i was curious to see which will be more popular.
it seems like it is going to be a major pain tallying an entire armies points up bit by bit to use a points base army.
do you think power levels are a fair gauge to use when playing matched games?
I think power levels are great when tossing a quick list together table side for a pick up game. So if you need to quickly toss an army together out of the stuff in your bag to accommodate a new player, it will be a great option.
But I think most serious games in my area are going to be pointed. It’s a little irritating at the moment, due to the way the everything is laid out, but once some army builder tools get released, or we just get more familiar with it, I think it will work just fine.
I think the concept of using power levels to accommodate a new player is silly. If a player is incapable of basic addition then they probably shouldn't be playing 40k.
Lack of experience doesn't suddenly make someone incapable of understanding the concept of costs associated to upgrades.
And if someone is so new (or the way people seem to think of it here, dumb) that they cant write a list for themselves. then write one for them, as a pointed list should result in a fairer (read more fun) game overall.
I have a feeling that if I want to play any 40k this year, I may have to build and paint both armies myself. I might as well use power levels and throw together some quick 50 power lists.
secretForge wrote: I think the concept of using power levels to accommodate a new player is silly. If a player is incapable of basic addition then they probably shouldn't be playing 40k.
Lack of experience doesn't suddenly make someone incapable of understanding the concept of costs associated to upgrades.
And if someone is so new (or the way people seem to think of it here, dumb) that they cant write a list for themselves. then write one for them, as a pointed list should result in a fairer (read more fun) game overall.
No one thinks a new player is dumb, but people do understand that a new player might not want to pull out a spreadsheet before they actually get to play.
Points pretty much all the time.
I only see myself playing with power level if I play with a new player, or a kid who only owns like 5 units and want to do something with them.
Power level isn't a bad system, and mostly works for units that don't have too many options (like only a couple special weapons per 10-men). It's however pretty inaccurate for units in which every model can swap their weapons for vastly better options (that obviously cost additional points, but not power level).
And to me, as for most of the people I play with, list-building is fun. And it's one of the few hobby-related things I can do pretty much any time/anywhere.
Power only seems appropriate when players aren't spending a lot of time thinking about their lists from an effectiveness standpoint. It's totally unsuited to a style of more-or-less competitive play where players show up for pick-up games with specific models that they intend to use as part of a list worked out in advance. It's a lot easier than points when just throwing something together in a few minutes with random models, perhaps to show someone the game. And it's pretty much the same as points for experienced players putting together armies which are not intended to be competitive (this will be especially true once army builder apps are updated).
Both. Points for tourney practice, PL for fun games where we just want to take the most expensive and not necessarily most efficient loadout on everybody and throw down.
I can see PL being the go-to for apocalypse for example.
I've just made my first list, 2000 points. Dead on. I'm keeping it's power Level with the list as well. 122. I want to see how similar the two are to each other as I continue making lists. Points was a pain. I'm not enjoying list building at all so far. mostly because the points costs for weapons feels odd right now. Power Levels might "Feel" more correct. It's all new again. I'm trying to make points and fill slots to get command points. It feels like I'm trying to game the system.
I think I'd prefer power levels over points. I think it would let me have the units I want with out stressing over ever little thing in the list.
I have no clue, what those Powerlevels are. Does the Level belong to a base unit or is it kitted out? I can not believe that it does not matter, if a Sergeant has got a Fist a sword or a Bolter. But Jumppacks are important for the System? Idk...
As I play 20 years now, I will still use my good old point-system.
Power levels are WAY!!!! off for some units. For example, 10 rubrics vs 5 deathwing terminators. Rubrics are 1 power point more, but can slaughter deathwing terminators.
Power levels are WAY!!!! off for some units. For example, 10 rubrics vs 5 deathwing terminators. Rubrics are 1 power point more, but can slaughter deathwing terminators.
I will be trying out the power levels first as it will be easier to use to learn the game (not having to be nit-picky with points), though I suspect most will use points since it is the normal for 40K
That being said, for doing a real quick pick up game, or a learning mechanic game, Power Levels seem to have a place.
I've run a couple of different lists and it seems like 100-120 Power Levels equates out to 2000 points (building the army from points and then converting to Power Levels)
For quick pickup games, power levels. Just so much easier even if it tosses out some balance.
When I have time to prepare and my opponent already knows the game, definitely points. Also gonna be using points to talk about relative power here on the boards as well.
Neither is balanced. There will be holes you can drive a truck in through both but narrative campaign play, my opponents won't do that. WAAC play however... it'll be all about abusing the bad point system
Points in the general case, but for Apoc, Power Levels might be the go-to.
I will be putting both on most lists I generate, though, out of interest to see where the greatest disparities lie. One thing I've noticed so far is that, in general, high durability and high mobility are priced very highly while pure killing power doesn't have the same premium. Highly reliable sources of damage, though, do seem to be pretty expensive. (Consider multimeltas versus lascannons, for one example)
Points. For any and all style of gaming, I'll be using points and asking for my opponents to do the same, which I imagine they'll want to anyways.
With power levels, you still have to note how many models you're taking in a unit (and adjust the power level) and note what wargear you're taking. At that point, the only difference is spending the 1 minute to add up the points from the table.
I don't see a single advantage in power levels. They strike me as lazy game design and do nothing to add to the game. Adding up points isn't hard or complicated or even time consuming.
Both, more than likely. Depends on my opponent, or what mood I am in. However, I voted for Power Level to give it some representation since "both" is not an available option.
I am determined to make Power Level work just to prove that it is fine for army construction. Heck, I might just play without points!
Power level is really bad
Just compare Imperial Knight Crusader and Renegade knight.
Renegade knight is 23 and Knight Crusader is 27 when the Renegade knight can do LITERALLY anything Knight Crusader can except with MORE flexibility.
He's 23 because he gets melee weapons by default. But since upgrades are free he just upgrades to Crusader weapons or better
rvd1ofakind wrote: Power level is really bad
Just compare Imperial Knight Crusader and Renegade knight.
Renegade knight is 23 and Knight Crusader is 27 when the Renegade knight can do LITERALLY anything Knight Crusader can except with MORE flexibility.
He's 23 because he gets melee weapons by default. But since upgrades are free he just upgrades to Crusader weapons or better
The last message out of GW was that power levels were a sort of consideration between how they came bog standard, but also what their maximum capacity was. If the two are near indistinguishable, it would be odd for them to have such different power levels. I can only take your word for it though, as the group I play with have been ignoring Knights entirely as their release was the point where we all agreed the "get bigger stronger toys"-thing went completely out of control, so I know precious little about how they play. I've faced one once in a tournament.
rvd1ofakind wrote: Power level is really bad
Just compare Imperial Knight Crusader and Renegade knight.
Renegade knight is 23 and Knight Crusader is 27 when the Renegade knight can do LITERALLY anything Knight Crusader can except with MORE flexibility.
He's 23 because he gets melee weapons by default. But since upgrades are free he just upgrades to Crusader weapons or better
It's because of people like you that they gave us the AoS release the way it was. SHUT THIS MAN UP BEFORE GW HEARS!
Lol, I was one of the guys who didn't play AoS until the General's Handbook came out and provided the points. I'm just taking a much more zen approach to my wargaming and not worrying about competition or finagling a fine-tuned list.
JNAProductions wrote: Imperial Knight Crusader Power Points 27
Points:
-320-Knight
-95-Avenger Gatling Cannon
-17-Heavy Flamer
-4-Heavy Stubber
-76-Thermal Cannon
-0-Titanic Feet
Options:
-Ironstorm Missile Pod-16
-Meltagun-17
-Rapid Fire Battle Cannon-100
-Stormspear Rocket Pod-45
-Twin Icarus Autocannon-30
So the Crusader is anywhere from 512 (stock) to 611 (RFBC, Stormspear, two Meltas).
Renegade Knight Power Points 23
Points:
-Knight-320
-Reaper Chainsword-30
-Thunderstrike Gauntlet-35
-Heavy Stubber-4
-Titanic Feet-0
Options:
-Avenger Gatling Cannon-95
-Heavy Flamer-17
-Ironstorm Missile Pod-16
-Melta-17
-Rapid Fire Battle Cannon-100
-Stormspear Rocket Pod-45
-Thermal Cannon-76
-Twin Icarus Autocannon-30
So the Renegade is anywhere from 389 (stock) to 616 (two RFBCs, three meltas).
Well, with the rather large difference in points, the power level difference actually makes sense, if it is like they said that the power level is based on "both stock and max loadout". It pretty accurately puts it in between. Of course this means that two identically equipped things can have different power costs, but that's the whole point of Power. It's not supposed to be an accurate point system. It's taking into account that you might field a stock Knight, which is exactly what it should be doing. If you, like me, have a problem with that, you don't use Power. You use points.
Purifier wrote: Well, with the rather large difference in points, the power level difference actually makes sense, if it is like they said that the power level is based on "both stock and max loadout". It pretty accurately puts it in between. Of course this means that two identically equipped things can have different power costs, but that's the whole point of Power. It's not supposed to be an accurate point system. It's taking into account that you might field a stock Knight, which is exactly what it should be doing. If you, like me, have a problem with that, you don't use Power. You use points.
Bolded the important bit.
The POINT is to be less balanced? That... That's just dumb. Why would you want an intentionally less balanced system?
For a competitive minded person it won't make sense. Because you'll just take the under valued items and jack them up to 11 (max them out).
For a competitive minded person, the concept of power level would be elusive because granular points will always be more attractive due to "balance*"
* - i don't believe points are balanced either. We will know more when we get to spreadsheet the entire game out to cojmpare everything at once though.
Purifier wrote: Well, with the rather large difference in points, the power level difference actually makes sense, if it is like they said that the power level is based on "both stock and max loadout". It pretty accurately puts it in between. Of course this means that two identically equipped things can have different power costs, but that's the whole point of Power. It's not supposed to be an accurate point system. It's taking into account that you might field a stock Knight, which is exactly what it should be doing. If you, like me, have a problem with that, you don't use Power. You use points.
Bolded the important bit.
The POINT is to be less balanced? That... That's just dumb. Why would you want an intentionally less balanced system?
Because the point is to be able to create narrative games. They're often not supposed to be balanced. In many cases they're specifically supposed to be unbalanced. Who wins may not even be in question at the start. Maybe you're just fighting an impossible defense against three times the size of your army. Power is supposed to help you create something that while unbalanced, gives you an idea of what kind of unbalanced it is.
You, like me, clearly want games where we match ourselves against our opponent. The only difference here is that I have the capacity to understand that not everyone wants what I want.
Blacksails wrote: You can play a deliberately lopsided battle using points too, though.
Yes, but if you have Power which is considerably easier and faster to make an army with, you wouldn't. It's not by a little that it's faster. You can pick up things from your bag and just keep tallying as you pick them up if you're just adding power. They've got whatever you've modelled on them. Army done.
Blacksails wrote: You can play a deliberately lopsided battle using points too, though.
Yes, but if you have Power which is considerably easier and faster to make an army with, you wouldn't. It's not by a little that it's faster. You can pick up things from your bag and just keep tallying as you pick them up if you're just adding power. They've got whatever you've modelled on them. Army done.
Well, unless you have all the power level values memorized and all the increments for different units sizes, then you can do that, but otherwise you'll be consulting the book. At that point, you'd be spending an absolute grand total of 5 minutes adding up the wargear present on your models. I'd probably wager you could add up those things in a minute. Which you'd still have to add up the power levels from the book too, again, assuming you don't have everything memorized which is the likely scenario.
I truly and honestly think people are way overestimating the difficulty of adding up points (we've been doing it for 7 editions now and in nearly every single other wargame) and equally overestimating the time saved in adding up to a limit using smaller numbers without wargear costs.
Purifier wrote: Well, with the rather large difference in points, the power level difference actually makes sense, if it is like they said that the power level is based on "both stock and max loadout". It pretty accurately puts it in between. Of course this means that two identically equipped things can have different power costs, but that's the whole point of Power. It's not supposed to be an accurate point system. It's taking into account that you might field a stock Knight, which is exactly what it should be doing. If you, like me, have a problem with that, you don't use Power. You use points.
Bolded the important bit.
The POINT is to be less balanced? That... That's just dumb. Why would you want an intentionally less balanced system?
Because the point is to be able to create narrative games. They're often not supposed to be balanced. In many cases they're specifically supposed to be unbalanced. Who wins may not even be in question at the start. Maybe you're just fighting an impossible defense against three times the size of your army. Power is supposed to help you create something that while unbalanced, gives you an idea of what kind of unbalanced it is.
You, like me, clearly want games where we match ourselves against our opponent. The only difference here is that I have the capacity to understand that not everyone wants what I want.
Horse crap. Intentionally unbalanced gameplay does NOT make better narrative experiences.
I do agree with Auticus that points probably aren't going to be fully balanced (this IS Games Workshop, after all) but they're a damn sight better than points.
The thing is, sometimes, in a narrative scenario, you DO want an unbalanced game. But that's not achieved by having the SYSTEM be unbalanced-that's achieved by the players figuring out what sort of imbalance they want. If the SYSTEM is unbalanced, then the players have a much greater chance of NOT getting what they want. Say, for instance, you want a game where it's a valiant last stand of an outnumbered force-that's easily achievable by having one player field, say, 800 points and the other 2,000. But, let's take this to the extreme. Let's say the system is so damn unbalanced, that the 800 points are worth more like 1,200, and the 2,000 worth more like 1,000, if the game WERE balanced. Now it's not a valiant last stand-it's a match in favor of the "last stand" guys.
I don't think points OR Power Levels are THAT bad. But Power Levels are worse than points in pretty much every way.
The problem with the Knight example that there is also a Knight Galant that is also worth 23 points. Like the Traitor knight. Except he pretty much CAN'T BE UPGRADED.
He stays at <400 at 23 power while the traitor can go to 600+ at 23 power
The thread title is inaccurate. It should be "40k - points vs. less-accurate points... which will you be using?", and the obvious correct answer is to use the point system that is more accurate.
Power level seems like an answer to an unrelated question. It's there to do the job of Points, but intentionally doesnt really do the job well at all, in the name of simplicity. Now, I'm all for simplification, but this mechanic has been simplified to the point where it doesnt even really function, and thus, for simplicities sake, should just be removed entirely.
I will not be using power level personally. I just dont see the value. I can see what GW was going for, but, in typical GW fashion, it just really fails in its execution.
power level for pick up games and for learning the new edition. once my club establishes where we want basic games to be points wise we will probably start that. and league games will be points as will tournaments. our monthly apocalypse games on the other hand will be power levels only no points.
Power levels are WAY!!!! off for some units. For example, 10 rubrics vs 5 deathwing terminators. Rubrics are 1 power point more, but can slaughter deathwing terminators.
Unit vs unit in vacuum comparisons are worse than useless. According those rubrics suck as interceptors wipe floor with them. Are deathwing then double screwed vs them?
Peregrine wrote: The thread title is inaccurate. It should be "40k - points vs. less-accurate points... which will you be using?", and the obvious correct answer is to use the point system that is more accurate.
There is no right answer with subjectives and quite a many disagree with you.
We'll be using points. We're used to the power system as that's pretty much what AoS uses and we're quite used to it. Our group is pretty relaxed and we don't have min/max or waac players in our group.
Plus we don't trust that points are any more balanced than power right now. The cost of the angelus boltgun vs a plasmapistol for example. We just want to meet and play, and power lets us do that quickly.
We made several 2000 point lists and converted them to power to see where they were and they came in consistently between 100 and 120 power. We're starting at 110 plus or minus 2 power right now for standard games. Because you can't just drop 1 marine or a few upgrade points to get you under points. Again, we're relaxed and this works well for us.
It's because of people like you that they gave us the AoS release the way it was. SHUT THIS MAN UP BEFORE GW HEARS!
Why? Valid wav to play. Lack of points wasn't and isn't aos big problem.
Look at AoS sales numbers before the GHB.
Now look at them after.
Yes, Age of Sigmar is selling better now that the General's Handbook is released, and I was one of those who never really tried the game without points before hand. That is partly due to the fact that so many players were afraid of the "pay-to-win-and-fill-the-board" and "infinite-summoner" players (of which I was concerned to face, given the WAAC attitude of several local players). That a game could be played without a structuring system is completely foreign to so many players because they are worried about something beyond having a good time. In hindsight, it was a gutsy move on part of GW to do that, and I applaud them for trying to do something completely new and original compared to their game systems.
Now that I have been playing AoS regularly for about a year, I can see that Points and Power Levels are both "guidelines" to figuring out an army's size and relative power. Due to the variety in terrain, discrepancies in the analog nature of how models are moved around and can be bumped or finagled into and out of optimal positions, and inconsistencies in standard base sizes, conversions and modelling for advantage/disadvantage, you will never be able to have an empirically balanced game. Unless the game moves to preset terrain and boards, and a hex-based or grid-based map for movement and range checking, and the players share from a common pool of dice free from being weighted, then you won't be able to have a truly "balanced" game.
I mean, what was the reaction in Warmahordes when they went from more granular points in Mark 1 to the more rough estimate points amounts in Mark 2? Was it the same reaction? (Seriously, I don't know, I never played in Mark 1).
I am willing to try the game without the super granular points that we have become used to, because the points won't be perfectly balanced either. Maybe I'm lucky in that I have enough local players that are untainted by the WAAC attitude that has plagued our local area for over 4 years now, but I have no problem asking any of my friends if they would want to try the game without Points OR Power Levels.
JNAProductions wrote: Horse crap. Intentionally unbalanced gameplay does NOT make better narrative experiences.
And that's not what I've said at all, so the rest of your rant can be safely ignored, since it doesn't in any way, shape or form argue against anything I've said.
I'm not saying "it's better because it's unbalanced" which is what you're arguing against. I'm saying "It's fine that it's a bit unbalanced, because they're not seeking perfect balance anyway."
It's a considerably easier way to build a list. End result is not as well balanced, but if you're not looking at balance anyway, only a rough idea, they give that and then what's the point of using the more granular points?
Well, unless you have all the power level values memorized and all the increments for different units sizes, then you can do that, but otherwise you'll be consulting the book. At that point, you'd be spending an absolute grand total of 5 minutes adding up the wargear present on your models. I'd probably wager you could add up those things in a minute. Which you'd still have to add up the power levels from the book too, again, assuming you don't have everything memorized which is the likely scenario.
No, adding up granular points isn't a minute more over a full army. If it is for you, good for you, fantastic. You're not even close to representative of the norm. you're some kind of math savant. Flipping through the book and adding up a number that is right next to the name of the unit, maybe 10 numbers need to be added and you're done. Going granular you've got standard weapons for the unit to look up, then choosing and paying for their specials, then any extra gear they choose to bring. Same thing for every vehicle. You're flipping back and forth a lot and you're doing a whole lot more adding up. Then you realise that nah, that's getting too expensive and even if we of course have some leeway since we clearly are not trying to balance the game, I have to try and stay around half your cost, so now I've added up two units there that I drop, and then I go on to make a half a unit of something instead and we're back to flipping in the book.
No, there is no way you can convince me that making an army with power levels or with points is about the same time investment. It just isn't.
JNAProductions wrote: It could easily be the same, if GW had points right on the page.
And you said yourself-you want to know what KIND of imbalanced it is. That's only achievable with a balanced system.
Nope, the rough idea is just fine. You're just stuck in the square thinking of a balanced system. Like I said before: We want the same thing. I just have the capacity to see it from the other side that you lack.
I'm missing the option of "both, depending on the situation" - which I would vote for.
In some situations you want to calculate the exact points, for example in a competetive environment. In other situations the rough estimate the power levels provide can be enough. Think of "quick pickup games" or games between friends. You might look for a roughly even playing field without wanting to add up points for every last option.
I can see the use of both ways, and will likely use both.
I have yet to see a single reason to use power levels over points. It takes about 30 extra seconds on a calculator, so even if you're making a list on the fly with your available models it's frighteningly easy.
As a pretty dedicated "narrative" player who likes the occasional tournament, I fail to see how power levels help in any conceivable scenario that's been shown to me so far. If anything narrative games benefit from tighter controls in the army building phase than one-off competitive games do, so I really don't understand.
The only thing I can imagine is that GW is somehow going to tie power levels into their 3 ways to play format and make power levels the default choice for one or more of them. Even then, I'd be pretty simple to convert said system to points.
No, adding up granular points isn't a minute more over a full army. If it is for you, good for you, fantastic. You're not even close to representative of the norm. you're some kind of math savant. Flipping through the book and adding up a number that is right next to the name of the unit, maybe 10 numbers need to be added and you're done. Going granular you've got standard weapons for the unit to look up, then choosing and paying for their specials, then any extra gear they choose to bring. Same thing for every vehicle. You're flipping back and forth a lot and you're doing a whole lot more adding up. Then you realise that nah, that's getting too expensive and even if we of course have some leeway since we clearly are not trying to balance the game, I have to try and stay around half your cost, so now I've added up two units there that I drop, and then I go on to make a half a unit of something instead and we're back to flipping in the book.
No, there is no way you can convince me that making an army with power levels or with points is about the same time investment. It just isn't.
Both scenarios, involving the calculator present on your phone;
Power Levels
Models are out on table with wargear represented, as per your scenario.
Open book, and individually flip through the pages to add up the power levels on the calculator.
Points Models are out on table with wargear represented.
Open book to the one page at the back, add up points on the calculator.
The difference in punching numbers 10 times for power levels and some arbitrary amount more for points isn't going to add up to any meaningful amount of time. With a calculator and the page open, I can back out my 1500pts list in under a minute. Let's say I'm shooting the gak with my buddy too, and we take 5 minutes. Its still a pittance of time.
The point is that in both scenarios, you have the book open and are using a calculator to add everything up. For my Guard army, I'd go from adding up the roughly 12 units worth of power levels, to about 4 times that for doing the same with points. I don't think that's a huge difference.
JNAProductions wrote: And part of the issue is that GW made points more annoying to use.
They had the system working fine before.
Multiples of 5 were easier for head math, sure, but I do it all on a calculator to be sure. It doesn't make much of a difference to me. Once I memorize the basic weaponry costs, it'll be just as it was before.
Blacksails wrote: Once I memorize the basic weaponry costs, it'll be just as it was before.
And that's the issue you seem to ignore: most casual gamers never memorize anything but the basic rules (sometimes not even that). What you describe as "it will take just a few seconds more" can take quite some time for people who don't have the time or the will to learn all the point costs by heart.
Power levels cut this process down to one step per unit, which is much easier and faster to do.
No, adding up granular points isn't a minute more over a full army. If it is for you, good for you, fantastic. You're not even close to representative of the norm. you're some kind of math savant. Flipping through the book and adding up a number that is right next to the name of the unit, maybe 10 numbers need to be added and you're done. Going granular you've got standard weapons for the unit to look up, then choosing and paying for their specials, then any extra gear they choose to bring. Same thing for every vehicle. You're flipping back and forth a lot and you're doing a whole lot more adding up. Then you realise that nah, that's getting too expensive and even if we of course have some leeway since we clearly are not trying to balance the game, I have to try and stay around half your cost, so now I've added up two units there that I drop, and then I go on to make a half a unit of something instead and we're back to flipping in the book.
No, there is no way you can convince me that making an army with power levels or with points is about the same time investment. It just isn't.
Both scenarios, involving the calculator present on your phone;
Power Levels
Models are out on table with wargear represented, as per your scenario.
Open book, and individually flip through the pages to add up the power levels on the calculator.
Points Models are out on table with wargear represented.
Open book to the one page at the back, add up points on the calculator.
The difference in punching numbers 10 times for power levels and some arbitrary amount more for points isn't going to add up to any meaningful amount of time. With a calculator and the page open, I can back out my 1500pts list in under a minute. Let's say I'm shooting the gak with my buddy too, and we take 5 minutes. Its still a pittance of time.
The point is that in both scenarios, you have the book open and are using a calculator to add everything up. For my Guard army, I'd go from adding up the roughly 12 units worth of power levels, to about 4 times that for doing the same with points. I don't think that's a huge difference.
I have never seen anyone write a list in 5 minutes, let alone 1. That said, I don't know anyone that knows all the weapons costs by heart either. I, and I think a vast majority of 40k gamers, don't have several games a week. We have maybe one gaming night a month. We don't memorise all this stuff, and we don't know exactly what we have.
Again; if you can do it in a minute, great for you. The Power system isn't for you, yet you call it useless based only on how you don't need or want it. I think it's a little unnecessary myself, but since it's there anyway, I can see why it would be used over the points system. You obviously can't, but almost 30% of the poll wants to use it, so maybe take a step back and realise that it has a use and that it's just that you don't understand it.
JNAProductions wrote: And part of the issue is that GW made points more annoying to use.
They had the system working fine before.
Multiples of 5 were easier for head math, sure, but I do it all on a calculator to be sure. It doesn't make much of a difference to me. Once I memorize the basic weaponry costs, it'll be just as it was before.
One system gets you playing the game quicker, if neither player can be bothered to spend any of their own time adding stuff up before they meet.
If both players have bothered to do any preparation neither method is noticeably quicker than the other.
One method is more likely to result in less balanced, (and therefore) less fun games.
Therefore spending the 5-10 minutes to write a points based list is a better idea rather than spend 2 hours playing a game that due to a loss of balance between upgraded units isn't fun for either party.
Now it could be argued that people will be friendly and select lists which aren't powerful. I propose that its a lot harder and more time consuming to get two people to write lists which will provide fun and varied challenges for each other, while still putting the things that they like on a table, than is is following a framework of rules designed to provide just that.
Yes I agree that the point system is not perfect, but better to commit to a system which has the greater potential to provide balance and fun, than the clearly inferior system.
Without wanting to get too bogged down in the details, in 4E/5E/6E (before the weirdness started at 6E's tail end) I could easily write most lists in a couple minutes, and knew pretty much all common wargear and upgrade costs.
Meltagun? 10pts. Flamer? 5pts. Powerweapon? 15pts. Rhino? 35pts. Extra Armour? 15pts. Russ sponson multimeltas? 30pts (5E). Grenade Launcher? 5pts. Powerfist? 25pts. Smoke Launchers? 3-5pts depending on book and unit. Etc ad nauseum.
Memorizing these sorts of things came fairlu quickly, most time was spent deciding on choices, not fiddling with or having to remember points values.
Vaktathi wrote: Without wanting to get too bogged down in the details, in 4E/5E/6E (before the weirdness started at 6E's tail end) I could easily write most lists in a couple minutes, and knew pretty much all common wargear and upgrade costs.
Meltagun? 10pts. Flamer? 5pts. Powerweapon? 15pts. Rhino? 35pts. Extra Armour? 15pts. Russ sponson multimeltas? 30pts (5E). Grenade Launcher? 5pts. Powerfist? 25pts. Smoke Launchers? 3-5pts depending on book and unit. Etc ad nauseum.
Memorizing these sorts of things came fairly quickly, most time was spent deciding on choices, not fiddling with or having to remember points values.
Now I find myself spending 15-20 minutes making a list using points, because models don't come with weapons and each weapon's cost isn't an easy number to remember anymore. Weapons and models aren't on the same page either, so flicking to either page in one hand while writing with the other becomes fairly awkward.
So initially, I will be using Power Levels as I learn the rules and find out what models do (as well as using a points system as cool sounding as Power Level). I will eventually move onto points, because being more specific in points values is always a good thing, but it simply a bit awkward to use for now.
Yes, points are really cumbersome to try to use going off of the books, and it's basically due to pretty bad design. What the unit does is on one page. What its bodies cost is on another. What its wargear costs is on another one or two. What its wargear does is sometimes on yet another page. Sometimes some of its options -- but of course not their costs or what they do -- are on a final page. I actually think the idea of bespoke rules for everything makes a lot of sense, especially since a lot of people are going to have this stuff digitally. But you have to actually go all the way and put everything in one place.
It's not going to be a big issue long-term, since eventually we'll have army builders and the indices will be obsolete except maybe for referencing unit special rules, but they've certainly made it about as annoying as it could possibly be to compare and calculate points.
Blacksails wrote: Once I memorize the basic weaponry costs, it'll be just as it was before.
And that's the issue you seem to ignore: most casual gamers never memorize anything but the basic rules (sometimes not even that). What you describe as "it will take just a few seconds more" can take quite some time for people who don't have the time or the will to learn all the point costs by heart.
Power levels cut this process down to one step per unit, which is much easier and faster to do.
Sure, some people never memorized much of anything, which is fine. But when it comes to list building, memorized or no, the difference between making it in power levels and points is minimal. Its not a matter of one stop shop for power levels because any unit that can take more models has one or two different power levels. In both scenarios for list building, you're opening the book and checking the numbers and adding them up. As I pointed out in a practical example, it goes from adding up roughly 12 units of power levels to about 4 times that in total numbers punched in a calculator. Its a minimal time investment.
No, adding up granular points isn't a minute more over a full army. If it is for you, good for you, fantastic. You're not even close to representative of the norm. you're some kind of math savant. Flipping through the book and adding up a number that is right next to the name of the unit, maybe 10 numbers need to be added and you're done. Going granular you've got standard weapons for the unit to look up, then choosing and paying for their specials, then any extra gear they choose to bring. Same thing for every vehicle. You're flipping back and forth a lot and you're doing a whole lot more adding up. Then you realise that nah, that's getting too expensive and even if we of course have some leeway since we clearly are not trying to balance the game, I have to try and stay around half your cost, so now I've added up two units there that I drop, and then I go on to make a half a unit of something instead and we're back to flipping in the book.
No, there is no way you can convince me that making an army with power levels or with points is about the same time investment. It just isn't.
Both scenarios, involving the calculator present on your phone;
Power Levels
Models are out on table with wargear represented, as per your scenario.
Open book, and individually flip through the pages to add up the power levels on the calculator.
Points Models are out on table with wargear represented.
Open book to the one page at the back, add up points on the calculator.
The difference in punching numbers 10 times for power levels and some arbitrary amount more for points isn't going to add up to any meaningful amount of time. With a calculator and the page open, I can back out my 1500pts list in under a minute. Let's say I'm shooting the gak with my buddy too, and we take 5 minutes. Its still a pittance of time.
The point is that in both scenarios, you have the book open and are using a calculator to add everything up. For my Guard army, I'd go from adding up the roughly 12 units worth of power levels, to about 4 times that for doing the same with points. I don't think that's a huge difference.
I have never seen anyone write a list in 5 minutes, let alone 1. That said, I don't know anyone that knows all the weapons costs by heart either. I, and I think a vast majority of 40k gamers, don't have several games a week. We have maybe one gaming night a month. We don't memorise all this stuff, and we don't know exactly what we have.
Again; if you can do it in a minute, great for you. The Power system isn't for you, yet you call it useless based only on how you don't need or want it. I think it's a little unnecessary myself, but since it's there anyway, I can see why it would be used over the points system. You obviously can't, but almost 30% of the poll wants to use it, so maybe take a step back and realise that it has a use and that it's just that you don't understand it.
You don't have to know the costs off by heart. For me, I like to because I often toy around building lists when I may not have the books on hand, but fortunately, at a game, everyone will have their book to build a list. In your example, you were pulling models out of a bag and adding up their power levels. The same scenario with points would take another minute of adding wargear.
Again, look at my reasonable example. My Guard army consisting of 6 squads, 2 officers, and 2 artillery batteries is 10 units worth. Each squad has a special and heavy weapon (two items of wargear) as do my officers. Artillery batteries only have one weapon to add (the hull weapon), so on average, I'm adding up two extra numbers onto the base unit cost.
I'd go from adding up 10 numbers of power levels to 30 numbers for the units and their wargear.
Given that both methods of list building require you to select the models and wargear, the only difference becomes how many times you punch in numbers on a calculator.
One method is more likely to result in less balanced, (and therefore) less fun games.
You're making the faulty and wildly narcissistic assumption that everyone enjoys games in exactly the way that you do.
I think the bigger point is that one system can be used for almost any game with almost any intent, while another has only the bare minimum value to be of use in the most casual of settings where the players could probably make do just as well without it anyway.
Because again-an unbalanced SYSTEM is bad even if you WANT imbalance-unless you're fine not knowing how the imbalance will work, it's better to have a balanced system even if your specific scenario is unbalanced.
For those saying power levels are crap because they are imbalanced...
When the GW points turn out to be... as they always are... grossly imbalanced... whats the difference then?
Because if the GW points are actually balanced, you will be a part of the rapture and hell will have indeed frozen over.
The points have always been grossly imbalanced. Always. There has never been a time where there weren't min/max monstrosities roving around that were undercosted so badly that they busted the game and people pounced on those.
Because again-an unbalanced SYSTEM is bad even if you WANT imbalance-unless you're fine not knowing how the imbalance will work, it's better to have a balanced system even if your specific scenario is unbalanced.
Look, you will not understand, and the problem lies with you. I've tried to explain it, but you simply aren't equipped to understand why that doesn't matter.
Given that both methods of list building require you to select the models and wargear, the only difference becomes how many times you punch in numbers on a calculator.
Again, you use only your own experience. It's insane how the people arguing that power is somehow an abomination simply are unable to imagine anything but your own view. Yes, for you it's useless. I would without a doubt take at least 10 times less time to build a power level army than one where I used points. At least. I do inefficient flipping in books, I forget what I was looking up when someone talks to me etc etc. Most people are more like me than the well oiled machines that you and Sheldon Cooper represent. If they enjoy the idea of power as an easier way to set up their battles, who are you to tell them they're wrong?
auticus wrote: For those saying power levels are crap because they are imbalanced...
When the GW points turn out to be... as they always are... grossly imbalanced... whats the difference then?
Because if the GW points are actually balanced, you will be a part of the rapture and hell will have indeed frozen over.
The points have always been grossly imbalanced. Always. There has never been a time where there weren't min/max monstrosities roving around that were undercosted so badly that they busted the game and people pounced on those.
I dont think anyone would argue that GW's points have always had issues, but these are issues of execution typically, mistakes and the like. Points arent perfect, but theyre the best we're gonna get and is how most tabletop games function. Power level on the other hand has a fundamentally dramatically less certain and much more variable value, it is inherently at their core less meaningful.
Because again-an unbalanced SYSTEM is bad even if you WANT imbalance-unless you're fine not knowing how the imbalance will work, it's better to have a balanced system even if your specific scenario is unbalanced.
Look, you will not understand, and the problem lies with you. I've tried to explain it, but you simply aren't equipped to understand why that doesn't matter.
Try one more time? Because, correct me if I'm wrong-you're saying to some people balance doesn't matter. In which case, I'd invite someone to step forward and say "No, I don't care at all about balance."
Because again-an unbalanced SYSTEM is bad even if you WANT imbalance-unless you're fine not knowing how the imbalance will work, it's better to have a balanced system even if your specific scenario is unbalanced.
Look, you will not understand, and the problem lies with you. I've tried to explain it, but you simply aren't equipped to understand why that doesn't matter.
Try one more time? Because, correct me if I'm wrong-you're saying to some people balance doesn't matter. In which case, I'd invite someone to step forward and say "No, I don't care at all about balance."
I'm really close to not caring about balance in friendly games, at least not the balance that is dreamed about by other players where the points are perfectly representative of unit and upgrade and army power.
For me, the balance I seek is "eh, close enough, let's play already!".
Purifier wrote: You're mistaken. Feel free to read the posts I've made so far. It's all there still, and just retyping it now seems worse than a waste of my time.
That's the message I'm getting from you. "Some people don't care about balance." Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the impression I get from your posts.
BB, that's legit. Would you say the same for pick-up games, with someone you don't know?
I just told you that you're mistaken and you just repeated the same thing again. You can see why I feel trying to talk to you at all anymore is a waste of my time, surely.
Purifier wrote: I just told you that you're mistaken and you just repeated the same thing again. You can see why I feel trying to talk to you at all anymore is a waste of my time, surely.
Did you miss the "Correct me if I'm wrong" bit?
I am aware that's not what you're trying to say. However, that's what I'm hearing.
So, please-in plain words, explain what you are trying to say.
But surely 'close enough' is a lot better represented by a points system than something far less granular.
Apparently its narcissism to think that a lot of people discovering that they are playing an unfun uphill (or downhill) battle with a more generalised system is likely.
And if someone doesn't want balance.... like 'hey lets see how completely unmatched we can make this game'. Then why use any form of balancing mechanism?
In short, if you're going to use a balancing mechanism, why not use the best one you have access to, if you have 5 minutes available at some point during your busy pre game schedule.
JNAProductions wrote: BB, that's legit. Would you say the same for pick-up games, with someone you don't know?
I am willing to give it a shot! Against a newer player who has a rough idea how to play, absolutely. Against a veteran who I have yet to play? I would ask what they wanted to do and what kind of game they want to play, but I would be willing if they were!
Points, Power Level, or nothing at all, I'm good whichever way gets me a fun game. Maybe I'm being more zen about it than others, but it's all Warhammer to me
JNAProductions wrote: BB, that's legit. Would you say the same for pick-up games, with someone you don't know?
I am willing to give it a shot! Against a newer player who has a rough idea how to play, absolutely. Against a veteran who I have yet to play? I would ask what they wanted to do and what kind of game they want to play, but I would be willing if they were!
Points, Power Level, or nothing at all, I'm good whichever way gets me a fun game. Maybe I'm being more zen about it than others, but it's all Warhammer to me
You seem like a cool player. You probably have the best attitude about all this, honestly. No sense getting worked up over toy soldiers.
JNAProductions wrote: BB, that's legit. Would you say the same for pick-up games, with someone you don't know?
I am willing to give it a shot! Against a newer player who has a rough idea how to play, absolutely. Against a veteran who I have yet to play? I would ask what they wanted to do and what kind of game they want to play, but I would be willing if they were!
Points, Power Level, or nothing at all, I'm good whichever way gets me a fun game. Maybe I'm being more zen about it than others, but it's all Warhammer to me
You seem like a cool player. You probably have the best attitude about all this, honestly. No sense getting worked up over toy soldiers.
Aw, thanks!
I jut try not to take the game too seriously. Perspective help; I am having some serious familial issues right now that could drastically affect several of my relationships for the rest of my life if things go sour, so little quibbles over our toy soldiers just feels unnecessary. Warhammer is my escape, and is something I hope to share with others in a positive way.
Again, you use only your own experience. It's insane how the people arguing that power is somehow an abomination simply are unable to imagine anything but your own view. Yes, for you it's useless. I would without a doubt take at least 10 times less time to build a power level army than one where I used points. At least. I do inefficient flipping in books, I forget what I was looking up when someone talks to me etc etc. Most people are more like me than the well oiled machines that you and Sheldon Cooper represent. If they enjoy the idea of power as an easier way to set up their battles, who are you to tell them they're wrong?
You're getting really defensive here for no reason. Pump the brakes a little.
My point is that you are making it sound like adding up points is a dramatic time sink. I'm saying that either method, even if they are separated by a factor of 10 in time spent is still an absolute pittance of time.
Both methods require you to sit down and pick the units you want, so we have the same time investment there. Assuming WYSIWYG, wargear is already pre selected in both scenarios, which really would be decided in the first step anyways, so again, same time investment and decisions being made.
Where the two methods diverge is how many numbers you are willing to add. In the power level scenario, you're going through page by page to add up power levels and the changes in them based on model count in some units. You're still adding those numbers up in your preferred method (abacus for the truly hardcore) to come under a limit.
In the point scenario, you open the book to the page that has all your point costs on it, and start adding. The difference here is the numbers are bigger and there's more of them.
My ultimate point is that adding a bunch of numbers together isn't much different or significantly more time consuming than adding more of a bunch of numbers together.
To make it clear, the process of list building is nearly identical in both ways. The only difference is how long you spend punching numbers in a calculator, which I'm saying takes very little time. You'll spend more time just picking what you want to bring than doing the math.
And if you're spending 2 hours playing a game, why stress over trying to save 5 minutes adding some more numbers together?
I accept that some people will want whatever is easier/simpler, I simply disagree and question the attitude.
Purifier wrote: I just told you that you're mistaken and you just repeated the same thing again. You can see why I feel trying to talk to you at all anymore is a waste of my time, surely.
Did you miss the "Correct me if I'm wrong" bit?
I am aware that's not what you're trying to say. However, that's what I'm hearing.
So, please-in plain words, explain what you are trying to say.
I have, several times. You have failed to understand it and you will clearly continue to do so. It's not that important to me that you do understand it, so I don't want to keep investing energy.
Purifier wrote: I have, several times. You have failed to understand it and you will clearly continue to do so. It's not that important to me that you do understand it, so I don't want to keep investing energy.
Okay, I ask the rest of you guys-what is Purifier saying? It's apparently blindingly obvious, but I guess not to me.
I jut try not to take the game too seriously. Perspective help; I am having some serious familial issues right now that could drastically affect several of my relationships for the rest of my life if things go sour, so little quibbles over our toy soldiers just feels unnecessary. Warhammer is my escape, and is something I hope to share with others in a positive way.
Sorry to hear about that. Hope everything works out okay.
Edit: Also, towards Purifier.
You're expending far more energy by repeatedly refusing to repeat yourself - which is its own irony - than you would be by actually explaining in simple terms what your point is. All you're doing is dodging any meaningful debate, and at this point, I'm starting to suspect you know that, and are doing it for that exact reason.
secretForge wrote: I think the concept of using power levels to accommodate a new player is silly. If a player is incapable of basic addition then they probably shouldn't be playing 40k.
Lack of experience doesn't suddenly make someone incapable of understanding the concept of costs associated to upgrades.
And if someone is so new (or the way people seem to think of it here, dumb) that they cant write a list for themselves. then write one for them, as a pointed list should result in a fairer (read more fun) game overall.
So, I think PL is pretty good actually.
I played a demonstration game with a new potential player 2 days ago.
To build his army, I asked him "Which models do you like best?" and he picked out a couple of different things [some Wolf Guard Terminators, some Adeptus Custodes and their Land Radier, a Basilisk, etc.]. I totaled up approximately how much they were worth as-modeled, and grabbed a few of my nicer models that worked out to a similar points cost, and we went over and I showed him how to play.
List building is daunting, especially if you're new and don't know what every weapon is and does. The important thing about PL, I think, is that it represents a single unit price and you don't have to worry about upgrades or specifics.
It's worth mention, that I know how much each of my Leman Russes, Dominion Squads, and Wolf Guard Terminator squads are as modeled, so it's not hard for me to stick units together into an army. But if you're new, making your list and fishing through all the upgrades available can be quite a daunting task.
Again, you use only your own experience. It's insane how the people arguing that power is somehow an abomination simply are unable to imagine anything but your own view. Yes, for you it's useless. I would without a doubt take at least 10 times less time to build a power level army than one where I used points. At least. I do inefficient flipping in books, I forget what I was looking up when someone talks to me etc etc. Most people are more like me than the well oiled machines that you and Sheldon Cooper represent. If they enjoy the idea of power as an easier way to set up their battles, who are you to tell them they're wrong?
You're getting really defensive here for no reason. Pump the brakes a little.
My point is that you are making it sound like adding up points is a dramatic time sink. I'm saying that either method, even if they are separated by a factor of 10 in time spent is still an absolute pittance of time.
Both methods require you to sit down and pick the units you want, so we have the same time investment there. Assuming WYSIWYG, wargear is already pre selected in both scenarios, which really would be decided in the first step anyways, so again, same time investment and decisions being made.
Where the two methods diverge is how many numbers you are willing to add. In the power level scenario, you're going through page by page to add up power levels and the changes in them based on model count in some units. You're still adding those numbers up in your preferred method (abacus for the truly hardcore) to come under a limit.
In the point scenario, you open the book to the page that has all your point costs on it, and start adding. The difference here is the numbers are bigger and there's more of them.
My ultimate point is that adding a bunch of numbers together isn't much different or significantly more time consuming than adding more of a bunch of numbers together.
To make it clear, the process of list building is nearly identical in both ways. The only difference is how long you spend punching numbers in a calculator, which I'm saying takes very little time. You'll spend more time just picking what you want to bring than doing the math.
And if you're spending 2 hours playing a game, why stress over trying to save 5 minutes adding some more numbers together?
I accept that some people will want whatever is easier/simpler, I simply disagree and question the attitude.
What if the difference is 6 minutes or an hour of listbuilding? That's more along the lines of the difference I am seeing. So hey, either we can start playing in five minutes or you can wait for an hour while I build my list so we can play a game for an hour and a half after. If we're just playing a game that's meant to be unbalanced anyway, which would you like? You wanna wait the hour, or do you want to concede the point that power levels might be ok for that and have a game in 5 minutes?
Blacksails wrote: I'm saying that either method, even if they are separated by a factor of 10 in time spent is still an absolute pittance of time.
I have maybe time for a game maybe once a month. When I game, I have to match my schedule with people in a similar situation. The difference between building a list in six minutes, compared to a full hour, is massive. If you don't see how the PL system is making my gaming life a good bit easier - same for my friends - you must be willfully ignorant.
Blacksails wrote: I'm saying that either method, even if they are separated by a factor of 10 in time spent is still an absolute pittance of time.
I have maybe time for a game maybe once a month. When I game, I have to match my schedule with people in a similar situation. The difference between building a list in six minutes, compared to a full hour, is massive. If you don't see how the PL system is making my gaming life a good bit easier - same for my friends - you must be willfully ignorant.
You could just write a list in advance. And I really doubt it's off by a factor of ten. Maybe a factor of two, three tops.
Also, this might just be me personally, but currently, writing a list takes under three minutes, at most. I have to spend more time finding models than I do writing.
JNAProductions wrote: That is one thing I'll say for PL. It APPEARS easier-in practice, it's not very different-but it's less intimidating to get into.
So in that respect, I like it as a sort of gateway for newer players.
But it's not something I'll be using myself.
Edit: Purifier, does it take you an hour to write a list? Be honest here.
Usually considerably more if I do it by hand. I can spend an hour just tweaking it. I don't play very often, so I have no natural feel what my units do exactly and the finer details of how they interact. I'm not unusual, you are if you can make an army in a minute.
Oh for the love of christ, your polls are useless to prove anything with. Stop clogging the board with them. I can build a list in 10 minutes and it'll make zero sense, and I have to get games going. I've also spent an hour making a good list, then another two touching it up while reading reddit. So what do I vote in your poll?
Some of y'all are simply missing the point, or power, depending on your stance.
Each one has some advantages and disadvantages. For anyone new or just learning the game or system, power level's advantage outweigh the disadvantages the majority of the time. Where power starts failing is for fluff or thematic reasons. Things like, I want my AdMech to be in units of 1,3, 6, or 12. Power level punishes me pretty harshly for a 6 model unit versus a 5 model unit.
For points, most folks end up with a "standard core" and then try some "attachments" to that core for each of their armies. The "Core" is pretty much always the same, you will know that your 20 GS are 320 points, or your 15 DC are 420 points, or your Knight Crusader is 570 points just from use. That quickly turns into this Detachment loadout is always 842 points, that Detachment is always 641...
For some lists, a spreadsheet properly setup can make a list in a minute or two. For others, you might be hand calculating for 15 minutes. An hour for a list is pretty silly, and if you are spending that time doing a list, you are not playing for fun anyway, better be some money on the line...
End of the day, what does it matter what OTHER PEOPLE are using to play. Their choice really doesn't affect you or how you play. If you will only play points, I'll play points, if you only play power, I'll play power. If you only play against Dark Eldar, well you can keep your nasty hands to yourself.
JNAProductions wrote: That is one thing I'll say for PL. It APPEARS easier-in practice, it's not very different-but it's less intimidating to get into.
So in that respect, I like it as a sort of gateway for newer players.
But it's not something I'll be using myself.
Edit: Purifier, does it take you an hour to write a list? Be honest here.
Yes. It easily can, if you're trying to be competitive. It took me maybe an hour to write the list that formed the foundation of the one I ended up taking to a local tournament, then I tested and revised it 3 times.
Purifier wrote: Oh for the love of christ, your polls are useless to prove anything with. Stop clogging the board with them. I can build a list in 10 minutes and it'll make zero sense, and I have to get games going. I've also spent an hour making a good list, then another two touching it up while reading reddit. So what do I vote in your poll?
Your average time. Not complicated. If it usually takes an hour, then put that down.
Though, if you ARE browsing Reddit or something while making a list, it'd be honest to post that, since that obviously is going to increase the time as compared to just sitting down to actually make a list.
Purifier wrote: Oh for the love of christ, your polls are useless to prove anything with. Stop clogging the board with them. I can build a list in 10 minutes and it'll make zero sense, and I have to get games going. I've also spent an hour making a good list, then another two touching it up while reading reddit. So what do I vote in your poll?
Your average time. Not complicated. If it usually takes an hour, then put that down.
Though, if you ARE browsing Reddit or something while making a list, it'd be honest to post that, since that obviously is going to increase the time as compared to just sitting down to actually make a list.
You're confusing average time with mean time. And what I post has zero impact on the poll. That's how statistics work. They don't care about circumstances.
Okay... You do realize people can read, right? They'll be able to see that some people take a long time, but they also don't fully dedicate themselves to list building when they do it. Not complicated.
Also... Look, Imma just copy-paste from Google here.
"What is the mean?"
"The mean is the average of the numbers: a calculated "central" value of a set of numbers. To calculate: Just add up all the numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are."
Pedroig wrote: An hour for a list is pretty silly, and if you are spending that time doing a list, you are not playing for fun anyway, better be some money on the line..
Only if you make the assumption that I'm not enjoying myself building my list. I do it beforehand, and I like reading my special rules over and over again while thinking of how to use it.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay... You do realize people can read, right? They'll be able to see that some people take a long time, but they also don't fully dedicate themselves to list building when they do it. Not complicated.
Also... Look, Imma just copy-paste from Google here.
"What is the mean?"
"The mean is the average of the numbers: a calculated "central" value of a set of numbers. To calculate: Just add up all the numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are."
Ok, if I make three lists, #1 in 1 minute, #2 in 2 minutes and #3 in 3 hours, then the average time spent on each list is just over an hour. The mean time is 2 minutes. So I can say the same thing I did; you're confusing average with mean time. This is becoming a habit.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay... You do realize people can read, right? They'll be able to see that some people take a long time, but they also don't fully dedicate themselves to list building when they do it. Not complicated.
Also... Look, Imma just copy-paste from Google here.
"What is the mean?"
"The mean is the average of the numbers: a calculated "central" value of a set of numbers. To calculate: Just add up all the numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are."
Ok, if I make three lists, #1 in 1 minute, #2 in 2 minutes and #3 in 3 hours, then the average time spent on each list is just over an hour. The mean time is 2 minutes. So I can say the same thing I did; you're confusing average with mean time. This is becoming a habit.
You're confusing median and mean.
Your mean time would actually be over an hour to build a list. (180+2+1)/3 = 61 minutes.
I will be using power in most games, so I voted power.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay... You do realize people can read, right? They'll be able to see that some people take a long time, but they also don't fully dedicate themselves to list building when they do it. Not complicated.
Also... Look, Imma just copy-paste from Google here.
"What is the mean?"
"The mean is the average of the numbers: a calculated "central" value of a set of numbers. To calculate: Just add up all the numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are."
Ok, if I make three lists, #1 in 1 minute, #2 in 2 minutes and #3 in 3 hours, then the average time spent on each list is just over an hour. The mean time is 2 minutes. So I can say the same thing I did; you're confusing average with mean time. This is becoming a habit.
You're confusing median and mean.
Your mean time would actually be over an hour to build a list. (180+2+1)/3 = 61 minutes.
Plus, even the median is probably reasonably good, assuming you've been playing for a long enough time.
Not to mention that you're intentionally twisting my words. I used "average" in the normal sense (which also works in the math sense) and you took it to mean median... Somehow.
Edit: By the way, still don't know what you meant with your earlier posts, since my guess was wrong.
JNAProductions wrote: Plus, even the median is probably reasonably good, assuming you've been playing for a long enough time.
Not to mention that you're intentionally twisting my words. I used "average" in the normal sense (which also works in the math sense) and you took it to mean median... Somehow.
Edit: By the way, still don't know what you meant with your earlier posts, since my guess was wrong.
No, you said to put what it "usually takes"
Since I don't play often, that's a 50 50 toss up between several hour tweakings beforehand and 10 minute panicked lists of whatever I happen to remember. So the average would be somewhere I never really end up, the median would be what I usually take. I didn't twist anything, I read what you said.
But in regards to his original post, the poll would be around the average (mean) time to build a list - on the fly for a game.
When I walk into the game store and sit down with someone to play a game, first we agree to points, then I have to build a list.
The list building process takes over 30 minutes, one person usually takes that long. I would like to shorten this process, so the emphasis is, "what model should I include," rather than "how can I spend these points."
JNAProductions wrote: Plus, even the median is probably reasonably good, assuming you've been playing for a long enough time.
Not to mention that you're intentionally twisting my words. I used "average" in the normal sense (which also works in the math sense) and you took it to mean median... Somehow.
Edit: By the way, still don't know what you meant with your earlier posts, since my guess was wrong.
No, you said to put what it "usually takes"
Since I don't play often, that's a 50 50 toss up between several hour tweakings beforehand and 10 minute panicked lists of whatever I happen to remember. So the average would be somewhere I never really end up, the median would be what I usually take. I didn't twist anything, I read what you said.
Don't double down.
How many sodas do you usually drink in a week? Well lets see, i drank 10 sodas 2 weeks ago, 1 soda last week, and 10 so far this week. So, I usually drink 1.
Come on. It's human to make a mistake, no one cares bro.
Alright, vastly off topic. Could say more words, but no real point.
I guess I'll summarize my feelings on PL, to be more on topic.
-I think they're less balanced than points (not to say points are perfect, but they're a damn sight better)
-They're slightly faster, but considering lists can be written in advance, it's not a big deal
-They're good for people who worry about 40k being too complicated, especially beginners. Which is a good thing, cause it'll get more people in the hobby.
Overall, I'd say they're not a BAD inclusion... Just not one I'll ever use personally.
What? The median there would be 10 and also a part of an entirely irrelevant argument. What are you trying to say?
You're looking for how long it takes people to write a list. The important thing is to know how long before you can start the game. The median makes sense. In your ridiculous metaphor you want to know amount consumed, presumably for health or financial reasons. The average makes sense.
I was informed by a friend that there seemed to be some confusion on some rather complicated math concepts in this thread: mean, median, and mode. Truth be told, I'm not a huge expert on any of this collegiate-level theory crap, but luckily I was able to find a video that explained them relatively simply, so I thought I'd be a Helpful Harry and post it:
I sincerely question anyone who argues that power levels take mere minutes of list building but points take an hour.
If you're not going to put any effort to discussing in good faith then don't bother at all.
As I explained, the only difference is in the math. In both methods you're sitting down and picking the units you want and trying to fit them under a certain value. One has more numbers to punch in than the other but in no way is the difference a full hour. Seriously.
Blacksails wrote: I sincerely question anyone who argues that power levels take mere minutes of list building but points take an hour.
If you're not going to put any effort to discussing in good faith then don't bother at all.
As I explained, the only difference is in the math. In both methods you're sitting down and picking the units you want and trying to fit them under a certain value. One has more numbers to punch in than the other but in no way is the difference a full hour. Seriously.
It's funny, because I was thinking the same thing when you claimed you could make a list in a minute. That's just disingenuous and I am just assuming you're lying.
Unless you assume any regular player makes every single list in a vacuum, and doesn't already have a number of lists, units and other pertinent information to hand.
But then, you try and argue a list takes an hour because you like to reread all the rules, which is like saying a five minute walk to the shops takes all afternoon because you like to stop and chat to every person you meet.
Unless you assume any regular player makes every single list in a vacuum, and doesn't already have a number of lists, units and other pertinent information to hand.
But then, you try and argue a list takes an hour because you like to reread all the rules, which is like saying a five minute walk to the shops takes all afternoon because you like to stop and chat to every person you meet.
Actually, I was arguing it could take considerably more than an hour for that reason. My hour was more a leisurely stroll as compared to a 10 minute mad sprint down to the store. But you've got the general gist of it, yes.
I should have clarified that the math for my list takes a minute. But given your original scenario of pulling out models on a table and calling it a list, the total time invested would be the time to remove the models, then the minute of punching in numbers.
Unless you assume any regular player makes every single list in a vacuum, and doesn't already have a number of lists, units and other pertinent information to hand.
But then, you try and argue a list takes an hour because you like to reread all the rules, which is like saying a five minute walk to the shops takes all afternoon because you like to stop and chat to every person you meet.
Actually, I was arguing it could take considerably more than an hour for that reason. My hour was more a leisurely stroll as compared to a 10 minute mad sprint down to the store. But you've got the general gist of it, yes.
Which is a totally facile argument. The time you choose to invest in something vs the bear minimum time required is precisely that, your choice, but to then try and argue on the basis that somehow makes a voluntary decision an actual requirement is disengenuous.
Unless you assume any regular player makes every single list in a vacuum, and doesn't already have a number of lists, units and other pertinent information to hand.
But then, you try and argue a list takes an hour because you like to reread all the rules, which is like saying a five minute walk to the shops takes all afternoon because you like to stop and chat to every person you meet.
Actually, I was arguing it could take considerably more than an hour for that reason. My hour was more a leisurely stroll as compared to a 10 minute mad sprint down to the store. But you've got the general gist of it, yes.
Which is a totally facile argument. The time you choose to invest in something vs the bear minimum time required is precisely that, your choice, but to then try and argue on the basis that somehow makes a voluntary decision an actual requirement is disengenuous.
Arguing specific over general only works in ymdc.
I agree. That wasn't however the argument, so you're barking up the wrong tree. I was asked how long it took me to write a list. I also mentioned how long it would take me (and has taken me when necessary) to really sprint a shoddy list. I guess since it didn't fit whatever you're trying to say, you ignored that. Power levels would be so many times faster because I'd just take what models I pull out, and it wouldn't matter what gear they happened to have. Whatever they happened to have, that's what I'd use later in the game. With points I still have to look it all up, tally it up and since I'm not really able to make a good rough calculation in my head, I'll be stopping to tally everything and replacing as I go. Power levels I could make a rough tally just looking in my box. Maybe you can make a better one even with all the minute costs, but I'm afraid I can't.
I'm not sure anyone but you has mentioned quality either? Seems to be an assumption on your part, not to create a legal list but the need to create some sort of run at winning a GT.
Still, I'm not going to change my mind that your stance is somewhat dumb, and that you're arguing for something utterly irrelevant to the grand scheme of things.
The way that Jervis talked about the reasoning behind power levels, it seems to imply that power level is still rooted in points at it's core. Specifically, he said that the power level is "the median" of the least and most expensive loadouts points-wise.
So, if Power Level is just an extrapolation/interface of Matched play points values anyways, then I don't see the appeal in using it - especially since I prefer the granularity of points-play construction. If it was a different system, that measured balance on it's own, then I'd see the merit. Right now it's basically just points-but-i-guess-don't-worry-about-the-specifics, as far as I can see, which may be fine for some but isn't for me personally.
Blacksails wrote: I sincerely question anyone who argues that power levels take mere minutes of list building but points take an hour.
If you're not going to put any effort to discussing in good faith then don't bother at all.
As I explained, the only difference is in the math. In both methods you're sitting down and picking the units you want and trying to fit them under a certain value. One has more numbers to punch in than the other but in no way is the difference a full hour. Seriously.
There's a difference: with points, you have options. "This tank is 160, and I can buy a gun upgrade for 5, and this kind of shells for 15 or this kind for 10, and a lascannon for 15, and sponsons with heavy bolters, plasma cannons, multimeltas, or heavy flamers for 20, 40, 30, and 20 points, AA storm bolter or AA stubber for 15 each, co-axial storm bolter or stubber for 10 each, pintle storm bolter or stubber for 10, and these other upgrades for these other costs. What do I want on my tank?"
With power level, it's just "this tank is PL 12".
Points are useful, and PL is useful. It takes an hour to make a good list, fishing through lists of upgrades, totaling them up, realizing you're over budget, considering if you really need 4 meltaguns, or it 3 would do fine, re-totaling them, wondering if you dropped sponsons from all your tanks then you could buy another tank, and if you should, totaling up that idea, adding an upgrade to one unit and deciding which upgrade you have to lose from another unit to make room, etc. PL doesn't account for upgrades, just units, so you drop 6 tanks on the table and you're good to go.
As I said, it depends on the objective. Power Level allows an inexperienced player who hasn't seen the effects of a Meltagun on a Leman Russ Tank to quickly put his own list together without agonizing over the details. Points allows for more experienced players to craft more finely balanced lists against each other.
Its also good for campaign play where you just need a rough estimate of power levels on each size, and where the players are willing to not powergame and abuse that system.
auticus wrote: Its also good for campaign play where you just need a rough estimate of power levels on each size, and where the players are willing to not powergame and abuse that system.
Thats the divide.
If Power Level is just a rough estimate of points, though - why not just use points and be loose with the limits? You're effectively doing the same thing, but it might actually be more balanced.
If they were balancing Power Level on it's own I'd buy it, but at this stage it's just points where they've handwaved the equipment options. I'm not saying using Power is bad, but why oversimplify when you can just kind of play narratively with regular points values?
auticus wrote: Its also good for campaign play where you just need a rough estimate of power levels on each size, and where the players are willing to not powergame and abuse that system.
Thats the divide.
It's easier to power game using power levels because there's no penalty for taking all the expensive awesome upgrades.
Where players are willing to not power game, points work better to provide a more accurate balance between forces.
Points are good. They're better balanced in every way, and there's not much of a reason to use PL competitively, and you shouldn't be.
PL is for achieving rough parity without detail. The whole goal of the system is to reduce the detail that goes into list building, so that a new player, or long time player who just wants to get playing, doesn't have to weight to cost v. benefits of having a Meltagun or a Storm Bolter and can instead say "I've got some things, let's play."
Blacksails wrote: You still have to pick the weapon in power level though, you're just not paying for it.
Well, yeah, but you don't have to worry about whether or not the meltagun is worth the 10 points, or if you want a plasmagun for 15, or a flamer would do the job for 5.
Detail is removed. Instead of buying Veterans with 3x Plasma, Sentries, and Grenadiers for 60+15+15+15+10+15=130 points, I just brought Veterans. What do they have? Whatever they're modeled with.
Especially because squads can split fire now, I can see spending a lot of time puzzling about which weapon selection to take, and weighing the competitive costs and drawbacks of any given weapon.
As I said earlier, if I took my codex and dropped it in front of my friend, who doesn't play 40k, and had them make a list, they'd get lost, end up with a bad list, and not have fun. If I told them "pick from these guys the ones you think are cool", then picked an army that was also cool and roughly equal from one of my other armies, we get playing faster, they don't have to worry about being competitive and what is best and what they need, and they're more likely to eventually have their own army.
I can see a number of occasions where power levels would be preferential...but honestly, I'll be playing power levels now solely because of how many people vehemently dislike them (just in this thread).
Blacksails wrote: You still have to pick the weapon in power level though, you're just not paying for it.
Well, yeah, but you don't have to worry about whether or not the meltagun is worth the 10 points, or if you want a plasmagun for 15, or a flamer would do the job for 5.
Sure, to which my argument would be that its a fundamentally trivial issue to be concerned with. It wasn't a barrier to play in every other edition, and it certainly isn't in other games.
Detail is removed. Instead of buying Veterans with 3x Plasma, Sentries, and Grenadiers for 60+15+15+15+10+15=130 points, I just brought Veterans. What do they have? Whatever they're modeled with.
Right, I understand how they work, I'm just not seeing how that is in any way preferential or better than doing some basic math. Plus, the veterans in points would also have whatever they're modeled with, only they're actually paying for them.
Blacksails wrote: You still have to pick the weapon in power level though, you're just not paying for it.
Well, yeah, but you don't have to worry about whether or not the meltagun is worth the 10 points, or if you want a plasmagun for 15, or a flamer would do the job for 5.
Sure, to which my argument would be that its a fundamentally trivial issue to be concerned with. It wasn't a barrier to play in every other edition, and it certainly isn't in other games.
I beg to differ. There is a casual section of the playerbase that really will appreciate having this detail removed.
Blacksails wrote: You still have to pick the weapon in power level though, you're just not paying for it.
Well, yeah, but you don't have to worry about whether or not the meltagun is worth the 10 points, or if you want a plasmagun for 15, or a flamer would do the job for 5.
Sure, to which my argument would be that its a fundamentally trivial issue to be concerned with. It wasn't a barrier to play in every other edition, and it certainly isn't in other games.
I beg to differ. There is a casual section of the playerbase that really will appreciate having this detail removed.
Which I suppose brings another question for me. It seems like the argument is that there's a group of people who don't want to deal with too many numbers, but care enough to deal with enough numbers. The truly casual wouldn't care at all, which is what Open play is for, and the majority of players will play with points seeing as its the industry standard, so then who and how large is the group that power levels are for? It seems like a such a small, particular, specific group of people who don't want to either deal with a program to do the math for them or otherwise spend some extra time adding some stuff up, but still care enough to do some math.
Lolwut? Are people honestly saying that building a list with points takes an hour or more? Maybe the very first time you play an army, but once you get a bit of experience you learn the points for your most common units. You aren't spending a bunch of time looking up every possible combination, you just add 115 points for a plasma vet squad.
And no, power levels don't make it easier to find fine tune a list, because the minimum increment is larger. You can't jus add or remove a power weapon or whatever, you have to deal with full-unit blocks. That probably takes longer than points, unless you allow unequal power levels, in which case you can do the same with points and skip the fine tuning.
Detail is removed. Instead of buying Veterans with 3x Plasma, Sentries, and Grenadiers for 60+15+15+15+10+15=130 points, I just brought Veterans. What do they have? Whatever they're modeled with.
Right, I understand how they work, I'm just not seeing how that is in any way preferential or better than doing some basic math. Plus, the veterans in points would also have whatever they're modeled with, only they're actually paying for them.
Because if you don't play 40k, and I dropped Codex: Imperial Guard in front of you and told you to make a list, you'd get lost. You don't know what's good, you don't know what's bad, you don't even know what things do.
But if I set a tray of models in front of you, and told you to pick the ones you liked and wanted to have in your army today, it's easy. That tank looks cool, it's in your army now.
You don't set a power level limit, and buy units until you reach the power level with the goal of having the optimum force. You pick what's cool, then add the PL together to have a general idea of how good your "what's cool" is compared to the other guy's.
Blacksails wrote: You still have to pick the weapon in power level though, you're just not paying for it.
Well, yeah, but you don't have to worry about whether or not the meltagun is worth the 10 points, or if you want a plasmagun for 15, or a flamer would do the job for 5.
Sure, to which my argument would be that its a fundamentally trivial issue to be concerned with. It wasn't a barrier to play in every other edition, and it certainly isn't in other games.
I beg to differ. There is a casual section of the playerbase that really will appreciate having this detail removed.
I would argue that if they're fine not caring about weapons and upgrade costs, things that can swing unit capability quite dramatically, they probably dont need a "Power Level" system in the first place.
Detail is removed. Instead of buying Veterans with 3x Plasma, Sentries, and Grenadiers for 60+15+15+15+10+15=130 points, I just brought Veterans. What do they have? Whatever they're modeled with.
Right, I understand how they work, I'm just not seeing how that is in any way preferential or better than doing some basic math. Plus, the veterans in points would also have whatever they're modeled with, only they're actually paying for them.
Because if you don't play 40k, and I dropped Codex: Imperial Guard in front of you and told you to make a list, you'd get lost.
I'd be lost anyways because I don't play the game. I'd probably be asking you why you dropped a random book in front of me and told me to make a lit. I'd then probably question why we were friends and then get drunk or something.
Detail is removed. Instead of buying Veterans with 3x Plasma, Sentries, and Grenadiers for 60+15+15+15+10+15=130 points, I just brought Veterans. What do they have? Whatever they're modeled with.
Right, I understand how they work, I'm just not seeing how that is in any way preferential or better than doing some basic math. Plus, the veterans in points would also have whatever they're modeled with, only they're actually paying for them.
Because if you don't play 40k, and I dropped Codex: Imperial Guard in front of you and told you to make a list, you'd get lost.
I'd be lost anyways because I don't play the game. I'd probably be asking you why you dropped a random book in front of me and told me to make a lit. I'd then probably question why we were friends and then get drunk or something.
Well, there's the problem. I play a lot of "demo" games with people who have never played before, just started playing, haven't played in a long time and only have a few models, or play only with me borrowing my models. Power Level is absolutely ideal for this purpose. It allows them to make their own Order of Battle with things they like and play and feel good about it.
With my friends who have their own armies and have a lot of models and have been playing for a long while, we use points. I have prepped and ready 1000, 1500, 1850, 2000, and 2500 point lists I revise periodically that really did take hours to put together, considering options, weighing trade-offs, running montecarlo simulations, etc.
Besides, exactly how much more complicated is "these models cost points, and some of them can choose other options to do different things for extra points" over "these models cost power, give them what the feth you want, they'll cost the same."
I'd argue to most right thinking people, allowing stuff that obviously boosts a piece's in game ability for no cost is the more counter intuitive.
Blacksails wrote: You still have to pick the weapon in power level though, you're just not paying for it.
Well, yeah, but you don't have to worry about whether or not the meltagun is worth the 10 points, or if you want a plasmagun for 15, or a flamer would do the job for 5.
Sure, to which my argument would be that its a fundamentally trivial issue to be concerned with. It wasn't a barrier to play in every other edition, and it certainly isn't in other games.
I beg to differ. There is a casual section of the playerbase that really will appreciate having this detail removed.
Which I suppose brings another question for me. It seems like the argument is that there's a group of people who don't want to deal with too many numbers, but care enough to deal with enough numbers. The truly casual wouldn't care at all, which is what Open play is for, and the majority of players will play with points seeing as its the industry standard, so then who and how large is the group that power levels are for? It seems like a such a small, particular, specific group of people who don't want to either deal with a program to do the math for them or otherwise spend some extra time adding some stuff up, but still care enough to do some math.
It's the girlfriends of the gaming group. They want to play & be included, they have fun when they play, but the setup time and the "agonizing" over how to optimally spend those last 15 points is a huge turn off for them.
For me personally, it takes about 15 minutes to build a list. That's deciding what i want to play, grabbing the models, doing the math, and then the last 10+ minutes are me trying to spend those last 100 points effectively.
I'm looking forward to power.
We were going to run an 8th ed tournament, but have decided that a narrative conquest campaign in a subset of the galaxy that was previously hidden by the warp, will be more relaxed and fun.
Azreal13 wrote: Besides, exactly how much more complicated is "these models cost points, and some of them can choose other options to do different things for extra points" over "these models cost power, give them what the feth you want, they'll cost the same."
I'd argue to most right thinking people, allowing stuff that obviously boosts a piece's in game ability for no cost is the more counter intuitive.
Because they don't "cost power".
I like the Shadowsword, Custodian Guard, Exorcist, Living Saint, Leman Russ Vanquisher Command Tank, and Bran Redmaw, so I'm going to play with those.
Instead of "I have 2500 points to spend on the most optimal army" it's "I've got these cool things to play with, let's see how it goes."
It achieves some semblance of balance, without being so detailed as to tun the people off who are here because the big tank I have sitting on the table is pretty cool and they wanted to see what's going on.
I've learned, running demo games, that people like to make their own army. It's an integral part of the experience. But, if I give them Codex: Imperial Guard, or Codex: Space Wolves, they can stare at it for days and never come up with anything resembling a list, or come up with something that's total crap because they don't know the rules.
Well, there's the problem. I play a lot of "demo" games with people who have never played before, just started playing, haven't played in a long time and only have a few models, or play only with me borrowing my models. Power Level is absolutely ideal for this purpose. It allows them to make their own Order of Battle with things they like and play and feel good about it.
With my friends who have their own armies and have a lot of models and have been playing for a long while, we use points. I have prepped and ready 1000, 1500, 1850, 2000, and 2500 point lists I revise periodically that really did take hours to put together, considering options, weighing trade-offs, running montecarlo simulations, etc.
I used to run a few demo games too. Recently I got some people into BFG. My demo games were set up by myself to showcase the core mechanics, which got people asking more questions about what more can be done. Once they're interested then you explain the system and how army construction works. I sat down with a player who bought a small Eldar fleet to help him build his first fleet. He already had the basics and understood what the weaponry did from the demo game.
At no point during the learning curve with several players did I or they ever feel the need to have a simplified version of army construction. They picked what they wanted and did some basic math from a simple table.
Well, there's the problem. I play a lot of "demo" games with people who have never played before, just started playing, haven't played in a long time and only have a few models, or play only with me borrowing my models. Power Level is absolutely ideal for this purpose. It allows them to make their own Order of Battle with things they like and play and feel good about it.
With my friends who have their own armies and have a lot of models and have been playing for a long while, we use points. I have prepped and ready 1000, 1500, 1850, 2000, and 2500 point lists I revise periodically that really did take hours to put together, considering options, weighing trade-offs, running montecarlo simulations, etc.
I used to run a few demo games too. Recently I got some people into BFG. My demo games were set up by myself to showcase the core mechanics, which got people asking more questions about what more can be done. Once they're interested then you explain the system and how army construction works. I sat down with a player who bought a small Eldar fleet to help him build his first fleet. He already had the basics and understood what the weaponry did from the demo game.
At no point during the learning curve with several players did I or they ever feel the need to have a simplified version of army construction. They picked what they wanted and did some basic math from a simple table.
"I've got these cool things to play with, let's see how it goes."
That's what open play is for.
I've found that, at least the people I demonstrate to, have more fun when they can put together their own Order of Battle. Also, we want to get into playing as fast as possible, and don't want to spend time teaching them the rules then working out the list. If I let them pick the list, then we go over the rules phase by phase through the first turn, it works better, I've found.
Azreal13 wrote: Besides, exactly how much more complicated is "these models cost points, and some of them can choose other options to do different things for extra points" over "these models cost power, give them what the feth you want, they'll cost the same."
I'd argue to most right thinking people, allowing stuff that obviously boosts a piece's in game ability for no cost is the more counter intuitive.
Because they don't "cost power".
I like the Shadowsword, Custodian Guard, Exorcist, Living Saint, Leman Russ Vanquisher Command Tank, and Bran Redmaw, so I'm going to play with those.
Instead of "I have 2500 points to spend on the most optimal army" it's "I've got these cool things to play with, let's see how it goes."
It achieves some semblance of balance, without being so detailed as to tun the people off who are here because the big tank I have sitting on the table is pretty cool and they wanted to see what's going on.
I've learned, running demo games, that people like to make their own army. It's an integral part of the experience. But, if I give them Codex: Imperial Guard, or Codex: Space Wolves, they can stare at it for days and never come up with anything resembling a list, or come up with something that's total crap because they don't know the rules.
Of course they cost power! How else do you approach some semblance of balance other than saying "here's what I want to play, now it's time to total up the power level and then choose a force of equal power to oppose it?"
If you're running demo games, I'd say two, equally pointed, lists constructed explicitly for the purpose of teaching is a much better idea, less likely to accidentally find big disparities and just as likely to allow for the inclusion of something cool
I have ALWAYS themed my armies. Say, for example, my corsair warbands. Every felarch is given a power sword when he achieves the rank because my prince is generous to those who show loyalty. Most of my units however are more ranged weapon based and trying to not engage in melee if at all possible.
I basically handicapped myself every game by 60-90 points trying to maintain a thematic part of my army. Power levels don't care. I no longer have to worry about "if I take this I am t a disadvantage because this other thing is stronger" now I can use my harlequins with fusion pistols without thinking I have hurt myself in regards to Initial capability in points.
I'd vaguely agree with your Lythandire, except that it's been shown (from the people trying to compare both systems) that the Power Level is more indicative of the unit maxed out on its wargear.
So it's entirely possible for your army to be minorly handicapped if you play power levels. Luckily, I couldn't give two gaks about handicap, so I'll play power level if I ever play.
Honestly, the secret in the power level pudding is that I suspect this will divide much of the gaming community in a useful fashion. If you're meta-net-listing-OMG-#minmax4lyfe....I'm probably not really that interested in playing you from the get go. I'm hoping that the "whatever, let's have a game and not stress out about X, Y and Z" crowd will generally lean toward power level.
You can see this divide in almost every single thread on Dakka Dakka. I see a number of posts/threads/responses and think "Damn, glad I don't play with that guy.", and I'm sure most people here do likewise. I hope the two methods help separate that camp to make similarly minded players easier to find.
Elbows wrote: I'd vaguely agree with your Lythandire, except that it's been shown (from the people trying to compare both systems) that the Power Level is more indicative of the unit maxed out on its wargear.
So it's entirely possible for your army to be minorly handicapped if you play power levels. Luckily, I couldn't give two gaks about handicap, so I'll play power level if I ever play.
Honestly, the secret in the power level pudding is that I suspect this will divide much of the gaming community in a useful fashion. If you're meta-net-listing-OMG-#minmax4lyfe....I'm probably not really that interested in playing you from the get go. I'm hoping that the "whatever, let's have a game and not stress out about X, Y and Z" crowd will generally lean toward power level.
You can see this divide in almost every single thread on Dakka Dakka. I see a number of posts/threads/responses and think "Damn, glad I don't play with that guy.", and I'm sure most people here do likewise. I hope the two methods help separate that camp to make similarly minded players easier to find.
Here's hopin'.
I mean, I intend to use both. Points for playing with my friends who also have multiple large armies, and Power Level for playing with my friends who don't currently count 40k as one of their primary hobbies.
Elbows wrote: I'd vaguely agree with your Lythandire, except that it's been shown (from the people trying to compare both systems) that the Power Level is more indicative of the unit maxed out on its wargear.
So it's entirely possible for your army to be minorly handicapped if you play power levels. Luckily, I couldn't give two gaks about handicap, so I'll play power level if I ever play.
Honestly, the secret in the power level pudding is that I suspect this will divide much of the gaming community in a useful fashion. If you're meta-net-listing-OMG-#minmax4lyfe....I'm probably not really that interested in playing you from the get go. I'm hoping that the "whatever, let's have a game and not stress out about X, Y and Z" crowd will generally lean toward power level.
You can see this divide in almost every single thread on Dakka Dakka. I see a number of posts/threads/responses and think "Damn, glad I don't play with that guy.", and I'm sure most people here do likewise. I hope the two methods help separate that camp to make similarly minded players easier to find.
Here's hopin'.
Yeah but they guy they don't want to play is TFG and when you make everyone use pl He'll turn up with every unit maxed out with upgrades and you'll have no way to say he can't because its allowed under the rules, so you'll either have to max your units or play at a severe disadvantage.
Thus creating the very WAAC environment you don't want.
Points won't stop TFG but they limit his shenanigans.
WYSIWYG becomes a sort of balance too. I know there are those out there who remodel or have use magnets or the Tactical Squad in their kit is actually 20+ so all of the Wargear is available depending on their situation.
Some of us do it a completely different way. My example are two of my Grey Hunter Packs.
10 Models.
2 With Plasma Guns
1 With a Plasma Pistol
1 With a Power Fist and Banner
1 Made up to have Mark of the Wulfen.
With the exception of the MotW model it has been this way since 3rd Edition. My group know this. Just I know one of the other Marine Player runs two Devastator Squads squads with 4 Multi-Meltas and one with 4 Heavy Bolters.
Our list rarely change from game to game. A Dread here and there, maybe the addition of a jump unit or Flier, but for the most part very static.
Now we can write down the points every game and at one point we could build our list from memory ad be only off 10-20 points. Sometimes we even just put models on the board and looked at each other commenting about how it looked close enough. And then we spend the next few hours blowing the out of each other.
My Points on the Power vs. Points: 1] With the right group, WYSIWYG becomes a Balance Factor because you can look and see that each unit has and know if it had been kitted out to the max.
2] If you play the same people close enough is good enough.
3] As long as you both agree and have fun it does not matter.
I went for Power Level because close enough is good enough. If I find myself winning and found I was 200 points shy of 2,000 points because of this method, well I feel good about how well I did. If I lost because of those same points, well it was my error, not his. This does not stop us from doing the same thing next time and all Power Levels will do is make the math at the end of the game easy...and yes we have played before and figured out the points after in the past. To me it made some games more exiting to not know if they were evenly matched.
Elbows wrote: I'd vaguely agree with your Lythandire, except that it's been shown (from the people trying to compare both systems) that the Power Level is more indicative of the unit maxed out on its wargear.
So it's entirely possible for your army to be minorly handicapped if you play power levels. Luckily, I couldn't give two gaks about handicap, so I'll play power level if I ever play.
Honestly, the secret in the power level pudding is that I suspect this will divide much of the gaming community in a useful fashion. If you're meta-net-listing-OMG-#minmax4lyfe....I'm probably not really that interested in playing you from the get go. I'm hoping that the "whatever, let's have a game and not stress out about X, Y and Z" crowd will generally lean toward power level.
You can see this divide in almost every single thread on Dakka Dakka. I see a number of posts/threads/responses and think "Damn, glad I don't play with that guy.", and I'm sure most people here do likewise. I hope the two methods help separate that camp to make similarly minded players easier to find.
Here's hopin'.
Yeah but they guy they don't want to play is TFG and when you make everyone use pl He'll turn up with every unit maxed out with upgrades and you'll have no way to say he can't because its allowed under the rules, so you'll either have to max your units or play at a severe disadvantage.
Thus creating the very WAAC environment you don't want.
Points won't stop TFG but they limit his shenanigans.
Actually...you just don't play games with that witch. Easy solution.
It's my sneaking suspicion that in the not too distant future we're going to start hearing more and more how filthy waac players are invading narrative player's games and not using the power levels properly.
Torga_DW wrote: It's my sneaking suspicion that in the not too distant future we're going to start hearing more and more how filthy waac players are invading narrative player's games and not using the power levels properly.
Power levels are there so I can call my friend and say, "hey, let's meet at the club in a couple of hours. I'm not sure what I'm bringing yet -- just bring whatever, everything WYSIWYG"
Torga_DW wrote: It's my sneaking suspicion that in the not too distant future we're going to start hearing more and more how filthy waac players are invading narrative player's games and not using the power levels properly.
Distant...I expect that to be out there already.
It's... it's not like I have a spreadsheet detailing points:power ratios for minimum, maximum, and reasonably equipped units or anything.
Not that I'm actually playing power or would try to game it like that, but I was curious.
Alcibiades wrote: Power levels are there so I can call my friend and say, "hey, let's meet at the club in a couple of hours. I'm not sure what I'm bringing yet -- just bring whatever, everything WYSIWYG"
That is totally, exactly what they are for.
For pick up games at the club I'll bring some pointed up lists because we have a number of tournament-goers and I like to be ready for them. But we have some more casual, scenario driven players too. For those games, Power Levels will be quick, easy, and for me, preferable. I don't want to spend my time at the club pointing out a fine-tuned list, I just want to start playing.
We don't have any actual proof yet that points are "more balanced" that power levels. We know they're more granular, but that doesn't mean anything for balance. I could replace every point cost in the game with a random number between 0 and 1000 and it would still be just as granular.
We also know that previous editions of 40K have terrible balance, so we shouldn't have high hopes for this point system.
We also have examples that look seriously wrong: Typhus and the Lord of Contagion, for example.
All together, I don't trust that points are any better. Over time, people will figure out the most powerful lists in points costs - lists that will easily destroy typical, naive all-comers lists with the same amount of points. What will the power levels be for those lists? Will there be any real difference? Will it be worth the extra time finding points for all the upgrades you want (this is the big time sink for me, not the arithmetic)?
Also, I want to play with and against units will all the upgrades. I don't want to save points by using an 18-man unit instead of a 20-man unit, or by leaving a special weapon out of a veteran squad, or by not loading up every leader with power fists and plasma pistols. A sergeant with a boltgun is sad.
Pink Horror wrote: Also, I want to play with and against units will all the upgrades. I don't want to save points by using an 18-man unit instead of a 20-man unit, or by leaving a special weapon out of a veteran squad, or by not loading up every leader with power fists and plasma pistols. A sergeant with a boltgun is sad.
But what if your opponents, thinks units entirely equipped with bolters are cool? Then your fully upgraded squads have a massive advantage without points giving your opponents more guys.
Pink Horror wrote: Also, I want to play with and against units will all the upgrades. I don't want to save points by using an 18-man unit instead of a 20-man unit, or by leaving a special weapon out of a veteran squad, or by not loading up every leader with power fists and plasma pistols. A sergeant with a boltgun is sad.
But what if your opponents, thinks units entirely equipped with bolters are cool? Then your fully upgraded squads have a massive advantage without points giving your opponents more guys.
Then they are handicapping themselves, if they thought that it was cool I'd suggest using the stats for the primaris marines to offset the issue so they can still put out a decent amount of damage.
As an aside, I've never seen a player in this game take only the basic loadout because they thought it was cool looking. There are flame thrower and missile launchers available for crying out loud!
Both, I think, if it works the way I think it works.
I can imagine building and theming my games along them lines of '1500 points, max power level per unit fielded of 10'.
Main thinking behind this is the sheer variety of scale in this game, as it's got everything from angry cultists armed with chains fighting cops to city stomping Titans fighting super heavy tanks and everything in between, and I don't think in this context that points on their own can adequately confer balance. I figure power level, if it is what I think it is, should allow us to essentially judge the 'power scale', and points should be able to effectively build on thst.
Previous even to AoS being releasd I'd have plenty of friends that were happy to play small games 'bartering' units instead of using points.
"I want to use these."
"okay, well would you be happy if I use those?"
"sure"
"I also want to this? fancy also using your that?"
"sounds good, lets get started!"
If you just wanted a quick knock about while sharing stories of the week over a drink it was a good system. Points would often be wildly skewered but the battles would be fairly even.
Sounds like power levels is somewhere between the system we were using and points.
I also think having two point systems is a good idea; some units are more effective in a 'twinked out, push it all forward' style of game play, others are better when you are considering planned loses, cost/benefit analysis, etc. To have a different balance system for each style of play may be desirable?
Pink Horror wrote: Also, I want to play with and against units will all the upgrades. I don't want to save points by using an 18-man unit instead of a 20-man unit, or by leaving a special weapon out of a veteran squad, or by not loading up every leader with power fists and plasma pistols. A sergeant with a boltgun is sad.
But what if your opponents, thinks units entirely equipped with bolters are cool? Then your fully upgraded squads have a massive advantage without points giving your opponents more guys.
Then either spot him some power levels or next time bring bare bones units...or both.
I'm liking power levels. In the same time it takes me to make out a 7th edition pointed list, I'd written out 4 different power level lists for my army. I don't do tournaments and working 6.5 days a week my time is extremely precious to me do I don't want to waste time at club night coming up with a pointed list.
I only get to do pickup games so the idea of being able to rock up to club, spend 30 seconds making a list and then just rolling some dice, eating chips and drinking coke sounds appealing to me.
I don't want to sit down for ages and try to workout what's going to work. Oh no, this is going over points now because this heavy weapon is now triple the points, great now I've gotta work from the ground up on a list. Pain in the arse.
Power levels let me just pick the units I want, give them the upgrades I've given them for years and just roll some bloody dice.
Most of the players in the club are the same way. No one is super competitive anymore- mostly on account of that attitude killing the 40k scene at club for the longest time forcing the waa players to migrate elsewhere. We're all of that mindset that games are fun when you are just playing them and socialising. We don't need ego stroking from our make believe plastic and metal miniatures to get any worth out of our lives.
Do some players like the nitty gritty points? Yes. We all have fun in our own ways. That's just not my way. I play to relax. Not to tire myself out mathing out numbers.
TL;DR near enough is good enough. Let's just roll some dice.
You're still mathing out points using power levels too.
And when did using points automatically make someone super competitive or unable to relax or play for fun? I must have missed the memo all these years that my using of points made me ultra competitive.
I can truthfully state that even people who will use points still look for a fun game and show up with such a mindset. I show up to socialize and push plastic army men around a table with good people, but I use points and will continue to do so.
Its really bizarre to see so many responses from people favouring power levels who categorize points as being for super competitive, not casual, non-narrative gaming. I don't know when this attitude started seeping into these boards, but its awful.
I want to point out again that the literal only difference between the two methods is that one uses less numbers to build an army, and the other uses more numbers to build an army. Every single other difference is purely of the attitude of the players involved, and completely independent of what kind of math you decided to use when pulling models out of your bag.
I've seen afew batreps with Power level, and sometimes they are roughly equal in terms of points, but sometimes it differs quite alot. Saw one 50 powerlevel game which in points equated to ~1150 pts vs 850 pts.
Powerlevel doesn't really take units with expensive upgrades into the equation, so a list can easily snowball in terms of free upgrades.
It also doesn't really seem that well-tuned, as for some units one powerlevel equals to 12,5 points per powerlevel, and for some units one powerlevel equals to 25 points...
I like powerlevel as some sort of comp which adds benefits to the underdog, but as a tool to balance two lists it's, quite ironically, gak.
I mean, when you see what you want to see and refuse to adjust your viewpoint, everything must be.
First, that's not at all what most people are saying. They're not saying that points are ultra competitive, they're saying there is an easier, faster system so why not use it since they don't feel the end result is changed much anyway.
Second of all, it doesn't affect you at all how they play, so why are you getting so affected by it? It's awful? "seeping into these boards?" Jesus, man, you sound like an ultra conservative that is scared and bewildered by change. These boards have nothing "seeping into them," they have never been a solid single opinion that you could lean on to know that the world is united. It has always been this way.
Blacksails wrote: You're still mathing out points using power levels too.
And when did using points automatically make someone super competitive or unable to relax or play for fun? I must have missed the memo all these years that my using of points made me ultra competitive.
I can truthfully state that even people who will use points still look for a fun game and show up with such a mindset. I show up to socialize and push plastic army men around a table with good people, but I use points and will continue to do so.
Its really bizarre to see so many responses from people favouring power levels who categorize points as being for super competitive, not casual, non-narrative gaming. I don't know when this attitude started seeping into these boards, but its awful.
I want to point out again that the literal only difference between the two methods is that one uses less numbers to build an army, and the other uses more numbers to build an army. Every single other difference is purely of the attitude of the players involved, and completely independent of what kind of math you decided to use when pulling models out of your bag.
You became WaaC when the other side saw they had no real argument and decided to try and shame us onto their side.
We've commited wrong think and so need to be ostracized for the good of humanity.
I find Power Levels are okay and are not so far off that they lead to major imbalances. Good for a pick up game where you don't have half an hour to point a list. Viewed competitively power levels do not scale with wargear meaning that elite units or armies with access to expensive wargear benefit disproportionately if your not careful. For example power levels will scale up when you increase a death company from 5 to 10 men or even 15 men. Power levels wont change a drop though if they are armed with chainsaws and bolt pistols or thunder hammers and plasma pistols.
In light of this I think the best approach is as follows:
Points for Competitive Games
Power Levels or Points for normal games/pick up games, depending on the what the other player wants to do and to a lesser extent how much you trust him not to exploit the issue with powerlevels.
Power Levels for Apoc.
I think Power levels work great for apoc where it doesnt really matter what the wargear is as it has limited impacted given the scale of the conflict.
Blacksails wrote: You're still mathing out points using power levels too.
And when did using points automatically make someone super competitive or unable to relax or play for fun? I must have missed the memo all these years that my using of points made me ultra competitive.
I can truthfully state that even people who will use points still look for a fun game and show up with such a mindset. I show up to socialize and push plastic army men around a table with good people, but I use points and will continue to do so.
Its really bizarre to see so many responses from people favouring power levels who categorize points as being for super competitive, not casual, non-narrative gaming. I don't know when this attitude started seeping into these boards, but its awful.
I want to point out again that the literal only difference between the two methods is that one uses less numbers to build an army, and the other uses more numbers to build an army. Every single other difference is purely of the attitude of the players involved, and completely independent of what kind of math you decided to use when pulling models out of your bag.
You became WaaC when the other side saw they had no real argument and decided to try and shame us onto their side.
We've commited wrong think and so need to be ostracized for the good of humanity.
The argument "I enjoy the ease of which I can do this." is getting the reply "you shouldn't!"
Has anyone actually called him waac or did you just make that up to have something to argue against?
Very recently with the release of this edition and discussion about points and power levels I've seen more and more comments that divide and generalize fluff and competitive players, when in reality, the two are one and the same. Its not good for the community, and its not good for the board.
I'm fully aware that there isn't mass collective consciousness that posts on this board who represent some sort of evil WAAC and CAAC polar opinions, but even in this discussion its either been explicitly stated or heavily implied that power levels are for fluff players, and points are for competitive players, when in reality, points are for everyone, and power levels are for everyone.
My only point in discussing this is in understanding why people think doing less math is worth the trade off of having a worse balance mechanism. I don't understand it, but I fully acknowledge (and have acknowledged it already) that is has zero impact on my gaming.
Jiro wrote: Viewed competitively power levels do not scale with wargear meaning that elite units or armies with access to expensive wargear benefit disproportionately if your not careful. For example power levels will scale up when you increase a death company from 5 to 10 men or even 15 men. Power levels wont change a drop though if they are armed with chainsaws and bolt pistols or thunder hammers and plasma pistols.
But if everyone brings the full complement of upgrades that they want on their squads with Power Levels, then they would still be roughly equal to each other, yes? If both players use Power Levels, and put on the "optimized" options, then they aren't unbalanced, are they?
I mean, I agree. Having several options available for army construction is a good thing, especially for all the different players with varied tastes and values in what they are seeking from their wargaming experience.
Not everyone wants the same thing out of the game.
Very recently with the release of this edition and discussion about points and power levels I've seen more and more comments that divide and generalize fluff and competitive players, when in reality, the two are one and the same. Its not good for the community, and its not good for the board.
I'm fully aware that there isn't mass collective consciousness that posts on this board who represent some sort of evil WAAC and CAAC polar opinions, but even in this discussion its either been explicitly stated or heavily implied that power levels are for fluff players, and points are for competitive players, when in reality, points are for everyone, and power levels are for everyone.
My only point in discussing this is in understanding why people think doing less math is worth the trade off of having a worse balance mechanism. I don't understand it, but I fully acknowledge (and have acknowledged it already) that is has zero impact on my gaming.
Do you feel any better now with that explanation?
Are you deflecting? I mean you say things like "It's awful!" and then claim that I seem agitated? Thanks for the concern, but no, unlike you I'm completely fine with this whole situation.
Very recently with the release of this edition and discussion about points and power levels I've seen more and more comments that divide and generalize fluff and competitive players, when in reality, the two are one and the same. Its not good for the community, and its not good for the board.
I'm fully aware that there isn't mass collective consciousness that posts on this board who represent some sort of evil WAAC and CAAC polar opinions, but even in this discussion its either been explicitly stated or heavily implied that power levels are for fluff players, and points are for competitive players, when in reality, points are for everyone, and power levels are for everyone.
My only point in discussing this is in understanding why people think doing less math is worth the trade off of having a worse balance mechanism. I don't understand it, but I fully acknowledge (and have acknowledged it already) that is has zero impact on my gaming.
Do you feel any better now with that explanation?
Are you deflecting? I mean you say things like "It's awful!" and then claim that I seem agitated? Thanks for the concern, but no, unlike you I'm completely fine with this whole situation.
If we're being pedantic, there wasn't an exclamation mark after awful, denoting a lack of emphasis. And if we're also being pedantic, sure, there might be a better word, like annoying, or tedious, but I felt that the general point would be conveyed that categorizing people and assuming things about their play style based on the type of math they do is not ideal.
I'm fine with the situation too, as I explained, it doesn't impact my gaming as I will use points with my group. Thanks for assuming I'm not fine though. I even explicitly stated why I was discussing in here, which I felt was pretty clear that I am fine with the situation but would like to understand more of why people think power levels are a useful tool.
Very recently with the release of this edition and discussion about points and power levels I've seen more and more comments that divide and generalize fluff and competitive players, when in reality, the two are one and the same. Its not good for the community, and its not good for the board.
I'm fully aware that there isn't mass collective consciousness that posts on this board who represent some sort of evil WAAC and CAAC polar opinions, but even in this discussion its either been explicitly stated or heavily implied that power levels are for fluff players, and points are for competitive players, when in reality, points are for everyone, and power levels are for everyone.
My only point in discussing this is in understanding why people think doing less math is worth the trade off of having a worse balance mechanism. I don't understand it, but I fully acknowledge (and have acknowledged it already) that is has zero impact on my gaming.
Do you feel any better now with that explanation?
Are you deflecting? I mean you say things like "It's awful!" and then claim that I seem agitated? Thanks for the concern, but no, unlike you I'm completely fine with this whole situation.
If we're being pedantic, there wasn't an exclamation mark after awful, denoting a lack of emphasis. And if we're also being pedantic, sure, there might be a better word, like annoying, or tedious, but I felt that the general point would be conveyed that categorizing people and assuming things about their play style based on the type of math they do is not ideal.
I'm fine with the situation too, as I explained, it doesn't impact my gaming as I will use points with my group. Thanks for assuming I'm not fine though. I even explicitly stated why I was discussing in here, which I felt was pretty clear that I am fine with the situation but would like to understand more of why people think power levels are a useful tool.
Yes, the fact that several different people have chimed in with the same answer that they find it easier and less time consuming just doesn't do it for you. It doesn't matter how many people say they find it easier, if it isn't much easier for you, then you simply can't comprehend it. That is the only way I can explain your continued befuddlement. It's reiterated over and over, but you simply cannot accept it. And with that being the case, is there any point to keep asking?
Power levels to start with quick try out lists and scenarios after that mostly points once there is a good app/ calculator/ excell sheet (yes I used to do that).
And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.
I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.
If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?
Blacksails wrote: And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.
I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.
If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?
Me? I play with points. I enjoy spending evenings building a list. But the idea of Power being a viable concept to others doesn't confuse me. It seems rather obvious. If your argument is "it wasn't there before, so you don't need it now" then why did we ever go past first edition? You can scratch the "how did you manage" question off, because it's just belittling and you know perfectly well how everyone "managed."
I've seen afew batreps with Power level, and sometimes they are roughly equal in terms of points, but sometimes it differs quite alot. Saw one 50 powerlevel game which in points equated to ~1150 pts vs 850 pts.
Powerlevel doesn't really take units with expensive upgrades into the equation, so a list can easily snowball in terms of free upgrades.
It also doesn't really seem that well-tuned, as for some units one powerlevel equals to 12,5 points per powerlevel, and for some units one powerlevel equals to 25 points...
I like powerlevel as some sort of comp which adds benefits to the underdog, but as a tool to balance two lists it's, quite ironically, gak.
I haven't seen that much of a swing, your example is a bigger swing than I have seen. Over Nids, AdMech, BA, Orks, SM, and Imperium Mixed it seems 20 points per power level. Which keeps you close enough for any casual game.
For competitive games, yeah, "everyone" would bring maxed out "points per model" anyway. Harder to Min/Max with PL, as there is very little Min involved...
Jiro wrote: Viewed competitively power levels do not scale with wargear meaning that elite units or armies with access to expensive wargear benefit disproportionately if your not careful. For example power levels will scale up when you increase a death company from 5 to 10 men or even 15 men. Power levels wont change a drop though if they are armed with chainsaws and bolt pistols or thunder hammers and plasma pistols.
But if everyone brings the full complement of upgrades that they want on their squads with Power Levels, then they would still be roughly equal to each other, yes? If both players use Power Levels, and put on the "optimized" options, then they aren't unbalanced, are they?
I mean, I agree. Having several options available for army construction is a good thing, especially for all the different players with varied tastes and values in what they are seeking from their wargaming experience.
Not everyone wants the same thing out of the game.
Totally agree.
On this point why is the poll got only 2 options as if only one is acceptable? There should be at least one other option (if not more) for both systems having a place
Blacksails wrote: And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.
I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.
If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?
I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.
However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.
Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.
How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).
Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.
To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.
Blacksails wrote: And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.
I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.
If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?
I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.
However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.
Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.
How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).
Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.
To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.
Thanks for the detailed response! I can understand all that even if I haven't experienced some of it (WAAC players) or agree (balance means a lot to me), but hey.
Personally, I'm really excited to try out power level. As someone else pointed out, points are more granular but not necessarily more balanced. Having not tried power levels, I can certainly make no claims about it's balance. However, I thought there were mechanics about the person with a lower point levels have certain advantages, and I'd like to try that out. Here is my basic thought:
1) As a beer and pretzels player, list building takes me a fair amount of time often because I switch between armies and units a lot. I would rather just grab some units that I think might be interesting and put them together.
2) I'd like to try out imbalanced games under certain scenarios to see what that feels like. Obviously that could be done with points too.
Mainly, I'm just excited that we have another set of parameters to experiments with.
Especially since points are pretty awkward to use.
You what now? How exactly are points "awkward" for anyone with even a basic understanding of simple mathematics?
Going to need to show your working with that one.
No need to be confrontational. I've made an entire excel sheet cataloging and organizing all the points costs for the entire ork codex, and I think they are awkward. In previous editions, you looked at the datasheet and it says: Take boy, 6ppm. Take big shoota, 5ppm. Etc. All the points costs are listed on the sheet for the unit.
Now, you have to look at the unit, write down all the wargear options, both intrinsic to the model and all the options, go to the back of the book, look them all up on a table, and write it all down separately. Also, you have to ensure that intrinsic wargear doesn't have a cost, which I have seen more than one person confused about. I hate how they don't have all the matched points data and options for the unit self-contained on the unit's entry.
It's not rocket surgery, I'll admit, but it is still more trouble than it has been in the previous two ork codexes, and certainly more trouble than power levels.
Blacksails wrote: And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.
I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.
If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?
I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.
However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.
Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.
How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).
Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.
To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.
Thanks for the detailed response! I can understand all that even if I haven't experienced some of it (WAAC players) or agree (balance means a lot to me), but hey.
Blacksails wrote: And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.
I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.
If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?
I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.
However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.
Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.
How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).
Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.
To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.
Thanks for the detailed response! I can understand all that even if I haven't experienced some of it (WAAC players) or agree (balance means a lot to me), but hey.
Cheers.
Whaddaya know, seventh time is the charm.
I had acknowledged I understood and accepted why people did it several times. You ignoring that is no reason to be antagonistic.
You could have said something nice here too, you know.
Blacksails wrote: And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.
I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.
If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?
I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.
However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.
Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.
How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).
Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.
To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.
Thanks for the detailed response! I can understand all that even if I haven't experienced some of it (WAAC players) or agree (balance means a lot to me), but hey.
Cheers.
Whaddaya know, seventh time is the charm.
I had acknowledged I understood and accepted why people did it several times. You ignoring that is no reason to be antagonistic.
You could have said something nice here too, you know.
Hardly, you burnt that bridge with your little snide remarks a lot of posts ago. You've worked it into an art to just poke at people without technically breaking the oh so holy rule #1. My younger sister always did this when we were kids. I got fed up with it then and I can't stand it now.
And no you didn't acknowledge that at all. Hell this is just a few posts ago:
I don't understand it
That's not acknowledging that you understand it. It's the opposite.
Today I had my first try out with 8th edition. I write it here, because I dont have enough Pics/other stuff that belongs to battlereports threads. As an introduction, I played with my mechanised Steel Legion Imperial Guard and my opponent fielded his Chaos army. We played with powerlevel points, because of all the hassle involved making points-only-lists. We didnt have tactical objectives at all, and we rolled for mission. Mission was killpoints, slay the warlord, linebreaker and first blood. Deployment was classic, long edge vs. long edge, though there was plenty of new, different kinds of deployments that were intresting. We forgot warlord traits, which after checking, didnt seem to be any good .Both of us had 6 command points, 3 for a start and 3 for a battalion. As my army was highly mobil, I tried from the start to push forward, but there was quickly big unit of Cultists blocking my way to get through. Lesson learned, tarpits are horrible. So is Defiler with it's regeneration. And my Demolishers didnt pack enough punch for full scale assault. Biggest error was that my infantry squads were in chimeras from the start, rather than disembarked for ability to shoot hard.
Spreelock wrote: Today I had my first try out with 8th edition. I write it here, because I dont have enough Pics/other stuff that belongs to battlereports threads. As an introduction, I played with my mechanised Steel Legion Imperial Guard and my opponent fielded his Chaos army. We played with powerlevel points, because of all the hassle involved making points-only-lists. We didnt have tactical objectives at all, and we rolled for mission. Mission was killpoints, slay the warlord, linebreaker and first blood. Deployment was classic, long edge vs. long edge, though there was plenty of new, different kinds of deployments that were intresting. We forgot warlord traits, which after checking, didnt seem to be any good .Both of us had 6 command points, 3 for a start and 3 for a battalion. As my army was highly mobil, I tried from the start to push forward, but there was quickly big unit of Cultists blocking my way to get through. Lesson learned, tarpits are horrible. So is Defiler with it's regeneration. And my Demolishers didnt pack enough punch for full scale assault. Biggest error was that my infantry squads were in chimeras from the start, rather than disembarked for ability to shoot hard.
Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...
If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)
An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.
Pedroig wrote: Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...
If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)
An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.
A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.
We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.
The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.
Pedroig wrote: Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...
If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)
An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.
A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.
We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.
The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.
Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.
That part is not always true A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance most of the time is a better way to put it. I think this is where a lot of the 'Friction' is coming from, blanket statements. I for one enjoy (Not every time, but enough to not make it a freak occurrence) being on the short end of the stick. Set up a game where I am playing a 1,500 Point List vs a 2,o00 Point List can be fun a lot of the time. Now this does not mean I want every game like this, but to say I (and others) can't have fun with this is what pushes some peoples buttons.
The funny thing is all of my AOS games pre-GHB were more balanced and fun than any whfb or 40k game I've ever played, which are typically always one sided blow outs using points because the points are never balanced.
I went through this thread rather briefly, so perhaps someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but a quick question for "points are the only way" folks here: how important "perfect point ballance" is for asymmetric scenarios like Meatgrinder? And if you read narrative scenarios carefully, power level is mostly used to determine who attacks and who defends (they also provide rough estimate of how long the game will take). If scenario itself introduces imballance so huge, why on earth would I want to spend any time finding those missing 5 points (in many lists those 5-15 points mean dropping something worth 150 for something worth 130 and then "filling up" on upgrades).
For symmetric Eternal War missions, tournaments, and overall competetive (as in testing relative skill of two players in as equal environment as possible) approach to 40K, perfect (as possible) ballance is indeed desired quality, but when you play a mission with a clear AND DESIRED disadvantage to one side, then meticulous list building isn't really that important to overall fun and Power Level is a nice shortcut tool for that.
Pedroig wrote: Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...
If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)
An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.
A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.
We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.
The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.
Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.
Except that perfect "balance" is not necessary for a fun game. Some of us like the idea of having an uphill challenge with our armies in scenarios, especially if the game has significance in the context of something larger, like a campaign. For some of us, "close enough" is good enough to play, especially when we don't have the time to play like we used to and we just want to get a game in.
Besides, the "equal chance" can be brought in to make a one-sided scenario more fun and unique, making it a FAIR, yet UNBALANCED fight.
Anpu42 wrote: That part is not always true A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance most of the time is a better way to put it. I think this is where a lot of the 'Friction' is coming from, blanket statements. I for one enjoy (Not every time, but enough to not make it a freak occurrence) being on the short end of the stick. Set up a game where I am playing a 1,500 Point List vs a 2,o00 Point List can be fun a lot of the time. Now this does not mean I want every game like this, but to say I (and others) can't have fun with this is what pushes some peoples buttons.
I played in a large game once, it ended up being a large multiplayer game with 9500 points of Imperium versus 12,000 points of Chaos. It was only ever not balanced in Turn 4 when the last of the Heldrakes came in and began tearing through our forces (it was just after 6th Edition CSM book had dropped, and no army had solid anti-air yet). That was an awesome game, and no one got upset or had their feelings hurt at being so low in points.
Some players need to recognize that others don't play for the same reasons as them.
nou wrote: I went through this thread rather briefly, so perhaps someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but a quick question for "points are the only way" folks here: how important "perfect point ballance" is for asymmetric scenarios like Meatgrinder? And if you read narrative scenarios carefully, power level is mostly used to determine who attacks and who defends (they also provide rough estimate of how long the game will take). If scenario itself introduces imballance so huge, why on earth would I want to spend any time finding those missing 5 points (in many lists those 5-15 points mean dropping something worth 150 for something worth 130 and then "filling up" on upgrades).
For symmetric Eternal War missions, tournaments, and overall competetive (as in testing relative skill of two players in as equal environment as possible) approach to 40K, perfect (as possible) ballance is indeed desired quality, but when you play a mission with a clear AND DESIRED disadvantage to one side, then meticulous list building isn't really that important to overall fun and Power Level is a nice shortcut tool for that.
But the Power Level system is just the average Points costs /20 anyways :/ So the difference between these two systems is - the size of the numbers.
If the point of using Power Level is that you don't care about the specific costs of units and upgrades, then it'll save you some amount of minutes in list building, and that's it as far as the comparison goes - but you'd save even more time if you just played Open.
So what's the appeal of the half-measure approach to list building? I'm not trying to be snippy here, but when I see that Power Level is just Points with some stuff taken out or handwaved away, I question what the value added is for using that system, when the "time saving" aspect is better served by the Open play system? If you wanted better balance you would use straight points, if you want to put models on the table and play with them WYSIWYG, that's Open play. If you're looking for semi-balance, as Power Level seems to offer... I would just eyeball the unit's points and go from there personally, that's how we always played narrative missions before...
It just doesn't seem to actually fulfill a role to me, other than causing consternation in the playerbase about the "right" way to play the game! Now you see lines are being drawn between the groups and I'm not excited for all the arguments to continue about which is "correct" or "better" to play with in stores
nou wrote: I went through this thread rather briefly, so perhaps someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but a quick question for "points are the only way" folks here: how important "perfect point ballance" is for asymmetric scenarios like Meatgrinder? And if you read narrative scenarios carefully, power level is mostly used to determine who attacks and who defends (they also provide rough estimate of how long the game will take). If scenario itself introduces imballance so huge, why on earth would I want to spend any time finding those missing 5 points (in many lists those 5-15 points mean dropping something worth 150 for something worth 130 and then "filling up" on upgrades).
For symmetric Eternal War missions, tournaments, and overall competetive (as in testing relative skill of two players in as equal environment as possible) approach to 40K, perfect (as possible) ballance is indeed desired quality, but when you play a mission with a clear AND DESIRED disadvantage to one side, then meticulous list building isn't really that important to overall fun and Power Level is a nice shortcut tool for that.
But the Power Level system is just the average Points costs /20 anyways :/ So the difference between these two systems is - the size of the numbers.
If the point of using Power Level is that you don't care about the specific costs of units and upgrades, then it'll save you some amount of minutes in list building, and that's it as far as the comparison goes - but you'd save even more time if you just played Open.
So what's the appeal of the half-measure approach to list building? I'm not trying to be snippy here, but when I see that Power Level is just Points with some stuff taken out or handwaved away, I question what the value added is for using that system, when the "time saving" aspect is better served by the Open play system? If you wanted better balance you would use straight points, if you want to put models on the table and play with them WYSIWYG, that's Open play. If you're looking for semi-balance, as Power Level seems to offer... I would just eyeball the unit's points and go from there personally, that's how we always played narrative missions before...
It just doesn't seem to actually fulfill a role to me, other than causing consternation in the playerbase about the "right" way to play the game! Now you see lines are being drawn between the groups and I'm not excited for all the arguments to continue about which is "correct" or "better" to play with in stores
One advantage of Power Level over just "use units point value divided by 20 and don't count upgrades" is... oficialdom. 40K community craves oficialdom. And I don't really get what you mean by "Open Play is better at task" - Open Play uses Power Level to determine best mission type and mission sides - have you even read Open Play rules for 40K? It's not AOS simple model count... Difference between Open and Narrative is detail level of missions (setup, specific rules and victory conditions are vastly more detailed in Narrative) not the way you estimate force strenght...
One other thing, that most 40K veterans seem to ignore - this time GW reaches out to new audience. New players aren't familiar with point system and even with streamlined rules there is a lot of mechanics to learn during first dozen games. Power Levels let you start faster and when you understand logic behind phases, units and in game interactions, then you may move to points if you want better granularity, having actual understanding what different wargear options realy do. And before someone accuses me of treating new comers as too dumb for simple math - it is not math I'm talking about - it is "an informed decision". Just look at a typical "newbie needs help" thread here on dakka, typical human being is not born with an in-depth understanding of 40K ballance, this is knowledge that has to be learned and experience that has to be gathered.
And I don't really understand what there is not to understand or enforce over other players, both ways... Want to use points? Use them. Want to use Power Levels? Use them. Want to mix&match two players using different approach? Multiply/divide by 20 and play. Don't want to mix&match? Deny games. It's that simple.
nou wrote: I went through this thread rather briefly, so perhaps someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but a quick question for "points are the only way" folks here: how important "perfect point ballance" is for asymmetric scenarios like Meatgrinder? And if you read narrative scenarios carefully, power level is mostly used to determine who attacks and who defends (they also provide rough estimate of how long the game will take). If scenario itself introduces imballance so huge, why on earth would I want to spend any time finding those missing 5 points (in many lists those 5-15 points mean dropping something worth 150 for something worth 130 and then "filling up" on upgrades).
For symmetric Eternal War missions, tournaments, and overall competetive (as in testing relative skill of two players in as equal environment as possible) approach to 40K, perfect (as possible) ballance is indeed desired quality, but when you play a mission with a clear AND DESIRED disadvantage to one side, then meticulous list building isn't really that important to overall fun and Power Level is a nice shortcut tool for that.
But the Power Level system is just the average Points costs /20 anyways :/ So the difference between these two systems is - the size of the numbers.
If the point of using Power Level is that you don't care about the specific costs of units and upgrades, then it'll save you some amount of minutes in list building, and that's it as far as the comparison goes - but you'd save even more time if you just played Open.
So what's the appeal of the half-measure approach to list building? I'm not trying to be snippy here, but when I see that Power Level is just Points with some stuff taken out or handwaved away, I question what the value added is for using that system, when the "time saving" aspect is better served by the Open play system? If you wanted better balance you would use straight points, if you want to put models on the table and play with them WYSIWYG, that's Open play. If you're looking for semi-balance, as Power Level seems to offer... I would just eyeball the unit's points and go from there personally, that's how we always played narrative missions before...
It just doesn't seem to actually fulfill a role to me, other than causing consternation in the playerbase about the "right" way to play the game! Now you see lines are being drawn between the groups and I'm not excited for all the arguments to continue about which is "correct" or "better" to play with in stores
One advantage of Power Level over just "use units point value divided by 20 and don't count upgrades" is... oficialdom. 40K community craves oficialdom. And I don't really get what you mean by "Open Play is better at task" - Open Play uses Power Level to determine best mission type and mission sides - have you even read Open Play rules for 40K? It's not AOS simple model count... Difference between Open and Narrative is detail level of missions (setup, specific rules and victory conditions are vastly more detailed in Narrative) not the way you estimate force strenght...
There are several good points here, well said - and you're absolutely right about Open play, I really thought it was the same as Age of Sigmar, where you just plop models on the table and go. That's my bad for not checking the specific rules, but to me GW's promotions really seemed to imply that Open was just a straightforward pick up and play format
nou wrote: I went through this thread rather briefly, so perhaps someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but a quick question for "points are the only way" folks here: how important "perfect point ballance" is for asymmetric scenarios like Meatgrinder? And if you read narrative scenarios carefully, power level is mostly used to determine who attacks and who defends (they also provide rough estimate of how long the game will take). If scenario itself introduces imballance so huge, why on earth would I want to spend any time finding those missing 5 points (in many lists those 5-15 points mean dropping something worth 150 for something worth 130 and then "filling up" on upgrades).
For symmetric Eternal War missions, tournaments, and overall competetive (as in testing relative skill of two players in as equal environment as possible) approach to 40K, perfect (as possible) ballance is indeed desired quality, but when you play a mission with a clear AND DESIRED disadvantage to one side, then meticulous list building isn't really that important to overall fun and Power Level is a nice shortcut tool for that.
But the Power Level system is just the average Points costs /20 anyways :/ So the difference between these two systems is - the size of the numbers.
If the point of using Power Level is that you don't care about the specific costs of units and upgrades, then it'll save you some amount of minutes in list building, and that's it as far as the comparison goes - but you'd save even more time if you just played Open.
So what's the appeal of the half-measure approach to list building? I'm not trying to be snippy here, but when I see that Power Level is just Points with some stuff taken out or handwaved away, I question what the value added is for using that system, when the "time saving" aspect is better served by the Open play system? If you wanted better balance you would use straight points, if you want to put models on the table and play with them WYSIWYG, that's Open play. If you're looking for semi-balance, as Power Level seems to offer... I would just eyeball the unit's points and go from there personally, that's how we always played narrative missions before...
It just doesn't seem to actually fulfill a role to me, other than causing consternation in the playerbase about the "right" way to play the game! Now you see lines are being drawn between the groups and I'm not excited for all the arguments to continue about which is "correct" or "better" to play with in stores
One advantage of Power Level over just "use units point value divided by 20 and don't count upgrades" is... oficialdom. 40K community craves oficialdom. And I don't really get what you mean by "Open Play is better at task" - Open Play uses Power Level to determine best mission type and mission sides - have you even read Open Play rules for 40K? It's not AOS simple model count... Difference between Open and Narrative is detail level of missions (setup, specific rules and victory conditions are vastly more detailed in Narrative) not the way you estimate force strenght...
One other thing, that most 40K veterans seem to ignore - this time GW reaches out to new audience. New players aren't familiar with point system and even with streamlined rules there is a lot of mechanics to learn during first dozen games. Power Levels let you start faster and when you understand logic behind phases, units and in game interactions, then you may move to points if you want better granularity, having actual understanding what different wargear options realy do. And before someone accuses me of treating new comers as too dumb for simple math - it is not math I'm talking about - it is "an informed decision". Just look at a typical "newbie needs help" thread here on dakka, typical human being is not born with an in-depth understanding of 40K ballance, this is knowledge that has to be learned and experience that has to be gathered.
And I don't really understand what there is not to understand or enforce over other players, both ways... Want to use points? Use them. Want to use Power Levels? Use them. Want to mix&match two players using different approach? Multiply/divide by 20 and play. Don't want to mix&match? Deny games. It's that simple.
This and more.
I have been playing since 89 and I love the idea of the Power Levels. Not because I am not good at figuring out The Exact Points, but because I don't have to. New and old players can have fun using Points/Power Levels/Just putting models on the table and going for it.
I will have to admit it is a mind set. If you feel you have to account for every point on both sides to have a fair and to you fun game, that is great for you. If you feel that Close Enough is Good Enough and don't sweat the small stuff Great too.
I feel Power Level is the best thing to happen to the game in a long time, but if you show up with my group and Demand we use Points, we are probably going to play you once out of politeness and then say 'Next Game we are going to Use Power Levels'. You know compromise. This gives you (Who ever you are) the choice of returning or not, we would be upset to see you go and we hope you would stay (Unless you are a jerk or something), but if you chose to never come back we would most likely just shrug and go back to the cheezy poofs and Dr. Pepper.
If you want to come back and play we would probably set up both Points and Power Level Games. It might be a little selfish and egocentric, but I think is the way all groups should be.
Points are for serious Games.
Power Points are for 'Just for Fun' Games.
Open play for who gives a and lets blow up using my newest models and ideas.
I think if anyone is using power levels, a good house rule should be that everything must be WYSiWYG. You're getting free stuff, at least prove you're not just power gaming your "Fluffy" army.
Nightlord1987 wrote: I think if anyone is using power levels, a good house rule should be that everything must be WYSiWYG. You're getting free stuff, at least prove you're not just power gaming your "Fluffy" army.
Uh, points doesn't let you off the hook in that department. I expect at least an attempt to be WYSIWYG no matter what.
The storm bolter on top of the command tank not actually being a purchased upgrade is tolerable. The tank being a Vanquisher when it's clearly a Battle Tank is less so. The tank actually being a Basilisk model is right out.
Nightlord1987 wrote: I think if anyone is using power levels, a good house rule should be that everything must be WYSiWYG. You're getting free stuff, at least prove you're not just power gaming your "Fluffy" army.
Uh, points doesn't let you off the hook in that department. I expect at least an attempt to be WYSIWYG no matter what.
The storm bolter on top of the command tank not actually being a purchased upgrade is tolerable. The tank being a Vanquisher when it's clearly a Battle Tank isn't.
i think that depends. if you have never run a vanquisher and want to try it in a game before purchasing the model, or are building your army over time due to funds I can totally deal with some proxies, if there are a lot I hope they are clear. but yea if you have been a club member or flgs player for years and are still doing this... yea
Nightlord1987 wrote: I think if anyone is using power levels, a good house rule should be that everything must be WYSiWYG. You're getting free stuff
You aren't supposed to be getting free stuff. Obviously there are some exceptions (I'm looking at you Rubric Marine Warpflamers and Chaos Knights), but options are supposed to be taken into account for Power.
I think it works fine most of the time, some units have huge point swings though. I felt bad using power levels for my Chaos Terminators, most of whom had combi-meltas. Theyre 14 power for 5, which is a lot, but still hefty in the upgrafe department.
If and when my groups switched to 8th edition, we will be sticking to points. It is a more accurate picture of what your army is worth in combat value. I have been playing with the points method since Rouge Trader days. No need to stop now.
nou wrote: I went through this thread rather briefly, so perhaps someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but a quick question for "points are the only way" folks here: how important "perfect point ballance" is for asymmetric scenarios like Meatgrinder? And if you read narrative scenarios carefully, power level is mostly used to determine who attacks and who defends (they also provide rough estimate of how long the game will take). If scenario itself introduces imballance so huge, why on earth would I want to spend any time finding those missing 5 points (in many lists those 5-15 points mean dropping something worth 150 for something worth 130 and then "filling up" on upgrades).
For symmetric Eternal War missions, tournaments, and overall competetive (as in testing relative skill of two players in as equal environment as possible) approach to 40K, perfect (as possible) ballance is indeed desired quality, but when you play a mission with a clear AND DESIRED disadvantage to one side, then meticulous list building isn't really that important to overall fun and Power Level is a nice shortcut tool for that.
But the Power Level system is just the average Points costs /20 anyways :/ So the difference between these two systems is - the size of the numbers.
If the point of using Power Level is that you don't care about the specific costs of units and upgrades, then it'll save you some amount of minutes in list building, and that's it as far as the comparison goes - but you'd save even more time if you just played Open.
So what's the appeal of the half-measure approach to list building? I'm not trying to be snippy here, but when I see that Power Level is just Points with some stuff taken out or handwaved away, I question what the value added is for using that system, when the "time saving" aspect is better served by the Open play system? If you wanted better balance you would use straight points, if you want to put models on the table and play with them WYSIWYG, that's Open play. If you're looking for semi-balance, as Power Level seems to offer... I would just eyeball the unit's points and go from there personally, that's how we always played narrative missions before...
It just doesn't seem to actually fulfill a role to me, other than causing consternation in the playerbase about the "right" way to play the game! Now you see lines are being drawn between the groups and I'm not excited for all the arguments to continue about which is "correct" or "better" to play with in stores
One advantage of Power Level over just "use units point value divided by 20 and don't count upgrades" is... oficialdom. 40K community craves oficialdom. And I don't really get what you mean by "Open Play is better at task" - Open Play uses Power Level to determine best mission type and mission sides - have you even read Open Play rules for 40K? It's not AOS simple model count... Difference between Open and Narrative is detail level of missions (setup, specific rules and victory conditions are vastly more detailed in Narrative) not the way you estimate force strenght...
There are several good points here, well said - and you're absolutely right about Open play, I really thought it was the same as Age of Sigmar, where you just plop models on the table and go. That's my bad for not checking the specific rules, but to me GW's promotions really seemed to imply that Open was just a straightforward pick up and play format
Honest mistake, totally understandable after the whole early AOS "no points whatsoever" disaster thing and GW using same terms for different things... Glad I managed to clear things up for you. Cheers!
nou wrote: One other thing, that most 40K veterans seem to ignore - this time GW reaches out to new audience. New players aren't familiar with point system and even with streamlined rules there is a lot of mechanics to learn during first dozen games. Power Levels let you start faster and when you understand logic behind phases, units and in game interactions, then you may move to points if you want better granularity, having actual understanding what different wargear options realy do. And before someone accuses me of treating new comers as too dumb for simple math - it is not math I'm talking about - it is "an informed decision". Just look at a typical "newbie needs help" thread here on dakka, typical human being is not born with an in-depth understanding of 40K ballance, this is knowledge that has to be learned and experience that has to be gathered.
This doesn't make much sense. There's no meaningful difference between "add up the point costs of your units and their upgrades" and "add up the point costs of your units and some of their upgrades", if you can figure out how to use power levels you can do the same with points. And neither concept is complicated at all, you should be able to understand it with a few minutes of explanation at most. And for your first leaning games you're probably playing with lists someone else made to teach you the rules so the method of list construction doesn't matter.
And of course the final argument against "power levels are for new players" is how GW is presenting the system: as a standard mode of play, not just a stripped-down learning system. It's a core mechanic and, judging by the way power levels are prominent and point costs are hidden away in the back of the book, it seems to be the default way GW expects most players to play the game.
Peregrine wrote:judging by the way power levels are prominent and point costs are hidden away in the back of the book, it seems to be the default way GW expects most players to play the game.
GW told us why the points costs are "hidden away in the back of the book." It's so that they can change them as needed with minimal frustration for the player base.
Insectum7 wrote: I think it works fine most of the time, some units have huge point swings though. I felt bad using power levels for my Chaos Terminators, most of whom had combi-meltas. Theyre 14 power for 5, which is a lot, but still hefty in the upgrafe department.
And my wolf guard terminators have combi-plasma.
I would not see that as an issue
nou wrote: One other thing, that most 40K veterans seem to ignore - this time GW reaches out to new audience. New players aren't familiar with point system and even with streamlined rules there is a lot of mechanics to learn during first dozen games. Power Levels let you start faster and when you understand logic behind phases, units and in game interactions, then you may move to points if you want better granularity, having actual understanding what different wargear options realy do. And before someone accuses me of treating new comers as too dumb for simple math - it is not math I'm talking about - it is "an informed decision". Just look at a typical "newbie needs help" thread here on dakka, typical human being is not born with an in-depth understanding of 40K ballance, this is knowledge that has to be learned and experience that has to be gathered.
This doesn't make much sense. There's no meaningful difference between "add up the point costs of your units and their upgrades" and "add up the point costs of your units and some of their upgrades", if you can figure out how to use power levels you can do the same with points. And neither concept is complicated at all, you should be able to understand it with a few minutes of explanation at most. And for your first leaning games you're probably playing with lists someone else made to teach you the rules so the method of list construction doesn't matter.
And of course the final argument against "power levels are for new players" is how GW is presenting the system: as a standard mode of play, not just a stripped-down learning system. It's a core mechanic and, judging by the way power levels are prominent and point costs are hidden away in the back of the book, it seems to be the default way GW expects most players to play the game.
This makes sense, I think.
If the PL is on the page with the unit, it's convenient for when you're searching for the datacard for those then guys sitting in the table in front of you, flipping to the back of the book for PL is an inconvenience.
When you're building a competitive list, it's an inconvenience to flip around all the time looking for the page that the unit is on to look for it's costs. It's really nice to have all the costs in one place.
I hope the books in the end are like the 6th or 5th ed books, with a nice section in the back with all the points costs and upgrades consolidated, and detailed unit datacards throughout the book, with their PL's on their page.
auticus wrote: The funny thing is all of my AOS games pre-GHB were more balanced and fun than any whfb or 40k game I've ever played, which are typically always one sided blow outs using points because the points are never balanced.
This is why late whfb and 6th/7th ed 40k I had largely switched to a barter system instead of points.
Pedroig wrote: Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...
If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)
An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.
A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.
We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.
The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.
Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.
If the points system in AOS is good enough to mitigate all of the balance issues there, then the exact same system in 40k (power level) will be good enough here.
The two systems work fine on their own merits, arguing otherwise is simply stating personal opinion as fact.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: If the PL is on the page with the unit, it's convenient for when you're searching for the datacard for those then guys sitting in the table in front of you, flipping to the back of the book for PL is an inconvenience.
When you're building a competitive list, it's an inconvenience to flip around all the time looking for the page that the unit is on to look for it's costs. It's really nice to have all the costs in one place.
I don't get it, you're using power levels and points for the exact same thing. Why is it convenient for one to be in one location, but inconvenient for the other to be in the same place?
Pedroig wrote: Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...
If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)
An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.
A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.
We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.
The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.
Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.
If the points system in AOS is good enough to mitigate all of the balance issues there, then the exact same system in 40k (power level) will be good enough here.
The two systems work fine on their own merits, arguing otherwise is simply stating personal opinion as fact.
Except even people who play aos will openly say ghb is not balanced.
Because the longest part of building a list with points currently is the last bit filling out/ trimming down the mast few points and that's a crazy hassle right now with points for one unit to be all over the place (3-4 pages sometimes). If I'm building a matched play list I'll supposedly know what all the names mean and just need the appendix to calculate.
nou wrote: One other thing, that most 40K veterans seem to ignore - this time GW reaches out to new audience. New players aren't familiar with point system and even with streamlined rules there is a lot of mechanics to learn during first dozen games. Power Levels let you start faster and when you understand logic behind phases, units and in game interactions, then you may move to points if you want better granularity, having actual understanding what different wargear options realy do. And before someone accuses me of treating new comers as too dumb for simple math - it is not math I'm talking about - it is "an informed decision". Just look at a typical "newbie needs help" thread here on dakka, typical human being is not born with an in-depth understanding of 40K ballance, this is knowledge that has to be learned and experience that has to be gathered.
This doesn't make much sense. There's no meaningful difference between "add up the point costs of your units and their upgrades" and "add up the point costs of your units and some of their upgrades", if you can figure out how to use power levels you can do the same with points. And neither concept is complicated at all, you should be able to understand it with a few minutes of explanation at most. And for your first leaning games you're probably playing with lists someone else made to teach you the rules so the method of list construction doesn't matter.
And of course the final argument against "power levels are for new players" is how GW is presenting the system: as a standard mode of play, not just a stripped-down learning system. It's a core mechanic and, judging by the way power levels are prominent and point costs are hidden away in the back of the book, it seems to be the default way GW expects most players to play the game.
There is a VAST meaningfull difference, but for some reason it keeps being totally ignored by point advocates (and if you read everything I wrote in this thread you should be aware, that what you cited was an additional argument, not a basis for defending Power Levels) - by design Power Level and Points ARE NOT designed for the same purpose. They CAN be used for the same purpose to some degree, but they have two different uses with two different sets of missions to use in. And for Narrative section using points doesn't make much sense, because missions themselves accomodate power level discrepancies (al of them work better that way, and some of them work ONLY when power levels are different enough), so the very process of "adding up the points" is very different, because you don't have to fit as closely as possisble within an arbitrary margin, which is a clue with competetive (ballanced) point list building. Of course, you can use points for this, but even if they were on the same page such process is simply unnecessary longer (not more complex, just longer by the unnecessary multiplications and addictions you have to make for wargear and single model cost) and has unnecessary granularity.
When reaching for new audience GW assumes (correctly), that not everyone will end up using points - you missed the part "then you may move to points if you want better granularity" - not everyone want's that and you have proof for this in this very thread. And you also missed the point of "making an informed decission" - points for wargear aren't just math behind points to add up, they are meaningfull in game decissions to be made and you simply have to know how the game plays before you understand that, there is no "theoretical workaround" for experience, mathhammer in the void is pretty much useless.
And realy, what there is to not understand after reading Narrative section and looking at this discussion? Some people want to use Power Levels and WILL use Power Levels because for them THERE IS meaningfull difference. This is not a subject of "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude and lawyering. Are there any people here that advocate dropping points altogether? Then why there are people who want to advocate, that Power Levels should not be used by anyone/are dumb/are unnecessary or try to argue with any personal or rulebook reasons behind using Power Levels presented to them? This thread can only give answers to people who wonder why other people chose Power Levels, not to people who think that there is a necessary choice between points and Power Levels to be made, because there simply is none.
There is a VAST meaningfull difference, but for some reason it keeps being totally ignored by point advocates (and if you read everything I wrote in this thread you should be aware, that what you cited was an additional argument, not a basis for defending Power Levels) - by design Power Level and Points ARE NOT designed for the same purpose. They CAN be used for the same purpose to some degree, but they have two different uses with two different sets of missions to use in. And for Narrative section using points doesn't make much sense, because missions themselves accomodate power level discrepancies (al of them work better that way, and some of them work ONLY when power levels are different enough), so the very process of "adding up the points" is very different, because you don't have to fit as closely as possisble within an arbitrary margin, which is a clue with competetive (ballanced) point list building. Of course, you can use points for this, but even if they were on the same page such process is simply unnecessary longer (not more complex, just longer by the unnecessary multiplications and addictions you have to make for wargear and single model cost) and has unnecessary granularity.
When reaching for new audience GW assumes (correctly), that not everyone will end up using points - you missed the part "then you may move to points if you want better granularity" - not everyone want's that and you have proof for this in this very thread. And you also missed the point of "making an informed decission" - points for wargear aren't just math behind points to add up, they are meaningfull in game decissions to be made and you simply have to know how the game plays before you understand that, there is no "theoretical workaround" for experience, mathhammer in the void is pretty much useless.
And realy, what there is to not understand after reading Narrative section and looking at this discussion? Some people want to use Power Levels and WILL use Power Levels because for them THERE IS meaningfull difference. This is not a subject of "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude and lawyering. Are there any people here that advocate dropping points altogether? Then why there are people who want to advocate, that Power Levels should not be used by anyone/are dumb/are unnecessary or try to argue with any personal or rulebook reasons behind using Power Levels presented to them? This thread can only give answers to people who wonder why other people chose Power Levels, not to people who think that there is a necessary choice between points and Power Levels to be made, because there simply is none.
Yes. This.
There are a lot of wargamers familiar with other systems where points seem tedious. GW is opening the door to them with power levels.
What most points advocates fail to admit is points are not really a good approximation of balance. In some ways, they create overpowered factions and make some armies unplayable. GW has written the rules for quite some time where points favor new models they are trying to sell, or to create interest in overlooked factions. The cost of a Scatterbike units is clearly not on the same scale as a unit of Berzerkers, when you compare shot output, movement and special rules. Yet there's nothing in a CSM list to compensate for the difference, you just get blown away.
Given this, it doesn't feel like it's worth it to sweat over every weapons upgrade. Points doesn't mean I am building a balanced force, it means I am doing a lot of math to put some arbitrary restrictions in place. Playing CSM, if I want to win, I have to have many lists designed to exploit weaknesses against different armies, and even different players. It means I never have a single, coherent army I can bring to any match up.
I will be playing power levels in 8th edition. Going to break out the Noise Marines with their sonic blasters and see how massed havocs fare. From what I can tell, I would be able to fit more of them into a power level 100 army than I could into a 2000 point army. And that's alright, because my opponent is going to be doing the same.
This might not clean up the imbalances that are going to exist, but it will take a lot less time to sort out the differences.
hobojebus wrote: Except even people who play aos will openly say ghb is not balanced.
Well no suprise. Points cannot be balanced. All they are designed for is quick setting of game between 2 unknowns. Balance isn\t goal. Just quick setting up of game.
Pedroig wrote: Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...
If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)
An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.
A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.
We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.
The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.
Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.
If the points system in AOS is good enough to mitigate all of the balance issues there, then the exact same system in 40k (power level) will be good enough here.
The two systems work fine on their own merits, arguing otherwise is simply stating personal opinion as fact.
Except even people who play aos will openly say ghb is not balanced.
You specifically stated how broken it was when released, as though the points had rectified that situation. Strange how suddenly when I point out that the two systems are identical in structure the points in age of sigmar are now too imbalanced as well.
If you actually thought that, it would have been the entire crux of your argument when you brought up AOS.
Edit because my fingers don't work right when I am sleepy.
I just tossed a first draft of a 2000 point Ork army together. 4 30 boy mobs, 4 kans w/ rokkits, a morkanaut, 3 rokkit koptas, and 3 big meks. Came out to 2009 points, or 116 power level. I was at around 1800 points and 100 power level without the koptas (although I had a few more upgrades on the BMs at that point.)
I think a couple other people posted armies at around 2000 points that were 100 power level, so maybe there's about a 10% fudge in power level versus points if you aren't going out of your way to maximize upgrades. Honestly, that doesn't seem too bad to me. It'll be interesting to see some tournament lists, or even the preview lists their doing on Warhammer TV, work out in power level instead of points.
One thing I can see power level letting people do that points doesn't, is take cool but over-costed units... especially if the overcosting comes from excessive upgrades. Veteran Space Marine units seem to be the most common example... it's fun to have a bunch of guys with all sorts of awesome weapons, but after you add more than a few upgrades, you seem to be spending more points for the unit than its really worth. The power level, however, would stay the same if you kept them all in bolters or thunder hammers and storm shields. If the points system was perfect there'd probably less of a use for power level (ignoring the difficulties of a perfect point system.)
Downside, of course, is that you (probably) need to use a very fuzzy 'Don't be a dick' rule, and not everyone is going to agree on what that means. One of my friends? I could totally play games using power levels with... he likes a to make good lists, but he's not really a min-max kinda guy. Another? Nope... he power games and min-maxes everything. He'll take advantages in the points system, and power levels are just easier to abuse.
Competitive game? Points. Casual game where you want to take cool, but perhaps poorly costed units? Power level.
Pedroig wrote: Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...
If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)
An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.
A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.
We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.
The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.
Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.
If the points system in AOS is good enough to mitigate all of the balance issues there, then the exact same system in 40k (power level) will be good enough here.
The two systems work fine on their own merits, arguing otherwise is simply stating personal opinion as fact.
Except even people who play aos will openly say ghb is not balanced.
You specifically stated how broken it was when released, as though the points had rectified that situation. Strange how suddenly when I point out that the two systems are identical in structure the points in age of sigmar are now too imbalanced as well.
If you actually thought that, it would have been the entire crux of your argument when you brought up AOS.
Edit because my fingers don't work right when I am sleepy.
Search these forums you'll never find an instance where i've said AoS is fixed or even playable these days .
It was horribly broken on release you had to stand on a fence to get a save and summoning was just outright the most OP thing ever.
Power levels are WAY!!!! off for some units. For example, 10 rubrics vs 5 deathwing terminators. Rubrics are 1 power point more, but can slaughter deathwing terminators.
how do they compare in points?
According to Jervis, a unit's Power Level is based on the average of the minimum and maximum points value for a unit.
In my group, there's not really any tailoring of individual units (other than adding or subtracting models from the squad), so Power Level seems like a more suitable method to use for us.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: If the PL is on the page with the unit, it's convenient for when you're searching for the datacard for those then guys sitting in the table in front of you, flipping to the back of the book for PL is an inconvenience.
When you're building a competitive list, it's an inconvenience to flip around all the time looking for the page that the unit is on to look for it's costs. It's really nice to have all the costs in one place.
I don't get it, you're using power levels and points for the exact same thing. Why is it convenient for one to be in one location, but inconvenient for the other to be in the same place?
Simple:
I have my models laid out by unit on a table. I'm going to be introducing my friend's friend to Warhammer 40k. I ask him: "which ones do you like?" As of now, he knows that the Sisters of Battle are Nuns with Guns, the Space Wolves are Super-Soldier Space Vikings, and the Imperial Guard are best personified by "We Have Reserves". He picks out a squad of Custodian Guards, their Land Raider, their Dreadnought, and a squad of Wolf Guard Terminators. In his words, "The Golden Knights, the Robot, and those Big Viking Guys." So I pick out a list that's appropriately balanced against what he has, and I teach him to play. I didn't tell him how many points things were, not how much upgrades cost, I let him pick models he liked and I picked an army to match how I perceived their strength [and of course, to achieve the goal of demonstrating the game]. PL would be ideal for this case, and if he goes out and gets his own army, ideal for him until he has a lot of games under his belt and know like I do what each unit and weapon is and does. The last thing a new player needs to be doing is looking at the last 50 points of their list and wondering how to spend it, and if they really need that meltagun or if they'd rather have a plasmagun or a flamer or another, different unit. Since he'll be finding out how much things cost after adding them to his force, it would be most useful for him to have PL on the page where their stats are.
I know that, when I'm building my list to play and beat my friends' Tau and Tyranids, I much prefer my 6th Ed IG codex arrangement to my 7th Ed Space Wolves or Sisters of Battle [Imperial Agents] Codex arrangement. I don't need to see the stats of the Leman Russ Tank, I need to see how much it costs and how much the Lascannon I'm mounting to it costs, and paging through the book to find what page it's on is kind of annoying.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: If the PL is on the page with the unit, it's convenient for when you're searching for the datacard for those then guys sitting in the table in front of you, flipping to the back of the book for PL is an inconvenience.
When you're building a competitive list, it's an inconvenience to flip around all the time looking for the page that the unit is on to look for it's costs. It's really nice to have all the costs in one place.
I don't get it, you're using power levels and points for the exact same thing. Why is it convenient for one to be in one location, but inconvenient for the other to be in the same place?
Simple:
I have my models laid out by unit on a table. I'm going to be introducing my friend's friend to Warhammer 40k. I ask him: "which ones do you like?" As of now, he knows that the Sisters of Battle are Nuns with Guns, the Space Wolves are Super-Soldier Space Vikings, and the Imperial Guard are best personified by "We Have Reserves". He picks out a squad of Custodian Guards, their Land Raider, their Dreadnought, and a squad of Wolf Guard Terminators. In his words, "The Golden Knights, the Robot, and those Big Viking Guys." So I pick out a list that's appropriately balanced against what he has, and I teach him to play. I didn't tell him how many points things were, not how much upgrades cost, I let him pick models he liked and I picked an army to match how I perceived their strength [and of course, to achieve the goal of demonstrating the game]. PL would be ideal for this case, and if he goes out and gets his own army, ideal for him until he has a lot of games under his belt and know like I do what each unit and weapon is and does. The last thing a new player needs to be doing is looking at the last 50 points of their list and wondering how to spend it, and if they really need that meltagun or if they'd rather have a plasmagun or a flamer or another, different unit. Since he'll be finding out how much things cost after adding them to his force, it would be most useful for him to have PL on the page where their stats are.
I know that, when I'm building my list to play and beat my friends' Tau and Tyranids, I much prefer my 6th Ed IG codex arrangement to my 7th Ed Space Wolves or Sisters of Battle [Imperial Agents] Codex arrangement. I don't need to see the stats of the Leman Russ Tank, I need to see how much it costs and how much the Lascannon I'm mounting to it costs, and paging through the book to find what page it's on is kind of annoying.
^^ This right here. Sure, the list building aspect of the game is important, but the GAME ITSELF is why any of us are really playing it. Especially in the case of teaching new players the game, using Power Levels as a "rough estimate" of unit strength is good enough for the newbies to get a feel for how the game works, from moving the models, seeing them on the table, rolling the dice, etc. It is just a simplified army building tool designed to make things simpler for players, and I can see how it would be very useful in teaching new players or throwing together pickup games or planning large Apocalypse events.
I've realized another disconnect some of us have with others is some want listbuilding to be as important as playing the game itself, where as others want playing the game to be the ultimate decider.
Martel732 wrote:You can't disconnect list building from victory. Just like you can't disconnect build order from victory in starcraft.
This is correct. In fact, building the list is more important because it dictates what plays you can make at any given time. I can fairly frequently predict an outcome just from seeing what's in the opposing lists. That's why we have dice, so the game isn't an immediate forgone conclusion as soon as you compare what you brought.
But that's the competitive side.
If you're trying to introduce a new player to the game and make sure you both have fun, you don't want to be playing competitively. Simplify the process as much as possible, and let's get going so we can roll some dice.
For new players, just play with the starter box or whatever. Or I'll take one of as many units as I can see they can see what they do. Although being marines, they are all at least kinda similar.
How I can see the use of power levels?
All those models you never used before that were useless or cost an insane amount of points due to going upgrade happy.
Models that were awesome for 3rd edition but sucked since...
A good-old I want to play a horde of stuff for say an apocalypse game.
Models I happened to get together and painted, I really can see this being a good thing for pickup games.
Competitive I would go points all the way, because, I know and you know the scheming turkeys we can be and every point is vital.
I foresee stuffing those massive charts in Excel and getting some pulldown menus made for units and then copy-paste units as I get their basic cost together.
Either choice, I can see the army list guys losing their minds getting all this together.
Actually, this release certainly gets everything on the table in a hurry.
Talizvar wrote: I really can see this being a good thing for pickup games.
I'll beg to differ here. Having two different systems in place with a more-or-less equal weighting in terms of legitimacy is surely a recipe for gakheads to argue over it! I fear that many games will begin now with a 'debate' over the merits of Points vs. Power...
Although now that I think of it, I guess those in the know about both systems being based on the same Points values will have an advantage here - if anyone gets upset either way, you just run the numbers through the median/20 formula, and get the correct amount of decimal places in your 'army value number' to satisfy your opponent!
Talizvar wrote: I really can see this being a good thing for pickup games.
I'll beg to differ here. Having two different systems in place with a more-or-less equal weighting in terms of legitimacy is surely a recipe for gakheads to argue over it! I fear that many games will begin now with a 'debate' over the merits of Points vs. Power...
Although now that I think of it, I guess those in the know about both systems being based on the same Points values will have an advantage here - if anyone gets upset either way, you just run the numbers through the median/20 formula, and get the correct amount of decimal places in your 'army value number' to satisfy your opponent!
I don't see much of a problem. Your local Meta is going to set the standard anyways most likely. If they like Power Levels that is going to be the norm for Pick Up Games. If they don't be ready to figure out points.
Martel732 wrote:For new players, just play with the starter box or whatever. Or I'll take one of as many units as I can see they can see what they do. Although being marines, they are all at least kinda similar.
The force in the starter box is both tiny and uninspiring. Plopping the Custodians' shiny gold Land Raider down and pushing it around on the tabletop made for a much better starting experience, I think.
Both points and power levels have entirely different applications, and using one for the other's job is bound to end in a mire.
Using power to build lists isn't simpler or faster then using points unless you're like, bad at addition or something, and even then there are plenty of programs (including an official GW sanctioned one soon) that will do it for you.
So the notion that power has a good niche in helping new players falls rather flat.
SeraphimXIX wrote: Using power to build lists isn't simpler or faster then using points unless you're like, bad at addition or something, and even then there are plenty of programs (including an official GW sanctioned one soon) that will do it for you.
So the notion that power has a good niche in helping new players falls rather flat.
You're missing the point that a new player doesn't know what a meltagun does, or if a meltagun is worth 19 points for a guardsman to have, or the the guardsman would rather have a flamer because a flamer is only 9 points, or if a guardsman would rather keep his lasgun so you can buy two more guardsmen.
A new player doesn't know if a Leman Russ needs sponsons, or if it should have a Heavy Bolter or a Lascannon, or if the Annihilator, Vanquisher, or Demolisher is worth the points as a tank killer.
The whole point of PL, that I think you're missing, is that it reduces the number of options to consider.
SeraphimXIX wrote: Using power to build lists isn't simpler or faster then using points unless you're like, bad at addition or something, and even then there are plenty of programs (including an official GW sanctioned one soon) that will do it for you.
So the notion that power has a good niche in helping new players falls rather flat.
You're missing the point that a new player doesn't know what a meltagun does, or if a meltagun is worth 19 points for a guardsman to have, or the the guardsman would rather have a flamer because a flamer is only 9 points, or if a guardsman would rather keep his lasgun so you can buy two more guardsmen.
A new player doesn't know if a Leman Russ needs sponsons, or if it should have a Heavy Bolter or a Lascannon, or if the Annihilator, Vanquisher, or Demolisher is worth the points as a tank killer.
Just pointing out - what you're saying here isn't impossible using points. If the bonus to Power that you're proposing is that you don't have to bother with specifics, that's hardly impossible to do with the other system. If you're playing loose, you're playing loose, it doesn't have to be built in to work.
Not to mention that you're still actually building a list using Power Level - you do still have to list out the equipment and stuff that your units are bringing, so the choices still have to be made. The number of options hasn't changed, unless you're talking specifically about unit size.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: This right here. Sure, the list building aspect of the game is important, but the GAME ITSELF is why any of us are really playing it. Especially in the case of teaching new players the game, using Power Levels as a "rough estimate" of unit strength is good enough for the newbies to get a feel for how the game works, from moving the models, seeing them on the table, rolling the dice, etc. It is just a simplified army building tool designed to make things simpler for players, and I can see how it would be very useful in teaching new players or throwing together pickup games or planning large Apocalypse events.
Except, again, GW is presenting power levels as a primary (if not the primary) way to play the game, not just a stripped-down learning system for newbies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I have my models laid out by unit on a table. I'm going to be introducing my friend's friend to Warhammer 40k. I ask him: "which ones do you like?" As of now, he knows that the Sisters of Battle are Nuns with Guns, the Space Wolves are Super-Soldier Space Vikings, and the Imperial Guard are best personified by "We Have Reserves". He picks out a squad of Custodian Guards, their Land Raider, their Dreadnought, and a squad of Wolf Guard Terminators. In his words, "The Golden Knights, the Robot, and those Big Viking Guys." So I pick out a list that's appropriately balanced against what he has, and I teach him to play. I didn't tell him how many points things were, not how much upgrades cost, I let him pick models he liked and I picked an army to match how I perceived their strength [and of course, to achieve the goal of demonstrating the game]. PL would be ideal for this case, and if he goes out and gets his own army, ideal for him until he has a lot of games under his belt and know like I do what each unit and weapon is and does. The last thing a new player needs to be doing is looking at the last 50 points of their list and wondering how to spend it, and if they really need that meltagun or if they'd rather have a plasmagun or a flamer or another, different unit. Since he'll be finding out how much things cost after adding them to his force, it would be most useful for him to have PL on the page where their stats are.
All of this can be done just as well with points. In fact, you're doing it with points! You're just doing it with points that are less accurate than the other point system. You, as the experienced player, are building their list for them (though dear god I hope you'd avoid fluff abominations like that in a real situation) using a point system to evaluate their list, and then a point system to build your own list to match their total. Replacing conventional points with power levels adds nothing here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: There is a VAST meaningfull difference, but for some reason it keeps being totally ignored by point advocates (and if you read everything I wrote in this thread you should be aware, that what you cited was an additional argument, not a basis for defending Power Levels) - by design Power Level and Points ARE NOT designed for the same purpose. They CAN be used for the same purpose to some degree, but they have two different uses with two different sets of missions to use in. And for Narrative section using points doesn't make much sense, because missions themselves accomodate power level discrepancies (al of them work better that way, and some of them work ONLY when power levels are different enough), so the very process of "adding up the points" is very different, because you don't have to fit as closely as possisble within an arbitrary margin, which is a clue with competetive (ballanced) point list building. Of course, you can use points for this, but even if they were on the same page such process is simply unnecessary longer (not more complex, just longer by the unnecessary multiplications and addictions you have to make for wargear and single model cost) and has unnecessary granularity.
As you said, you can use points for all of those things. Nothing is being gained by replacing the conventional point system with a point system that is a less-accurate evaluation of a unit's value.
Well, I take it back, using power levels does have one major advantage over conventional points: it allows the "casual at all costs" players to maintain their smug superiority about how little they care about balance, without forcing them to give up on balance entirely. Instead of playing a mission with, say, 1000 points vs. 1500 points and asymmetrical objectives to make up for the 500 point difference they can play at 50 points vs. 75 points and brag about how "casual" they are because they aren't using points like all those awful WAACTFG tournament players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: This is just like being in a liberals vs conservative debate.
It really is. Advocates for power level, like conservatives, have an ideological position that must be maintained no matter what the evidence shows because it fits their moral beliefs about how the world should work. So, much like conservatives will refuse to acknowledge the evidence for climate change because it might get in the way of corporate profits, advocates for power level will ignore the fact that power level is functionally equivalent to the conventional point system because of a moral belief in the virtues of "casual" play. It doesn't matter that every single thing you can do with power levels is done better by points, and every single criticism of points applies equally well to power levels, all that matters is that power levels are more "casual" because they are less accurate as a tool for competitive balance and that makes them morally superior.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I have my models laid out by unit on a table. I'm going to be introducing my friend's friend to Warhammer 40k. I ask him: "which ones do you like?" As of now, he knows that the Sisters of Battle are Nuns with Guns, the Space Wolves are Super-Soldier Space Vikings, and the Imperial Guard are best personified by "We Have Reserves". He picks out a squad of Custodian Guards, their Land Raider, their Dreadnought, and a squad of Wolf Guard Terminators. In his words, "The Golden Knights, the Robot, and those Big Viking Guys." So I pick out a list that's appropriately balanced against what he has, and I teach him to play. I didn't tell him how many points things were, not how much upgrades cost, I let him pick models he liked and I picked an army to match how I perceived their strength [and of course, to achieve the goal of demonstrating the game]. PL would be ideal for this case, and if he goes out and gets his own army, ideal for him until he has a lot of games under his belt and know like I do what each unit and weapon is and does. The last thing a new player needs to be doing is looking at the last 50 points of their list and wondering how to spend it, and if they really need that meltagun or if they'd rather have a plasmagun or a flamer or another, different unit. Since he'll be finding out how much things cost after adding them to his force, it would be most useful for him to have PL on the page where their stats are.
All of this can be done just as well with points. In fact, you're doing it with points! You're just doing it with points that are less accurate than the other point system. You, as the experienced player, are building their list for them (though dear god I hope you'd avoid fluff abominations like that in a real situation) using a point system to evaluate their list, and then a point system to build your own list to match their total. Replacing conventional points with power levels adds nothing here.
I know precisely how many points his army was that day. He had 980 points. But he didn't know that. He didn't know that the assault cannon guy he put into his terminator squad cost an extra 20 points, or that the guy with the hammer and shield cost an extra 15, or that the guy with the axe cost an extra 5. He would have been lost, if he had to consider if he'd rather have a hammer or an axe, or a assault cannon or a flamer.
Seriously. I don't know if you've ever tried to play a game with a new player.
I will likely be using points for pick up games, as that seems the be the way things are going at my local shop, but for apoc I will definitely just use power levels. There is really no point in costing out every special weapon or upgrade in an 8000 point list, it's just tedious, with little payoff.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I know precisely how many points his army was that day. He had 980 points. But he didn't know that. He didn't know that the assault cannon guy he put into his terminator squad cost an extra 20 points, or that the guy with the hammer and shield cost an extra 15, or that the guy with the axe cost an extra 5. He would have been lost, if he had to consider if he'd rather have a hammer or an axe, or a assault cannon or a flamer.
What's your point? If you play the exact same game with power levels he isn't going to know how many power levels his units have. He isn't going to know whether he'd rather have that "robot" or another squad of the "gold guys". You're still going to do all the work of turning his "this looks cool" statements into an army list, and then building your own list to match his. The fact that you're ignoring the price of his upgrades when you write your list is something he's never going to see, so all the power level system does is save you a few seconds of adding up those numbers.
And, again, power levels are not a newbie teaching system. They are presented by GW as a primary way to play the game, for everyone, not just a stripped-down teaching system. Any benefits in teaching new players are purely coincidental.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodas wrote: I will likely be using points for pick up games, as that seems the be the way things are going at my local shop, but for apoc I will definitely just use power levels. There is really no point in costing out every special weapon or upgrade in an 8000 point list, it's just tedious, with little payoff.
Of course, to be fair, there's no point in costing out units in Apocalypse either, or of playing Apocalypse at all. It isn't a game, it's just an exercise in removing models from the table. In fact, if you removed all of the rules of 40k entirely in favor of "line up all your models, then each turn roll a D6 for each pile of models and on a 4+ remove that pile from the table" and you'd have the exact same gameplay experience as a RAW Apocalypse game.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I know precisely how many points his army was that day. He had 980 points. But he didn't know that. He didn't know that the assault cannon guy he put into his terminator squad cost an extra 20 points, or that the guy with the hammer and shield cost an extra 15, or that the guy with the axe cost an extra 5. He would have been lost, if he had to consider if he'd rather have a hammer or an axe, or a assault cannon or a flamer.
What's your point? If you play the exact same game with power levels he isn't going to know how many power levels his units have. He isn't going to know whether he'd rather have that "robot" or another squad of the "gold guys". You're still going to do all the work of turning his "this looks cool" statements into an army list, and then building your own list to match his. The fact that you're ignoring the price of his upgrades when you write your list is something he's never going to see, so all the power level system does is save you a few seconds of adding up those numbers.
And, again, power levels are not a newbie teaching system. They are presented by GW as a primary way to play the game, for everyone, not just a stripped-down teaching system. Any benefits in teaching new players are purely coincidental.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodas wrote: I will likely be using points for pick up games, as that seems the be the way things are going at my local shop, but for apoc I will definitely just use power levels. There is really no point in costing out every special weapon or upgrade in an 8000 point list, it's just tedious, with little payoff.
Of course, to be fair, there's no point in costing out units in Apocalypse either, or of playing Apocalypse at all. It isn't a game, it's just an exercise in removing models from the table. In fact, if you removed all of the rules of 40k entirely in favor of "line up all your models, then each turn roll a D6 for each pile of models and on a 4+ remove that pile from the table" and you'd have the exact same gameplay experience as a RAW Apocalypse game.
But, with power levels, if he gets his own army, we can start easy and I don't have to hold his hand all the way, until eventually he has a good idea of what everything is and does and can therefore understand and intelligently apply points costs to upgrades.
I like apocalypse. I play with all my tanks and guns and my friend plays with all his big gribblies and my other one brings out all the hammerheads and we drive around with a lot of tanks like it's the battle of Prokhorovka.
SeraphimXIX wrote: Using power to build lists isn't simpler or faster then using points unless you're like, bad at addition or something, and even then there are plenty of programs (including an official GW sanctioned one soon) that will do it for you.
So the notion that power has a good niche in helping new players falls rather flat.
You're missing the point that a new player doesn't know what a meltagun does, or if a meltagun is worth 19 points for a guardsman to have, or the the guardsman would rather have a flamer because a flamer is only 9 points, or if a guardsman would rather keep his lasgun so you can buy two more guardsmen.
A new player doesn't know if a Leman Russ needs sponsons, or if it should have a Heavy Bolter or a Lascannon, or if the Annihilator, Vanquisher, or Demolisher is worth the points as a tank killer.
Literally none of this is alleviated by using the power system over the points system.
Peregrine wrote: {a bunch of stuff not in favor of Power Levels}
Power Levels are good enough for us, can't you accept that? Being ultra precise on points in not necessary for some of us to enjoy the game, and yet you continue to deride the concept? Warmahordes had much less granular points in its previous edition, and all those players lauded it for being "super balanced" and "ultra competitive", they just used the term "Points" instead of "Power Levels".
I'm going to repeat myself from an earlier post in this thread:
I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.
However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.
Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.
How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).
Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.
To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.
...
I am having some serious familial issues right now that could drastically affect several of my relationships for the rest of my life if things go sour, so little quibbles over our toy soldiers just feels unnecessary. Warhammer is my escape, and is something I hope to share with others in a positive way. I'm not concerned too much about balance in friendly games, at least not the balance that is dreamed about by other players where the points are perfectly representative of unit and upgrade and army power.
For me, the balance I seek is "eh, close enough, let's play already!".
Time is a precious commodity for some of us, and perfect balance is not the point of the game. Some of us are treating Warhammer as a Narrative experience, something much more akin to Dungeons and Dragons, or Pathfinder, or Shadow Run. We aren't worried about precision in power of an army, nor are we worried about other players overwhelming us in the game.
No one here is saying that Power Levels are the end-all-be-all of army composition and should be used instead of Points Rather, several of us have mentioned that we will use both methods to figure out our armies for our games. But we are busy defending Power Levels as an different way to build armies - not better, not worse, just different.
And let's try to keep politics out of this, please? This is a thread about Warhammer, and ought to be an escape from that sort of thing.
Asmodas wrote: I will likely be using points for pick up games, as that seems the be the way things are going at my local shop, but for apoc I will definitely just use power levels. There is really no point in costing out every special weapon or upgrade in an 8000 point list, it's just tedious, with little payoff.
Of course, to be fair, there's no point in costing out units in Apocalypse either, or of playing Apocalypse at all. It isn't a game, it's just an exercise in removing models from the table. In fact, if you removed all of the rules of 40k entirely in favor of "line up all your models, then each turn roll a D6 for each pile of models and on a 4+ remove that pile from the table" and you'd have the exact same gameplay experience as a RAW Apocalypse game.
Really? Apocalypse games are "just an exercise in removing models from the table" can be said about the regular game as well, or Warhammer Fantasy, or Warmahordes, or Age of Sigmar, or Chess, or any other game where pieces are removed from the gaming space.
SeraphimXIX wrote: Using power to build lists isn't simpler or faster then using points unless you're like, bad at addition or something, and even then there are plenty of programs (including an official GW sanctioned one soon) that will do it for you.
So the notion that power has a good niche in helping new players falls rather flat.
You're missing the point that a new player doesn't know what a meltagun does, or if a meltagun is worth 19 points for a guardsman to have, or the the guardsman would rather have a flamer because a flamer is only 9 points, or if a guardsman would rather keep his lasgun so you can buy two more guardsmen.
A new player doesn't know if a Leman Russ needs sponsons, or if it should have a Heavy Bolter or a Lascannon, or if the Annihilator, Vanquisher, or Demolisher is worth the points as a tank killer.
Literally none of this is alleviated by using the power system.
It absolutely is. I know this for a fact, because I've been running a lot of introductory games for quite a few different people lately. If the cost of upgrades is removed it makes them feel far less intimidated when building the list.
So take all the units naked OR teach the players how the game works so they understand what upgrades do? Power letting them take upgrades does nothing to help them learn what they do.
SeraphimXIX wrote: So take all the units naked OR teach the players how the game works so they understand what upgrades do? Power letting them take upgrades does nothing to help them learn what they do.
One thing at a time. The game's complex, and dumping a library in their lap scares them off.
The units have the upgrades they have modeled. Once we have a few games played, and they have an idea of the difference between Grey Hunters, Wolf Guard Terminators, and a Predator, I can let go of their proverbial hand and use PL, and then once we have enough games that they have a good understanding of how their weapons and units and upgrades interact, we can take the PL training wheels off and let them go.
Okay, so, for all you power level advocates, what do I, as someone who doesn't think GW's games are all that balanced so am not in love with traditional points, do if I like a unit as a basic one when its power level is priced for it being fully upgraded?
A very straightforward example: what if I want to run my scouts as cheap, light option for Marines (this is how I like to run them, not some weird hypothetical, BTW)? Do I just run this 55 point unit for power level 6 as-is and say "hey, I'm playing what I want to" despite them not functioning in that role (they're not a cheap, fodder unit at that price)? Do I give them the bells and whistles so they're up to an average cost, with pretend camo cloaks and a kitted out sergeant (again, not what I chose them for)? Do I not take them at all? Do I take them, knowing they're way overpriced, and mentally rebalance things by taking underpriced other things to compensate so it ballpark gets a better price? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, so please don't take it that way, I'm just not seeing the point of power levels when, as far as I'm seeing, they really poorly represent some styles of play.
It has been more a thing of "Power levels are thrash and you should fell bad for using them".
I plan to use them with children to teach step by step list-building. The people that are saying "Is the same building a list with Power Level that with points"... how many totally noobs to wargames in general have you introduced to the hobby? I don't give a about how is GW advertising Power Levels. They are for people that just don't care enough or to teach new people how to game, nothing more.
spiralingcadaver wrote: Okay, so, for all you power level advocates, what do I, as someone who doesn't think GW's games are all that balanced so am not in love with traditional points, do if I like a unit as a basic one when its power level is priced for it being fully upgraded?
A very straightforward example: what if I want to run my scouts as cheap, light option for Marines (this is how I like to run them, not some weird hypothetical, BTW)? Do I just run this 55 point unit for power level 6 as-is and say "hey, I'm playing what I want to" despite them not functioning in that role (they're not a cheap, fodder unit at that price)? Do I give them the bells and whistles so they're up to an average cost, with pretend camo cloaks and a kitted out sergeant (again, not what I chose them for)? Do I not take them at all? Do I take them, knowing they're way overpriced, and mentally rebalance things by taking underpriced other things to compensate so it ballpark gets a better price? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, so please don't take it that way, I'm just not seeing the point of power levels when, as far as I'm seeing, they really poorly represent some styles of play.
You just don't use power levels if you care about all of that. Is really that simple.
jade_angel wrote: Points in the general case, but for Apoc, Power Levels might be the go-to.
I will be putting both on most lists I generate, though, out of interest to see where the greatest disparities lie.
Points....but I see where you are going..
See I would like to see a poll about what types of game players like. The new emphasis is getting in several games in a night of play at the LGS. I assume that that type of play revolves around tournament style tables and armies in a 1vs1.
I myself prefer 2v2 and sometimes more players on a larger map with more terrain, movement, flanks and several hours of play with large (maybe Apoc size armies at times). A game that is forgiving if you make a mistake and you have more time to rectify your tactics if caught with your pants down.
The 2 hour tournament game where you have to rush 6 turns, set up, read the scenario, explain your army, admire the opponents models... and listen to his niceties about your guys, adding up points, dealing with turtling/stalling, decide who won, fill out sportsmanship forms, etc is just ridiculous for a fun experience imo. Give me a nice 10 hour huge battlefest with loads of drinks, food, dozens of units, discussing and dissecting previous turns, lots of laughter and hilarity and you have a game for the ages!
So how do you like to play short and sweet or loaded with all the extras?
Say 2000 pt event but don,t want wall to wall torny grade. Add a max power level for a army to meet. You can have you knight, wraith knight etc but you also then have to balence in rest of army too and not just take all high power level.
You can tweak as you progress and work out a sweet spot in power for a good game.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: This right here. Sure, the list building aspect of the game is important, but the GAME ITSELF is why any of us are really playing it. Especially in the case of teaching new players the game, using Power Levels as a "rough estimate" of unit strength is good enough for the newbies to get a feel for how the game works, from moving the models, seeing them on the table, rolling the dice, etc. It is just a simplified army building tool designed to make things simpler for players, and I can see how it would be very useful in teaching new players or throwing together pickup games or planning large Apocalypse events.
Except, again, GW is presenting power levels as a primary (if not the primary) way to play the game, not just a stripped-down learning system for newbies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I have my models laid out by unit on a table. I'm going to be introducing my friend's friend to Warhammer 40k. I ask him: "which ones do you like?" As of now, he knows that the Sisters of Battle are Nuns with Guns, the Space Wolves are Super-Soldier Space Vikings, and the Imperial Guard are best personified by "We Have Reserves". He picks out a squad of Custodian Guards, their Land Raider, their Dreadnought, and a squad of Wolf Guard Terminators. In his words, "The Golden Knights, the Robot, and those Big Viking Guys." So I pick out a list that's appropriately balanced against what he has, and I teach him to play. I didn't tell him how many points things were, not how much upgrades cost, I let him pick models he liked and I picked an army to match how I perceived their strength [and of course, to achieve the goal of demonstrating the game]. PL would be ideal for this case, and if he goes out and gets his own army, ideal for him until he has a lot of games under his belt and know like I do what each unit and weapon is and does. The last thing a new player needs to be doing is looking at the last 50 points of their list and wondering how to spend it, and if they really need that meltagun or if they'd rather have a plasmagun or a flamer or another, different unit. Since he'll be finding out how much things cost after adding them to his force, it would be most useful for him to have PL on the page where their stats are.
All of this can be done just as well with points. In fact, you're doing it with points! You're just doing it with points that are less accurate than the other point system. You, as the experienced player, are building their list for them (though dear god I hope you'd avoid fluff abominations like that in a real situation) using a point system to evaluate their list, and then a point system to build your own list to match their total. Replacing conventional points with power levels adds nothing here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: There is a VAST meaningfull difference, but for some reason it keeps being totally ignored by point advocates (and if you read everything I wrote in this thread you should be aware, that what you cited was an additional argument, not a basis for defending Power Levels) - by design Power Level and Points ARE NOT designed for the same purpose. They CAN be used for the same purpose to some degree, but they have two different uses with two different sets of missions to use in. And for Narrative section using points doesn't make much sense, because missions themselves accomodate power level discrepancies (al of them work better that way, and some of them work ONLY when power levels are different enough), so the very process of "adding up the points" is very different, because you don't have to fit as closely as possisble within an arbitrary margin, which is a clue with competetive (ballanced) point list building. Of course, you can use points for this, but even if they were on the same page such process is simply unnecessary longer (not more complex, just longer by the unnecessary multiplications and addictions you have to make for wargear and single model cost) and has unnecessary granularity.
As you said, you can use points for all of those things. Nothing is being gained by replacing the conventional point system with a point system that is a less-accurate evaluation of a unit's value.
Well, I take it back, using power levels does have one major advantage over conventional points: it allows the "casual at all costs" players to maintain their smug superiority about how little they care about balance, without forcing them to give up on balance entirely. Instead of playing a mission with, say, 1000 points vs. 1500 points and asymmetrical objectives to make up for the 500 point difference they can play at 50 points vs. 75 points and brag about how "casual" they are because they aren't using points like all those awful WAACTFG tournament players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: This is just like being in a liberals vs conservative debate.
It really is. Advocates for power level, like conservatives, have an ideological position that must be maintained no matter what the evidence shows because it fits their moral beliefs about how the world should work. So, much like conservatives will refuse to acknowledge the evidence for climate change because it might get in the way of corporate profits, advocates for power level will ignore the fact that power level is functionally equivalent to the conventional point system because of a moral belief in the virtues of "casual" play. It doesn't matter that every single thing you can do with power levels is done better by points, and every single criticism of points applies equally well to power levels, all that matters is that power levels are more "casual" because they are less accurate as a tool for competitive balance and that makes them morally superior.
Wow, just wow. I'm really speachless now. The only thing left to ask you in this thread now is this: I live on the other side of the planet, our 40K paths won't ever cross, my meta won't ever influence your meta. Why on earth should it bother you anyhow, let alone to a point of blindly throwing some entirely made-up labels at people in this thread, if I choose to ballance (or unballance) my 40K experience using points, power levels, model count or net weight of plastic if both I and my opponent consensually agreed on that and can both derive our fun/skill testing game from that? What do you expect to achieve here, really?
spiralingcadaver wrote: Okay, so, for all you power level advocates, what do I, as someone who doesn't think GW's games are all that balanced so am not in love with traditional points, do if I like a unit as a basic one when its power level is priced for it being fully upgraded?
A very straightforward example: what if I want to run my scouts as cheap, light option for Marines (this is how I like to run them, not some weird hypothetical, BTW)? Do I just run this 55 point unit for power level 6 as-is and say "hey, I'm playing what I want to" despite them not functioning in that role (they're not a cheap, fodder unit at that price)? Do I give them the bells and whistles so they're up to an average cost, with pretend camo cloaks and a kitted out sergeant (again, not what I chose them for)? Do I not take them at all? Do I take them, knowing they're way overpriced, and mentally rebalance things by taking underpriced other things to compensate so it ballpark gets a better price? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, so please don't take it that way, I'm just not seeing the point of power levels when, as far as I'm seeing, they really poorly represent some styles of play.
What do you do when a unit you like is way overcosted in points? Do the same thing.
Pedroig wrote: Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...
If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)
An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.
A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.
We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.
The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.
Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.
If the points system in AOS is good enough to mitigate all of the balance issues there, then the exact same system in 40k (power level) will be good enough here.
The two systems work fine on their own merits, arguing otherwise is simply stating personal opinion as fact.
Except even people who play aos will openly say ghb is not balanced.
You specifically stated how broken it was when released, as though the points had rectified that situation. Strange how suddenly when I point out that the two systems are identical in structure the points in age of sigmar are now too imbalanced as well.
If you actually thought that, it would have been the entire crux of your argument when you brought up AOS.
Edit because my fingers don't work right when I am sleepy.
Search these forums you'll never find an instance where i've said AoS is fixed or even playable these days .
It was horribly broken on release you had to stand on a fence to get a save and summoning was just outright the most OP thing ever.
This is not the gotcha moment your looking for.
Please, reread the post I quoted and tell me that it implies anything besides points in AOS fixing balance discrepancies. I don't need to search the thread, or even the website. You stated that get of sigmar was "a shitshow when released" and made no mention of unplayability afterwards. That can mean nothing more than you feeling the points system fixed the issue.
I think Powerlevels are great for pick up games. If you run into a player and you already finished your game and you don't feel like playing the same thing and he has more or less stuff than your other battles...Power Levels are great if not awesome so that you can hurry up and get on the game!
Now myself will almost always use Points. I don't see where I would ever do powerlevels as I can whip an army up fast with points.
To teach new guys...of course power levels are good. And I think if guys are smart enough to catch onto the core rules, then learning points later on and upgrades WILL NOT be a challenge at all.
I even play a Narrative game from now and then with new players. 2 months ago I played an Exodite weak list using proxy army from 2nd edition vs a new 40k gamer. It was his 1st 1v1 game.
He NEVER had to make a single save the entire game! That has never happened to me. It was just how the game went. It was a great learning for him and fun for both of us.
So power levels are worked out as the average points cost a unit could be? Somewhere between naked and maxed out?
This is interesting.
A points based event could try to reduce the number of armies consisting of nothing but a couple of over powered units with a min powerlevel, or stop msu horde armies (which aren't great for events with time limits) with a max power level.
Pedroig wrote: Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...
If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)
An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.
A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.
We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.
The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.
Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.
If the points system in AOS is good enough to mitigate all of the balance issues there, then the exact same system in 40k (power level) will be good enough here.
The two systems work fine on their own merits, arguing otherwise is simply stating personal opinion as fact.
Except even people who play aos will openly say ghb is not balanced.
You specifically stated how broken it was when released, as though the points had rectified that situation. Strange how suddenly when I point out that the two systems are identical in structure the points in age of sigmar are now too imbalanced as well.
If you actually thought that, it would have been the entire crux of your argument when you brought up AOS.
Edit because my fingers don't work right when I am sleepy.
Search these forums you'll never find an instance where i've said AoS is fixed or even playable these days .
It was horribly broken on release you had to stand on a fence to get a save and summoning was just outright the most OP thing ever.
This is not the gotcha moment your looking for.
Please, reread the post I quoted and tell me that it implies anything besides points in AOS fixing balance discrepancies. I don't need to search the thread, or even the website. You stated that get of sigmar was "a shitshow when released" and made no mention of unplayability afterwards. That can mean nothing more than you feeling the points system fixed the issue.
Well given the hundreds of posts I've made bashing aos as a price of garbage I really thought it was a given what my opinion of the pos game was.
spiralingcadaver wrote: Okay, so, for all you power level advocates, what do I, as someone who doesn't think GW's games are all that balanced so am not in love with traditional points, do if I like a unit as a basic one when its power level is priced for it being fully upgraded?
A very straightforward example: what if I want to run my scouts as cheap, light option for Marines (this is how I like to run them, not some weird hypothetical, BTW)? Do I just run this 55 point unit for power level 6 as-is and say "hey, I'm playing what I want to" despite them not functioning in that role (they're not a cheap, fodder unit at that price)? Do I give them the bells and whistles so they're up to an average cost, with pretend camo cloaks and a kitted out sergeant (again, not what I chose them for)? Do I not take them at all? Do I take them, knowing they're way overpriced, and mentally rebalance things by taking underpriced other things to compensate so it ballpark gets a better price? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, so please don't take it that way, I'm just not seeing the point of power levels when, as far as I'm seeing, they really poorly represent some styles of play.
It's quicker way of setting up game. Nothing more, nothing less.
Neither aims for balanced game really. Both aim at getting game up quickly.
So, how many people that think that points are just plain better than power levels have played 10-15 games using both systems to get a feel for how they actually work out? How many people that think that power levels are useful have played 10-15 games using power levels to get a feel for how balanced they are?
I know I have an impression that one group has more experience with the two systems, but I'm also a bit biased towards that group so I thought I'd ask in case I'm just seeing what I want to see.
tneva82 wrote: [It's quicker way of setting up game. Nothing more, nothing less.
Neither aims for balanced game really. Both aim at getting game up quickly.
I'm sorry, but, what?
At what point is going through the time consuming job of figuring out points, options, and choices vs. other choices, then tuning that over games for optimization, and as the basis for competitive systems, faster than, for instance, the initial AOS "throw down what you feel like"?
You may not like or trust GW's points balance. I sure know I thnk it's flawed. But that doesn't mean it's not the point.
Lansirill wrote: So, how many people that think that points are just plain better than power levels have played 10-15 games using both systems to get a feel for how they actually work out? How many people that think that power levels are useful have played 10-15 games using power levels to get a feel for how balanced they are?
I know I have an impression that one group has more experience with the two systems, but I'm also a bit biased towards that group so I thought I'd ask in case I'm just seeing what I want to see.
This is just fanning the flames at this point. I mean, you outright state here that you're only hoping to have your viewpoint reaffirmed.
This ain't a discussion anymore, people are too entrenched. We've got strawmanning and scapegoating all over the place. Somebody called it earlier that this got political too fast, there's too many vocal extremists on both sides. I guess we'll just have to learn to live with the new divide - not a fan of how GW puts these sorts of things in place without thinking of how it can separate their player base.
Elbows wrote: Eh, personally I'm totally fine with the player base being separated...doesn't really hurt anything.
It's GW having to cater to different groups with mutually exclusive views on not just how the game should be played, but indeed what the game even is, that causes me concern.
They don't have to be mutually exclusive, I think - but it's nothing new that there are those that believe this isn't the case, so it's probably fine. I just don't want to see 40k go all French Revolution up in here.
Elbows wrote: Eh, personally I'm totally fine with the player base being separated...doesn't really hurt anything.
It's GW having to cater to different groups with mutually exclusive views on not just how the game should be played, but indeed what the game even is, that causes me concern.
They don't have to be mutually exclusive, I think - but it's nothing new that there are those that believe this isn't the case, so it's probably fine. I just don't want to see 40k go all French Revolution up in here.
I share this concern as well. It's bad enough with so many threads going on about armies being over/underpowered as is. We don't need this factionism going on it our hobby; we see enough of that in fanboys of game systems spouting that their game is better than others.
THIS is a game.
Power Levels are a different way to structure your army, with an emphasis placed on Narrative Play and Open Play game styles. It's not better at all for some games, nor is it worse for others. It's just different and new and will take some getting used to.
This IS a game
A good metaphor would be, instead of the silly political comparison, but looking at note taking for lectures: you can use a computer or a pencil and paper. Each method works, has benefits over the other, and get the job done. If it works for you, then why criticize another for using the different method? It's the difference in Amtgard versus Dagorhir LARP/boffer fighting systems: one handles magic and stories better, and the other is strictly for the competitiveness and athleticism.
This is A game.
Warmahordes used much less granular points in Mark 2 than in the current Mark 3, and I only ever heard the community being evangelistic (and kind of cult-ish in hindsight) about how "super balanced" the game is. I never heard any of them say "We need the points to be raised to better represent unit abilities and strength!" at any point.
This is a GAME.
It's all about moving little plastic/resin/pewter figures around on a table, rolling dice, and taking them off the table. What does it matter that some of us want to just have a cool story behind what's going on? Or if we want to compete with other players? Or just kill some time and escape from life's troubles for a couple hours? The experience is still going to be the same, and every motivation to play is perfectly valid.
I know, I did the same, but with Power Levels...there needed to be a third option...almost makes me want to do a new thread with more options.
Indeed. There should have been a "both", "neither", or "situational" option available. This poll I think may have inadvertently contributed to the divide of the players in this discussion.
I know, I did the same, but with Power Levels...there needed to be a third option...almost makes me want to do a new thread with more options.
Indeed. There should have been a "both", "neither", or "situational" option available. This poll I think may have inadvertently contributed to the divide of the players in this discussion.
I was thinking something like
Points
Power Levels
Both About Equal
Points more that Power Level
Power Level more Points
[Adding yours]
Neither
Situational
Indeed, but to some this game is also a measuring stick of the individual. How they play, and how good they are perceived to be, is vital to them. Additionally, as the game is so serious for them, they would prefer everyone use the same standards.
If there are multiple standards to measure oneself from, then being good at one of those ways means nothing ultimately.
If there is a single standard to measure oneself from, then being good at that one way means everything.
Additionally if there are multiple ways to build an army that becomes an inconvenience in that my random pick up opponent may prefer a way that I don't, and now I have to argue about which way to use, as opposed to if there is just one way and I don't have to worry about hypothetical perceived future argument.
Clearly in pickup play, both can potentially create very one sided games. Truthfully I'll be surprised if more than 4 people in my local meta even want to do power levels. But I'll have a coupe 100PL lists ready to go and a couple 2k, and probably overlap a vast majority of the units between the 4.
Really don't see the big deal. I can have fun on either side of a rout. If one method seems horribly unbalanced, I'll ask for games of the other.
out of each other.
