Blacksails wrote: Which isn't something points doesn't also offer, unless you're going to claim points are complicated. We both they're not.
You'd agree that power level is simpler than points, right? Points don't have to be complicated for power level to be simpler and for some people to like that.
There are differences like that right? And even if I may not find them sufficient reasons to prefer Power Level, other people might? That increased simplicity is something points doesn't do for those people but power level does?
but then are bothered that certain builds using points is not optimal (like the HK missile example above). If you don't care about optimization, then at least have the consistency to not care about optimization in both systems.
I think both optimization and non-optimization can work with both points and power level. The local marine player who takes his hunter killer missiles likes them and likes that his list isn't made weaker by taking them.
As long as both players are into a similar level of optimization, then the system they use will make different things optimal and allow those who like loading up wargear to do so.
I know some people in this thread have tried to put power level players on some sort of pedestal of casual play glory, but I think a wide variety of people play 40k and a wide variety of optimization preferences are present even in power level users.
So Power Level provides a difference there in that it makes different list building choices optimal for that way of building.
Points makes optimization about efficiency across the whole list whereas Power Level makes optimisation about efficiency within datasheets and punishes things like naked guard squads for command points. So that is a real difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:Gaming buddy of mine didn't put hunter killer missiles on his rhinos.
In a points game, this would make his overall list better.
In a PL game, this would make his overall list worse.
Changing which units are the best choice is not an improvement, it's just change.
And if some people like the change, then it's doing something they want right?
They might even find it useful.
If one system allows a fan of certain models and weapons to enjoy using them, then I think it's doing something very important. It's letting people enjoy their models the way they want in a game.
Some people like loading stuff up with stupid amounts of upgrades and having their crazy tanks and squads bristling with weapons.
I think it's cool that they can play with Power Levels and not have to worry about how doing so makes their stuff worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: It would hardly be more balanced, or offer more choice than points, but it would offer different choice, and let's be honest, the current 40k ruleset with points doesn't offer that many options anyway if you want to be optimal.
I wonder if the PL meta would be broader than the current points meta. Do you think it's possible a greater number of units would be tournament viable under power level than points?
Is it possible power level might actually be a better system for matched play? If, and only if, we accept the idea that variety in viable datasheets is a worthwhile goal of course.
You'd agree that power level is simpler than points, right? Points don't have to be complicated for power level to be simpler and for some people to like that.
There are differences like that right? And even if you or I may not find them sufficient reasons to prefer Power Level, other people might? That increased simplicity is something points doesn't do for those people but power level does?
I think the extra simplicity is negligible at best, as is the time saved. I think the trade off for this negligible gain in simplicity for the added granularity of points is a pretty bad trade off for most players in most situations, but sure, I guess people will do whatever they want with their time, and power to them. I maintain power levels add nothing of value to the game, and were a waste of developer resources and space in the rulebook.
I think both optimization and non-optimization can work with both points and power level. The local marine player who takes his hunter killer missiles likes them and likes that his list isn't made weaker by taking them.
As long as both players are into a similar level of optimization, then the system they use will make different things optimal and allow those who like loading up wargear to do so.
I know some people in this thread have tried to put power level players on some sort of pedestal of casual play glory, but I think a wide variety of people play 40k and a wide variety of optimization preferences are present even in power level users.
So Power Level provides a difference there in that it makes different list building choices optimal for that way of building.
Points makes optimization about efficiency across the whole list whereas Power Level makes optimisation about efficiency within datasheets and punishes things like naked guard squads for command points. So that is a real difference.
If both players are approaching the game with similar perspectives on optimization, then power levels add nothing because you can do the same with points.
The rest of what you wrote just makes a case against power levels adding anything of value. You literally said it punishes you by running squads without upgrades. Points on the other hand, while still suffering under GW's general game design incompetence, offers an appropriate cost difference between upgrades of varying powers and makes for better opportunities to run units with little to no upgrades for specific purposes.
Blacksails wrote: I think the extra simplicity is negligible at best, as is the time saved.
I've noticed that some people have a very different level of capability when handling arithmetic. Some people are very visual or verbal. I don't think your evaluation of the simplicity or time savings is taking into account the variety within humanity.
If both players are approaching the game with similar perspectives on optimization, then power levels add nothing because you can do the same with points.
Not in this case. I think it might help to boil power levels down a bit.
What are they? they're an average of points costs. So every upgrade (including not choosing an upgrade for that slot) costs an average of all upgrades for that unit. So you have points, where all those upgrades have different costs and then power level where all those upgrades have the average cost.
You can see how in those cases the different cost of upgrades is going to make different choices optimal, right?
Power Level is just an averaged out points system. So obviously if you cost not taking an upgrade as the same as the average cost of all possible upgrades, then it's going to punish taking those.
The rest of what you wrote just makes a case against power levels adding anything of value. You literally said it punishes you by running squads without upgrades.
Maybe that's a good thing for people who want lots of weapons and upgrades everywhere?
In previous editions of 40k if you went into a list building forum and took a look at lists made by new players, they'd have characters loaded with wargear. Every slot was full. Even after Jervis dumbed down the codex options for a while. People like taking wargear. So a system that doesn't punish them for it definitely is useful. It allows people's first instincts about list building to not be totally wrong like it is with points where all those upgrades degrade the whole list.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I do wonder if the polarized opinions about power level are the typical reaction to change thing.
When Age of Sigmar came out, there were people who could never, ever, ever see any good qualities in it. It was all bad, all the time. No matter what people who played it said.
Now with 8th edition pushing 40k towards an "Age of the Emepror" approach, maybe we're seeing the same thing? A total inability to acknowledge the obvious strengths of Power Level alongside it's obvious weaknesses.
Perhaps the more nuanced position is to say that how useful someone will find it will be based on how the weaknesses may or may not negatively impact that person and how the strengths may or may not benefit that person? That it may or may not be a good tool for setting up a game depending on what that individual desires from their game rather than our own desires?
I've noticed that some people have a very different level of capability when handling arithmetic. Some people are very visual or verbal. I don't think your evaluation of the simplicity or time savings is taking into account the variety within humanity.
Between everyone having a phone on them and apps that do the work for them, and also assuming a large number of people make lists in their spare time before showing up to a store, I think my evaluation is mostly correct. Besides, both power levels and points are simple arithmetic. If you can add 7+6+1+1+2+12 then you can add 100+10+60+5+200.
Not in this case. I think it might help to boil power levels down a bit.
What are they? they're an average of points costs. So every upgrade (including not choosing an upgrade for that slot) costs an average of all upgrades for that unit. So you have points, where all those upgrades have different costs and then power level where all those upgrades have the average cost.
You can see how in those cases the different cost of upgrades is going to make different choices optimal, right?
Power Level is just an averaged out points system. So obviously if you cost not taking an upgrade as the same as the average cost of all possible upgrades, then it's going to punish taking those.
The key point is that's a rough average, that we think from our own reverse engineering. And its not even consistently applied. If we assume that GW struggles at balancing points, then a system that uses those points as a baseline to make a less granular Power Level must surely be even less balanced and useless as a tool to compare unit strengths.
Maybe that's a good thing for people who want lots of weapons and upgrades everywhere?
In previous editions of 40k if you went into a list building forum and took a look at lists made by new players, they'd have characters loaded with wargear. Every slot was full. Even after Jervis dumbed down the codex options for a while. People like taking wargear. So a system that doesn't punish them for it definitely is useful. It allows people's first instincts about list building to not be totally wrong like it is with points where all those upgrades degrade the whole list.
There are also plenty of examples of characters loaded down with gear that are perfectly powerful or useful for their costs. This system also punishes players who don't want to load up on everything, or want to take a few cheap options that they think are cool. In either situation, points would still provide a better method of army construction.
Now with 8th edition pushing 40k towards an "Age of the Emepror" approach, maybe we're seeing the same thing? A total inability to acknowledge the obvious strengths of Power Level alongside it's obvious weaknesses.
Perhaps the more nuanced position is to say that how useful someone will find it will be based on how the weaknesses may or may not negatively impact that person and how the strengths may or may not benefit that person? That it may or may not be a good tool for setting up a game depending on what that individual desires from their game rather than our own desires?
--
The issue remains that power levels don't have any obvious strengths. They save a meaningless amount of time and math, provide a less granular system of measuring unit strengths, have now served to further divide the player base. Power levels have added nothing that wasn't already covered by points.
The only tangible strength I've seen put forward is being a time saver, which I dispute as being functionally meaningless, because adding a string of numbers into your phone takes seconds. Whether you're adding 10 numbers together or 30, the difference boils down to seconds. Every other aspect of list building (picking your models, selecting wargear, designating warlords) is the same, its simply the final math that is different.
frozenwastes wrote: That it may or may not be a good tool for setting up a game depending on what that individual desires from their game rather than our own desires?
Magic the Gathering figured this out. They have player "psychographics" where people want different things. As well as multiple formats (ways the game is used). Actually spelling this out has led them to massively grow their business. They make cards for everyone, so more people can be customers than if they only made cards for one type of player. Then GW did it with their "ways to play" and I'm sure it's contributed to their recent record sales levels.
In Magic each set that comes out is going to have cards for many formats and players. A part of each set is going to be "playable" in each format. The meta of a given standard environment might mean a new legendary creature isn't worth playing, but the players of the very popular multiplayer Commander format will flock to buy the card. It's okay that the game appeals to multiple ways to play and that not everything is for everyone.
The alternative is a battle for the soul of 40k. Where there's one way to play the game and we all have to make sure the way we want to play is the one that wins out locally as well as in the eyes of the design studio.
This is a really bad idea. It seems fine as long as your way to play is ascendant, but a new edition, a change in demographics and so on and we can suddenly find our way to play as being disregarded. If we instead acknowledge that there are lots of valid ways to play and work on building an inclusive player base we can all have more opponents for our preferred way to play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: Between everyone having a phone on them and apps that do the work for them
Why can't people just have a game where they don't need a calculator? You can use one, but why do they have to?
frozenwastes wrote: I've noticed that some people have a very different level of capability when handling arithmetic. Some people are very visual or verbal. I don't think your evaluation of the simplicity or time savings is taking into account the variety within humanity.
This is basic addition we're talking about, almost always done with a calculator. Nobody is required to do calculus-heavy engineering problems or prove obscure mathematical theorems to generate an army list. The people who could legitimately have mental problems with adding up point costs but not have the same problem adding up different point costs are such an absurdly tiny minority that it isn't worth talking about them. And TBH I wouldn't be surprised if the number is zero.
Maybe that's a good thing for people who want lots of weapons and upgrades everywhere?
Ok, sure, but I don't see why "the particular units I use in my army list become more powerful" is a legitimate reason for using a different point system. We might as well argue for the "all of Peregrine's units cost 1 point" system because it makes my stuff better.
I do wonder if the polarized opinions about power level are the typical reaction to change thing.
No. Other changes do not get the same reaction. The objection to PL is that it's game design.
When Age of Sigmar came out, there were people who could never, ever, ever see any good qualities in it. It was all bad, all the time. No matter what people who played it said.
That's because AoS was an unplayable dumpster fire that almost killed off GW's fantasy IP entirely before they scrambled to put out an updated version of the rules and salvage the game. There might have been a good rule hidden in there somewhere, but it was far outweighed by the fact that literally the only viable strategy was "spend as much money as possible on GW models" and models on large enough bases (or on flying bases) were immune to melee combat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: Then GW did it with their "ways to play" and I'm sure it's contributed to their recent record sales levels.
That is marketing nonsense, nothing more. GW didn't give three ways to play, they gave one way to play. PL and conventional points are the same game except one is less balanced than the other, and "whoever buys the most GW stuff wins" is not a way of playing that anyone ever uses.
Blacksails wrote: Between everyone having a phone on them and apps that do the work for them
Why can't people just have a game where they don't need a calculator? You can use one, but why do they have to?
Why is that so hard?
Good question. Why use PL and have to add up points with a calculator? Just put models on the table and roll dice.
Blacksails wrote:If we assume that GW struggles at balancing points, then a system that uses those points as a baseline to make a less granular Power Level must surely be even less balanced and useless as a tool to compare unit strengths.
Isn't it possible that since GW makes a variety of mistakes in both over costing and undercosting things that an average might actually be more correct rather than less? If every point value has a a good chance of being off either way, then an average might smooth a lot of those errors out.
And given how few data sheets in a given codex are tournment viable, I think it's a good reason to believe GW has gotten things off centre in both directions.
There are also plenty of examples of characters loaded down with gear that are perfectly powerful or useful for their costs. This system also punishes players who don't want to load up on everything, or want to take a few cheap options that they think are cool. In either situation, points would still provide a better method of army construction.
I think you might be confusing your preferences with some universal idea of "better." If someone likes a system where loading up on expensive options is rewarded and taking naked units and units with fewer and cheaper options, then wouldn't that be "better" for them?
I think the idea that GW could ever get the points right to the degree required so that all options are viable is a pipe dream. So it's a matter of choosing the system that support what you and your opponents would prefer. Some people want "mowr awesome!" 40k so a system that rewards the more powerful and larger weapons does what they want.
The issue remains that power levels don't have any obvious strengths.
Okay then.
Chamberlain wrote:The alternative is a battle for the soul of 40k.
That is marketing nonsense, nothing more. GW didn't give three ways to play, they gave one way to play. PL and conventional points are the same game except one is less balanced than the other, and "whoever buys the most GW stuff wins" is not a way of playing that anyone ever uses.
Looks at gaming group where since 8th has come out only one person has played matched play (me) and everyone else (8 other people) only does open and narrative. Looks back at your post.
Isn't it possible that since GW makes a variety of mistakes in both over costing and undercosting things that an average might actually be more correct rather than less? If every point value has a a good chance of being off either way, then an average might smooth a lot of those errors out.
And given how few data sheets in a given codex are tournment viable, I think it's a good reason to believe GW has gotten things off centre in both directions.
I see what you're saying, but we'd have to assume that GW was off roughly equally in both directions for each individual total unit upgrade costs, which is we know isn't true. Generally, a lot of upgrades are pretty fairly costed, with the occasional outlier. Taking an average still incentives the expensive (generally better) options while punishing the cheaper (generally worse off) option.
I think you might be confusing your preferences with some universal idea of "better." If someone likes a system where loading up on expensive options is rewarded and taking naked units and units with fewer and cheaper options, then wouldn't that be "better" for them?
I think the idea that GW could ever get the points right to the degree required so that all options are viable is a pipe dream. So it's a matter of choosing the system that support what you and your opponents would prefer. Some people want "mowr awesome!" 40k so a system that rewards the more powerful and larger weapons does what they want.
I'm going off an idea of better as being a better designed game where player choices matter. Having every upgrade be nominally free doesn't make for much a real choice for players. Instead of me having to pick between the more expensive lascannon for guard unit or the cheaper autocannon, power levels just let me pick the obivously superior anti-tank gun without any downside or penalty.
The people who want more awesome and bigger everything can still do that using points, and by and large, are not punished too much in this edition for doing so.
GW getting points right is a pipe dream, agreed, but other companies, not so much.
That is marketing nonsense, nothing more. GW didn't give three ways to play, they gave one way to play. PL and conventional points are the same game except one is less balanced than the other, and "whoever buys the most GW stuff wins" is not a way of playing that anyone ever uses.
Looks at gaming group where since 8th has come out only one person has played matched play (me) and everyone else (8 other people) only does open and narrative. Looks back at your post.
I'm going off an idea of better as being a better designed game where player choices matter. Having every upgrade be nominally free doesn't make for much a real choice for players. Instead of me having to pick between the more expensive lascannon for guard unit or the cheaper autocannon, power levels just let me pick the obivously superior anti-tank gun without any downside or penalty.
Not everyone considers list building to be an essential part of the game. Some would even consider it a chore. I find strategic choices are more fun within the game and not before it. Besides, an autocannon and lascannon serve slightly different roles (autocannons are generally better at shooting things with invulns or 2 W models). Just because I can take a lascannon for "free" doesn't mean I would want to, such as playing against infantry heavy armies.
I'm going off an idea of better as being a better designed game where player choices matter.
Player choice matters either way. If the points are used then you evaluate which is the best option for the points and take that. If it's power levels then you evaluate which is the best option given no additional cost and take that.
Both Power Level and Points offer those interested in optimizing their list meaningful choices.
Not everyone considers list building to be an essential part of the game. Some would even consider it a chore. I find strategic choices are more fun within the game and not before it. Besides, an autocannon and lascannon serve slightly different roles (autocannons are generally better at shooting things with invulns or 2 W models). Just because I can take a lascannon for "free" doesn't mean I would want to, such as playing against infantry heavy armies.
If list building is a chore, then why bother with PL. Just use Open and put models on the table and go.
Just like all your evidence?
List the arguments I've used based on anecdotal evidence.
frozenwastes wrote:
Player choice matters either way. If the points are used then you evaluate which is the best option for the points and take that. If it's power levels then you evaluate which is the best option given no additional cost and take that.
Both Power Level and Points offer those interested in optimizing their list meaningful choices.
The idea behind player choice is the choices are meaningful. Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
Power levels mean optimizing is simply taking the most 'expensive' option is most cases for upgrades.
Chamberlain wrote: How many people coming out of the woodwork to say they like Power Level and play Narrative and Open do you need?
GW obviously saw a sufficient level of success from the three ways to play in Age of Sigmar to include them in 8th edition 40k.
And not only that! Include them as the default! Power Levels are on the data sheets. Points are stuck in the back.
I don't think they'd have done that without a very, very good reason.
I think the typical internet forum user is nothing like the average GW customer.
bolded and underlined for a reason. they say the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but sometimes it's just a noisy wheel and doesn't represent all wheels.
As much as everyone derides GW for "messing" up points costs etc, 3 ways to play was obviously built into 8th from top/down. GW as a company doesn't do things just cuz.
I rarely look at points costs when I'm building a list. only after I have selected my units (which are wysiwyg) do I factor in points. then I pare down to the agreed upon points. most of the time I have maybe 15-20 points left over and I'll go back and add in wargear to make it "close".
But I'd much rather just work up a PL list and not have to worry about the minutiae. I always give my vehicles hunter/killer missiles, my characters have the best (objectivley) equipment, and I could give 2 scheiss if it's not points efficient.
In 8th, out of 40-50 games ive played, I've never been tabled/alpha strike. so I guess my experience is just luck (even tho I play against heavy tourney lists all the time) and I should just do it points and make more work for myself. if it's good enuff for GW (who make the game) to include it for a reason, and gives me an easy way to get playing, I'll use it everytime.
If you don't like it(PL), fine, if you do fine. One is not better than the other, just different strokes for different folks. no one is holding a volkite culverin to your head, so why do you (you know who you are) keep belittling others just for not playing how you want them to?
This Peregrine / Blacksails “stop liking what I don’t like” tag-team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU DON’T LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people they’re wrong for liking playing the game the way they want to, you’ll have a happier day.
JohnnyHell wrote: This Peregrine / Blacksails “stop liking what I don’t like” tag-team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU DON’T LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people they’re wrong for liking playing the game the way they want to, you’ll have a happier day.
Have I said people are wrong for playing PL?
The answer is no, I even expressly stated that people are fine to play what they like. I've stated that I think PL was a waste of dev time and adds nothing of value to the game.
This is a discussion. I'm discussing. If you don't want to read or participate then you're free not to. Putting words in my mouth or typing in caps isn't helpful or insightful.
Once again, play however you like, I don't care because it has zero impact on my life. I'm having a discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of power levels.
I'm having a perfectly happy day. Cracked open a beer, about to light the bbq for the first time this season (though its still 5C and rainy out here) and my dogs finally settled down...a little anyways.
Blacksails wrote: Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
I may not be understanding what this part of the thread is about, but didn't you just make a distinction between a lascannon and an autocannon based on its role in the game right there? Didn't you take their same cost into consideration and make a choice for the lascannon because you want the better anti-tank weapon?
So I guess Power Levels do provide meaningful choices because you can't even make the case that they do not without making such a choice, demonstrating yourself to be wrong? You made a comparison and chose what you saw as the superior anti tank weapon.
Blacksails wrote: Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
I may not be understanding what this part of the thread is about, but didn't you just make a distinction between a lascannon and an autocannon based on its role in the game right there? Didn't you take their same cost into consideration and make a choice for the lascannon because you want the better anti-tank weapon?
So I guess Power Levels do provide meaningful choices because you can't even make the case that they do not without making such a choice, demonstrating yourself to be wrong? You made a comparison and chose what you saw as the superior anti tank weapon.
Seems meaningful to me.
The superior anti-tank weapon is the lascannon. It costs more than an autocannon because its a better weapon. In points, its a meaningful choice to pay more for a better weapon, or less for a worse weapon. In power levels, I don't have to worry about costs, I just take the superior weapon.
I think at this point that you've demonstrated that you are so committed to this position that you can't accept anything that people say it adds for them. If it adds at least something of value for someone, then the statement that it adds nothing is proven false.
Power Level:
Is simpler than points and people seem to like that about it.
Adds an incentive to lots of wargear and big weapons for people who like that in their games.
Gives a place for power level efficient options that are not points efficient options to shine
Allows people to build lists very rapidly on the fly
If your reply is "no it doesn't! no it doesn't! no it doesn't! no it doesn't!" but people are telling you that they use it to do those things all the time, maybe you should question whether or not your preferences for 40k are as universal as you think they are. To deal with the simplicity and time saving thing, you had to have people use apps and calculators! There's no louder endorsement of the simplicity of Power Level than a basher of the system advocating someone pull out their calculator.
I think at this point that you've demonstrated that you are so committed to this position that you can't accept anything that people say it adds for them. If it adds at least something of value for someone, then the statement that it adds nothing is proven false.
Power Level:
Is simpler than points and people seem to like that about it.
Adds an incentive to lots of wargear and big weapons for people who like that in their games.
Gives a place for power level efficient options that are not points efficient options to shineThis especially
Allows people to build lists very rapidly on the fly
If your reply is "no it doesn't! no it doesn't! no it doesn't! no it doesn't!" but people are telling you that they use it to do those things all the time, maybe you should question whether or not your preferences for 40k are as universal as you think they are. To deal with the simplicity and time saving thing, you had to have people use apps and calculators! There's no louder endorsement of the simplicity of Power Level than a basher of the system advocating someone pull out their calculator.
DINGDINGDINGDING BINGO!
I have no problem with people who prefer points over power, but unfortunately the reverse does.
Blacksails wrote: The idea behind player choice is the choices are meaningful. Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
Power levels mean optimizing is simply taking the most 'expensive' option is most cases for upgrades.
So you see factoring in 10 points here as the source of the meaning in the choice? I don't. I think the meaning enters the equation when you decide whether or not you want a generalist weapon or a specialist weapon given the larger context of both the entire list and what the opponent might take.
Do I think that additional factor is an additional factor and thus adds something to the experience of using points differences for list building? Absolutely. Just as points are less simple than power level, they are also better for those who want to weigh more factors. I'm not at all convinced that without those factors, the choices of someone using Power Level suddenly become meaningless. Just like how Power Level being more simple doesn't suddenly render points complicated.
It's like different systems do different things for different people. It's not an all or nothing thing where one system must be better than another in all ways at all time.
This idea that one system or the other has no strengths and only weaknesses? That's probably a sign of a failure of reasoning. Where you mistake your individual preferences for universal ones.
Blacksails wrote: The idea behind player choice is the choices are meaningful. Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
Power levels mean optimizing is simply taking the most 'expensive' option is most cases for upgrades.
So you see factoring in 10 points here as the source of the meaning in the choice? I don't. I think the meaning enters the equation when you decide whether or not you want a generalist weapon or a specialist weapon given the larger context of both the entire list and what the opponent might take.
Do I think that additional factor is an additional factor and thus adds something to the experience of using points differences for list building? Absolutely. Just as points are less simple than power level, they are also better for those who want to weigh more factors. I'm not at all convinced that without those factors, the choices of someone using Power Level suddenly become meaningless. Just like how Power Level being more simple doesn't suddenly render points complicated.
It's like different systems do different things for different people. It's not an all or nothing thing where one system must be better than another in all ways at all time.
This idea that one system or the other has no strengths and only weaknesses? That's probably a sign of a failure of reasoning. Where you mistake your individual preferences for universal ones.
I gotta disagree with power levels given more choice. On a unit like tactical squads with points you have 3 ways to run it no upgrades 1 gun or fully kitted . Power levels reduce that to just fully kitted anything else is just putting yourself at a disadvantage.
have also tried to suggest "open play" for APOC scale games, however only one other player is will to couple it with "no proxies" to stop the utter spam that it leads to
mew28 wrote: I gotta disagree with power levels given more choice. On a unit like tactical squads with points you have 3 ways to run it no upgrades 1 gun or fully kitted . Power levels reduce that to just fully kitted anything else is just putting yourself at a disadvantage.
I agree. One of the potential weaknesses of everything being included is that it does encourage loading up. For some, that's exactly what they want out of 40k. Others want to not care about optimization at all and just play whatever. Others want to weigh as many factors as possible.
I don't have any problem with the idea that points are better at things than power levels. I just disagree with the notion that they are better at all things, or that there's no reason for power levels to even exist, or that people using them successfully should have their experiences written off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: We tried power levels when 8th dropped locally.
have also tried to suggest "open play" for APOC scale games, however only one other player is will to couple it with "no proxies" to stop the utter spam that it leads to
I think you discovered a mismatch between player goals there. In my group proxies, unpainted models and deviation from WYSIWYG is very rare.
I find many people can turn their optimizing on and off. They can play the best possible list at a huge tournament like Adepticon and then go to a Narrative event and play their ork speed freaks or chaos marines or whatever else they would never consider for the event.
Blacksails wrote: Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
I may not be understanding what this part of the thread is about, but didn't you just make a distinction between a lascannon and an autocannon based on its role in the game right there? Didn't you take their same cost into consideration and make a choice for the lascannon because you want the better anti-tank weapon?
So I guess Power Levels do provide meaningful choices because you can't even make the case that they do not without making such a choice, demonstrating yourself to be wrong? You made a comparison and chose what you saw as the superior anti tank weapon.
Seems meaningful to me.
The superior anti-tank weapon is the lascannon. It costs more than an autocannon because its a better weapon. In points, its a meaningful choice to pay more for a better weapon, or less for a worse weapon. In power levels, I don't have to worry about costs, I just take the superior weapon.
I'm not sure what you're missing about that.
Seems someone is missing the concept of an Anti-Infantry weapon being better than an Anti-Tank Weapon in some circumstances. Or a multi-use weapon being better than both.
alextroy wrote: Seems someone is missing the concept of an Anti-Infantry weapon being better than an Anti-Tank Weapon in some circumstances. Or a multi-use weapon being better than both.
Seems someone doesn't understand how IG work. You don't take anti-infantry heavy weapons because you already have lasguns, Wyverns, etc that are great at killing infantry. You take anti-tank heavy weapons, and the lascannon is the best anti-tank weapon. The autocannon is only better than a lascannon in weird edge case scenarios that are mostly created for the sole purpose of "proving" that the autocannon has a place. The vast majority of the time if both weapons cost the same you're taking the lascannon. In a conventional points list you at least have to think about whether you're willing to invest 20 points in a heavy weapon and maybe consider the cheaper option. In a PL game they both cost zero points so you take the lascannon, anything else is crippling your squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: This Peregrine / Blacksails “stop liking what I don’t like” tag-team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU DON’T LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people they’re wrong for liking playing the game the way they want to, you’ll have a happier day.
This "stop hating what I like" tag team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people that they're wrong for pointing out GW's incompetence in game design, you'll have a happier day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: I don't think they'd have done that without a very, very good reason.
You seem to be forgetting GW's long history of incompetence in game design. Why would you ever make the assumption that if GW did something they must have a very good reason for it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: The local marine player who takes his hunter killer missiles likes them and likes that his list isn't made weaker by taking them.
Do you honestly not see how selfish this is? The local marine player benefits from it, but at the expense of the marine player who doesn't take those missiles having their list made weaker. That player is selfishly advocating changing the point system to buff their particular unit choices, turning a balancing system into another thing to exploit for personal gain.
alextroy wrote: Seems someone is missing the concept of an Anti-Infantry weapon being better than an Anti-Tank Weapon in some circumstances. Or a multi-use weapon being better than both.
Seems someone doesn't understand how IG work. You don't take anti-infantry heavy weapons because you already have lasguns, Wyverns, etc that are great at killing infantry. You take anti-tank heavy weapons, and the lascannon is the best anti-tank weapon. The autocannon is only better than a lascannon in weird edge case scenarios that are mostly created for the sole purpose of "proving" that the autocannon has a place. The vast majority of the time if both weapons cost the same you're taking the lascannon. In a conventional points list you at least have to think about whether you're willing to invest 20 points in a heavy weapon and maybe consider the cheaper option. In a PL game they both cost zero points so you take the lascannon, anything else is crippling your squad.
I thought we were talking about PL vs Points, not IG weapon load outs. We all know that Autocannons are bad, but that is because they just don't have a good niche due to their rules. I think we can make a case for Heavy Bolters vs Missile Launchers vs Lascannons as options for many units that can take one of the three. I'm darn sure that a Heavy Bolter is better against infantry than a Lascannon. Not an issue when playing guard, but PL isn't exclusively for guard.
Besides, everyone know that people only take Mortars on Guardsmen now days
alextroy wrote: Seems someone is missing the concept of an Anti-Infantry weapon being better than an Anti-Tank Weapon in some circumstances. Or a multi-use weapon being better than both.
Seems someone doesn't understand how IG work. You don't take anti-infantry heavy weapons because you already have lasguns, Wyverns, etc that are great at killing infantry. You take anti-tank heavy weapons, and the lascannon is the best anti-tank weapon. The autocannon is only better than a lascannon in weird edge case scenarios that are mostly created for the sole purpose of "proving" that the autocannon has a place. The vast majority of the time if both weapons cost the same you're taking the lascannon. In a conventional points list you at least have to think about whether you're willing to invest 20 points in a heavy weapon and maybe consider the cheaper option. In a PL game they both cost zero points so you take the lascannon, anything else is crippling your squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: This Peregrine / Blacksails “stop liking what I don’t like” tag-team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU DON’T LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people they’re wrong for liking playing the game the way they want to, you’ll have a happier day.
This "stop hating what I like" tag team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people that they're wrong for pointing out GW's incompetence in game design, you'll have a happier day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: I don't think they'd have done that without a very, very good reason.
You seem to be forgetting GW's long history of incompetence in game design. Why would you ever make the assumption that if GW did something they must have a very good reason for it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: The local marine player who takes his hunter killer missiles likes them and likes that his list isn't made weaker by taking them.
Do you honestly not see how selfish this is? The local marine player benefits from it, but at the expense of the marine player who doesn't take those missiles having their list made weaker. That player is selfishly advocating changing the point system to buff their particular unit choices, turning a balancing system into another thing to exploit for personal gain.
Thanks for playing, but try harder. I don’t use PL, but think you should stop deriding people who do. Helps if you read my posts instead of just trying a “NO YOU ARE!” response. ;-)
alextroy wrote: I thought we were talking about PL vs Points, not IG weapon load outs. We all know that Autocannons are bad, but that is because they just don't have a good niche due to their rules. I think we can make a case for Heavy Bolters vs Missile Launchers vs Lascannons as options for many units that can take one of the three. I'm darn sure that a Heavy Bolter is better against infantry than a Lascannon. Not an issue when playing guard, but PL isn't exclusively for guard.
IG are the only army that can take autocannons on their infantry squad, so IG was implicit. And no, you can't make a case for those weapons. HBs do the thing that your basic weapons already do, and don't do it all that well. Maybe you'd occasionally take one if you're list tailoring against an army that has nothing but horde infantry, but list tailoring is bad and you should feel bad about doing that. Missile launchers are just weaker lascannons against big targets in exchange for an alternate shot that is bad at the thing it's supposed to be used for. If you're shooting missile launchers at light infanty (outside of mopping up in a game you've already won) instead of tanks you're almost certainly making a mistake, and if you're shooting at tanks you should have taken a lascannon instead.
So no, HB/AC vs. LC is not an interesting choice in a PL game. It's an interesting choice in a conventional points game because you have to decide if paying more points for a more powerful weapon is worth it, when both options cost the same you almost always take the lascannon.
A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two, and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
Against some opponents/targets the autocannon is a better choice.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
JohnnyHell wrote: A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two
Can =/= likely to. Against anything but horde infantry (which, again, you are not shooting your heavy weapons at) the autocannon's higher rate of fire is offset by its significantly lower chance of converting a hit into an unsaved wound. For example, against basic MEQs the lascannon actually kills more of them on average despite having half the rate of fire.
and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
That is not how math works, at all.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
You're right, you do. And when you ask the question you find that the lascannon is better against pretty much every relevant target. In a conventional points game the lascannon is more powerful but also more expensive, so you have a choice between taking the better weapon at 20 points or saving 10 points by taking a weaker weapon. In a PL game they cost the same, and the choice is automatically the lascannon.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
No it isn't. Having weapons cost zero points or not has nothing to do with how much you min/max. That's entirely your personal feelings about different rules, and it highlights what I keep saying about virtue signalling: PL is not good because of RAW, it's useful because you've decided that it is "casual" and that min/maxing is "anathema" to it and therefore asking for a PL game tells your opponent that min/maxing is not welcome.
Peregrine wrote: Do you honestly not see how selfish this is? The local marine player benefits from it, but at the expense of the marine player who doesn't take those missiles having their list made weaker. That player is selfishly advocating changing the point system to buff their particular unit choices, turning a balancing system into another thing to exploit for personal gain.
Everyone should go for the way to play that they enjoy and that they can find other people who also enjoy it.
We should be selfish with our hobbies as they are about our own enjoyment. We should have both a detailed points system and a simplified power level system for both 40k and AoS. And allow people to try things out and figure out what type of warhammer experience works best for them. We just need to not be a total donkey-cave and try to advocate for one system and have the system other people want scrapped.
That would selfish in the truly negative sense. And that's your postilion.
alextroy wrote: Besides, everyone know that people only take Mortars on Guardsmen now days
Something tells me that this will be blamed on GW messing up points and thus excused from being considered a negative result of a points system always producing a best possible choice in a given combination of terrain, the type of stuff in people's armies and scenarios.
It should surprise no one that people prefer the system of their choice when they are comparing the real world version of the one they don't like with the idealized version of the one they prefer.
I hope I haven't been idealizing power levels that much. They definitely have their weaknesses. Speed and simplicity come at a price and when GW messes up and gets the number off by 1, that's like getting the number off by 20 in points. And when things have a wide variety of options like a predator or inquisition acolytes the power level tends to be off more than with other data sheets.
frozenwastes wrote: Something tells me that this will be blamed on GW messing up points and thus excused from being considered a negative result of a points system always producing a best possible choice in a given combination of terrain, the type of stuff in people's armies and scenarios.
Nobody is disputing that, in a point system, there will be a best choice. That's why in PL games there is a best choice. The argument is that people are laughably wrong when they try to claim that PL "lets you play whatever you want" or "doesn't have best choices" when all PL does is change which particular units/upgrades are the best choice. You still have the exact same choice between taking the best thing or weakening your own list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: Everyone should go for the way to play that they enjoy and that they can find other people who also enjoy it.
There's a difference between "play what you enjoy" and "pick the point system that makes your army more powerful than your opponent's army and insist that you get to use that one".
JohnnyHell wrote: A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two
Can =/= likely to. Against anything but horde infantry (which, again, you are not shooting your heavy weapons at) the autocannon's higher rate of fire is offset by its significantly lower chance of converting a hit into an unsaved wound. For example, against basic MEQs the lascannon actually kills more of them on average despite having half the rate of fire.
and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
That is not how math works, at all.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
You're right, you do. And when you ask the question you find that the lascannon is better against pretty much every relevant target. In a conventional points game the lascannon is more powerful but also more expensive, so you have a choice between taking the better weapon at 20 points or saving 10 points by taking a weaker weapon. In a PL game they cost the same, and the choice is automatically the lascannon.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
No it isn't. Having weapons cost zero points or not has nothing to do with how much you min/max. That's entirely your personal feelings about different rules, and it highlights what I keep saying about virtue signalling: PL is not good because of RAW, it's useful because you've decided that it is "casual" and that min/maxing is "anathema" to it and therefore asking for a PL game tells your opponent that min/maxing is not welcome.
Only hateful people use the phrase 'virtue signalling'. Way to show your true colours.
Again, I'm not a PL advocate; tried it and I prefer the balance points brings. Just suggesting you quit being such an active a killjoy and spending so much time telling others how they're allowed to play the game.
JohnnyHell wrote: A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two
Can =/= likely to. Against anything but horde infantry (which, again, you are not shooting your heavy weapons at) the autocannon's higher rate of fire is offset by its significantly lower chance of converting a hit into an unsaved wound. For example, against basic MEQs the lascannon actually kills more of them on average despite having half the rate of fire.
and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
That is not how math works, at all.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
You're right, you do. And when you ask the question you find that the lascannon is better against pretty much every relevant target. In a conventional points game the lascannon is more powerful but also more expensive, so you have a choice between taking the better weapon at 20 points or saving 10 points by taking a weaker weapon. In a PL game they cost the same, and the choice is automatically the lascannon.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
No it isn't. Having weapons cost zero points or not has nothing to do with how much you min/max. That's entirely your personal feelings about different rules, and it highlights what I keep saying about virtue signalling: PL is not good because of RAW, it's useful because you've decided that it is "casual" and that min/maxing is "anathema" to it and therefore asking for a PL game tells your opponent that min/maxing is not welcome.
Only hateful people use the phrase 'virtue signalling'. Way to show your true colours.
Again, I'm not a PL advocate; tried it and I prefer the balance points brings. Just suggesting you quit being such an active a killjoy and spending so much time telling others how they're allowed to play the game.
Guy's been showing his true colours for about ten pages now, I can't believe people are still responding to him.
Chamberlain wrote: Everyone should go for the way to play that they enjoy and that they can find other people who also enjoy it.
There's a difference between "play what you enjoy" and "pick the point system that makes your army more powerful than your opponent's army and insist that you get to use that one".
The only one advocating that a system be scrapped is you. Is anyone else really insisting on anything? They're just pointing out the ways they find PL useful in their gaming experience. You're the one insisting the tool they like to use should be scrapped.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vaklor4 wrote: Guy's been showing his true colours for about ten pages now, I can't believe people are still responding to him.
You know what, you're right. This isn't going anywhere. Now he's actually suggesting that people are selfishly choosing power level to make their armies more powerful than their opponents.
Points and power levels have their upsides and downsides. People should pick what works for them and their opponents.
JohnnyHell wrote: A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two
Can =/= likely to. Against anything but horde infantry (which, again, you are not shooting your heavy weapons at) the autocannon's higher rate of fire is offset by its significantly lower chance of converting a hit into an unsaved wound. For example, against basic MEQs the lascannon actually kills more of them on average despite having half the rate of fire.
and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
That is not how math works, at all.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
You're right, you do. And when you ask the question you find that the lascannon is better against pretty much every relevant target. In a conventional points game the lascannon is more powerful but also more expensive, so you have a choice between taking the better weapon at 20 points or saving 10 points by taking a weaker weapon. In a PL game they cost the same, and the choice is automatically the lascannon.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
No it isn't. Having weapons cost zero points or not has nothing to do with how much you min/max. That's entirely your personal feelings about different rules, and it highlights what I keep saying about virtue signalling: PL is not good because of RAW, it's useful because you've decided that it is "casual" and that min/maxing is "anathema" to it and therefore asking for a PL game tells your opponent that min/maxing is not welcome.
Only hateful people use the phrase 'virtue signalling'. Way to show your true colours.
Again, I'm not a PL advocate; tried it and I prefer the balance points brings. Just suggesting you quit being such an active a killjoy and spending so much time telling others how they're allowed to play the game.
So centre left people like myself are hateful, makes me wonder what you'd call conservatives.
And you have it wrong others are talking down to matched players as if they are lesser for using points over PL and he's just refusing to take it lying down, and every reply is logically consistent.
Chamberlain wrote: Now she's actually suggesting that people are selfishly choosing power level to make their armies more powerful than their opponents.
Uh, that is exactly what the person I was responding to advocated: that "my list with hunter killer missiles is more powerful under PL" is a good reason to use PL.
JohnnyHell wrote: A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two
Can =/= likely to. Against anything but horde infantry (which, again, you are not shooting your heavy weapons at) the autocannon's higher rate of fire is offset by its significantly lower chance of converting a hit into an unsaved wound. For example, against basic MEQs the lascannon actually kills more of them on average despite having half the rate of fire.
and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
That is not how math works, at all.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
You're right, you do. And when you ask the question you find that the lascannon is better against pretty much every relevant target. In a conventional points game the lascannon is more powerful but also more expensive, so you have a choice between taking the better weapon at 20 points or saving 10 points by taking a weaker weapon. In a PL game they cost the same, and the choice is automatically the lascannon.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
No it isn't. Having weapons cost zero points or not has nothing to do with how much you min/max. That's entirely your personal feelings about different rules, and it highlights what I keep saying about virtue signalling: PL is not good because of RAW, it's useful because you've decided that it is "casual" and that min/maxing is "anathema" to it and therefore asking for a PL game tells your opponent that min/maxing is not welcome.
Only hateful people use the phrase 'virtue signalling'. Way to show your true colours.
Again, I'm not a PL advocate; tried it and I prefer the balance points brings. Just suggesting you quit being such an active a killjoy and spending so much time telling others how they're allowed to play the game.
So centre left people like myself are hateful, makes me wonder what you'd call conservatives.
And you have it wrong others are talking down to matched players as if they are lesser for using points over PL and he's just refusing to take it lying down, and every reply is logically consistent.
It's a natural human trait to view yourself as more reasonable then you really are. From this side you come off a lot harsher than you thing.
No one was talking down to you guys until Peregrine came into this thread swinging. And naturally you guys ruffled enough feathers to get the out come you wanted.
Peregrine wrote: Nobody is disputing that, in a point system, there will be a best choice. That's why in PL games there is a best choice. The argument is that people are laughably wrong when they try to claim that PL "lets you play whatever you want" or "doesn't have best choices" when all PL does is change which particular units/upgrades are the best choice. You still have the exact same choice between taking the best thing or weakening your own list.
If it's the case that there will always be an optimal choice regardless of the points system you use, and not choosing that option will weaken your list, then what's the advantage of the points system over PL? You're essentially just claiming that the set of optimal choices under points is somehow better than the set of optimal choices under PL... how do you support that position? Why do we need points at all?
How does power levels help modellers over points? Model what you want, and then just pay the points for that model. I also can't fathom a reason power levels make your army cheaper.
*Edit* I also scratch my head whenever people say power levels are great for when you don't care about min-maxing or making optimal choices, but then are bothered that certain builds using points is not optimal (like the HK missile example above). If you don't care about optimization, then at least have the consistency to not care about optimization in both systems.
Lol. That's sooooo obvious. For one you can model cool looking model without worrying about your army becoming WORTHLESS PIECE OF JUNK because you pay way too much for what it is. Like unit I fielded yesterday. It was fun unit to build, liked to paint it, it looks sweet but costs way too much for 5 T4 3+ save guys with 1W each. If I would like that unit to be even remotely playable I would need to throw down like 90% of gear it has. And no just because you like modelling doesn't mean you want to deliberately lose every game because you liked to build some models.
Also you don't need bazillion replacement models to ensure you can have cheaper alternative model to stay in point limit. I have lost count times I need to degrade weapon just to fit to point level. With point cost I need two models. With PL I need 1. You really don't see how LESS MODELS NEEDED equals to CHEAPER ARMY TO BUY? For example for sake of dropping 10 points I might need to change my entire battlewagon. You don't really see how it's MUCH cheaper that I don't need to have 2 versions of battlewagon? One with couple big shootas for fun, 1 for when I run out of points so need to drop something to fit into point limit.
tneva82 wrote: For one you can model cool looking model without worrying about your army becoming WORTHLESS PIECE OF JUNK because you pay way too much for what it is.
Not true at all. For example, I prefer the appearance of LRBTs without sponsons on them. In a PL game I am overpaying for those no-sponson LRBTs because I could have two more heavy weapons for zero additional cost. They're WORTHLESS PIECES OF JUNK. In a conventional points game I don't pay for weapons I'm not taking, and the point cost more accurately reflects the power of my chosen configuration. So I actually have greater flexibility to choose what looks cool without worrying about making a crippled unit.
Also you don't need bazillion replacement models to ensure you can have cheaper alternative model to stay in point limit. I have lost count times I need to degrade weapon just to fit to point level. With point cost I need two models. With PL I need 1. You really don't see how LESS MODELS NEEDED equals to CHEAPER ARMY TO BUY?
PL does not require less models. If you're over the point limit (or significantly under it) in a PL game you have to change an entire unit composed of a $50 tank model or an entire squad of infantry. If you're over the point limit in a normal game you can often swap a model or two instead of an entire unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kadeton wrote: If it's the case that there will always be an optimal choice regardless of the points system you use, and not choosing that option will weaken your list, then what's the advantage of the points system over PL? You're essentially just claiming that the set of optimal choices under points is somehow better than the set of optimal choices under PL... how do you support that position? Why do we need points at all?
Even though there is usually still an optimal choice you can still narrow the gap between options. In a PL game an autocannon is never the correct choice, it costs way more than it should. In a conventional points game the autocannon is still probably not cheap enough relative to the lascannon, but it's at least cheaper at all. That reduces the gap in power between the two options even if you still conclude that the lascannon is the right choice.
kadeton wrote: If it's the case that there will always be an optimal choice regardless of the points system you use, and not choosing that option will weaken your list, then what's the advantage of the points system over PL? You're essentially just claiming that the set of optimal choices under points is somehow better than the set of optimal choices under PL... how do you support that position? Why do we need points at all?
Even though there is usually still an optimal choice you can still narrow the gap between options. In a PL game an autocannon is never the correct choice, it costs way more than it should. In a conventional points game the autocannon is still probably not cheap enough relative to the lascannon, but it's at least cheaper at all. That reduces the gap in power between the two options even if you still conclude that the lascannon is the right choice.
Sure, makes sense. But how is that better? You've still got an optimal choice and a sub-optimal choice, even if they're closer together.
Competitive players are going to pick up on that gap, no matter how small it is. Non-competitive players aren't going to care either way, they'll take whatever they feel like. So who benefits from points over PL?
kadeton wrote: Sure, makes sense. But how is that better? You've still got an optimal choice and a sub-optimal choice, even if they're closer together.
Competitive players are going to pick up on that gap, no matter how small it is. Non-competitive players aren't going to care either way, they'll take whatever they feel like. So who benefits from points over PL?
It's better because improving balance is always a good thing. Imagine a hypothetical game where the best option is 0.0000000000001% better than the second-best option. Yeah, that's a difference and the most dedicated competitive players will take the best option, but a game between someone who took the best option and someone who took the second-best option because it fit their fluff is going to be effectively an even match. The better list's advantage isn't going to be decisive enough to ruin the experience for the player who didn't take that best option, and both people end up having fun. That's clearly an extreme hypothetical scenario, but the closer the gap gets the closer we get to that world.
Or maybe they have it backwards, and the "second-best option" is actually the best one, and the players smart enough to figure it out gain an advantage. It's much easier to have that happen when the gap is small compared to when the gap is huge and obvious and impossible to miss.
Peregrine wrote: It's better because improving balance is always a good thing. Imagine a hypothetical game where the best option is 0.0000000000001% better than the second-best option. Yeah, that's a difference and the most dedicated competitive players will take the best option, but a game between someone who took the best option and someone who took the second-best option because it fit their fluff is going to be effectively an even match. Or maybe they have it backwards, and the "second-best option" is actually the best one, and the players smart enough to figure it out gain an advantage. It's much easier to have that happen when the gap is small compared to when the gap is huge and obvious and impossible to miss.
In that hypothetical game where the two options are so evenly matched, imagine also that those weapons cost the same number of points and are balanced accordingly. Now there's no difference between PL and points, right?
The systems just favour different balancing structures. Points is more forgiving of fudging things by making crappy weapons cheap, while PL forces you to consider how to make crappy weapons good. As far as I can tell, that's the only difference.
Also, for someone who's enormously outspoken about how GW is doing a terrible job at every aspect of the game, it feels like a hell of a turnaround for you to entertain the possibility that they would get the balance right to within 0.0000000000001%.
kadeton wrote: In that hypothetical game where the two options are so evenly matched, imagine also that those weapons cost the same number of points and are balanced accordingly. Now there's no difference between PL and points, right?
The problem is that PLcan't balance things the same way that conventional points do. In a conventional points game you can have an option with weaker stats and a lower point cost to reflect it. In a PL game you can't. You've taken away a major balancing tool and gone all-in on making all weapons have equally powerful stats. Theoretically this is possible, but in the real world the conventional points system has a major advantage in getting closer to perfect balance and is a lot more likely to do so.
while PL forces you to consider how to make crappy weapons good.
Do you see the inherent contradiction in this statement?
Also, for someone who's enormously outspoken about how GW is doing a terrible job at every aspect of the game, it feels like a hell of a turnaround for you to entertain the possibility that they would get the balance right to within 0.0000000000001%.
I never said that. In fact I made it clear that this was a hypothetical scenario, and the goal is to get as close as possible. But if you want to use "GW sucks so badly at balancing that both systems are equally broken, and by 'equally' I mean '100% utterly broken'" as your defense of PL then that seems much more like an argument against ever playing 40k than an argument that PL is a good system.
tneva82 wrote: Also you don't need bazillion replacement models to ensure you can have cheaper alternative model to stay in point limit. I have lost count times I need to degrade weapon just to fit to point level. With point cost I need two models. With PL I need 1. You really don't see how LESS MODELS NEEDED equals to CHEAPER ARMY TO BUY? For example for sake of dropping 10 points I might need to change my entire battlewagon. You don't really see how it's MUCH cheaper that I don't need to have 2 versions of battlewagon? One with couple big shootas for fun, 1 for when I run out of points so need to drop something to fit into point limit.
Weird guy.
In all honesty, it was because some models were in real world dollars so expensive I started figuring out how to use magnets and pins to swap loadouts.
Tanks, Aircraft and Dreadnaughts in particular.
Plus again looking at "the cup half full" I get to sometimes field these units with differing loadouts and can be pleasantly surprised in how they perform (easier to paint too).
I say with all honesty, I would be happy to help anyone with figuring out a way to make swappable options for any "chassis" if not already covered in detail already in Dakka.
I was a model builder before I was a tabletop player and that is my greater joy.
Part of the "fun" with points and lists is you sometimes have to make hard choices in order to fit as much meaningful equipment / models as you can into a list.
If we argue even the points "limit" does not matter it too becomes this slippering slope of how far can you go over and still be this happy fluff player and not TFG.
Peregrine certainly shows some stamina in making the point that as a system to achieve some semblance of balance, PLs are inferior to points in achieving that balance, I think that logic is pretty clearly made.
I think the warning being offered is being largely ignored: PLs are a much easier area for "abuse" or the proper wording would be "optimization" to be min/maxed even more than many posters would intend.
I am thinking you will be looking at some fully tooled-up characters and an awful lot of lascannons and assault cannons, that is not even thinking too hard, assuming people may or may not "understand" PLs are to signal a casual game. That system could even be prejudiced against most hoard armies since unit qty appears to be fairly closely paid for in the points.
As demonstrated in this forum, a secondary system only seems to allow further division of what is already a rather divisive player base.
Peregrine wrote: The problem is that PLcan't balance things the same way that conventional points do. In a conventional points game you can have an option with weaker stats and a lower point cost to reflect it. In a PL game you can't. You've taken away a major balancing tool and gone all-in on making all weapons have equally powerful stats. Theoretically this is possible, but in the real world the conventional points system has a major advantage in getting closer to perfect balance and is a lot more likely to do so.
The way I'd look at it is this: the designers of the game are always going to use the easiest tool available. I agree that it's easier to compensate using points, but I don't think "all weapon alternatives must have roughly equal value" is an insurmountable challenge, and I personally think the game would be better for it.
while PL forces you to consider how to make crappy weapons good.
Do you see the inherent contradiction in this statement?
Not really. When the problem is "This weapon sucks compared to this other weapon," there are two paths available: make the sucky weapon much cheaper than the other, or make it not suck.
Peregrine wrote: In fact I made it clear that this was a hypothetical scenario, and the goal is to get as close as possible.
The question isn't really about whether you think GW can achieve perfect balance, it's about whether you think they can achieve balance to the extent that a competitive player can't tell which of the available options is the "best". I don't think they can - they never have before, and nor has any other wargame I've ever played, so based on that track record I think it's unlikely. In which case, we're stuck with obvious "best" choices anyway - so what's the advantage of being "closer"?
Peregrine wrote: But if you want to use "GW sucks so badly at balancing that both systems are equally broken, and by 'equally' I mean '100% utterly broken'" as your defense of PL then that seems much more like an argument against ever playing 40k than an argument that PL is a good system.
I'm not saying PL is a good system. I'm just asking why you think points is a good system? If they're both bad, I'll go for the one that doesn't require me to cross-reference tables at the back of the book.
I'm not saying PL is a good system. I'm just asking why you think points is a good system? If they're both bad, I'll go for the one that doesn't require me to cross-reference tables at the back of the book.
Your premise that they are both equally bad is false.
I’m surprised by the people pushing power levels. Isn’t the only protection from exploitation it has from WAAC min/maxers that it doesn’t have enough popularity for those people to play in that meta?
Reemule wrote: Isn’t the only protection from exploitation it has from WAAC min/maxers that it doesn’t have enough popularity for those people to play in that meta?
What protection from exploitation by "WAAC min/maxers" is provided by the points system? There seem to be plenty of them using it.
I would assume that, if PL were used competitively, non-competitive players would use the same protections that have always existed - don't play in tournaments, and don't play games with TFG.
What's the correct loadout for a squad of crisis suits in a power level game that makes them balanced against other equivalent units of equal power level?
Is it all suits having fusion blasters? All having Plasma? All having burst? Combinations? What about signature systems?
The idea that power levels were ever balanced for any unit with wargear options is pretty laughable. What is the "median" loadout for a unit as customisable as Crisis suits?
A Town Called Malus wrote: What's the correct loadout for a squad of crisis suits in a power level game that makes them balanced against other equivalent units of equal power level?
Is it all suits having fusion blasters? All having Plasma? All having burst? Combinations? What about signature systems?
The idea that power levels were ever balanced for any unit with wargear options is pretty laughable. What is the "median" loadout for a unit as customisable as Crisis suits?
I've been asking that since launch day but no one can answer.
Is the median for a tac squad H bolter and a flamer? Is it missile launcher and a meltagun? Lascanon and plasmagun? No PL advocate will answer.
It's as frustrating as when people used to shout down valid complaints against 6th & 7th with force the narrative!!!
Because of you don't know what this fabled median is you can't really compare it to the points equivalent.
hobojebus wrote: Is the median for a tac squad H bolter and a flamer? Is it missile launcher and a meltagun? Lascanon and plasmagun? No PL advocate will answer.
It's as frustrating as when people used to shout down valid complaints against 6th & 7th with force the narrative!!!
Because of you don't know what this fabled median is you can't really compare it to the points equivalent.
This has been my constant problem:
If a person is playing a game by the rules as written why are they labelled TFG?
Breaking or playing outside of the rules is WAAC.
None of us have the ability to read minds so trying to adhere to unwritten rules to someone else's satisfaction appears to be a fool's game.
PLs do not inherently safeguard from competitive play, it is just not preferred by them since it is like "shooting fish in a barrel".
Then there is the "it is easier since I do not have to total wargear" which is a valid point if you have so many models you do not want to bother recording what they have.
I COULD say you are NOT playing fluffy.
I have an excel sheet of my "guys".
They each have names and list what gear that is glued on them (I only magnet big stuff).
Their points are their points, you just tally up your guys and go, I even assign them to given squads (that is already tallied) and if they took a really bad hit last game, they can sit out the next to "recover" when I need the points.
I bet you my pre-fab squads / lists will add-up faster than your PLs.
I think the argument for PLs is is to cover for LAZY gaming... not CASUAL play but SLACKER play.
It is also a VERY convenient excuse if you lose, "I could win if I really wanted to but TFG does not know how to play a casual game! It is SO irritating!"
I call you all out for what it is!
I think expecting any rule to "safeguard" play already shows a failure on the social level. Both to find others who want the same thing as well as an acceptance of those who do not.
I don't really need rules that protect me from someone who wants to ruin the game because that is best handled on the social level. Like when there's a disconnect on the level of character optimization in an RPG group.
Sucks for people who can only play strangers, but I would suggest start talking to them and make them into non-strangers you can talk to about what you want out of the game.
PL vs Points are never going to solve social issues.
A valid statement but it does give a reason to divide a group, social issues or not: just by giving a choice.
The question was if "power levels are useless now?" and some have gone the step further in saying it was not all that terribly useful for any given purpose, not quite a redundancy, more like a choice between course vs fine increments of matching up play.
The value of it seems questionable for the benefit/alternative it offers, it really begs the question of what the reasoning was behind it.
I hunted down a few articles and could eat crow on a couple prior statements I have made but they are worth reading.
"This is a rough approximation of a unit’s relative effectiveness on the battlefield. These can be used to very quickly throw together two roughly equal forces to fight a battle. " ...
Power Levels are a great way to very quickly get a roughly balanced game organised and started, but they do not account for the various wargear options and upgrades a unit can have.
For this level of granularity, you have points. These will be just as detailed as they are now, right down to points for individual weapon upgrades on every squad member. ...
The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want, which frees up room to include more rules for weapons on the datasheet.
It also means that, in the future, points for units could change without invalidating existing books – so if one unit or weapon starts to dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their weight in competitive games, we can address the balance.
"For a specific example, a 4 Knight army in 7th edition essentially meant that some armies could never beat them as they lacked the ability to hurt the Knights. In 8th, if you can choose which upgrades you have at the start of the game, all of those autocannons become lascannons or Impaler Cannons become Shockcannons, and suddenly, you have a chance to win. In the next game going against a Tyranid swarm, you can swap back to Heavy Bolters and flamers. Again, this may make certain spam armies worse, but that’s what we want. Everyone wants balance, but balance means that skew armies shouldn’t work because they lack too many tools. Power Level rewards list design that has modularity and variety, thus ensuring that in-game decisions matter far more. If you have ever screamed about 40K not being balanced, this is a mechanism to allow for that balance far more than a static army list using granular points where the very nature of its immutability offers avenues for exploitation.
...
What You See is What You Get, or WYSIWYG, would be an absolute necessity in a format like the one outlined above; so players can easily see what each model is armed with for the game. Yes, this would mean TOs would have to be more strict about custom conversions and 3rd party bits. WYSIWYG was once law of the land, and really, moving away from it only opens up more avenues for potential abuse. Also, the benefit of PL and WYSIWYG is that it gives players a greater opportunity to use their collections, not just the best units and weapons. How many times has a newer player been excited and built a box with all the upgrades, and then when he/she is finally ready to hit a tournament, he/she finds out that plasma pistols on sergeants sucked and were an active detriment? Now, any model has a chance to see play because yes, some loadouts are suboptimal in a fixed points system, but they may shine brightly in certain situations, and if you can actually adapt to that situation, you get to use them. In essence, granular, fixed equipment cost systems (like what we’ve had for several decades) encourage the kind of list building metas that most decry, but Power Level is a remedy to this where skew armies are less impactful and player skill is more meaningful."
"Now let me give you a perfect example on why I think Power Levels are broken. The average games are capped at either 100 PL or 2,000 points depending on which one you’re playing. The new Chapter Approved came out and we saw huge jumps in point values for certain models, yet Power Levels stayed the same. The Warhound Scout Titan has a PL of 75, but the points jumped from 1,500 points to 2,000 points. So if you want to take it for you next 2,000 point game it’s going to take up your entire army, but if you’re playing PL you’ll still have 25 PL leftover to spend on additional units. Seems like a tad of an imbalance to me.
Also remember PL does not take into account any points for wargear upgrades either. So option heavy units can quickly outpace balance in regards to points vs power level as well.
When Games Workshop updates the point values for units, especially when it’s a major increase or decrease, they should also update the Power Levels. If they don’t we could eventually see the demise of Power Levels all together. Do I want to see that happen? Absolutely not, I think Power Levels is a great idea for casual play, testing new army ideas, and teaching new players how to play. But, it’s also a system that I don’t think we’ll ever see used in a big tournament.
Granted if you are playing power levels with your buddies, you probably won’t have any issues getting along and working out any imbalances amongst yourselves. However, there may be issues when new players try this in a game store with folks they may not know as well, etc etc.
Figured I would drag in some other well thought out viewpoints outside of our echochamber.
A valid statement but it does give a reason to divide a group, social issues or not: just by giving a choice.
If offering a choice divides a group then not offering it means someone is left out in the cold not being offered the option they would enjoy.
A big tent approach works. Like in Magic where you don't have players of one formats arguing how useless the deck building system of another format is. Formats can exist side by side and each is seen as an opportunity to use different parts of the available card pool rather than bashed as a wrong way to do things. The new format Brawl was just announced and while some Commander players have expressed disinterest (they already have a multiplayer casual format and don't see the need for another) local magic communities don't seem to be going to war over that sort of thing. When you meet someone at a modern competitive 5k or GP or something and they talk about their kitchen table jank decks, you don't bash their deck building system. You just accept they are doing another fun thing with magic cards.
Maybe the times GW has advised store managers and local gaming store owners to kick out some veterans from the gaming space, they are on to something. Maybe 40k has a toxic element that can't accept that there are different ways to play the game. Maybe the problem is that the polarized WAAC and CAAC players can't see that they both 40k players first and foremost. Concentrating so much on their differences they can't see the similarities. Like how when religious violence is often worse between members of the same faith that only differ in small ways. Maybe 40k has accumulated zealots?
If the group I was playing with used Power Levels, I would prefer it over points. It takes me as long to create a 100 PL list as it does to generate 3 Fallen units in Battlescribe (Fallen are a little clunky in Battlescribe). I don't much care for list building these days and don't want to spend much time on it.
At the same time, I do want some indication to how big of a game I am playing. I don't care if there is say 10 PL or 200 points (about 10% of a list) difference in the list since there are ways to have the scenario/terrain make up the balance if the players know what they are doing and want a chance for a close game. I guess it is no surprise I am fine with point handicaps either which I know some players absolutely hate. I also think it helps the players expectation of scope of game if there is some sort agreed limit as given the choice I would choose 40-50 Pl or 750-1000 points but I imagine most players want double that (and I don't want to be the defender every mission). The math is not hard and it isn't too time consuming. However, this is my hobby I do for fun and, I don't find performing math (simple or not) or list building fun. So, I want it be as easy and brief as possible to get to the part I do enjoy.
I would prefer that weapons be more role specific with the point cost being closer to each other to close the gap between power levels and points and help alleviate weapon spam in both cases. In the case of my CSMs if power levels were based off the Champion having a Power Sword/Plasma Pistol and two Plasmaguns for a ten man squad their would be zero difference between them as that really is the best load given the rules. However, if meltas were the much better choice over plasma for anti-armor at the cost of range and flamers were meaningfully better than plasma at infantry also at the cost of range while heavy bolters are good against infantry and having good range players might actually consider which weapon to give their squads. Heck, I would even try to keep bolters competitive against plasma say taking away plasma's Rapid Fire or shortening its range by 4". Players might consider weapon's role over points or take the best one. As much as I don't like the differentiation of power axes, mauls and swords, at least this idea was better instituted, though; it could be argued there still is a clear winner.
This is neither here nor there, but I also believe the GW given their druthers would have only gone with Power Levels (as shown with the release of Age of Sigmar). I think they only include points because a significant chunk of the player base would riot if they didn't. This leaves me with the impression GW would much rather balance the game around power levels than points (if pushed to continue to balance the game). Given that balancing, play testing, etc. can be rather time consuming and only one audience is vocal about balance issues I imagine only one system is going to see significant reworks to attempt a fairer game. Realistically, either method still requires both players to speak with each other and check over the others list and decide what measures can be done to create the fairest game possible. Unfortunately, too many players like to believe if the they meet a partly arbitrary power or point level and build the significantly better list and give no quarter to the significantly poorly created list they are an excellent player even if they couldn't fight their way out of a paper sack with a mirror match or more evenly power scaled list.
Me, I don't care. I want to play 40K games to create neat little stories in the Warhammer universe in which I don't know the ending. I always play to win when I am at the table, but I don't enjoy doing it through having a better army list just like I don't like blow outs. To enjoy victory, I have to feel like at the beginning of the game it could go either way and even by turn 3 it can still be anyone's game. Anything less and I a least hope a cool story with a pretty table was enjoyed. I don't see the issue and argument of either system or even open play. So players like to worry about every little point and would think increasing the granulation by ten (as in a 2,000 point list becomes a 20,000 point). I am sure there are even players that just want to throw their whole collection against another player's whole collection (mostly talking about players with limited collections and not apocalypse). Where as I want to have just enough of an idea as to get a picture of how big of a game my opponent wants. Which I think power levels work okay for.
game design.
