winning in the list-building stage. For this reason, I can see the appeal of points.
That sounds like a very long-winded way to distract from the simple fact-- and no matter how much people scream "BUT EXPERIENCE!", it remains a fact, not an opinion-- that power levels still don't take in to account most upgrades on units.
Whatever you might complain about the points system, at least it takes upgrades in to account. That's seriously not something that should just be handwaved away, it is, to me, the primary drawback of the powerlevel system.
Simply put, a system that takes upgrades in to account, even if it does so poorly, is to me still better than one that does not. Unit upgrades often make or break a unit's ability to be strong and competitive.
Melissia wrote: That sounds like a very long-winded way to distract from the simple fact-- and no matter how much people scream "BUT EXPERIENCE!", it remains a fact, not an opinion-- that power levels still don't take in to account most upgrades on units.
Whatever you might complain about the points system, at least it takes upgrades in to account. That's seriously not something that should just be handwaved away, it is, to me, the primary drawback of the powerlevel system.
Simply put, a system that takes upgrades in to account, even if it does so poorly, is to me still better than one that does not. Unit upgrades often make or break a unit's ability to be strong and competitive.
Games workshop said specifically that the power level is based on an average in regards to gear options and upgrades. It gives you a general sense of how capable the unit is on the table.
It does NOT ignore upgrades, it just assumed you will choose a variety of options among your units to ensure your army can handle whatever your opponent brings to the table.
Also, taking the most expensive upgrades on a unit because they are free will leave you at a severe tactical disadvantage
There are no expensive upgrades in a system that doesn't charge for upgrades...
Taking the most powerful options doesn't mean just spamming a single upgrade, unless it's an upgrade that is particularly outstanding regardless of what you're facing.
The thing is, in a points based system, you can take your experimental army and have it be at least theoretically viable because the points are the balancer. Want to take an army of all Tactical Squads with flamers and missile launchers? In a points based set up this will be matched against something of a more or less even power level (assuming, of course, that the points system had been made relatively balanced).
Remove the points, and you wind up at a disadvantage against an identical army that chose more upgrades.
Power levels don't make a more level playing field, and they're not going to encourage diversity. They'll encourage people to spam the most powerful options, because there's no reason not to, as there is with points.
Except those marines' power level includes some of their upgrades in the total. When you see a marine unit, you don't need to know how much the missile launchers costs. You just need to have a gauge of how much impact the unit will have on the battlefield.
So whether it's an army of Leman Russ tanks, an army of tactical Marines or an army of imperial knights, they will have about the same capability to inflict harm and survive so long as they took some options they have available because their overall power level in the game has been measured.
Yes, that's exactly the problem. A marine force with minimal upgrades, or less effective upgrades is therefore at a disadvantage against a better-equipped but otherwise identical marine force in a way that they wouldn't be in a points-based game, because the better-equipped force would in that case be smaller to compensate for their better gear.
So whether it's an army of Leman Russ tanks, an army of tactical Marines or an army of imperial knights, they will have about the same capability to inflict harm and survive so long as they took some options they have available because their overall power level in the game has been measured.
Right. So the power level system isn't encouraging you to use something 'different'... it's encouraging you to use builds that make the most of their free upgrades in order to avoid being handicapped.
Or, rather, it may be encouraging you to do something different, but only if that 'different' thing you want to do is build armies comprised of squads with every available upgrade. Which you could already do in a points-based system...
Power levels don't make a more level playing field, and they're not going to encourage diversity. They'll encourage people to spam the most powerful options, because there's no reason not to, as there is with points.
If power levels are really for narrative campaign games, then I don't see this as an issue, as the "why would I never do this" crowd tend to be competitive, not narrative campaign players.
So, after getting rid of "free points formation", free point are back in the form of power levels...
Because either you fill all the slots and you get free points, or you don't, and you give them to your opponent!
I don't understand why GW didn't put the point cost on the units datasheet. This would allow them to give each upgrade a cost based on the squad, and not in a vacuum. And they did the total opposite...
And power levels are not needed for "Narrative play" because either :
* You play an historical scenario : forces are well defined and you don't even need points!
* You play a custom narrative scenario (like escorting a VIP, defending a bridge, ...) : points are necessary, even if one side have less points than the other; the scenario win condition should be balanced around the points difference.
* You don't care at all, and power levels are no more useful than points...
As I said before, people take upgrades they think are cool. Spamming is a horrible idea because weapons have definitive targets now as opposed to one being good at anything.
Points do nothing to offset the obvious and impossible to overcome situations of pure mechanical incompatibility between certain matchups. What power level does is give a general idea of a units capacity to affect the game and allow the player to simply choose whatever they think is cool.
No spam, no scrounging for points to get more upgrades, no need to try and minmax unit for the most power possible. Power levels say "lascannon upgrade is cool, but may not have line of sight, heavy flamer is great up close, but you could end up on planet bowling ball. Average out their total effectiveness and apply that to power level."
The idea that a point system with more granularity will be a more accurate representation of capability on the table could only be true if you received points back if your opponent fielded units that weren't an efficient target and you got points back based on range dependent on terrain saturation.
Barring that, points will never EVER be granular enough to represent what the units and upgrades mean on the table. Powerlevel allows you to field a generalised army list without the feeling of wasting points on things that won't do well.
You have a heavy flamer on one squad, a lascannon on the other. Neither costed more than the other so if you end up in an bad situation for one there isn't any real drawback for having chosen it.
I have enjoyed using power level far more than I expected. After 4 games against 4 different armies and 4 different opponents the games felt balanced and we didn't have to hunt all over for what costs what or be confused on if you pay for standard gear or not (you do). This is not what I expected and I see myself using power levels unless it's for a tournament.
Wow, I need to get the Internet working at my house again. Come in to work, and I have missed on a lot over the weekend!
*reads posts*
Okay, maybe I missed a lot of content, but nothing new was really said. Here we go...
Actinium wrote: I don't like that power levels imply a friendly more low key system but it's really just as, if not more, abusable than points are.
Abuse of a game system is a problem of the players, not the system. Just because players CAN get away with something, doesn't mean that they SHOULD, you know? The Formations of 7th Edition were broken, but they could have been banned by the tournament organizers or not used by the players.
Actinium wrote: And I super incredibly hate that this splits the player base, that i can be at a FLG and have a kid ask me if I have a 70 power army to play with him, and that now i have to do the extra leg work of either trying to help him make a pointed list or myself a powered list that is fairly matched to his or worse need to explain that i'm not really interested in power level games and have to turn him away.
I'd like to feel ambivalently about power level for people that want to use it but it is actively hurting my hobby experience more than it is helping it.
Because something new and different has come out, and some people don't like new and different. I am willing to accept that there are new ways to play the game, and you seem to be as well. Don't contribute to the schism, and help keep the hobby a pleasant experience for everyone.
Peregrine wrote: Like I said, the main appeal of power level is proving a point about how superior you are for using it, not anything to do with it being a functioning system that is better than the alternative.
No, it isn't. One post from one user is not indicative of the mindset of many people. The appeal of Power Level is that it is an additional way to build army lists that is more simple and abstract, and can cater to more gamers than those used to using traditional Points.
Again, no one complained that the less granular Points system in Warmahordes Mark 2, and that community hailed that game as "super balanced".
Peregrine wrote: Every single Apocalypse game I've played has been a tedious slog, even when the organizers were enforcing timed phases instead of letting a single phase take an hour or more. The table is too packed with models for movement to matter (other than the occasional charge directly forward across the neutral space), there's seldom any objective beyond "kill some stuff", and all you do is roll dice back and forth until the game ends. It's kind of fun to see the spectacle of that many models on the table at once, but as a game Apocalypse sucks.
Then you need to try a different approach to Apocalypse, like having some sort of story-driven objective for each army or team, and have a mission set up that encourages different armies. My best gaming experiences were in some Apocalypse-sized Narrative games, and not a single Super-heavy was brought to them (it was basically a whole bunch of regular sized armies, so plenty of Troops and HQs on the field).
Peregrine wrote: You do the exact same thing with the less-accurate point system. You still have to evaluate which upgrades you want to take. You still have to evaluate which units are powerful enough for their point cost to be justifiable. Taking sponsons on your LRBT may not deny the opportunity to take melta vets, but you'd better correctly identify the optimal sponson choice or your LRBT is going to be paying too many points for its guns. Having to add up the point cost of your upgrade choices is trivial once you reach the level of understanding of the game required to identify the correct upgrade choices, even under the assumption that all upgrades cost zero points.
And if we are just playing for fun and not in a competitive scenario, then why is this a problem?
Peregrine wrote: If upgrades cost points they're going to make the wrong choice because they don't understand. If all upgrades are free they're going to make the correct choice because it's no longer legal to take the LRBT without sponsons, but they're still not going to understand which sponsons are best or why they are mandatory.
You sound just like some of the super-competitive tournament players in my local area. Now I understand your unwillingness to accept a new idea and something different from the traditional standard that has been in place for so long. Something new a different has come in, and it doesn't completely mesh with your vision on what 40KSHOULD be. But it meshes with us, and you continue to deride and criticize us?
Why do you keep making this argument? You want something different from the game than those of us who do support Power Levels, and bear in mind that us Power Level users don't dislike points. We aren't saying the same things about Points that you are about Power Levels.
Peregrine wrote: Using a less-accurate point system doesn't make it any easier for the newbie to identify that LRBTs are worse than Hellhounds no matter how you equip the LRBTs.
Emperor forbid we play with a model because we like its aesthetics or fluff...
hobojebus wrote: Its like consoles vs PC's, one system is clearly superior in every way but console fanboys will deny the truth against all evidence.
Yeah consoles are easier to use but you'll be stuck at 30fps while the PC master race is on 120 with all settings on ultra a second screen playing a 4k movie as you pwn noobs on your fully programmable keyboard.
I am reminded of when Nintendo came out with the Wii back in the day, and so many "traditional" gamers were upset that Nintendo was advertising to and developing games for non-gaming adults with their simple, abstracted games that would appeal to larger audiences, including *GASP* kids!
Melissia wrote: While I disagree with his extremism, I find the pro-points arguments led by Peregrine to be a bit more logically sound than the pro-powerlevel arguments.
Even for someone who's relatively new to it, I can't really see why power level is somehow easier than points.
It's not really that it's easier, although it is; as well as faster. The main benefits of powerlevels over points are A) It reinforces the idea that the game you are playing is not meant to be taken seriously and B) offers a different meta than points.
Because let's be real, points do not, have not, will not ever equal balance. The ONLY thing points do is reduce variance between lists in terms of efficacy and dictate the metagame. Playing powerlevels offers a different metagame with (slightly) higher variance that will let players do something different if the points meta gets stale.
It's options and giving players MORE options is never a bad thing.
(Side note:All of the pro points arguments revolve around the assumption that points are more balanced than powerlevels because of the granularity. Do we know this is true? I mean it seems like it should be but have we actually done any significant testing?)
Exactly, it's more options for players. I don't understand why it is so upsetting to some of the posters that having this additional option is a bad thing. Power Levels are not better or worse for making a list and playing the game, especially in a non-competitive environment with friends and non-powergamers.
And to your side note, Warmahordes had much less granular points in its Mark 2 rules, and no one in the community was saying anything about the game being not balanced at any point. Some individual units were over or undercosted, but that came after that edition was around for several years and PP started to release new models with better rules in order to drive sales (which the community also said PP never did, at least to potential converts from GW games).
Compared to points, power levels takes options away, from my perspective.
ERJAK wrote: (Side note:All of the pro points arguments revolve around the assumption that points are more balanced than powerlevels because of the granularity. Do we know this is true? I mean it seems like it should be but have we actually done any significant testing?)
My arguments are about ease of use, honestly. I think points are easier to use than power levels, for the simple reason that it's easier to adjust points to meet a goal without changing which units you're bringing, than it is to adjust power levels without changing what units you're bringing.
It is not empirically a better system, and not one is saying that. What us Power Level supporters are saying is that Power Levels are good enough for us to play our games, because we do not have any interest in "optimizing" our armies, or "finding the most powerful and efficient" units to play our games. We want something different out of the game, and have been wanting it for a long time. Power Levels give another option on HOW TO PLAY THE GAME, and is different from Points, at least in attitude of desired game experience.
I quit playing 40K twice before, at least in trying to find pickup games or tournaments, and both times was because of the tournament players. Not the game, but the PLAYERS, and a handful of them anyways. Even when I had the time to spend hours painting models, hundreds of dollars on new units, and nights and days at my local shops for games, I began to refuse playing with certain players, because I never had a good game with them - the games became a chore to play, not at all fun, as I had every thing I did questioned but no explanation freely given for what they did, or just being steamrolled consistently against these players, or the time I was criticized for not bringing an optimal list to a non-competitive event when the point was not being optimal. The local WAAC players do not consider the values and playstyles of their opponents, only their clique of powergamers that focus on playing the hardest, most competitive lists possible to go to the national tournaments and win games. And you know what? That is fine. This is a game of small soldiers that are being moved around a board with dice being rolled to see what happens. They want a different game than I do, and that is okay.
I will not criticize those WAAC players ever again, because it's not worth it. When I have to deal with some TRULY HORRIBLE people on a regular basis, to the point that I am emotionally drained in dealing with them and have no mood to do anything fun again, I gained perspective that this is just a game. In the grand scheme of things, moving little plastic figures around doesn't have as much significance when you have to console your bawling and screaming in sadness wife and step-daughter about the uncontrollable things going on in our life right now.
Some players want a different kind of game than others. Last I checked, having different ideas on how to do things is encouraged and tends to be viewed as a good thing in the world.
I mean, in the original version of Warhammer 40K, there was a GM to oversee the game, wasn't there? Or have I been misreading all the discussion posts over the past 7 years of being a hobby member? Sounds like a Narrative Game to me.
And to your side note, Warmahordes had much less granular points in its Mark 2 rules, and no one in the community was saying anything about the game being not balanced at any point. Some individual units were over or undercosted, but that came after that edition was around for several years and PP started to release new models with better rules in order to drive sales (which the community also said PP never did, at least to potential converts from GW games).
Side note to your side note to original side note :
Balance in Warmachines/Hordes work with a less granular point system because there is no gear selection! Warjack configurations are fixed, and each one get a different point value, even the ones based on the same chassis.
I really see power levels as a "Casual at all cost" option, that shift the blame of lack of balancing on the players... And I expect more than "good enough" from a company that claims to be the leader of miniature wargaming...
Plenty of people used to complain about the lack of granularity in Warmahordes MK2. It was a regular thing on the forums for people to say that something was a 'half-point' overcosted, and that points should be doubled to allow for this.
Powerlevels make no sense compared to points (to me).
They would have made sense if powerlevels had assigned loadouts-as it is, they do nothing to encourage 'casual' play beyond the simplified addition-and that's not a big enough consideration to warrant the seesaw of balance you get from powerlevels.
Power level is for like minded people to play each other without having to stress over wargear points. They even say that in the description. Matched play is what you need points for if you want to play random people or tournaments. Both are fine for what they are intended for. I suggest every player try a few games with power level and see how the game feels, I think you'll be surprised. I know I was.
Brotherjanus wrote: Power level is for like minded people to play each other without having to stress over wargear points. They even say that in the description. Matched play is what you need points for if you want to play random people or tournaments. Both are fine for what they are intended for. I suggest every player try a few games with power level and see how the game feels, I think you'll be surprised. I know I was.
This exactly. Try it before you decide if it is for you or not.
I do a lot of RPGs and I used to think I could tell what was good and what is not. When 4th Edition D&D came out and I loved it, but most of my group was dead set against it. One day I found myself saying 'How Would you Know, You have not even tried it?'
So we did and after a summer campaign about half the group found they like it and the other half did not. Now most of the ones who did not like it spent the whole time trying to come up with reasons why is 'Sucked' rather than sitting back and trying to enjoy the game, their loss in my opinion. I don't play with them any more and I have moved to 5th Edition, but I found people who like to play similar to me and am having a better gaming experience than I have had in year.
Anyways, what it came down to is I will no longer judge a game without at least trying it first. I also try to keep and open mind. I tried Fate even though I did not like how it worked. I found I could get exactly what I was looking for using with Iron Claw or Shadowrun 5 and did not have to teach my group a whole new set of rules.
And to your side note, Warmahordes had much less granular points in its Mark 2 rules, and no one in the community was saying anything about the game being not balanced at any point. Some individual units were over or undercosted, but that came after that edition was around for several years and PP started to release new models with better rules in order to drive sales (which the community also said PP never did, at least to potential converts from GW games).
Side note to your side note to original side note :
Balance in Warmachines/Hordes work with a less granular point system because there is no gear selection! Warjack configurations are fixed, and each one get a different point value, even the ones based on the same chassis.
Fair point on the wargear options. Though the lack of customization amongst the units and war-nouns was always something that bugged me. Kind of like in competitive 40K though, where you are expected to bring certain units with certain equipment if you wanted to have a decent chance at winning against the strongest tournament lists.
Brotherjanus wrote: Power level is for like minded people to play each other without having to stress over wargear points. They even say that in the description. Matched play is what you need points for if you want to play random people or tournaments. Both are fine for what they are intended for. I suggest every player try a few games with power level and see how the game feels, I think you'll be surprised. I know I was.
And this statement needs to be perpetuated. Not everyone wants to play competitively in tournaments.
Brotherjanus wrote: Power level is for like minded people to play each other without having to stress over wargear points. They even say that in the description. Matched play is what you need points for if you want to play random people or tournaments. Both are fine for what they are intended for. I suggest every player try a few games with power level and see how the game feels, I think you'll be surprised. I know I was.
And this statement needs to be perpetuated. Not everyone wants to play competitively in tournaments.
I went out to the local shop to play a few games of 8th edition with my good friend.
A guy who hangs out there asked if we'd like to play a 2v1 game, to which we agreed. Now, I looked at some of the leaks, but i haven't been able to make it out there, so i really didn't know the point totals of units. I suggested that in order to get playing as fast as possible - since we're all still learning 8th edition - we limit ourselves to 1 patrol detachment each, and that we play with power. He would get 100 power, and we'd take 100 total power on our side.
He thrashed, and wailed, against power, but ultimately we convinced him that (a) we didn't know the points, and it would take us a lot of time to reference it, and we wanted to start playing right away to learn the rules, and (b) just don't kit everything out to abuse the system. He graciously acquiesced and we started our game. Knowing nothing about points or lists other than patrol we were done building these lists in 5 minutes.
It was Orks vs BA + GK.
BA: 48 power Scouts /w Sniper Rifles + Camo cloaks Asterath 10 death company, 2 power fists, chainswords + pistols A vindicator A baal predator with HB sponsons + Storm Bolter
GK: 52 power Lord Kaldor Draigo, Straight Boss and Coolest Dude 1 unit of GK terminators, with 1 daemon hammer on the Justy, and a psycannon. 1 land raider crusader, stock 1 nemesis dreadknight with fists + gatling psilencer and heavy psycannon.
Orks: 100 power too much to list, included 30 lootas, 10 tankbustas, 30 boyz, 2 defrollas carrying 20 boyz in 1 and 10 boyz and 10 tankbustas in another, a few HQs, 20 stormboyz. Nobz had power klaws, some other upgrades here and there. Maybe something else, I forget. it was a lot of modelz.
We did an alternating deployment. Because our side featured expensive vehicles (the land raider + Draigo were almost my entire army) with units inside of them, we finished deploying and got to go first, and he didn't seize.
It was a terrain heavy map, making line of sight a challenge against most things, all his units started in cover. The tanks rolled forward and unleashed a salvo of death upon the lootas; the combined fire of the land raider, the baal predator, and the NDK was enough to nearly decimate 2 squads of Lootas. The death company jumped forward and positioned themselves behind a large ruin, and the scouts attempted to snipe ICs with no effect.
The Orks first turn featured a lot of dice flying from the Lootas, slamming into the LRC, NDK, and the Baal Predator, some decent wounds; the Tank Busta transport rolled forward, and being open topped all of the TankBustas shot the LRC. Moving around another set of ruins, the second transport dropped its Boyz, who moved forward and WAAGH charged the NDK and the LRC, along with the Rollas. The TankBusta Rolla charged the LRC, the other charged the NDK.
Meanwhile, the StormBoyz elected to charge the scouts, rather than the baal predator. This proved to be an interesting choice. While it did grant a kill point, and it did protect his ICs, I felt it was the wrong move, considering the Baal Predator is now a points-efficient juggernaut of hatred and destruction in 8th edition.
The NDK barely survived with only 3 wounds remaining, and the Land Raider was degraded into the second tier. What saved the NDK was paying 2 command points to fight after other chargers had fought, and he killed a handful of Boyz and thus reduced their attack output by 25 dice. (20 boyz in a squad = +1 dice, 5 dead = 25 dice)
BAGK turn 2: Kaldor and his First Company dismounted the LRC, while the NDK withdrew from combat, making way for the Death Company to enter the fray; they jumped in between the NDK, Vindicator, and the Boyz + Rolla#1. The predator pivoted and made ready to fire into the stormboyz.
In the psychic phase, Kaldor Draigo recognized that his land raider was in an unwinnable fight against a Rolla that was hitting on 2s and had strength 8, with numerous attacks. So, he channeled his psychic might to Gate the Land Raider out of combat, and dropped it on the other side of the Rolla, blocking LOS from many of the Lootas from Kaldor's squad, and also freeing it from combat, while being in rapid fire range of EVERYTHING. Then, because purge soul is utter trash, he manifested smite with brilliant success, dealing 6 mortal wounds to the transport before him.
In the shooting phase, the Baal Predator put on its hardhat and did work against the Stormboyz. The Land Raider crusader, and the vindicator, were enough to destroy the Defrolla #2, forcing the TankBustas and Boyz to disembark.
Skipping ahead to the charge phase, the Blood Angels charged the surviving rolla + the first squad of boyz with Asterath in tow, the Land Raider charged the TankBustas, and Kaldor + his squad split charged the Boyz + the Tankbustas.
The first unit nominated was the pack of death company. They annihilated the remaining 15 Boyz, and utterly crippled the final Rolla. The Ork player nominated his squad of Boyz to fight next, paying command points to interrupt the charge. Despite rolling well, the Power Klaw was easily deflected by Kaldor's shield, and the remaining attacks were saved by the terminator squad.
It was at this point that Orks conceded, and BAGK were victorious.
In the post game, it was raised that in a points vs points game, this would have been more balanced, because Orks would have had more points.
So, we cracked open the store copy of the index and did the math. In the end, Orks had about 1750, whereas BAGK had about 1630. I do feel a lot of BA is undercosted for how good it is.
I'll say this. Power Levels are inherently less balanced than points, because they take less into consideration. Assuming the same level of balance of both, modified by how effective the systems are, points will always come out ahead.
However-for a game with as loose balance as 40k, Power Levels are probably just fine, and considering it's GW, there's every chance that both are badly balanced anyway.
I've said it before, I'll say it again-Imma be using points. But I don't really have an issue with Power Levels, in practice. In principle, I do, but once you consider real world factors, it's not a big deal.
Got a fourth game in today, this one using power levels again. Gotta say, I don't really care at the end of the day which one becomes normal for pick up games. Now that I've made a few lists with each system and used them though, here are my initial takeaways:
Power levels definitely encourage taking upgrades. In fact, they assume that you will take at least a few. This highlights to me both the strength and weakness of the system as-is.
Finally, you can take that plasma pistol and power fist combo you always wanted to! I know I'm not the only person who was always annoyed during 6th/7th with the way sergeant options were priced, and that trend continues to a lesser degree in 8th as well despite rule changes making it at least palatable. No more "I want to use that but it's just clearly overpriced in this situation". Which also leads me to the weakness of PL though.
In a strange twist, I've found it actually discourages many options and builds. With points, you have the ability to field say, 4 tanks that are a little barebones or 3 with all the bling. An extra squad of marines to contest objectives rather than extra upgrades on the 4 squads you already have, etc... if that's what you want to play, and those are the models you want to use. Rather than more cusomization, I think PL actually detracts from your ability to realistically customize your collection the way you want to.
The difference is negligible with some units, but huge with others. Tanks probably highlight it best. We used a bunch of predators and leman russes in our last game, and because of the way I had mine modeled most didn't have sponsons. Because of the way the new rules work in conjunction with the way PL is used with those units, there is a rather huge difference, essentially twice the firepower being thrown around. Using points, I would have been able to afford an extra unit or two, letting me use more of my collection with the trade off that my tanks were individually weaker than the Russes on the other side.
The bottom line for me is that I went from "what reason does this have to even exist?" To "hey, actually this is a good idea in theory, but badly executed".
BunkhouseBuster wrote: And this statement needs to be perpetuated. Not everyone wants to play competitively in tournaments.
Yeah. Funny enough there are people who don't give particular interest about being competive and just want to play so take the tournament as 5 day extra games against new players without any concern about whether you are playing competively or not.
As it is I'll be going to tournament next month(first time in like 2 years I think). Army will be decided probably previous night on the principle which units painting I'm most happy about!
dosiere wrote: In a strange twist, I've found it actually discourages many options and builds. With points, you have the ability to field say, 4 tanks that are a little barebones or 3 with all the bling. An extra squad of marines to contest objectives rather than extra upgrades on the 4 squads you already have, etc... if that's what you want to play, and those are the models you want to use. Rather than more cusomization, I think PL actually detracts from your ability to realistically customize your collection the way you want to.
I think that will depend on different things and Players
For me it will come in the Model Construction Phase (if you want to call it that)
I have always built my models bast on what I think is cool first. If I think that Wolf Lord looked cool with a Wolf Claw and a Thunder Hammer that is what I did. My Grey Knights are the same way, some were built with Flachons and other with the Halberd and other with the Great Sword. not because of their Effectiveness, but because I though they looked good that way.
I am also harder on myself with WYSIWYG so if I have a Thunder Hammer and a Storm Bolter on my Wolf Guard Terminator, that is what I have.
I know some have 20 Models for each Tactical Squad so they can Mix and Match depending on what he may face. I think he loves Power Levels because he can make sure he has the right tool for the job. I have seen him spend an hour going 'Do I take the Missile Launcher or the Las-Cannon, but what if I face a horde then I will need the Flamer and the Heavy Bolter, but what if there is a flyer on the board, I need the Missile Launcher, but what if...' This allows him to write a list make that quick last minute change removing all of the stress.
Yes I know some call this 'List Tailoring' and 'Cheating', but for us as we are there to just blow up we don't care.
I went out to the local shop to play a few games of 8th edition with my good friend.
Spoiler:
A guy who hangs out there asked if we'd like to play a 2v1 game, to which we agreed. Now, I looked at some of the leaks, but i haven't been able to make it out there, so i really didn't know the point totals of units. I suggested that in order to get playing as fast as possible - since we're all still learning 8th edition - we limit ourselves to 1 patrol detachment each, and that we play with power. He would get 100 power, and we'd take 100 total power on our side.
He thrashed, and wailed, against power, but ultimately we convinced him that (a) we didn't know the points, and it would take us a lot of time to reference it, and we wanted to start playing right away to learn the rules, and (b) just don't kit everything out to abuse the system. He graciously acquiesced and we started our game. Knowing nothing about points or lists other than patrol we were done building these lists in 5 minutes.
It was Orks vs BA + GK.
BA: 48 power
Scouts /w Sniper Rifles + Camo cloaks
Asterath
10 death company, 2 power fists, chainswords + pistols
A vindicator
A baal predator with HB sponsons + Storm Bolter
GK: 52 power
Lord Kaldor Draigo, Straight Boss and Coolest Dude
1 unit of GK terminators, with 1 daemon hammer on the Justy, and a psycannon.
1 land raider crusader, stock
1 nemesis dreadknight with fists + gatling psilencer and heavy psycannon.
Orks: 100 power
too much to list, included 30 lootas, 10 tankbustas, 30 boyz, 2 defrollas carrying 20 boyz in 1 and 10 boyz and 10 tankbustas in another, a few HQs, 20 stormboyz. Nobz had power klaws, some other upgrades here and there. Maybe something else, I forget. it was a lot of modelz.
We did an alternating deployment. Because our side featured expensive vehicles (the land raider + Draigo were almost my entire army) with units inside of them, we finished deploying and got to go first, and he didn't seize.
It was a terrain heavy map, making line of sight a challenge against most things, all his units started in cover. The tanks rolled forward and unleashed a salvo of death upon the lootas; the combined fire of the land raider, the baal predator, and the NDK was enough to nearly decimate 2 squads of Lootas. The death company jumped forward and positioned themselves behind a large ruin, and the scouts attempted to snipe ICs with no effect.
The Orks first turn featured a lot of dice flying from the Lootas, slamming into the LRC, NDK, and the Baal Predator, some decent wounds; the Tank Busta transport rolled forward, and being open topped all of the TankBustas shot the LRC. Moving around another set of ruins, the second transport dropped its Boyz, who moved forward and WAAGH charged the NDK and the LRC, along with the Rollas. The TankBusta Rolla charged the LRC, the other charged the NDK.
Meanwhile, the StormBoyz elected to charge the scouts, rather than the baal predator. This proved to be an interesting choice. While it did grant a kill point, and it did protect his ICs, I felt it was the wrong move, considering the Baal Predator is now a points-efficient juggernaut of hatred and destruction in 8th edition.
The NDK barely survived with only 3 wounds remaining, and the Land Raider was degraded into the second tier. What saved the NDK was paying 2 command points to fight after other chargers had fought, and he killed a handful of Boyz and thus reduced their attack output by 25 dice. (20 boyz in a squad = +1 dice, 5 dead = 25 dice)
BAGK turn 2:
Kaldor and his First Company dismounted the LRC, while the NDK withdrew from combat, making way for the Death Company to enter the fray; they jumped in between the NDK, Vindicator, and the Boyz + Rolla#1. The predator pivoted and made ready to fire into the stormboyz.
In the psychic phase, Kaldor Draigo recognized that his land raider was in an unwinnable fight against a Rolla that was hitting on 2s and had strength 8, with numerous attacks. So, he channeled his psychic might to Gate the Land Raider out of combat, and dropped it on the other side of the Rolla, blocking LOS from many of the Lootas from Kaldor's squad, and also freeing it from combat, while being in rapid fire range of EVERYTHING. Then, because purge soul is utter trash, he manifested smite with brilliant success, dealing 6 mortal wounds to the transport before him.
In the shooting phase, the Baal Predator put on its hardhat and did work against the Stormboyz. The Land Raider crusader, and the vindicator, were enough to destroy the Defrolla #2, forcing the TankBustas and Boyz to disembark.
Skipping ahead to the charge phase, the Blood Angels charged the surviving rolla + the first squad of boyz with Asterath in tow, the Land Raider charged the TankBustas, and Kaldor + his squad split charged the Boyz + the Tankbustas.
The first unit nominated was the pack of death company. They annihilated the remaining 15 Boyz, and utterly crippled the final Rolla. The Ork player nominated his squad of Boyz to fight next, paying command points to interrupt the charge. Despite rolling well, the Power Klaw was easily deflected by Kaldor's shield, and the remaining attacks were saved by the terminator squad.
It was at this point that Orks conceded, and BAGK were victorious.
In the post game, it was raised that in a points vs points game, this would have been more balanced, because Orks would have had more points.
So, we cracked open the store copy of the index and did the math. In the end, Orks had about 1750, whereas BAGK had about 1630. I do feel a lot of BA is undercosted for how good it is.
Cool battle report! It will be a while before I can pick up my copies of everything, so I will be watching with eager eyes on how the game truly plays out.
JNAProductions wrote: But I don't really have an issue with Power Levels, in practice. In principle, I do, but once you consider real world factors, it's not a big deal.
Exactly! It's not a big deal! I'm still going to play with points at some time, I'm just not worrying about something that I don't have to worry about.
dosiere wrote: Got a fourth game in today, this one using power levels again. Gotta say, I don't really care at the end of the day which one becomes normal for pick up games. Now that I've made a few lists with each system and used them though, here are my initial takeaways:
Spoiler:
Power levels definitely encourage taking upgrades. In fact, they assume that you will take at least a few. This highlights to me both the strength and weakness of the system as-is.
Finally, you can take that plasma pistol and power fist combo you always wanted to! I know I'm not the only person who was always annoyed during 6th/7th with the way sergeant options were priced, and that trend continues to a lesser degree in 8th as well despite rule changes making it at least palatable. No more "I want to use that but it's just clearly overpriced in this situation". Which also leads me to the weakness of PL though.
In a strange twist, I've found it actually discourages many options and builds. With points, you have the ability to field say, 4 tanks that are a little barebones or 3 with all the bling. An extra squad of marines to contest objectives rather than extra upgrades on the 4 squads you already have, etc... if that's what you want to play, and those are the models you want to use. Rather than more cusomization, I think PL actually detracts from your ability to realistically customize your collection the way you want to.
The difference is negligible with some units, but huge with others. Tanks probably highlight it best. We used a bunch of predators and leman russes in our last game, and because of the way I had mine modeled most didn't have sponsons. Because of the way the new rules work in conjunction with the way PL is used with those units, there is a rather huge difference, essentially twice the firepower being thrown around. Using points, I would have been able to afford an extra unit or two, letting me use more of my collection with the trade off that my tanks were individually weaker than the Russes on the other side.
The bottom line for me is that I went from "what reason does this have to even exist?" To "hey, actually this is a good idea in theory, but badly executed".
Interesting points, and valid concerns. However, I find the potential benefits of the less granular Power Level system to be preferable to Points, for the exact example you listed of the Sergeant with Power Fist and Plasma Pistol. Yes, the lack of sponsons will hinder you somewhat in your latter example, but if you max out your infantry squads on upgrades, that's kind of the equating factor for Power Levels.
Power Levels don't detract from customizing your collection, but the mindset of bring-all-the-bling-because-you-can is what will affect your collection habits. I like that I won't be hindered now (or criticized) for taking sub-optimal load outs on my tanks, not only for the rules being different, but because those extra Heavy Bolters sponsons don't prevent me from taking those melee weapons for my Sergeants.
tneva82 wrote: As it is I'll be going to tournament next month(first time in like 2 years I think). Army will be decided probably previous night on the principle which units painting I'm most happy about!
Me too! I'm actually considering going to the next 40K tournament in my area, depending on how my local players handle the Edition change. I'm not a fan of some of the players, nor their WAAC mindset, but having every army at a level playing field is encouraging to me. And tournaments are about the only way I can justify to my family (and myself) an opportunity to dedicate a full day to Warhammer.
I may just break out my old Imperial Guard models that haven't been played in over 4 years.
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
So it doesn't take upgrades in to account.
And nothing you said changes this.
If you play WYSYWG, and you play both power level and points (as I do), you avoid this problem. Because I can't just add on upgrades, and my units are equipped with possible point savings taken into account.
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
So it doesn't take upgrades in to account.
And nothing you said changes this.
If you play WYSYWG, and you play both power level and points (as I do), you avoid this problem. Because I can't just add on upgrades, and my units are equipped with possible point savings taken into account.
Power is not compatible with certain gaming mentalities. This has been well established.
And to add on to the above, I would not let someone play outside WYSIWYG with power. If the goal of power is more of a casual, narrative based approach, you should have painted, WYSIWYG models (discounting well done conversions.) If i'm facing a grey hoard of proxies, then we're playing points, if we're playing at all.
The local store's league will be using power levels, but it's mostly because it's supposed to be a fun jump start event with the new edition coming out. I think we will move to points once the event is over.
dosiere wrote: To "hey, actually this is a good idea in theory, but badly executed".
This is about how I feel about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with abstracting the points further than "this weapon upgrade is worth 1/1000 of my army to me, while this weapon upgrade is worth 1/200 of my army." I think abstracting all costs to effective increments of 5 or so, and possibly a less-malleable system of unit quantities, would have worked out pretty favorably. I think that the 20 point increments used could have worked fine, if a bit abstracted. Where I have a problem is that most upgrades don't have a cost associated with them. Those sponsons could have cost 2 power, or w/e, and maybe giving your sergeant access to gear costs 1; heavy weapons cost you squad 1; etc. I find the lack of granularity far less of an issue than the lack of any associated price for most upgrades.
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
So it doesn't take upgrades in to account.
And nothing you said changes this.
Yes I can because if you have both in an army you will then have the average of points and be completely balanced.
Considering you should have the model built WYSIWYG, the less upgraded commander could just be there to hand out unit buffs. If you load him up with gear, you want him doing something and your opponent will want to kill him. If he just has a bolt gun and chainsword his whole job will be too march alongside his units and allow rerolls which will change you and your opponent's strategies.
If you pile on the upgrades and he never makes it into combat, they didn't matter. If you don't upgrade him and don't want him in combat, then he is still doing exactly what you want on the table. Meaning his area buffs will mean more since they are the primary reason you brought him and will play accordingly. Smashy face may give the same buff, but you don't want him sitting out the fight.
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
So it doesn't take upgrades in to account.
And nothing you said changes this.
If you play WYSYWG, and you play both power level and points (as I do), you avoid this problem. Because I can't just add on upgrades, and my units are equipped with possible point savings taken into account.
Power is not compatible with certain gaming mentalities. This has been well established.
And to add on to the above, I would not let someone play outside WYSIWYG with power. If the goal of power is more of a casual, narrative based approach, you should have painted, WYSIWYG models (discounting well done conversions.) If i'm facing a grey hoard of proxies, then we're playing points, if we're playing at all.
Me I'm fine with proxies and I recognize not everyone enjoys painting so I've never refused a grey horde.
Odd how a "competitive" player is more willing to accommodate others than the more casual narrative player don't you think.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Yes I can because if you have both in an army you will then have the average of points and be completely balanced.
Until you wind up facing the guy with the same two captains, but with both tooled up. Or both not tooled up at all.
Considering you should have the model built WYSIWYG, the less upgraded commander could just be there to hand out unit buffs. If you load him up with gear, you want him doing something and your opponent will want to kill him.
If you load him up with gear, does he stop conveying those same unit buffs?
If he just has a bolt gun and chainsword his whole job will be too march alongside his units and allow rerolls which will change you and your opponent's strategies.
If he has a whole bunch of gear, his job will still be to march alongside his units, because running characters around by themselves is how you lose them in the first round of shooting.
Elbows wrote: You're entitled to enjoy whatever the hell you enjoy. Painted, non-painted, competitive, non-competitive.
Just don't pretend to tell someone else what they should enjoy or how they should enjoy it (an overwhelming theme showing up in this thread).
Ah yes, but we still have to acknowledge our opponent's wants as well.
There are some compatibility things to improve the odds of getting a game or having a good one.
I am unsure anyone here would tell someone what they "should" enjoy,
It is a social game despite people inferring that gamers are socially awkward.
These various forms of play may further divide the players a bit.
I figure I would figure out both points values anyway for giggles.
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
So it doesn't take upgrades in to account.
And nothing you said changes this.
If you play WYSYWG, and you play both power level and points (as I do), you avoid this problem. Because I can't just add on upgrades, and my units are equipped with possible point savings taken into account.
Power is not compatible with certain gaming mentalities. This has been well established.
And to add on to the above, I would not let someone play outside WYSIWYG with power. If the goal of power is more of a casual, narrative based approach, you should have painted, WYSIWYG models (discounting well done conversions.) If i'm facing a grey hoard of proxies, then we're playing points, if we're playing at all.
Me I'm fine with proxies and I recognize not everyone enjoys painting so I've never refused a grey horde.
Odd how a "competitive" player is more willing to accommodate others than the more casual narrative player don't you think.
No, it's a different mindset.
The look of the models matters to me, and that's not a WAAC mentality. The setting matters. I don't play with coke can drop pods either.
In a competitive game i'm more willing to tolerate that kind of stuff because it's very clear what the goal is. In a narrative or casual game, you really don't have any place saying "these 10 chainswords are power swords, because i want to take advantage of power." I hope you understand the difference.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Yes I can because if you have both in an army you will then have the average of points and be completely balanced.
Until you wind up facing the guy with the same two captains, but with both tooled up. Or both not tooled up at all.
Considering you should have the model built WYSIWYG, the less upgraded commander could just be there to hand out unit buffs. If you load him up with gear, you want him doing something and your opponent will want to kill him.
If you load him up with gear, does he stop conveying those same unit buffs?
If he just has a bolt gun and chainsword his whole job will be too march alongside his units and allow rerolls which will change you and your opponent's strategies.
If he has a whole bunch of gear, his job will still be to march alongside his units, because running characters around by themselves is how you lose them in the first round of shooting.
And again, if you load him up with gear you will want him closer to the front in order to bring those weapons to bear, putting him in harm's way. If he spends the entire game encircled by other units and never attempting to close into melee all of his gear is useless and simply makes him a more appealing target for the enemy.
You aren't ever running them around by themselves, but taking a pile of weapons and defensive buffs on a character you don't plan on ever making it into combat is a waste of points, whereas power level doesn't care and you can field him for the buffs while still using the really cool model you made.
Power level let's you get a generalised descriptor of capability while allowing for more wiggle room in regards to capability.
Say the enemy has a way to hit you with a couple mortal wounds a turn, super character will die just s fast as Bob the commander. Now if the character in question had less upgrades, would the opponent still want to throw those wounds on him?
Choosing gear options in power level play is a tactical choices, not a mathematical one.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Yes I can because if you have both in an army you will then have the average of points and be completely balanced.
Until you wind up facing the guy with the same two captains, but with both tooled up. Or both not tooled up at all.
Considering you should have the model built WYSIWYG, the less upgraded commander could just be there to hand out unit buffs. If you load him up with gear, you want him doing something and your opponent will want to kill him.
If you load him up with gear, does he stop conveying those same unit buffs?
If he just has a bolt gun and chainsword his whole job will be too march alongside his units and allow rerolls which will change you and your opponent's strategies.
If he has a whole bunch of gear, his job will still be to march alongside his units, because running characters around by themselves is how you lose them in the first round of shooting.
And again, if you load him up with gear you will want him closer to the front in order to bring those weapons to bear, putting him in harm's way. If he spends the entire game encircled by other units and never attempting to close into melee all of his gear is useless and simply makes him a more appealing target for the enemy.
You aren't ever running them around by themselves, but taking a pile of weapons and defensive buffs on a character you don't plan on ever making it into combat is a waste of points, whereas power level doesn't care and you can field him for the buffs while still using the really cool model you made.
Power level let's you get a generalised descriptor of capability while allowing for more wiggle room in regards to capability.
Say the enemy has a way to hit you with a couple mortal wounds a turn, super character will die just s fast as Bob the commander. Now if the character in question had less upgrades, would the opponent still want to throw those wounds on him?
Choosing gear options in power level play is a tactical choices, not a mathematical one.
In short? Yes. He's not killing the captain because the captain is a CC threat, he's killing him because he has buffs to hand out.
You can make arguments that having OBJECTIVELY less powerful units is a good thing. You'd be wrong, but you can make them.
Now, you can make GOOD arguments that less highly pointed upgrades can still be better. Despite costing more, a lascannon isn't always better than a heavy bolter-such as when dealing with hordes.
But let's say you can have a model with a Storm Shield or without one, simply taken in addition to other things, rather than replacing something. If points are not an issue, when would it EVER be better to not take the Storm Shield?
hobojebus wrote: Odd how a "competitive" player is more willing to accommodate others than the more casual narrative player don't you think.
Funny. I see competive players wanting to get rid of power levels more than casuals are wanting point levels to be removed. So seems it's actually other way around. Competive players want to drill their way of play for others.
Choosing gear options in power level play is a tactical choices, not a mathematical one.
Choosing options in a points - based system is no less tactical. And both are mathematical... They just rely on different maths.
Sure, you can just field your character in a power level game with whatever options you happened to model on him. You can do the same in a points based game (I've been doing so in some of my armies since forever)... And in both cases it will potentially be an inefficient thing to do. The only difference is that in the latter it's using points that you could have used elsewhere, while in the former you're missing out on the full potential of the unit by not making him as powerful as possible.
In a points -based game, there will still be a reason to use bolt pistols on marine characters. In a power level game, there is never going to be any logical reason to not upgrade it to a better weapon, regardless of whether or not you intend to use it.
hobojebus wrote: Odd how a "competitive" player is more willing to accommodate others than the more casual narrative player don't you think.
Funny. I see competive players wanting to get rid of power levels more than casuals are wanting point levels to be removed. So seems it's actually other way around. Competive players want to drill their way of play for others.
Nope you've completely and utterly misunderstood the whole point of this thread we arnt forcing points on you we are trying to dispell the myth pl is a better system and you should use it over other options.
We want the best balance possible so everyone has fun and we don't have aos style steamroller games.
Its the narrative guys saying you must be painted, you must be WYSIWYG, you must not take every option or we'll banish you to only play with WAAC competitive guys.
People can play any mode they want but they shouldn't be pushing pl as if its better because it flat out isn't, good enough isn't good enough.
hobojebus wrote: People can play any mode they want but they shouldn't be pushing pl as if its better because it flat out isn't, good enough isn't good enough.
It is for some. But that's what competive players don't get. They think because they want to have as granular illusion of balance everybody wants it. But newsflash: They don't. Lots of people prefer power levels. There's no downside in having them. Except that competive players can't grasp the idea that somebody doesn't prefer their holy grail of points which still doesn't give you balance.
To all new points-in-every-game-are-better advocates in this thread, I'm still waiting for an answer to my initial question:
How exactly Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using points? Please be specific and read this scenario before you answer, because "exact ballance is always better" is simply not applicable in case of a game with assumed disparity and "endless wave" construction. And before someone answers with "so just bunch up some models and play without regards to any calculations" - in this case measuring total point/power level values of armies combined with model count give you exactly two pre-game informations: how big table do you need and how long this game may last. In 40K model count alone isn't usefaull at all, so I have to have at least rough estimate of army strenght. Power Levels are good enough at this task (and to stress a bit more clearly one aspect of Power Levels that many "points always" advocates are clearly unaware of - for narrative scenarios you don't have exact upper Power Level limits you have to fit in, it can be 48 vs 52 and the scenario takes care of that. It can even be like 71 vs 98 if you want different experience or accomodate for different players skill levels to give them similliarily challenging game). Terrain setup, first turn order and variable lenght rolls have more impact in this scenario than exact point ballance. This is clearly not a relative skill measuring scenario (although it still is/can be skill dependant experience and/or skill training excercise).
This question hangs unanswered for 10 pages of this thread now... So, anyone?
And to be crystal clear for those of you who get jumpy about "corrupting meta with Power Levels": I'm not, in any way whatsoever implying, at any point in any of my posts in this thread, that Power Levels are better (or equal) than points for typical Matched Play/Tournament purposes...
hobojebus wrote: People can play any mode they want but they shouldn't be pushing pl as if its better because it flat out isn't, good enough isn't good enough.
It is for some. But that's what competive players don't get. They think because they want to have as granular illusion of balance everybody wants it. But newsflash: They don't. Lots of people prefer power levels. There's no downside in having them. Except that competive players can't grasp the idea that somebody doesn't prefer their holy grail of points which still doesn't give you balance.
Asking for points is not to be competitive, it's to have a baseline for balancing... and power level are still points, they should help balancing, not saying a fully equipped character = naked character. At least, every equipment should cost PL (even if every thing cost 1PL, that still better than nothing).
I don't see myself as a competitive player, and I love narrative scenarios, but I hate when these scenarios are unfair. I will use "fair" and not "balanced", because I don't care if I have half the troops of my opponent, as long as I have a corresponding objective : trying to hold an army that is bigger than mine for 6 rounds can be a fair objective. If the attacker/defender always win, time to adjust the point difference, or the number of turns.
Taking a random army vs another random army is not narrative to me, it' being casual at at cost, and it's shifting the blame to the players(What?!? you took 2 fully equipped characters?!? that not how it is meant to played!)
I don't see myself as a competitive player, and I love narrative scenarios, but I hate when these scenarios are unfair. I will use "fair" and not "balanced", because I don't care if I have half the troops of my opponent, as long as I have a corresponding objective : trying to hold an army that is bigger than mine for 6 rounds can be a fair objective. If the attacker/defender always win, time to adjust the point difference, or the number of turns.
You can also adjust terrain setup, make a secondary objective, change deployment zones layout etc... Points are not "end all" way of ballancing such scenarios, they are quite bad at it really (speaking from experience standpoint of more than 50 such games during 7th ed). The fastest way to check if ballancing of such special scenarios is good enough is to play them more than once switching roles and paying close attention to crucial "turning points" rolls for post-game analysis. If such scenario always ends with an atacking side winning, then it is not armies construction method that is flawed. Designing such scenarios "armyproof enough" is a skill to master in it's own way.
nou wrote: How exactly Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using points?
You answered your own question by advocating the use of power levels, which are just a point system. The only difference between the two point systems is that one is less accurate than the other, and gains nothing in return for that reduced accuracy.
(and to stress a bit more clearly one aspect of Power Levels that many "points always" advocates are clearly unaware of - for narrative scenarios you don't have exact upper Power Level limits you have to fit in, it can be 48 vs 52 and the scenario takes care of that. It can even be like 71 vs 98 if you want different experience or accomodate for different players skill levels to give them similliarily challenging game)
This can be done just as easily with the more accurate point system.
Of course there's a downside. The less-accurate point system is wasted development time, time that could have been spent improving the rules elsewhere. There is no reason for it to exist, no advantage it offers, and GW should not waste a minute of development time on it.
And, aside from the wasted time factor, claiming that the less-accurate point system doesn't cost anything is hardly a compelling defense of it. It's still trash and terrible game design even if it doesn't add any cost to the final product. There are a great many things GW could add to the rules with the same minimal downside, and accomplish nothing by doing so except increasing the page count of the rules. And none of them belong in a well-written game.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Yes I can because if you have both in an army you will then have the average of points and be completely balanced.
Until you wind up facing the guy with the same two captains, but with both tooled up. Or both not tooled up at all.
Considering you should have the model built WYSIWYG, the less upgraded commander could just be there to hand out unit buffs. If you load him up with gear, you want him doing something and your opponent will want to kill him.
If you load him up with gear, does he stop conveying those same unit buffs?
If he just has a bolt gun and chainsword his whole job will be too march alongside his units and allow rerolls which will change you and your opponent's strategies.
If he has a whole bunch of gear, his job will still be to march alongside his units, because running characters around by themselves is how you lose them in the first round of shooting.
And again, if you load him up with gear you will want him closer to the front in order to bring those weapons to bear, putting him in harm's way. If he spends the entire game encircled by other units and never attempting to close into melee all of his gear is useless and simply makes him a more appealing target for the enemy.
You aren't ever running them around by themselves, but taking a pile of weapons and defensive buffs on a character you don't plan on ever making it into combat is a waste of points, whereas power level doesn't care and you can field him for the buffs while still using the really cool model you made.
Power level let's you get a generalised descriptor of capability while allowing for more wiggle room in regards to capability.
Say the enemy has a way to hit you with a couple mortal wounds a turn, super character will die just s fast as Bob the commander. Now if the character in question had less upgrades, would the opponent still want to throw those wounds on him?
Choosing gear options in power level play is a tactical choices, not a mathematical one.
In short? Yes. He's not killing the captain because the captain is a CC threat, he's killing him because he has buffs to hand out.
You can make arguments that having OBJECTIVELY less powerful units is a good thing. You'd be wrong, but you can make them.
Now, you can make GOOD arguments that less highly pointed upgrades can still be better. Despite costing more, a lascannon isn't always better than a heavy bolter-such as when dealing with hordes.
But let's say you can have a model with a Storm Shield or without one, simply taken in addition to other things, rather than replacing something. If points are not an issue, when would it EVER be better to not take the Storm Shield?
When you don't have a model equiped with a storm shields, and near as I can tell you will always be replacing something to get any sort of upgrade, even if the original point cost was free.
You see n objectively worse unit, I see a unit built to not draw attention to itself in order to increase survivability. Build your unit how you like, never need to worry if the model is the most efficient it can be. Base your equipment on your strategy and not the mathematics of damage output and survivability. These are the basis of the power level system.
As I've said before, nobody has ever run bare bones you it's for a reason other than to be able to spend points elsewhere.
Choosing gear options in power level play is a tactical choices, not a mathematical one.
Choosing options in a points - based system is no less tactical. And both are mathematical... They just rely on different maths.
Sure, you can just field your character in a power level game with whatever options you happened to model on him. You can do the same in a points based game (I've been doing so in some of my armies since forever)... And in both cases it will potentially be an inefficient thing to do. The only difference is that in the latter it's using points that you could have used elsewhere, while in the former you're missing out on the full potential of the unit by not making him as powerful as possible.
In a points -based game, there will still be a reason to use bolt pistols on marine characters. In a power level game, there is never going to be any logical reason to not upgrade it to a better weapon, regardless of whether or not you intend to use it.
The reason is because you WANT he to have a bolt gun. Why would you simply decide to max out upgrades? This is where I get lost. If I want a battle leader that is just moving forward granting buffs, I want him inconspicuous. Since he will be out of range for most things due to me wanting units in the way, why bother upgrading his weapon? If he has a better gun, it is because I WANT him to use it. If he has it and doesn't use it, it meant nothing. So why give him something I don't plan on him using, and why would I limit my upgrades for other units to do so?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: You see n objectively worse unit, I see a unit built to not draw attention to itself in order to increase survivability.
That's a ridiculous argument. It is never a good idea to deliberately build a weak unit and hope that you are playing against a stupid opponent who can't properly evaluate its strength. You don't need gimmick units to beat someone that hopeless, and against a decent player you've just sabotaged yourself before the game even begins.
Build your unit how you like, never need to worry if the model is the most efficient it can be. Base your equipment on your strategy and not the mathematics of damage output and survivability. These are the basis of the power level system.
No, they're the basis of the imaginary power level system that exists only in the minds of "casual at all costs" players for whom the use of power levels is most valuable as a sign of how "casual" they are. For everyone else it's obvious that power levels are just another point system, with the same efficiency concerns as any other point system. Units cost a certain amount of points, and you improve your list by getting the greatest possible power relative to their point cost. And you figure that out by using the same math as the conventional point system. There will still be good units and overpriced units, and you will still take the good ones if you want to win.
Why would you want to have a weapon that is weaker than the alternative that costs the same amount of points?
If I want a battle leader that is just moving forward granting buffs, I want him inconspicuous.
See above. This only works against stupid opponents, and you should never optimize your list for beating stupid people at the expense of worse performance against good players.
Since he will be out of range for most things due to me wanting units in the way, why bother upgrading his weapon?
This tradeoff only exists in the more accurate point system, where those upgrades cost additional points. In the power level point system you upgrade his weapon because it costs zero points to do so, and adds a non-zero amount of value. Even if it's unlikely that you will use either weapon it's possible that you might, and if it doesn't cost anything you might as well take the upgrade. Doing anything else is making a unit that costs the same as the more powerful alternative, but has worse performance, even if it's only by a small margin. And why would you deliberately sabotage your own list while gaining nothing in return?
One of the things I've always wanted to see but it will never happen is a big competitive event where the armies are provided and basically mirrors of each other.
That way we could really evaluate table skill in a truly even environment list-wise.
nou wrote: How exactly Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using points?
You answered your own question by advocating the use of power levels, which are just a point system. The only difference between the two point systems is that one is less accurate than the other, and gains nothing in return for that reduced accuracy.
(and to stress a bit more clearly one aspect of Power Levels that many "points always" advocates are clearly unaware of - for narrative scenarios you don't have exact upper Power Level limits you have to fit in, it can be 48 vs 52 and the scenario takes care of that. It can even be like 71 vs 98 if you want different experience or accomodate for different players skill levels to give them similliarily challenging game)
This can be done just as easily with the more accurate point system.
Let me rephrase my question specifically for you - "How exactly (and you especially should be VERY specific about it), Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using THE GW POINTS instead of GW POWER LEVELS. Exactly what benefits are there in calculating 2000 pts force to 1pts increment accuracy, in exact context of THE GW POINTS being inaccurate and THIS VERY SCENARIO with all it's perks and flaws."
Your basic assumption, that the only quality of a point system is it's granularity, and the way you desperately stick to it is, well, how to put it to not violate rule #1... cute.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: One of the things I've always wanted to see but it will never happen is a big competitive event where the armies are provided and basically mirrors of each other.
That way we could really evaluate table skill in a truly even environment list-wise.
That is something I brought up in discussion a long time ago in another ballance related thread. Funnily enough, there were only a couple of folks who would wilingly participate in such theoretical event.
Yeah I've tried doing it for 20 odd years and you get no response. Largely because it would show how good people really are when they can't rely on a min/max list to carry them.
nou wrote: To all new points-in-every-game-are-better advocates in this thread, I'm still waiting for an answer to my initial question:
How exactly Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using points? Please be specific and read this scenario before you answer, because "exact ballance is always better" is simply not applicable in case of a game with assumed disparity and "endless wave" construction. And before someone answers with "so just bunch up some models and play without regards to any calculations" - in this case measuring total point/power level values of armies combined with model count give you exactly two pre-game informations: how big table do you need and how long this game may last. In 40K model count alone isn't usefaull at all, so I have to have at least rough estimate of army strenght. Power Levels are good enough at this task (and to stress a bit more clearly one aspect of Power Levels that many "points always" advocates are clearly unaware of - for narrative scenarios you don't have exact upper Power Level limits you have to fit in, it can be 48 vs 52 and the scenario takes care of that. It can even be like 71 vs 98 if you want different experience or accomodate for different players skill levels to give them similliarily challenging game). Terrain setup, first turn order and variable lenght rolls have more impact in this scenario than exact point ballance. This is clearly not a relative skill measuring scenario (although it still is/can be skill dependant experience and/or skill training excercise).
This question hangs unanswered for 10 pages of this thread now... So, anyone?
I'm certainly not a PIEGAB advocate (mmmm... pie...) but I took a look and the best I can think of is that using Points instead of Power Levels means I could take a larger number of cheaper units, to make my Sustained Assault a little more reliable. However, the scenario is inherently so imbalanced that I really don't see much advantage to either system. Frankly, I think you could play the scenario just as well by just going with what looks good on the table or what tells a better story, without using either system. If you were to modify the scenario a bit, I could see doing something like saying the defender gets 2000 points and the attacker gets 1500 (regenerating) Points could possibly make for a better balanced game, but you could do that with Power Levels too.
I think that Meatgrinder is a bad scenario for the question, since it's such an inherently unbalanced scenario. You probably need to stick to Eternal War missions to really see any advantage, simply because balance in Crucible of War missions is more complex due to the asymmetric objectives.
nou wrote: To all new points-in-every-game-are-better advocates in this thread, I'm still waiting for an answer to my initial question:
How exactly Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using points? Please be specific and read this scenario before you answer, because "exact ballance is always better" is simply not applicable in case of a game with assumed disparity and "endless wave" construction. And before someone answers with "so just bunch up some models and play without regards to any calculations" - in this case measuring total point/power level values of armies combined with model count give you exactly two pre-game informations: how big table do you need and how long this game may last. In 40K model count alone isn't usefaull at all, so I have to have at least rough estimate of army strenght. Power Levels are good enough at this task (and to stress a bit more clearly one aspect of Power Levels that many "points always" advocates are clearly unaware of - for narrative scenarios you don't have exact upper Power Level limits you have to fit in, it can be 48 vs 52 and the scenario takes care of that. It can even be like 71 vs 98 if you want different experience or accomodate for different players skill levels to give them similliarily challenging game). Terrain setup, first turn order and variable lenght rolls have more impact in this scenario than exact point ballance. This is clearly not a relative skill measuring scenario (although it still is/can be skill dependant experience and/or skill training excercise).
This question hangs unanswered for 10 pages of this thread now... So, anyone?
I'm certainly not a PIEGAB advocate (mmmm... pie...) but I took a look and the best I can think of is that using Points instead of Power Levels means I could take a larger number of cheaper units, to make my Sustained Assault a little more reliable. However, the scenario is inherently so imbalanced that I really don't see much advantage to either system. Frankly, I think you could play the scenario just as well by just going with what looks good on the table or what tells a better story, without using either system. If you were to modify the scenario a bit, I could see doing something like saying the defender gets 2000 points and the attacker gets 1500 (regenerating) Points could possibly make for a better balanced game, but you could do that with Power Levels too.
I think that Meatgrinder is a bad scenario for the question, since it's such an inherently unbalanced scenario. You probably need to stick to Eternal War missions to really see any advantage, simply because balance in Crucible of War missions is more complex due to the asymmetric objectives.
But this inherent imballance is EXACTLY my point - in such asymmetrical scenarios, "other than ballance inducing" qualities of various point systems comes to play. Power Levels have the overall "good enough measure" quality. Contradictory to what Peregrine insists on, point systems have various desired qualities, just to name a few that come to mind: granularity, ballance accuracy, ease of use, learning curve, encouragement/intimidation, time efficiency, intuitivness, "honesty" (disparity between what you get vs what you are being told they are good at delivering), abusability etc... Many of such qualities are contradictory, so will be better or worse in different applications. Yours "just what is looking good on the table" is one of the possible systems, that may suit a particular style of expected experience. Power Levels are another, THE points are another, model count is another... I shown two necesarry informations that Power Levels provide in Meatgrinder scenario for players inexperienced enough to just "eye measure" - required table size and game lenght. Both those informations can clearly be derived from THE point system, but at the expense of necessary learning curve, time efficiency and encouragement/intimidation effect on new players.
Crucible of War missions are fine examples of missions that are hard to achieve perfect ballance even for very veteran players using even the most accurate point system available, are impossible to ballance using any point system whatsoever for beginner players, but still benefit from having any numerical point system better than a model count as a guide. And are/can be a lot of fun when played, even for strongly skill-focused players, so they are not "wasted development time"...
Points are more of a precision instrument than Power levels however has anyone ever tried to do rough work with precision instruments? You're gna waste an awfull lot of time and effort for no benefit.
The granularity of points is a "precison" instrument that assumes a ton of stuff ( one psy power, max half reserve, almost equal objectives, etc). When those assumptions are wrong it is useless/ less precise.
@Peregrine: I'm flipping your question on its head: Do points always achieve a better game in the end?
In my opinion power levels is somewhat of a flawed idea because they actually work counter intuitive to the way many of the players in the section are arguing for them. When people argue for power level use it seems like it is because (I obviously wont get ever reason people like them but this is generally what I’ve seen argued)
1. Quicker list making time
2. Easier for new players to grasp
3. Better for non WWAC players
In my opinion only the first argument holds true. Yes it is quicker to make a list with this point cost in mind but I don’t think it saves much time. The addition and subtract for a casual game saved by building a list this way is very small and couldn’t save more then a few minutes and once you have the point values down probably wouldn’t save any noticeable amount of time.
Once you get past reason (1) none of the other explanations of why to use power levels really hold true. I find the second argument to be a huge fallacy and actually work exactly the opposite. Power levels are actually harder for a new player to grasp competitively then an experienced player. For example if x upgrade and y upgrade are available to a unit and the power level remains the same then its easy for a new player to say “if x and y upgrade are the same cost they must be about equal in efficiency” it’s a logical conclusion that a new player could draw from a power level system that costs all upgrades the same. Experienced players actually have an advantage over new players using power levels for this exact reason. Young players especially suffer. One of the reason my brothers and I were draw to warhammer as kids were point values. It was easy enough to say that if we both used 500 point and stayed within the rules we would be playing a somewhat even game. The small amount of time saved in the list building phase doesn’t make up for the knowledge of statistics required while using power levels (adding together 215+ 300+ 175…ect wasn’t hard as a kid but doing the math to understand that x upgrade will cause a wound 17% of the time and upgrade y will cause one 26% of the time was not realistic. So in essence I think that power level add little to no real advantage to new players and actually add relatively large hurtles.
The same basic principles that applied to explanation (2) also apply to three. WWAC players actually have an advantage over casual and new players when it comes to power levels. WWAC players will build the most efficient group with upgrades that they can to get every ounce of power out of each unit. New players wont have the collection size to do this and are also hurt by modeling with the “rule of cool” which most young and new players use when first starting. While WWAC players will always have an advantage in tabletop games (perfect balance is impossible to achieve and there is always room to squeeze in more efficiency) The larger the room for this efficiency to exist the larger the room is for WAAC players to exploit new and casual players. While points might not be perfect they get much closer to achieving the cost for each specific unit and thus reduce the amount of exploitation possible by WWAC players.
Melissia wrote: There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from being both WAAC and strictly enforcing WYSIWYG.
WYSIWYG will not stop WAAC and TFG is a mostly true statement. What will stop him with WYSIWYG is the fact that he will have to pack 3x as much stuff with him to achieve WYSIWYG in every game or he has to go with Magnets. Most WAAC a TFG will not spend the time to do that to his army or pay that much for it in ebay.
hobojebus wrote: Odd how a "competitive" player is more willing to accommodate others than the more casual narrative player don't you think.
Funny. I see competive players wanting to get rid of power levels more than casuals are wanting point levels to be removed. So seems it's actually other way around. Competive players want to drill their way of play for others.
Wow First Multi Post in years… This is very true. Though I have found most ‘Competitive’ will still play whatever game is a foot, even if they are playing casual players. At times I encourage it at is can make the ‘Casual’ player better in the long run if the ‘Competitive’ player is more than willing to be a teacher rather then TFG. The problem is the ‘Ultra-Competitive’ player who does not have an on/off switch and can not play just to play.
You know what will stop ‘Ultra-Competitive-WAAC-TFG’ player. Don’t play their game. I have had numerous ‘Competitive’ Players quit playing us because we won’t take the game ‘Serous Enough’.
We have had 2,000 point games (Our Default size) take 5 hours from everything from old war stories and chatting about movies and TV. Anyone who want to play with us we do warn them about it so they know that the game is just the center of out ‘Socializing Event’.
The reason is because you WANT he to have a bolt gun.
Then you're better off with the points-based system, where doing so isn't a handicap.
Why would you simply decide to max out upgrades?
If an upgrade is free, and is as good or better in every way than what you start with (as is the case with every other pistol that a Marine Captain has access to as a potential replacement for his bolt pistol) then there is no logical reason to not take it.
To be clear, I'm not talking about simply taking every single available upgrade. There are certainly going to be some upgrades that are better than others for specific army builds. But where something is clearly better than the thing that it replaces, it would be silly to not take it.
If I want a battle leader that is just moving forward granting buffs, I want him inconspicuous.
Unless you're playing against someone who doesn't know what any of your models are, in the dark, that's not actually a thing. The moment your character starts handing out buffs, he becomes a target. Choosing to not give him better gear than what he starts with doesn't change that.
So why give him something I don't plan on him using, ...
Because you might wind up using it, and there is no reason to not have it.
...and why would I limit my upgrades for other units to do so?
Why would you be limiting upgrades for other units?
In a points based system any upgrade you out on will deny an upgrades elsewhere. With powerlevel you are limiting units but can use any upgrades you want.
I am going g to leave this discussion with this. In the past couple years I haven't given a damn about how many points my opponent has. I've never gone over their math, I've never cared if they had more points than me. If they appear to have a serious advantage in numbers or capability, I simply treat my game as a last stand or tried to do as much damage as possible before being taken out.
I don't need to know what your point total is to win, and I certainly don't need it in order to have a good time. Power levels are a quicker and easier way to get to playing.
Anyone who claims the time spent writing a list is negligible is being absurd. Adding 10+12+8+10+10+24+13+13 is significantly faster than (13x5)+(120+35+15)+40+(145+15+15+10) because the former was the entire army at 100 powerlevel while the latter is only 1/4 of the units out of a 2000 point army (meaning the armies would be about equal)
So what if my opponent has a 100 point advantage? If those 100 points are spent on something my army or the terrain invalidates as an efficient option then they don't mean anything and your entire point system has failed in it's entirety. Your notion of balance falls apart the minute terrain is set up on the table and I pull out my army list. So why should I care about the more granular approach to the lists themselves?
I built my list based on a generalised notion of capability, what my overall strategy is, and what I think looks cool. Nowhere in that concept does points efficiency or load out comparison matter.
To put it nother way, I am playing Fate while you play Gurps. Both are universal and can be fun, but my game doesn't need what yours does to function.
insaniak wrote: If an upgrade is free, and is as good or better in every way than what you start with (as is the case with every other pistol that a Marine Captain has access to as a potential replacement for his bolt pistol) then there is no logical reason to not take it.
To be clear, I'm not talking about simply taking every single available upgrade. There are certainly going to be some upgrades that are better than others for specific army builds. But where something is clearly better than the thing that it replaces, it would be silly to not take it.
Unless your Space Marine Captain model does not have modeled on it a particular upgrade, and you are wanting to play WYSIWYG.
Or you are playing for fluff and narrative reasons, and your Space Marine Captain has a preference for Bolt Pistols over Plasma Pistols, or the Chapter has a shortage of Plasma weapons available for whatever reason, or whatever Narrative reason you could think of for why a model would rather take the lesser upgrade.
Or you realize that you put sponsons on your tank, and you want to limit the capabilities that the Captain has, so you leave him with standard equipment to level off your army a bit.
To some of us players, we aren't trying to play to win; we are just trying to have fun and enjoy our game. Victory within the context of the game might be the objective of the models on the table, but not necessarily of all the players in control of them.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: Or you realize that you put sponsons on your tank, and you want to limit the capabilities that the Captain has, so you leave him with standard equipment to level off your army a bit.
...If only you'd paid some sort of points cost for those sponsons, you'd have had fewer points left to spend on the Captain...
Being able to impose additional restrictions upon yourself in order to counteract inherent imbalance within the system is hardly a plus point for the system itself!
Wanting to see fully painted and properly assembled miniatures on the table, because you want a cinematic gaming experience is not WAAC. This has nothing to do with points or power.
Wanting to restrict your opponent's options to get a better advantage, insisting on WYSIWYG because it makes your list stronger relative to theirs, is WAAC. This also has nothing to do with points or power.
If it's a competitive game I want my opponent to have their best list. So, proxying is okay with me, as long as it is done before hand, and not in response to seeing what i brought. Because that's list tailoring, and it makes for a pretty silly experience. I've played ITC games with people who used coke cans for drop pods.
If it's a non-competitive game, and we're playing power, and Johnny Q. Powergamer says, "Oh, it's power, therefore, all my units have all the upgrades," well, that dog won't hunt, because you're trying to game the system and "win at list building," rather than have a good game. Or, if it's a story based game, and someone doesn't have a drop pod, and wants to use the coke can, the answer is no, because it cheapens the experience.
insaniak wrote: If an upgrade is free, and is as good or better in every way than what you start with (as is the case with every other pistol that a Marine Captain has access to as a potential replacement for his bolt pistol) then there is no logical reason to not take it.
To be clear, I'm not talking about simply taking every single available upgrade. There are certainly going to be some upgrades that are better than others for specific army builds. But where something is clearly better than the thing that it replaces, it would be silly to not take it.
Unless your Space Marine Captain model does not have modeled on it a particular upgrade, and you are wanting to play WYSIWYG.
Or you are playing for fluff and narrative reasons, and your Space Marine Captain has a preference for Bolt Pistols over Plasma Pistols, or the Chapter has a shortage of Plasma weapons available for whatever reason, or whatever Narrative reason you could think of for why a model would rather take the lesser upgrade.
Or you realize that you put sponsons on your tank, and you want to limit the capabilities that the Captain has, so you leave him with standard equipment to level off your army a bit.
All of these examples are handled better by a system that accounts for options through points costs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: In a points based system any upgrade you out on will deny an upgrades elsewhere. With powerlevel you are limiting units but can use any upgrades you want..
Yes, that's been the whole point all along. I think you've gotten your argument confused somewhere along the line, as the point you were responding to there was that without paying for upgrades there is nothing to balance out the effective differences that result for your gear choices.
Earth127 wrote: Points are more of a precision instrument than Power levels however has anyone ever tried to do rough work with precision instruments? You're gna waste an awfull lot of time and effort for no benefit.
Biiiiiinngo.
Thinking of it like cooking vs. baking. When you're baking, you need to be quite precise with your measurements and timing in order to get a good result. But when you're making spaghetti sauce, all you need is general proportions of ingredients and methods, and you can improvise or add your own spin on it and still come up with something delicious. You could measure everything out by the recipe and still get bolognese, but there's no pressing reason to, and you're more likely to enjoy the process and come up with something special if you don't.
Now if all you want to eat is bread, be my guest. Just don't come into my house and call me special ed because I don't follow your recipes.
You will see people setting up an agreement on a point level (even for the non-competitive games) and using Power Level to make a determinations on the mission setup.
Wanting to see fully painted and properly assembled miniatures on the table, because you want a cinematic gaming experience is not WAAC. This has nothing to do with points or power.
Wanting to restrict your opponent's options to get a better advantage, insisting on WYSIWYG because it makes your list stronger relative to theirs, is WAAC. This also has nothing to do with points or power.
If it's a competitive game I want my opponent to have their best list. So, proxying is okay with me, as long as it is done before hand, and not in response to seeing what i brought. Because that's list tailoring, and it makes for a pretty silly experience. I've played ITC games with people who used coke cans for drop pods.
If it's a non-competitive game, and we're playing power, and Johnny Q. Powergamer says, "Oh, it's power, therefore, all my units have all the upgrades," well, that dog won't hunt, because you're trying to game the system and "win at list building," rather than have a good game. Or, if it's a story based game, and someone doesn't have a drop pod, and wants to use the coke can, the answer is no, because it cheapens the experience.
Well its certainly not a casual attitude to take is it, and it definitely does not take the other persons enjoyment into consideration.
Its my way or the highway is a very selfish attitude that would almost certainly end in a NPE.
You can't call someone a power gamer for using upgrades nothing in the rules gives an indication that its unacceptable and again forcing them to use points because they violated your personal views on how a game should be played is inconsiderate in the extreme.
You really need to learn its not just about you and your enjoyment.
If someone says "I brought 2000 points today. Who wants to play against it?" And you said "I have 60 power level. Let's fight?" The first has every right to say no to the second, simply because there's no indication that there will be a fair match. And vice versa, for that matter. The two systems are balanced differently (and those trying to argue power levels are more balanced should go read the multiple dozen-page plus threads complaining about the lack of balance of the powerlevel system), and are not IMO compatible for cross-play.
If someone says "I brought 2000 points today. Who wants to play against it?" And you said "I have 60 power level. Let's fight?" The first has every right to say no to the second, simply because there's no indication that there will be a fair match. And vice versa, for that matter. The two systems are balanced differently (and those trying to argue power levels are more balanced should go read the multiple dozen-page plus threads complaining about the lack of balance of the powerlevel system), and are not IMO compatible for cross-play.
And there is a number of us who are sure 2,000 points is about 100 Power Levels and some who would say, Sure Why Not even though we are about 800 points shy or he is 40 Power Levels over.
Anpu42 wrote: And there is a number of us who are sure
Good for you.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. The reason you create two separate systems is so that you can measure things in two separate ways. And unlike Meters to Feet, which has a literal mathematical number attached, there is only a at best an experimental rough approximation for points vs.. powerlevels.
Trying to use that to justify whining about people sticking to points as "forcing" players to also play points is just... damn, man.
Having exactly one working measurement system, regardless of which system it is, would be better for casual play. If it was only points, or only powerlevel, it'd be easier for people to show up and play without having to do much work.
Its already happened with the Iron Wolves giving free weapon upgrades to their vehicles, and it didn't stomach right.
All of a sudden people start adding bolters and hunter killers and dozer blades and typhoon missile launchers and assault cannons to everything that they normally would never ever EVER have consider in the first place, and naturally none of it is modelled.
Had to make corrections that youre only allowed 2 weapons on a Land Speeder, not heavy bolters, typhoons, and then an assault cannon. Woohoo! Free stuff! =/
Anpu42 wrote: And there is a number of us who are sure
Good for you.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. The reason you create two separate systems is so that you can measure things in two separate ways. And unlike Meters to Feet, which has a literal mathematical number attached, there is only a at best an experimental rough approximation for points vs.. powerlevels.
Trying to use that to justify whining about people sticking to points as "forcing" players to also play points is just... damn, man.
I do that all the time with Table Top RPGs, 3 Feet is a Yard is a Meter is a yard is 3 feet, it is close enough to work.
What is know from the 2,000 point list (Call it His) vs. the 60 Power Level List (Call it Mine) is that his Army is more powerful than mine with that rough gauge. No need for complected math there. So simple we set up a scenario where is take a defended fortified position or have to hold a bridge for a set number turns or random turns.
If an upgrade is free, and is as good or better in every way than what you start with (as is the case with every other pistol that a Marine Captain has access to as a potential replacement for his bolt pistol) then there is no logical reason to not take it.
To be clear, I'm not talking about simply taking every single available upgrade. There are certainly going to be some upgrades that are better than others for specific army builds. But where something is clearly better than the thing that it replaces, it would be silly to not take it.
That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels. So, yeah, if that's the only way you see things then points probably are the way to go all the time. I said earlier that I had a friend I would never want to play power levels with, because he can't turn off minmaxing/optimizing lists. That's fine, it's his thing and he has fun with it, but it would break power levels. I have another friend that picks out a few units that he wants to play with, adds in a solid backbone of troops for doing the grunt work, and then we're off to socialize while we roll dice. Power levels works just fine for that kind of gaming, as do points, but I suspect we'll have a little more fun using power levels; I won't know until I've tried several games to see what the balance is like.
Melissia wrote:Having exactly one working measurement system, regardless of which system it is, would be better for casual play. If it was only points, or only powerlevel, it'd be easier for people to show up and play without having to do much work.
Right now we don't know that we even have one (accurate) working measurement system. I've been playing since 4th edition and people have *never* felt that the points were consistently well done. 8th could have the best points ever and still be heavily flawed. It's entirely possible that power levels will give us a better tool to determine balanced armies. But we won't know until we have seen a lot of people trying out both systems and seeing how they work out.
Lansirill wrote: That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.
Uh, no. That kind of thinking lends itself to powergaming in general. There's absolutely nothing stopping a powergamer from using powerlevels. In fact, with the massive discrepancies shown by powerlevels, it's preetty easy to argue powerlevels are easier to game than points are.
People acting like powergamers won't abuse powerlevels is cute. Also ignorant. Powergamers, by definition, will use whatever they can to abuse the system to get more power, regardless of which system that is. And a system like powerlevels, where all upgrades are free, basically encourages powergaming to begin with.
Lansirill wrote: Right now we don't know that we even have one (accurate) working measurement system.
And now we have two that aren't accurate and don't work. So if you had a point, you failed to make it.
Lansirill wrote: That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.
Uh, no. That kind of thinking lends itself to powergaming in general. There's absolutely nothing stopping a powergamer from using powerlevels. In fact, with the massive discrepancies shown by powerlevels, it's preetty easy to argue powerlevels are easier to game than points are.
People acting like powergamers won't abuse powerlevels is cute. Also ignorant and self-deceptive. Powergamers, by definition, will use whatever they can to abuse the system to get more power, regardless of which system that is. And a system like powerlevels, where all upgrades are free, basically encourages powergaming to begin with.
No. Power gamers absolutely will abuse power levels. If you or someone you love is playing games with a power gamer, please make sure that they use points so that there is a semblance of balance in their games. Do not continue playing games using power levels with power gamers. Side effects include salt, flipped tables, and general irritability.
Lansirill wrote: That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.
Uh, no. That kind of thinking lends itself to powergaming in general. There's absolutely nothing stopping a powergamer from using powerlevels. In fact, with the massive discrepancies shown by powerlevels, it's preetty easy to argue powerlevels are easier to game than points are.
People acting like powergamers won't abuse powerlevels is cute. Also ignorant and self-deceptive. Powergamers, by definition, will use whatever they can to abuse the system to get more power, regardless of which system that is. And a system like powerlevels, where all upgrades are free, basically encourages powergaming to begin with.
No. Power gamers absolutely will abuse power levels. If you or someone you love is playing games with a power gamer, please make sure that they use points so that there is a semblance of balance in their games. Do not continue playing games using power levels with power gamers. Side effects include salt, flipped tables, and general irritability.
Or they will get tired of you not taking the win seriously and leave. (Has work in the past with us)
Or you design games where trying to kill off your opponent in lue of achieving the objective will cost him to loose the game and they will either change their tune or leave. (Has work in the past with us)
I'd probably use points most of the time, and only use power level if I don't have an appropriate list handy and want to throw something together real quick.
This mostly has to do with how I approach my listbuilding though. I have a relatively small group that doesn't play very often, so I usually have a lot of time to construct my lists in advance, I have a lot of time to get and prepare models specifically to complete a list, and I only play one faction so any new list tends to be 95% models I already have. So points works well for my situation, their extra level of control lends itself to that kind of pre-planning because with so much time between games, I can easily optimize. "Optimizing" power levels would pretty much break them, so it's best to avoid that rabbit hole.
If on the off-chance I got into a pick-up game that I didn't already have an appropriate list for on-hand, that's where power levels would shine. I could throw an army together with a minimal amount of page-flipping, WYSIWYG would be fine because the upgrades don't matter, and having no time to optimize means I have no time to break it so it should be okay.
That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.
Yeah, that's kind of the point.
To be clear, I'm not interested in min/maxing. My lists tend to include their fair share of non-optimal unit choices. But those lists are built in the knowledge that there is generally at least some semblance of balance provided by the fact that less powerful options are (for the most part) less costly than more powerful options.
A system where, by default a model armed with a pointy stick is counted as being worth the same amount as an identical model armed with the Death Star removes any possibility of getting a fair game other than completely by accident.
If you want to agree with your opponent to just put together armies that look about right and have at it, then that's fine... It's a game, do whatever floats your boat. I just don't see the point in having a separate army generation system to cater to that style of play, since you can achieve the exact same outcome by just using the existing points costs and not paying for upgrades, or by ignoring the points costs altogether.
The only outcome I see from the power level system is people having wildly imbalanced games. A system like that doesn't work unless all of the available options are of more-or-less equal value, or units just don't have options at all.
That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.
Yeah, that's kind of the point.
To be clear, I'm not interested in min/maxing. My lists tend to include their fair share of non-optimal unit choices. But those lists are built in the knowledge that there is generally at least some semblance of balance provided by the fact that less powerful options are (for the most part) less costly than more powerful options.
A system where, by default a model armed with a pointy stick is counted as being worth the same amount as an identical model armed with the Death Star removes any possibility of getting a fair game other than completely by accident.
If you want to agree with your opponent to just put together armies that look about right and have at it, then that's fine... It's a game, do whatever floats your boat. I just don't see the point in having a separate army generation system to cater to that style of play, since you can achieve the exact same outcome by just using the existing points costs and not paying for upgrades, or by ignoring the points costs altogether.
The only outcome I see from the power level system is people having wildly imbalanced games. A system like that doesn't work unless all of the available options are of more-or-less equal value, or units just don't have options at all.
Yeah, that's absolutely right, if you ask me. Getting in here before the inevitable "but some people don't care about balance!" response If you didn't care about balance - then why use either system anyway?
GW didn't really give us much of anything at all with this power level system, IMO, but if some folks like it I guess that's the way she goes.
Wanting to see fully painted and properly assembled miniatures on the table, because you want a cinematic gaming experience is not WAAC. This has nothing to do with points or power.
Wanting to restrict your opponent's options to get a better advantage, insisting on WYSIWYG because it makes your list stronger relative to theirs, is WAAC. This also has nothing to do with points or power.
If it's a competitive game I want my opponent to have their best list. So, proxying is okay with me, as long as it is done before hand, and not in response to seeing what i brought. Because that's list tailoring, and it makes for a pretty silly experience. I've played ITC games with people who used coke cans for drop pods.
If it's a non-competitive game, and we're playing power, and Johnny Q. Powergamer says, "Oh, it's power, therefore, all my units have all the upgrades," well, that dog won't hunt, because you're trying to game the system and "win at list building," rather than have a good game. Or, if it's a story based game, and someone doesn't have a drop pod, and wants to use the coke can, the answer is no, because it cheapens the experience.
Well its certainly not a casual attitude to take is it, and it definitely does not take the other persons enjoyment into consideration.
Its my way or the highway is a very selfish attitude that would almost certainly end in a NPE.
You can't call someone a power gamer for using upgrades nothing in the rules gives an indication that its unacceptable and again forcing them to use points because they violated your personal views on how a game should be played is inconsiderate in the extreme.
You really need to learn its not just about you and your enjoyment.
Good effort champ. Really good effort.
Well its certainly not a casual attitude to take is it, and it definitely does not take the other persons enjoyment into consideration.
Define casual. Then, define cinematic gaming experience. Then, reflect on how you conflated the two.
Its my way or the highway is a very selfish attitude that would almost certainly end in a NPE.
I like how you completely ignore what i'm saying and call me selfish. Very manipulative. Having desires around the many different kinds of games I want makes me selfish. Look at how immediately i'd have to defend myself, and say, "it's not my way, it's the group," or, "these are standards not set by me." But you knew that.
You can't call someone a power gamer for using upgrades nothing in the rules gives an indication that its unacceptable and again forcing them to use points because they violated your personal views on how a game should be played is inconsiderate in the extreme.
Please take a full proxied list to a tournament and see how far that gets you. You could use different colors of goldfish crackers for miniatures. Then use this exact same argument when they tell you no. Also, bear in mind, using an excessive amount of proxies and expecting everyone to be totally fine with it, and if they're not, then you call them selfish, would say a lot about you.
You really need to learn its not just about you and your enjoyment.
That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.
Yeah, that's kind of the point.
To be clear, I'm not interested in min/maxing. My lists tend to include their fair share of non-optimal unit choices. But those lists are built in the knowledge that there is generally at least some semblance of balance provided by the fact that less powerful options are (for the most part) less costly than more powerful options.
A system where, by default a model armed with a pointy stick is counted as being worth the same amount as an identical model armed with the Death Star removes any possibility of getting a fair game other than completely by accident.
If you want to agree with your opponent to just put together armies that look about right and have at it, then that's fine... It's a game, do whatever floats your boat. I just don't see the point in having a separate army generation system to cater to that style of play, since you can achieve the exact same outcome by just using the existing points costs and not paying for upgrades, or by ignoring the points costs altogether.
The only outcome I see from the power level system is people having wildly imbalanced games. A system like that doesn't work unless all of the available options are of more-or-less equal value, or units just don't have options at all.
Yeah, that's absolutely right, if you ask me. Getting in here before the inevitable "but some people don't care about balance!" response If you didn't care about balance - then why use either system anyway?
GW didn't really give us much of anything at all with this power level system, IMO, but if some folks like it I guess that's the way she goes.
We like to have some idea of how close we are. That is about it. It goes back to 'Close Enough is Good Enough' for a large number of us.
Anpu42 wrote: We like to have some idea of how close we are. That is about it. It goes back to 'Close Enough is Good Enough' for a large number of us.
That's fair enough.
I would propose that a whole new system would have been more interesting. Use 8th as a testing ground, see if it's got traction, then roll it out for the next edition.
The sad thing here is, points have the potential to take in the lore of the game to the benefit a player who wants to play lore-heavy lists-- power levels, however, don't really have this potential, as power levels only care about what units you take, not how they're equipped or what upgrades they have.
In a powerlevel list, competitively there's no reason not to slap every upgrade you can on every unit you have, regardless of whether or not it fits, and this puts at a disadvantage players that equip their units and characters according to the lore instead. Given the nature of random games you find at a store, this gives more advantage to the competitive player over the casual one than a points system would.
Furthermore, no amount of tweaking of power levels will change this-- any upward change in level cost of a character to adjust for the power of an upgraded character will also hurt the same character with fewer upgrades (a problem not faced by the points system, as you can just increase the cost of the powerful upgrades instead). And not only that, even small changes to powerlevel costs will also often require a drastic reshuffling of a list (another problem not faced by the points system), forcing you for example to take fewer or different units in order to account for the increased cost of a character you need to take. But if it were a points system, the lore-friendly player who wasn't taking this powerful upgrade wouldn't be impacted at all by a nerf to the points cost of the upgrade.
The more I look at it, the more I feel it is objectively-- not subjectively-- a worse system for balance, and subjectively I have yet to be convinced that it's really any easier to use for army building, either. Even as a relatively new player I never found it too difficult to throw together a 1000-2000 points list in a few minutes. If I spent more time on it than that, it's because I had more time than that.
No one here is arguing that the way GW has done points is perfect. But that doesn't mean a stripped down, neutered, and paralyzed version of points is automatically better like so many here assume.
Melissia wrote: The sad thing here is, points have the potential to take in the lore of the game to the benefit a player who wants to play lore-heavy lists-- power levels, however, don't really have this potential, as power levels only care about what units you take, not how they're equipped or what upgrades they have.
Yes there is, us the Fluffy Players and personal taste of the player.
For me and my Home Brew Chapter, The Imperial Tigers (Using Dark Angels) there are two signature weapons, Lighting Claws and Plasma. I know Melta is better for taking down Tanks/MCs, but even if I know it is going to be a Mech/Godzilla List I still take Plasma. My Deathwing Terminators with have Tactical Loadout with Plasma Cannons and Lighting Claws with the Chain Fist for the Plasma Cannon. The only reason for the chain fist is that the Single Lighting is not an option. I also have in my Fluff that Sargent of the Devastator Squads are new to being a Sargent and have not Earned their Claws so they have only a Chainsword.
Some people my look at this and go I am beefing up because and taking the free stuff because I can with Power Levels. But it has always been this way, the only new thing (and why I went from Space Marine to Dark Angle) is adding Plasma Cannons to my Terminators.
The same goes for my Space Wolves. I have been playing Space Wolves since the Rouge Trader Days. I chose them because I thought they were cool, nothing more nothing less. I have about 14,000 point of them, but I have always been Accused of joining the Space Wolf Band Wagon ever time a new Codex comes out. However I still play the same Grey Hunter Packs I did back in 2nd with the same load-out I always have.
The fact that I always have spent to many points on Wargear has never changed and will never change now that I went from being that WAAC player to a casual player back in 3rd.
Most of my group is the same way, one is Melta Happy, so anytime we get new stuff we exchange Plasma for Melta. It has nothing to do with taking the maximum amout of gear, we always did even when it is not in our best interest.
Why is that so hard to understand.
And yes I know there are those out there who will go WAAC/TFG with Power Levels or Points and nothing will ever stop that.
Wanting to see fully painted and properly assembled miniatures on the table, because you want a cinematic gaming experience is not WAAC. This has nothing to do with points or power.
Wanting to restrict your opponent's options to get a better advantage, insisting on WYSIWYG because it makes your list stronger relative to theirs, is WAAC. This also has nothing to do with points or power.
If it's a competitive game I want my opponent to have their best list. So, proxying is okay with me, as long as it is done before hand, and not in response to seeing what i brought. Because that's list tailoring, and it makes for a pretty silly experience. I've played ITC games with people who used coke cans for drop pods.
If it's a non-competitive game, and we're playing power, and Johnny Q. Powergamer says, "Oh, it's power, therefore, all my units have all the upgrades," well, that dog won't hunt, because you're trying to game the system and "win at list building," rather than have a good game. Or, if it's a story based game, and someone doesn't have a drop pod, and wants to use the coke can, the answer is no, because it cheapens the experience.
Well its certainly not a casual attitude to take is it, and it definitely does not take the other persons enjoyment into consideration.
Its my way or the highway is a very selfish attitude that would almost certainly end in a NPE.
You can't call someone a power gamer for using upgrades nothing in the rules gives an indication that its unacceptable and again forcing them to use points because they violated your personal views on how a game should be played is inconsiderate in the extreme.
You really need to learn its not just about you and your enjoyment.
Good effort champ. Really good effort.
Well its certainly not a casual attitude to take is it, and it definitely does not take the other persons enjoyment into consideration.
Define casual. Then, define cinematic gaming experience. Then, reflect on how you conflated the two.
Its my way or the highway is a very selfish attitude that would almost certainly end in a NPE.
I like how you completely ignore what i'm saying and call me selfish. Very manipulative. Having desires around the many different kinds of games I want makes me selfish. Look at how immediately i'd have to defend myself, and say, "it's not my way, it's the group," or, "these are standards not set by me." But you knew that.
You can't call someone a power gamer for using upgrades nothing in the rules gives an indication that its unacceptable and again forcing them to use points because they violated your personal views on how a game should be played is inconsiderate in the extreme.
Please take a full proxied list to a tournament and see how far that gets you. You could use different colors of goldfish crackers for miniatures. Then use this exact same argument when they tell you no. Also, bear in mind, using an excessive amount of proxies and expecting everyone to be totally fine with it, and if they're not, then you call them selfish, would say a lot about you.
You really need to learn its not just about you and your enjoyment.
He trolled, blithely.
Multiqoute doesn't like my tablet so I'll go point by point:
1: thanks its nice to have my exalted status recognized.
2:you said you were not a WAAC gamer, I was pointing out your also not a casual one either given your attitude it had no other meaning beyond that.
3:the word your looking for is inferred and it was a general blanket statement that applies universally, having a preferred way to play is fine but you listed demands and that's not it takes more than one person to play and not taking their view into account is not cool.
4: I haven't and never will play in a tournament I only play casual games with my friends so proxying has never been an issue, as long as its a clearly written list they can sub in a rhino for a predator if that like.
And finally a little advice don't start your reply with a condescending statement then act like the injured party its disingenuous.
Lord Damocles wrote: Being able to impose additional restrictions upon yourself in order to counteract inherent imbalance within the system is hardly a plus point for the system itself!
Just like how tournaments have to limit what players can bring to prevent overpowered lists? I have no problem giving myself less in order to give my opponent a better chance at the game, because I'm not concerned with winning at plastic figures battles. I have purposefully thrown games in pickup environments and tournaments in order to help my opponent have a better time, and I will probably do it again sometime.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: Unless your Space Marine Captain model does not have modeled on it a particular upgrade, and you are wanting to play WYSIWYG.
Or you are playing for fluff and narrative reasons, and your Space Marine Captain has a preference for Bolt Pistols over Plasma Pistols, or the Chapter has a shortage of Plasma weapons available for whatever reason, or whatever Narrative reason you could think of for why a model would rather take the lesser upgrade.
Or you realize that you put sponsons on your tank, and you want to limit the capabilities that the Captain has, so you leave him with standard equipment to level off your army a bit.
All of these examples are handled better by a system that accounts for options through points costs.
And these examples are handled just fine by Power Levels as well when one is not worried about "optimization" or "efficiency" in their army.
dosiere wrote: So, we're arguing whether the end result we want is a delicious dessert or an inconsistent spaghetti sauce?
Yes, as some of us like both, just one goes better on pasta.
Probably the best metaphor for the whole situation! Exalted!
Arguing over Points versus Power Level is like arguing over whether to follow a recipe or make something from memory. Both are valid and each has their strengths and weaknesses. But when you look at the goal for the meal, you need to figure out why you are cooking anything: Is the point of the meal just to feed people, or is the goal to bring together family and friends around the table together to socialize and enjoy each other's company while enjoying a home-cooked meal?
Melissia wrote: No one here is arguing that the way GW has done points is perfect. But that doesn't mean a stripped down, neutered, and paralyzed version of points is automatically better like so many here assume.
I don't recall any of the Power Level supporters making the claim that Power Level is a better system for measuring army strength, just that it is a good enough approximation for non-competitive gaming. When the goal is to have fun, we are okay with "close enough, let's play!" for our games. Each has strengths and weaknesses over the other, and each are going to be used. I mean, I'll still play with Points at some point ( ) but I am willing to give Power Levels a shot, because it fits my mentality of what kind of game I want.
__________
Don't forget that GW intends to update the Points are going to updated on a regular basis, while the Power Level points are intended to be more static in value. A PL50 army today will be PL50 in three years, while a 2000 Points army today might be worth 2300 Points or 1700 Points in the future depending on how the "meta" changes things around.
Don't forget that GW intends to update the Points are going to updated on a regular basis, while the Power Level points are intended to be more static in value. A PL50 army today will be PL50 in three years, while a 2000 Points army today might be worth 2300 Points or 1700 Points in the future depending on how the "meta" changes things around.
Yes all of this.
On the 2,000 point vs Power Level 60, lets say it is 2,000 points vs. Power Level 100, a closer match.
First the two Armies should be relatively close, though I will admit the Power Level army will most likely to be more powerful. This does have an impact. I would have no problems conceding my Power Level Army is the More Powerful Army and would be willing to drop something or a lot of the Missions give some sort of Advantage to the Lower Point/Power Level Army.
Even if the Mission did not have such a thing I would be willing to let him choose things like who deploys where, who goes first and things like that.
Playing *with* your opponent instead of *against* your opponent is probably the biggest divide on the internet regarding wargaming, and why this opinion thread turned into a hostile "you're playing wrong" thread.
auticus wrote: Playing *with* your opponent instead of *against* your opponent is probably the biggest divide on the internet regarding wargaming, and why this opinion thread turned into a hostile "you're playing wrong" thread.
This Thread???
It does not even have to be on the internet.
My old D&D Group can not get past the DM vs. Player Mentality. 4th Ed D&D had this great idea where the DM would have each player write down 5 things they would like their character to get, land, specific magic item, just a magic weapon. The point was to give the DM an idea of what the Players wanted. I had one who every time I handed out the sheet to fill out would look at me and say "This Stupid Thing Again" along with a dirty look and most of the rest took all day to write down a list and not from having to many choices, but because they had a choice.
The same when AoS hit. The attitude was 'I should not have to Talk to the guy/girl I am playing with before the game, we should just put the Models on the Table and Play' from a lot of people.
I think these two systems separate the differing mentalities very well. People that want to use power levels are going to do so with an existing group that is a known commodity. Points is and should always be the way to build lists for pick up games and tournaments. Random people that might be WAAC = points every time. Friends you have known for years = power levels if desired.
Brotherjanus wrote: I think these two systems separate the differing mentalities very well. People that want to use power levels are going to do so with an existing group that is a known commodity. Points is and should always be the way to build lists for pick up games and tournaments. Random people that might be WAAC = points every time. Friends you have known for years = power levels if desired.
Yes, though I think if the local Meta might also make Power Levels good for pick up games, but YMMV.
auticus wrote: Playing *with* your opponent instead of *against* your opponent is probably the biggest divide on the internet regarding wargaming, and why this opinion thread turned into a hostile "you're playing wrong" thread.
Indeed. And, funnily enough, you can use points to play WITH another player. It's a matter of personality and mindset of what one is wanting to get out of the game.
Anpu42 wrote: My old D&D Group can not get past the DM vs. Player Mentality. 4th Ed D&D had this great idea where the DM would have each player write down 5 things they would like their character to get, land, specific magic item, just a magic weapon. The point was to give the DM an idea of what the Players wanted. I had one who every time I handed out the sheet to fill out would look at me and say "This Stupid Thing Again" along with a dirty look and most of the rest took all day to write down a list and not from having to many choices, but because they had a choice.
The same when AoS hit. The attitude was 'I should not have to Talk to the guy/girl I am playing with before the game, we should just put the Models on the Table and Play' from a lot of people.
That sounds like a cool idea! I DMed for 4th Edition throughout my college years and never saw that anywhere. I'm going to have to remember that if I ever get a chance to play D&D again!
But yeah, you are right. The DM (or GM, if you prefer) is not the opponent to be defeated, but rather a user experience facilitator. The DM is in charge of making sure that the players are entertained by the story, the RP sessions are enjoyable, and the combat encounters are sufficiently challenging for the group. RPGs are about 1) the story of the campaign, and 2) getting together with other players to enjoy your time together, that is the point of them. Wargames can fulfill that exact same role, AND it can fulfill the competitive mindset that some players have. The problem with communicating ahead of time is that many players don't realize that others may not want to play the same kind of game as them.
I voted for points originally, but I'm leaning towards Power Level now just because I've had to go through the "You have to pay for your default weapons on top of the base cost for the unit" discussion at least a dozen times and the game isn't even out yet.
auticus wrote: I know my local meta will be pretty hostile to power levels for anything except events that will specifically use them.
Pick up games here are typically practice games for tournaments though (often) and those that aren't typically follow tournament standards regardless.
Pick up games where I play are in the majority very casual games. Even the competitive games are actually pretty casual. In my last ITC 1850 point 7th edition game, I faced a squad of devastator marines, which amounted to legs glued to bases with no bodies, riding in a half finished water bottle.
We rarely follow tournament standards. Before each game there's usually a moment where we compare lists to make sure that the game is balanced. This is also why power is helpful. We can adjust our lists after comparing them while keeping the cost calculation simple and quick.
auticus wrote: Playing *with* your opponent instead of *against* your opponent is probably the biggest divide on the internet regarding wargaming, and why this opinion thread turned into a hostile "you're playing wrong" thread.
Indeed. And, funnily enough, you can use points to play WITH another player. It's a matter of personality and mindset of what one is wanting to get out of the game.
Anpu42 wrote: My old D&D Group can not get past the DM vs. Player Mentality. 4th Ed D&D had this great idea where the DM would have each player write down 5 things they would like their character to get, land, specific magic item, just a magic weapon. The point was to give the DM an idea of what the Players wanted. I had one who every time I handed out the sheet to fill out would look at me and say "This Stupid Thing Again" along with a dirty look and most of the rest took all day to write down a list and not from having to many choices, but because they had a choice.
The same when AoS hit. The attitude was 'I should not have to Talk to the guy/girl I am playing with before the game, we should just put the Models on the Table and Play' from a lot of people.
That sounds like a cool idea! I DMed for 4th Edition throughout my college years and never saw that anywhere. I'm going to have to remember that if I ever get a chance to play D&D again!
But yeah, you are right. The DM (or GM, if you prefer) is not the opponent to be defeated, but rather a user experience facilitator. The DM is in charge of making sure that the players are entertained by the story, the RP sessions are enjoyable, and the combat encounters are sufficiently challenging for the group. RPGs are about 1) the story of the campaign, and 2) getting together with other players to enjoy your time together, that is the point of them. Wargames can fulfill that exact same role, AND it can fulfill the competitive mindset that some players have. The problem with communicating ahead of time is that many players don't realize that others may not want to play the same kind of game as them.
The other thing many people miss is that YOUR JOB as a Player (or DM, GM Host) is to make sure everyone has a good time. If one, ONE person did not have a good time you Failed at your Job. I have been playing with that philosophy now for over a decade now and everyone who plays with me is now on board.
I have lost count of how many TFGs players we have gone through with that philosophy and we all agree it is for the better.
Asmodai wrote: I voted for points originally, but I'm leaning towards Power Level now just because I've had to go through the "You have to pay for your default weapons on top of the base cost for the unit" discussion at least a dozen times and the game isn't even out yet.
I've had the same experience. It generally ends with someone exasperatedly rolling their eyes.
I'm getting anxious enough about it to the point I might start asking to see people's math. I guess because "Points" lie. They tell you it will be fair. Even thou I know from experience it never is. Maybe that is why I don't find power levels as offensive as some do. That inherent unbalance is baked in.
Part of the allure of breaking points is that the more granular they are, the more clever the player that breaks them is.
Its easier to break power level. As such, its not as clever to break them. Coming up with a 2000 point granular list that operates as if it were 3000 points is clever. Doing the same with power level... not so much.
Points have never been balanced. They just let you do more granularity and as such are more comforting to those that think they offer greater balance.
By December the forums will be filled with the latest meta busting min/max lists that take advantage of the 8th edition granular point system.
We're doing a form of azyr comp with the new 40k points just to identify where those undercosted units lie.
Asmodai wrote: I voted for points originally, but I'm leaning towards Power Level now just because I've had to go through the "You have to pay for your default weapons on top of the base cost for the unit" discussion at least a dozen times and the game isn't even out yet.
That's just GW making points WORSE. Because they had it fine before, but they fixed what wasn't broken.
And yet that doesn't make powerlevels good. I've seen just as many complaint threads and heard just as many discussions on how broke the power level assignments are for various units as I have about points since the release of leaks for 8th.
In fact, I'm pretty sure right now, points are still in a better position just on units alone, because of the often tremendous disparity of power between equally costed units in the powerlevel system.
auticus wrote: I know my local meta will be pretty hostile to power levels for anything except events that will specifically use them.
Pick up games here are typically practice games for tournaments though (often) and those that aren't typically follow tournament standards regardless.
Pick up games where I play are in the majority very casual games. Even the competitive games are actually pretty casual. In my last ITC 1850 point 7th edition game, I faced a squad of devastator marines, which amounted to legs glued to bases with no bodies, riding in a half finished water bottle.
We rarely follow tournament standards. Before each game there's usually a moment where we compare lists to make sure that the game is balanced. This is also why power is helpful. We can adjust our lists after comparing them while keeping the cost calculation simple and quick.
In my area, the 40K players are broken into different groups that tend to stick to their own playstyles:
- the "WAAC-ers", ultra-competitive tournament players, who treat every game as practice for the ITC. They think they are hot stuff, and seem to have all the money they need to buy the most OP units/armies and can afford to chase the meta non stop. They host their own tournament circuit throughout the year and keep track of WLD through the seasons. Ages about 24-30.
- the group that I call the "Old Guard", they have been into Warhammer for decades. Occasionally hosts tournaments and Narrative events for several systems, and are generally really cool guys to play with. They still have and play their Warhammer Fantasy armies with 8th Edition Fantasy, and are willing to try out the latest new wargame to further their knowledge on game design theory. Ages are 40+.
- my group, which consists of players interested in just having furn with the games. We have much more in common with the "Old Guard", and attend their events when we can. We are basically poor, so can barely afford to buy new models, and are unable to "chase the meta" and keep up with the "WAAC-ers", so we stick with relaxed, fun games, and are always planning or looking for Narrative events to participate in. Ages are all over the place, and we are really the only group married with kids (in case you were wondering why we have no money )
With any luck, my group will be perfectly okay with either Power Levels or Points. If I know them half as well as I think I do, then it shouldn't be an issue.
Anpu42 wrote: The other thing many people miss is that YOUR JOB as a Player (or DM, GM Host) is to make sure everyone has a good time. If one, ONE person did not have a good time you Failed at your Job. I have been playing with that philosophy now for over a decade now and everyone who plays with me is now on board.
I have lost count of how many TFGs players we have gone through with that philosophy and we all agree it is for the better.
Indeed! That tactic worked for us once, with one pseudo Kill Team campaign we had once that kinda of started as PVP, but later turned into a PVE or PVGM campaign, with the GM running as one villain for us all to fight. It was a lot of fun! And the WAAC-er player who joined early on left after he realized he couldn't "defeat" anyone with his Tau Kill Team. I mean, I did feel bad that he didn't enjoy the game, but he was/is still placing high in the local tournaments, and hasn't really had anything to do with us since then.
auticus wrote: We're doing a form of azyr comp with the new 40k points just to identify where those undercosted units lie.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: And these examples are handled just fine by Power Levels as well when one is not worried about "optimization" or "efficiency" in their army.
Sure... But why bother?
That's the sticking point for me... It's difficult to see how taking development time to design a new system to do an inferior job of something that was already covered by the existing system rather than using that development time to fix the existing system is a good choice.
I'm sure there will be plenty of players who are happy using power levels. From the examples in this thread, in many cases they will be people doing exactly what they've been doing for 20 years previously with points ... Which suggests that if GW hadn't bothered introducing power levels, the only thing that would be different is that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Asmodai wrote: I voted for points originally, but I'm leaning towards Power Level now just because I've had to go through the "You have to pay for your default weapons on top of the base cost for the unit" discussion at least a dozen times and the game isn't even out yet.
I've had the same experience. It generally ends with someone exasperatedly rolling their eyes.
I'm getting anxious enough about it to the point I might start asking to see people's math. I guess because "Points" lie. They tell you it will be fair. Even thou I know from experience it never is. Maybe that is why I don't find power levels as offensive as some do. That inherent unbalance is baked in.
That is the "honesty" parameter I mentioned earlier and a reason for many, many threads on dakka about "ideal ballance". Numerical points are generally poor tool for ensuring equality in complex games and very granular point systems create even greater illusion of achievability of ideal ballance.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: I have no problem giving myself less in order to give my opponent a better chance at the game, because I'm not concerned with winning at plastic figures battles. [...]
I play WITH my opponents, not AGAINST them.
auticus wrote:Playing *with* your opponent instead of *against* your opponent is probably the biggest divide on the internet regarding wargaming, and why this opinion thread turned into a hostile "you're playing wrong" thread.
Very much this. I would also add, that ensuring "equal fun" or "equal challange" rather than only "fair, 50/50 chance of winning asuming equal skill", that is including actual players, their personalities and skill in the equation is the hardest part of so called "casual at all costs" playstyle and from what I see in this thread the hardest thing to understand for players with "always competetive", skill measuring approach...
BunkhouseBuster wrote: And these examples are handled just fine by Power Levels as well when one is not worried about "optimization" or "efficiency" in their army.
Sure... But why bother?
That's the sticking point for me... It's difficult to see how taking development time to design a new system to do an inferior job of something that was already covered by the existing system rather than using that development time to fix the existing system is a good choice.
I'm sure there will be plenty of players who are happy using power levels. From the examples in this thread, in many cases they will be people doing exactly what they've been doing for 20 years previously with points ... Which suggests that if GW hadn't bothered introducing power levels, the only thing that would be different is that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Bother with what? Using Power Levels? Or using Points? Or not worrying about "optimization" or "efficiency"? Or all of the above?
It's just a different way to build up armies and it works good enough for a relaxed game. I don't have any sort of competitive mindset when it comes to anything, especially wargaming - I refused to use my Thunderwolves in 7th Edition because I didn't want to be overpowered, I played Land Speeders and Meltagun Bike Squads instead, I have been subtle to throw games to let my opponent win if I they were looking stressed or aggravated, and I try to make sure my opponent has a good time. To me, and others on here, Power Levels meet our basic army construction need, and we are excited to give it a shot.
GW is trying something new and trying to innovate. Whether that is successful or not is an entirely different matter. But think about this: No matter how you feel about Points vs. Power Levels vs. no points, GW has us all talking about it and keeping 40K on our minds. You think people are ever going to forget that AoS released without Points values for its units? That was a gutsy move on their part, and it is something that GW is trying to handle better on this Edition of 40K. The Points costs are going to change every year (so we are told), and the Power Levels are more static in that regard, and so if it truly was a time issue on development, then wouldn't it make more sense to work on the version that is less likely to change, especially when planning on changing the other?
And you are right, if GW had not released Power Level as is, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm glad that they did personally, but I can appreciate the fact that others want to stick with what is familiar. In my case, I may not be able to afford the Index books, let alone the Dark Imperium Starter Set, and definitely not any other models any time soon. I am not able to keep up with the rules changes and "meta" changes, and I probably won't be able to buy the upgraded Points values books as they come out. Power Levels being consistent give me a chance at having some consistency through 8th Edition, rather than worrying about the 8.1 and 8.2 Points updates that will come later on.
Asmodai wrote: I voted for points originally, but I'm leaning towards Power Level now just because I've had to go through the "You have to pay for your default weapons on top of the base cost for the unit" discussion at least a dozen times and the game isn't even out yet.
I've had the same experience. It generally ends with someone exasperatedly rolling their eyes.
I'm getting anxious enough about it to the point I might start asking to see people's math. I guess because "Points" lie. They tell you it will be fair. Even thou I know from experience it never is. Maybe that is why I don't find power levels as offensive as some do. That inherent unbalance is baked in.
That is the "honesty" parameter I mentioned earlier and a reason for many, many threads on dakka about "ideal ballance". Numerical points are generally poor tool for ensuring equality in complex games and very granular point systems create even greater illusion of achievability of ideal ballance.
Indeed. Especially since the Points Values will be adjusted to "balance" the "meta" later on. Yes, it's great that GW is trying to balance things out and be more involved in the community, but how will I feel if my 1500 Point army is suddenly 1200 Points in value, or even bumped up to 1700 Points?
Unless each player brings the exact same list and plays in a 2-Fort style terrain setup (read: perfectly mirrored), then we won't get "true balance".
BunkhouseBuster wrote: And these examples are handled just fine by Power Levels as well when one is not worried about "optimization" or "efficiency" in their army.
Sure... But why bother?
That's the sticking point for me... It's difficult to see how taking development time to design a new system to do an inferior job of something that was already covered by the existing system rather than using that development time to fix the existing system is a good choice.
I'm sure there will be plenty of players who are happy using power levels. From the examples in this thread, in many cases they will be people doing exactly what they've been doing for 20 years previously with points ... Which suggests that if GW hadn't bothered introducing power levels, the only thing that would be different is that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The answer to "why bother" is most likely "GW reaching new audience". That veteran narrative/casual players got new tool to do old tricks a bit better, bit faster is just a side effect. 6/7th ed has been cursed upon within wargames community so strongly, that there had to be a major shake-up to end bad publicity and "start fresh" to lure new blood. Three ways to play and Power Levels achieve that "broaden audience" goal quite nicely.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: And these examples are handled just fine by Power Levels as well when one is not worried about "optimization" or "efficiency" in their army.
Sure... But why bother?
That's the sticking point for me... It's difficult to see how taking development time to design a new system to do an inferior job of something that was already covered by the existing system rather than using that development time to fix the existing system is a good choice.
I'm sure there will be plenty of players who are happy using power levels. From the examples in this thread, in many cases they will be people doing exactly what they've been doing for 20 years previously with points ... Which suggests that if GW hadn't bothered introducing power levels, the only thing that would be different is that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The answer to "why bother" is most likely "GW reaching new audience". That veteran narrative/casual players got new tool to do old tricks a bit better, bit faster is just a side effect. 6/7th ed has been cursed upon within wargames community so strongly, that there had to be a major shake-up to end bad publicity and "start fresh" to lure new blood. Three ways to play and Power Levels achieve that "broaden audience" goal quite nicely.
You know, I remember a while back about "hardcore gamers" getting upset that Nintendo began advertising the Wii to families, encouraging parents to play with their kids, and increasing their market. In that situation, it came down to "hardcore versus casual gamers". I see the same thing happening here: big company wants to increase its customer base to increase sales and drum up business, and some of the old and reliable customers are feeling threatened by the new changes brought about. They seemingly didn't like the idea of sharing their hobby and experiences with people who don't want the same things as them, and they became vocal in their displeasure with the changes coming.
I have seen many, many posts on various forums and Facebook groups where people are excited with the new changes to the rules coming, and how they haven't played the same since 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th Edition. This big change in the game Edition is arguably the best thing to happen to 40K in several years, good, bad, or indifferent. Anecdotally speaking, it seems that more people are excited about the new Edition than those upset, and there are more people coming back than are leaving the hobby.
Yeah but the Wii did'nt sell any games it was all hardware sales and thats why third party dev's abandoned the platform.
The 360 which did appeal to the hardcore gamer was the big winner of that generation.
Thats before nintendo doubled down on the doomed Wii U which was a massive flop.
Going against your core demographic is stupid, look at marvel comics and how they went for SJW readers and lost everyone else, they can't even sell 20,000 copies of captin marvel anymore.
And in the 90's when the comics market crashed they could sell 100,000 copies at the low point.
hobojebus wrote: Yeah but the Wii did'nt sell any games it was all hardware sales and thats why third party dev's abandoned the platform.
The 360 which did appeal to the hardcore gamer was the big winner of that generation.
Thats before nintendo doubled down on the doomed Wii U which was a massive flop.
Going against your core demographic is stupid, look at marvel comics and how they went for SJW readers and lost everyone else, they can't even sell 20,000 copies of captin marvel anymore.
And in the 90's when the comics market crashed they could sell 100,000 copies at the low point.
Those are not good analogies, because GW is not abandoning any part of target audience and they are expanding, not deliberately interchanging playerbase. Points are still there, and Matched Play and the ruleset itself has been based on tournament players feedback (at least a large enough group of them) and the whole point of moving point tables to the back of the book is to be able to publish compact updates periodically, specifically for tournament/competetive players. There are already rumors about day one FAQ and rebalance. You may argue, that entire ruleset dumbs down/homogenises experience, but that is what many, many players wanted from GW during 7th ed (myself excluded). Points vs Power Levels is just a side argument in a discussion if 8th is better than 7th, 5th or 2nd. Being witness to 2nd-to-3rd transition (and rage-quit back then) I understand why people may fear/despise changes, but from GW perspective only a total percentage of happy users matters, not any individual who goes away/gets into this hobby. And the whole comparing 8th to 7th will eventually die out when most of the community will adapt to new edition. And the very dispute of points vs Power Levels will naturally settle, probably establishing a nice, up front divide line between "ballance always" and "casual fun" expectations. But if new edition will succeed in drawing new players in, then both of those groups of players might grow sufficiently, that no one will experience drop in games opportunities.
I don't explain the dept of the lore to new comers. Ones are the good guys, others are the funny green guys, other are elfs, other are bugs that eat things, etc... Isn't like I expose children to all of the horrors about the Cherubin, Servitors, Slaanesh and all of that, etc...
up we don't care.
If you didn't care about balance - then why use either system anyway?
