Some people in the office are advocating power level play for our games because it's quicker to calculate, but I'm feeling skeptical. I frequently see people bashing PL for being unbalanced but I haven't looked into the specifics of it and I'd really like to get some good arguments before bringing defending sticking with points.

What are people's opinion on PL games? What armies are the winners/losers?

 knas wrote:
What are people's opinion on PL games? What armies are the winners/losers?

I'm going to be straightforward with you. This is just my experience.

PL games are great for newbies with 'Babby's First Space Marines'. And I don't mean that to dig on people who get those Dark Imperium boxes, those Space Marines are actually pretty awesome the way they're posed and that box is a good bargain. PL is awesome for teaching someone with some stuff right out of the box.

Now, when you start adding upgrades? ANY army can get disgustingly OP really quick. Think about it this way- look at the PL for Devastators. Now, imagine kitting them out any way you want. Imagine what can be done with some of the tanks. A Deathwatch Kill-Team. Some folks say Tau can get really nasty, but I don't know the army well enough.

Balancing PL out for these upgrades to a squad and weapon swaps is work. A lot of work. Work that would be pointless, only if someone had made some kind of more detailed point system to account for these upgrades and point changes...

I sound sarcastic, I know. But in the end it is just more work to balance it than it is to just say, "Screw it, we'll use the standard point system". It's a little bit more math, but it's not hard. I promise. I've got a public school education and I can still manage to do it with pencil and paper. It just takes about 10 minutes. Grab a coffee and do your maths.

And just my personal experience? Every person I've seen saying, "Let's just do power level" with a stranger? He's a sleazeball trying to use maxed-out units that he can't fit into a regular game.

PL games are great on small scale with just a few units between friends.

At bigger scale games, there are just too many little quirks that could allow a particular army to have more "points worth" in upgrades than their opponent.
2 players could be playing a 100PL game in which Player A actually has 2200pts and Player B only has 1800pts.

Nothing wrong with power aslong as you and your opponent has a mutual agreement that no unit/hq uppgrades are allowed.
If you dont add this house limit, armies will quickly become unbalanced, and this game allready struggles hard whit balance issues.

PLs are not perfect. Points are also not perfect. The PL advocates will doubtlessly claim that points merely provide an illusion of balance, but you can't really claim it's any different for PL either. Just because neither are perfectly balanced, doesn't mean one system isn't more balanced than the other.

Points at least have the potential to provide better balance through greater granularity and also prevents certain abuses, such as deliberately maxing out on the free upgrades PL allows. I'd go with points every time. Also, points seem to be generally more popular as a way of building an army so by using them you'll probably find it easier to take your army to other gaming groups or events if you want to.

I adore power levels.

As said, they are far quicker to calculate.

I rarely ever have time to play these days and I don't want to spend forever agonizing over the minutia of list-building (though PL does allow some limited degree of this).

It doesn't matter whether or not PL takes upgrades into account...9/10 times everyone builds/uses units with the upgrades they way, anyway, so it's safe to assume that the upgrades you want are "part" of your unit's PL costs. It's not terribly unbalanced because, well, your opponent is/should be doing the same thing with their list.

I'm sure this skews "balance" (such as it is), but I doubt the impact is really anything more than shuffling around which units are better within the context of each army.

TLDR: I'm a big fan of the power level system and really glad it was added in 8th. Makes it a lot less burdensome to just get to playing a game for those of us who don't have a lot of time for that.

If everyone is using PL, then the upgrade argument falls apart.

The plasma gun is the perfect example, everyone in their sister argues that power level is broken because I can just take as many plasma guns as I want.

Except you don't always want plasma guns, in fact it can cause major issue if you face something like tyranids, cult spam, (soon daemons), guard infantry spam, etc. You need to bring a flame thrower or two if you want to survive those mass infantry lists.

This PL hate is obnoxious on Dakka, have any of you actually tried it in a comp environment? It's not like min/maxing points in each unit leads to any different results. Everyone brings their stuff, it's not really broke if you both have all the things.

And try building lists both ways, those super duper units that can take 4 special weapons tend to COST MORE PL....So do super heavies.

The difference is we wouldn't need to argue about some dude accidentally having 5 points over the limit in a tourney, and you may start seeing people take units they never would in a points game because the upgrades are free.

Get over points, it's tiresome, annoying, and a pain if you are running a tourney.

Pepper thy angus. The Power Level hate train is en route.

If the need to calculate is the only reason for you to take powerlevel, use battlescribe or other list builders.

If I played with PL I'd call for a strict wysiwyg as well to keep the upgrades reasonable.
On the whole I think PL works good if you play CSM vs. SM or Necrons vs. Daemons, but if an army with a lot of upgrades faces an army with little customization I think it could get onesided.

 sfshilo wrote:
If everyone is using PL, then the upgrade argument falls apart.

Doesn't it benefit upgrade heavy armies though? Daemons for instance don't get many war gear options compared to say Eldar, Tua or SM.

 sfshilo wrote:
If everyone is using PL, then the upgrade argument falls apart.

So, the solution is 'everyone should max out everything as much as possible'. I'm pretty sure this won't end well.

 sfshilo wrote:
...everyone in their sister argues that...

 sfshilo wrote:
Except you don't always want plasma guns, in fact it can cause major issue if you face something like tyranids, cult spam, (soon daemons), guard infantry spam, etc. You need to bring a flame thrower or two if you want to survive those mass infantry lists.

Which of course implies that you'll always be playing armies that you don't know about. Now, say for a moment in the local meta everyone generally knows what the other armies are...

 sfshilo wrote:
This PL hate is obnoxious on Dakka, have any of you actually tried it in a comp environment? It's not like min/maxing points in each unit leads to any different results. Everyone brings their stuff, it's not really broke if you both have all the things.

You mean in an ideal environment. You seem to forget that for every 5 great 40k players, there's at least one powergaming scumbag. 'Everyone brings everything'.

 sfshilo wrote:
Get over points, it's tiresome, annoying, and a pain if you are running a tourney.

It worked for how many years? Math is easy. Again, I have a public school education and I still manage it with pencil and paper.

PL is the worst thing GW did come up with. Let me give you an example. A unit of two company veterans are PL3. Adding one more model increases the PL to 8 ! A dreadnought has PL7. Three veterans with bolt pistols and chainswords are more powerful than a dreadnought with assault cannon and CCW ? Thats ridiculous. Comparing points tells the truth. The vets are 48 pts., the dread is 132 pts.

I've had zero problem with power level. In fact power level games usually operate with the same result as point level games.

Point level games offer a safety blanket soothing pretense of "balance" that is a false illusion.

They are both flawed in terms of balance. They both give you the same type of game.

The major difference is one (points) lets you tweak and min max at a granular level while the other removes tweaking at a granular lvel and you simply min/max at a general level.

If you like granular powergaming and granular WAAC style games and love deckbuilding games, you'll want points more. But the current points are not balanced one iota, so balance as an argument for using points is extremely flawed IMO.

I won't play with points unless i go to an event that makes me. Otherwise any events that I run always use power level. Yeah there will always be people that won't participate and thats fine. We have a lot of people that do participate so its working out great.

Calculating an army list isn't really that time consuming in the first place. Spend maybe 15-30 minutes once pointing out the units in your army, and select from those up to the allowed limit.

Power Level makes the numbers lower so the math slightly easier, but it's a difference of maybe 4 minutes to make a list with PL and 5 minutes to make a list with points. For a 1-3 hour game, the extra minute to achieve a great deal more balance is well worth it.

Oh my boy this again. I'll just wait for Peregrine

I don't really see the big math problem. If you use PL then you have to add numbers to get to a total. With points you're just adding more numbers to the equation. What's the matter with a few more numbers? It can't add that much time to your army building.

Power Level favours armies with more upgrade choices, and wargear choices with higher impact and regular points costs. Other armies are punished pretty heavily, and some units have equal power level without having an equal impact or use.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Nothing wrong with power aslong as you and your opponent has a mutual agreement that no unit/hq uppgrades are allowed.
If you dont add this house limit, armies will quickly become unbalanced, and this game allready struggles hard whit balance issues.

Only problem with this is, when you can't add upgrades onto models that are supposed to be taking them, you're really restricting lists...

Take chaos for example, Chosen and havocs are supposed to field special and heavy weapons respectively. Introduce your house rule, and both units become worthless...

Tau Crisis suits, Enjoy only having 1 burst cannon.

Tyranids, What would even be the point?

Heck, even taking additional models in a unit is technically an upgrade.

When To Use Power Level:
- Two people have stuff lying around and just decide to have a game. Power levels here help you get to the game sooner!
- You are playing a narrative game, where the scope of the game matters more than what individual units are armed with.
- You are playing a Mega Battle, and you say that models completely WYSIWYG.

Basically, you use Power Level when you're trying to get to the action fast, and you're trying to let the game speak for itself. You are purposefully avoiding list-building, and are just using what models in your collection look cool. Mega Battles are great spots for most Titanic models, since with Chapter Approved these models cost obscene amounts of points, but their Power remained unchanged. These models are really meant for such crazy games.

When Not To Use Power Level:
- You're trying to beat someone else, and get to customize your army to fight them.
- You're looking to take every upgrade on every model you can.
- You're playing Matched Play.

In my experience the difference between PL and points isn't too significant unless you're playing Deathwatch. I've checked both costs against each other after building lists a few times and they don't seem to vary by more than 10% or so.

p5freak wrote:
PL is the worst thing GW did come up with. Let me give you an example. A unit of two company veterans are PL3. Adding one more model increases the PL to 8 ! A dreadnought has PL7. Three veterans with bolt pistols and chainswords are more powerful than a dreadnought with assault cannon and CCW ? Thats ridiculous. Comparing points tells the truth. The vets are 48 pts., the dread is 132 pts.

All true. Then you add two more veterans to the squad and PL doesn't go up. Then you add upgrades, power fists and combi meltas and other fancy doodads (because why would you ever take naked veterans) and the PL doesn't go up.

All said, through like two minutes of fiddling with battlescribe (which I assume you're also doing) I see that dreadnought will cost, at maximum, 177 points, VS the 230 and change you can potentially bulk up the veteran squad to be.

Power Level is a very broad abstraction, you can field the exact same unit with a huge range of upgrades or not and they'll be the same PL. That lends itself to certain applications, I find it useful when playing against newbies, where I can gradually scale up my army without actually having to math it out as they get better.

Me and my buddy have a VERY strict wysiwyg policy for PL games.

If your model does not actually have the thing, you cant use it; up to and including stuff like metal bombs, homers, target locks. A power sword cant be the burning blade because it has no flames for instance.

cuts down on the cheesing a little.

What do you do about unit equipment that GW doesn't provide bits for?

Still worse, what do you do about equipment that GW makes but don't provide enough of on the sprue? Stuff like bolt pistols and grenades.

Ultimately the issue is that PL has basically zero granularity. Units of the same PL can be up to double or more the points cost difference. It is not a balance mechanic so much as a game size boundary.

Points aren't perfect, PL doesn't even try. It's not really intended to. PL's are a low level guideline for new players or people who don't really care about a balanced game and just need some sort of basic game size limit as they grab random stuff off the shelf to throw dice for a couple hours on the living room table.

PL is a very poor mechanic for anything else, and GW basically comes right out and says so.

My power level games have generally been more balanced than my points games, because we tend to play WYSIWYG and not hyper-competitive take all the best upgrades when we play power level.

Then again, it would also be far more balanced and enjoyable if you didn't take all the best upgrades and units with points, too. It would just be more of a PITA to get it all added up in battlescribe.

Also, obligatory "take the worst of a given system, declare it stupid" argument. Take a look at points vs power levels on Fire Raptor Gunships vs Tau Supremacy Armor for instance - power levels there is more balanced. In points, weapons that are low cost and high effectiveness are more useful. In power, weapons that are overcosted but still generally effective are more useful. Both have imbalances, the increased obviousness of the imbalances in power level arguably aids in making powergamed combos easier to pick out and identify.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
What do you do about unit equipment that GW doesn't provide bits for?

Still worse, what do you do about equipment that GW makes but don't provide enough of on the sprue? Stuff like bolt pistols and grenades.

100% no exceptions made; If you model does not have it, then you don't get it.

Its harsh, but it puts a kibosh on shenanigans too. Can't even use equipment that comes free/default if the model don't have it.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
What do you do about unit equipment that GW doesn't provide bits for?

Still worse, what do you do about equipment that GW makes but don't provide enough of on the sprue? Stuff like bolt pistols and grenades.

Good old conversions and kit bashing. nothing is impossible with plastic and greenstuff.

but im sure 99% of the time if its an item that the unit naturally comes with like normal grenades and pistols then it could be excused.

edit: Dayum thats some restrictive rules. if it works for you it works and im ok with it. (i model all my stuff with grenades pouches and bolt pistols anyway so that wouldnt bother me)

It makes it so my upgrade can be taken, as, if you don't, you're a bad player. You now have 0 reasons to take Power Weapons on your Guard Sergeants or double Combi-Weapons on your Marine sergeants. It's ludicrous.

Love PL. It’s certainly open to potential abuse, but as with so many of these things, it’s fine if you don’t play with dickheads. If that’s unavoidable, yeah, maybe swerve it.

 sfshilo wrote:
Get over points, it's tiresome, annoying, and a pain if you are running a tourney.

PL falls apart badly, especially when you start comparing units.

10 Brimstone Horrors at 5PL vs 10 Bloodletters at 4PL? We're not really entertaining that comparison are we?

Honestly, that's one of the better PL comparisons. Depending on how your troops are setup you can find ones that are significantly worse.

My buddy and I recently played in an 1850 tourney. We made our lists.
SoB = 1850 pts = 89 PL
Nurgle = 1850 pts = 139 PL

If we met in the middle at 100 PL it would definitely be a situation of me being at 2000ish and him being at 1600ish. Power level is a terribly balanced points system.

As we've now said ad nauseum...you cannot translate a Points level army into Power Level. That isn't how it works.

 Galas wrote:
Oh my boy this again. I'll just wait for Peregrine

He'll either fly off the handle and start an uproar, or even scarier- he'll say something game-related that I 100% agree with.

It's this weird relationship I have with him. I disagree with a lot of what he says until he starts talking about the actual game, then he and I are oddly on the same sheet of music.

So the short answer to my initial question seems to be:

It's balanced well enough so long as all armies involved are similar in terms of war gear choices and everyone is maxing out everything.

(I'm sorry I saw a lot of guys saying WYSIWYG but I'd consider it pure luck if games like that end up balanced)

PL is good if you don't play with people who abuse it. If someone's first thought is "Woot everything is free, i'm taking every upgrade possible" then PL is not for them. If you play with someone who will field all combi-plasma terminators because "it's free" and take every vehicle upgrade possible because "it's free" then they are missing the point of PL.

Power Level isn't supposed to be balanced. It's for narrative and open games in which whoever has a lower PL becomes the "underdog."

as if point games are balanced

 koooaei wrote:
as if point games are balanced

Amen. At least PL is easy to count

The worst part of 7th ed at the end of it, was trying to build a list and needing to source nine different books to do it.

I've only played PL two or three times because most of local players want points for balance. However, I really enjoyed PL, as it was just simple and fun. Best of all, you could take all the things you wanted and as long as your opponent did like wise it worked fine. Points are definitely better but for a quick pick up game or something you plan in advance together, PL can be perfectly fine.

PL is excellent for teaching new players and also for people who want a quick game, who aren't going to gamify things or be "that guy" the second they hear PL. "OH PL EVERY SINGLE UPGRADE WOO WOOO!!" (Don't be that guy)

Playing power-levels with the Ork index is pure gak. It is not just about wargear options, the power-levels are seemingly set randomly by a drugged escapee from Nottingham zoo. You can pretty easily make a 3000 points Ork list for 100 pl by spamming tankbustas and bomb-squigs.

pismakron wrote:
Playing power-levels with the Ork index is pure gak. It is not just about wargear options, the power-levels are seemingly set randomly by a drugged escapee from Nottingham zoo. You can pretty easily make a 3000 points Ork list for 100 pl by spamming tankbustas and bomb-squigs.

The real question you should be asking yourself is: Who cares?

PL isn't points.

"Oh I see that I'm a little underpowered. Cool if i bring 10 extra PL?" <--- Appropriate

"Hmm, how can i maximize my wargear in PL so i can winx0rz the gaemx0rz" <---- Inappropriate

 Marmatag wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Playing power-levels with the Ork index is pure gak. It is not just about wargear options, the power-levels are seemingly set randomly by a drugged escapee from Nottingham zoo. You can pretty easily make a 3000 points Ork list for 100 pl by spamming tankbustas and bomb-squigs.

The real question you should be asking yourself is: Who cares?

PL isn't points.

"Oh I see that I'm a little underpowered. Cool if i bring 10 extra PL?" <--- Appropriate

"Hmm, how can i maximize my wargear in PL so i can winx0rz the gaemx0rz" <---- Inappropriate

Ignorance of the problem is a terrible defence. Power Level, in reality, is designed for players who prioritise simplicity and less-involved list writing over pure game balance and proper army construction. The problem still exists, but it's a trade-off.

Darsath wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Playing power-levels with the Ork index is pure gak. It is not just about wargear options, the power-levels are seemingly set randomly by a drugged escapee from Nottingham zoo. You can pretty easily make a 3000 points Ork list for 100 pl by spamming tankbustas and bomb-squigs.

The real question you should be asking yourself is: Who cares?

PL isn't points.

"Oh I see that I'm a little underpowered. Cool if i bring 10 extra PL?" <--- Appropriate

"Hmm, how can i maximize my wargear in PL so i can winx0rz the gaemx0rz" <---- Inappropriate

Ignorance of the problem is a terrible defence. Power Level, in reality, is designed for players who prioritise simplicity and less-involved list writing over pure game balance and proper army construction. The problem still exists, but it's a trade-off.

The argument you're making is that points produce a more balanced game, but that assumes all things equal. Players aligning on the goal of a game produce overall more effective balance than anything else, and with that in mind, it doesn't make sense to agonize on the minutia, when you can just as easily get rolling in far less time.

If balance falls in the forest and no one is around to WAAC, do casual gamers care?

How long does it take you guys to make lists using points? The simplicity argument makes no sense to me. It shouldnt take more than like, 10-15 mins to make a list with points especially with things like battlescribe, or, I dunno, making a list beforehand.

 Marmatag wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Playing power-levels with the Ork index is pure gak. It is not just about wargear options, the power-levels are seemingly set randomly by a drugged escapee from Nottingham zoo. You can pretty easily make a 3000 points Ork list for 100 pl by spamming tankbustas and bomb-squigs.

The real question you should be asking yourself is: Who cares?

PL isn't points.

"Oh I see that I'm a little underpowered. Cool if i bring 10 extra PL?" <--- Appropriate

"Hmm, how can i maximize my wargear in PL so i can winx0rz the gaemx0rz" <---- Inappropriate

Ignorance of the problem is a terrible defence. Power Level, in reality, is designed for players who prioritise simplicity and less-involved list writing over pure game balance and proper army construction. The problem still exists, but it's a trade-off.

The argument you're making is that points produce a more balanced game, but that assumes all things equal. Players aligning on the goal of a game produce overall more effective balance than anything else, and with that in mind, it doesn't make sense to agonize on the minutia, when you can just as easily get rolling in far less time.

If balance falls in the forest and no one is around to WAAC, do casual gamers care?

Your statement is fallacy. The very solution and criticism of points applies to Power Level aswell as Points. Talking with your opponent before the game always makes for a more enjoyable, and fair game for both parties. But this is true with both points and power level. With points the issues don't hit the same extremes as in Power Level.

If you play power levels you're doing it wrong. Period. Same PL armies can have a 300+point difference. That's too much for it to be taken seriously.

Damn. I'm playing 40k all wrong.

2000 point waac tournament list vs a 2000 point non waac list is many points of actual difference apart, though on paper they both say 2000 points.

About half of my games have been PL and Every single time it feels plenty balanced.

The other games with points have turned out similar. I'm playing Salamanders and against every faction except daemons and Tau.

it seems like my PL games are against people who've played RT and 2nd when new and points is from anyone younger than those 2 editions. My first game back I hadn't played in 25yrs and the kid I was playing against didn't know who/what Squats were.

I have no problem with either one, but my focus of gaming is on narrative play so PL works out a lil better.

Points for anything pick up style just clicks with the open war deck.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you play power levels you're doing it wrong. Period. Same PL armies can have a 300+point difference. That's too much for it to be taken seriously.

Exactly. The only use I can see for PL (outside of the going first thing) is to use it in conjunction with points where you have a limit on points and PL

Outside of Anecdotal evidence, there is little argument for the use of Power Level outside of what I said. That being to simplify the game further, and for those who don't enjoy the list-building aspect of the game.

 Marmatag wrote:
The argument you're making is that points produce a more balanced game, but that assumes all things equal. Players aligning on the goal of a game produce overall more effective balance than anything else, and with that in mind, it doesn't make sense to agonize on the minutia, when you can just as easily get rolling in far less time.

If balance falls in the forest and no one is around to WAAC, do casual gamers care?

I don't know where you've been playing, I'm curious about it. Because if you're in a tournament there's not a whole lot of players saying, "Let's make this a fun, happy, balanced experience". People are generally trying to get the most bang for their buck out of their lists and win.

Doesn't make it hostile, but that's generally the purpose of tournaments.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
If the need to calculate is the only reason for you to take powerlevel, use battlescribe or other list builders.

If I played with PL I'd call for a strict wysiwyg as well to keep the upgrades reasonable.
On the whole I think PL works good if you play CSM vs. SM or Necrons vs. Daemons, but if an army with a lot of upgrades faces an army with little customization I think it could get onesided.

Believe it or not I play a ton of power level recently, mostly with my wife who loves the models any the game but isn't into list building as much and my nephew who is learning the game. And this is how we play power level, WYSIWYG. It makes it easier on them with learning stuff if they see a plasma gun and it's a plasma gun.

Not hateing on points, it's how I prefer to do it, but power level has a place and can be useful for quick pickup games. Allows you to get into the game quicker.

Azuza001 wrote:
Believe it or not I play a ton of power level recently, mostly with my wife who loves the models any the game but isn't into list building as much and my nephew who is learning the game. And this is how we play power level, WYSIWYG. It makes it easier on them with learning stuff if they see a plasma gun and it's a plasma gun.

Not hateing on points, it's how I prefer to do it, but power level has a place and can be useful for quick pickup games. Allows you to get into the game quicker.

And that's exactly what power level was intended for. It's the people crying "PL is more balanced than Points" that irks me.

Clearly the most important feature of Power Level is that it serves as a visible badge to flaunt your Casual At All Costs cred.

Jokes aside, the tradeoff is simple and clear to anyone who isn't willfully ignoring it: Power Level is for simplicity, it facilitates quick pick-up games and can be a less intimidating way to introduce a newbie to the game.

Points are more fleshed-out and provide higher quality games, which allow players to dig deeper into list-building.

Consider this: the Stormtrooper plasma point hike doesn't apply in PL. In PL plasma stormtroopers cost exactly the same as lasgun stormtroopers.

In fact, they cost exactly the same amount as a normal command squad with lasguns. So, 3PL for four T3/5+ guys with lasguns who can't deep strike, or 3PL for four T3/4+ guys with plasma guns who can deep strike? Gee I wonder which I would pick, it's such a close call.

PL has its uses as a stop-gap or a teaching aid, but anyone claiming it's balanced or better than points are either kidding themselves or posturing so they can preen about how casual they are.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The argument you're making is that points produce a more balanced game, but that assumes all things equal. Players aligning on the goal of a game produce overall more effective balance than anything else, and with that in mind, it doesn't make sense to agonize on the minutia, when you can just as easily get rolling in far less time.

If balance falls in the forest and no one is around to WAAC, do casual gamers care?

I don't know where you've been playing, I'm curious about it. Because if you're in a tournament there's not a whole lot of players saying, "Let's make this a fun, happy, balanced experience". People are generally trying to get the most bang for their buck out of their lists and win.

Doesn't make it hostile, but that's generally the purpose of tournaments.

For any competitive game I use points.

Because points are harder to exploit. And competitive 40k is an exercise in identifying the most exploitable thing and bringing that in gangbusters. Ever wonder why every single Imperium list has a detachment of mortar spam? Is it because these people are list building geniuses, or is it because those units are incredibly effective for their cost (read: undercosted)?

If you subtract the need to exploit the game and win in list building, power works fine.

PL are not balanced at all.

Case and point, rubrics, I get all their gear for free and because of how rules are written, I can take both a flamer and bolter on all or them.

Also nice break this as well.

Also alphabet soup breaks it pretty badly because his pl did not got up just points

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you play power levels you're doing it wrong. Period. Same PL armies can have a 300+point difference. That's too much for it to be taken seriously.

The last two games of 8th edition I've played have been using Power Level. Both games were pretty close, and most importantly, both games were fun. If having fun is "doing it wrong", I hope I'm never opposite you at the gaming table. I don't tweak my units, and neither do my friends. All my Imperial Guard infantry squads have squad, platoon and company numbers, so they are what they are. Same goes for my friends' armies. It's much easier to use PL and just get on with it.

It's not a huge difference unless you MAKE it a huge difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
PL are not balanced at all.

Case and point, rubrics, I get all their gear for free and because of how rules are written, I can take both a flamer and bolter on all or them.

Also nice break this as well.

Also alphabet soup breaks it pretty badly because his pl did not got up just points

That makes rubrics MORE balanced, not less lol.

They're the same when it comes to the concept of balance in 40k, I can't believe people are so hard headed in a supposed intellectual hobby

ERJAK wrote:
It's not a huge difference unless you MAKE it a huge difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
PL are not balanced at all.

Case and point, rubrics, I get all their gear for free and because of how rules are written, I can take both a flamer and bolter on all or them.

Also nice break this as well.


Also alphabet soup breaks it pretty badly because his pl did not got up just points

That makes rubrics MORE balanced, not less lol.

You do understand that by using power levels every rubric gets to fire both their flamer AND inferno bolters in the shooting phase per the rules and over watch with both. Each guy would be getting about 20 points of free gear.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
It's not a huge difference unless you MAKE it a huge difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
PL are not balanced at all.

Case and point, rubrics, I get all their gear for free and because of how rules are written, I can take both a flamer and bolter on all or them.

Also nice break this as well.


Also alphabet soup breaks it pretty badly because his pl did not got up just points

That makes rubrics MORE balanced, not less lol.

You do understand that by using power levels every rubric gets to fire both their flamer AND inferno bolters in the shooting phase per the rules and over watch with both. Each guy would be getting about 20 points of free gear.

Yeah. That's an example of something you don't do in a PL game. I honestly can't understand why everyone has this burning craving to find any advantage they can and bring it to a casual game.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
It's not a huge difference unless you MAKE it a huge difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
PL are not balanced at all.

Case and point, rubrics, I get all their gear for free and because of how rules are written, I can take both a flamer and bolter on all or them.

Also nice break this as well.


Also alphabet soup breaks it pretty badly because his pl did not got up just points

That makes rubrics MORE balanced, not less lol.

You do understand that by using power levels every rubric gets to fire both their flamer AND inferno bolters in the shooting phase per the rules and over watch with both. Each guy would be getting about 20 points of free gear.

Yeah. That's an example of something you don't do in a PL game. I honestly can't understand why everyone has this burning craving to find any advantage they can and bring it to a casual game.

I mean, that seems like an example during a discussion about balance of something you very easily COULD do. Just because you impose a note of morality to it doesn't mean it's any less balanced or not. You can do it. It isn't a balanced thing to be able to do.

Here is another example, alphabet soup went up in points, but his power points remained the same.

If everyone is using PL, then the upgrade argument falls apart.

It balances out when both sides use PL and both sides use upgrades.

 wuestenfux wrote:

If everyone is using PL, then the upgrade argument falls apart.

It balances out when both sides use PL and both sides use upgrades.

No it does not at all lol, not even close.

 wuestenfux wrote:
It balances out when both sides use PL and both sides use upgrades.

Assuming both sides have meaningful upgrades to make.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
It balances out when both sides use PL and both sides use upgrades.

Assuming both sides have meaningful upgrades to make.

This, let's take space marines, ok I can kit out a sgt and one heavy and special weapons

Ok now gaunts, they get EVERYTHING. For free.

Meanwhile, the Necrons.... what are upgrades?

 Cephalobeard wrote:

I mean, that seems like an example during a discussion about balance of something you very easily COULD do. Just because you impose a note of morality to it doesn't mean it's any less balanced or not. You can do it. It isn't a balanced thing to be able to do.

Again, this is easilly fixed by being really strict with wysiwyg.


If someone plops down an army and each dude is holding a lazcanon, assault cannon, storm shield and a power sword; then the problem with the game coming is that donkey-cave, not the way the armies are tallied up.

Power level is not a concept that someone that plays iin a min/max waac environment will understand or want to understand, and that is to some degree understandable.

For all you strict WYSIWYGers out there. How do you deal with grenades? I mean do you have to declare which type of grenade the model has as well as how many of each? How about ammo clips? What's an Iron Halo look like? How can I be sure my opponent has the right types of ammo for his weapons (especially if he has ammo choices with his weapon)? Do I have to model a power switch on all my plasma weapons and have them set to the correct setting each time I use it.

I'm saying this partially in jest but all of you "if the model doesn't have it you can't use it" people sound very very serious for a game involving toy soldiers.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
For all you strict WYSIWYGers out there. How do you deal with grenades? I mean do you have to declare which type of grenade the model has as well as how many of each? How about ammo clips? What's an Iron Halo look like? How can I be sure my opponent has the right types of ammo for his weapons (especially if he has ammo choices with his weapon)? Do I have to model a power switch on all my plasma weapons and have them set to the correct setting each time I use it.

I'm saying this partially in jest but all of you "if the model doesn't have it you can't use it" people sound very very serious for a game involving toy soldiers.

You take care of your army. I take care of mine. If you are a min-maxing jerk, then thats the last time I'm gonna crack a case of beer and play a PL game with you.

And I was looking forward to fielding 40 infernus pistols!

 davou wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
For all you strict WYSIWYGers out there. How do you deal with grenades? I mean do you have to declare which type of grenade the model has as well as how many of each? How about ammo clips? What's an Iron Halo look like? How can I be sure my opponent has the right types of ammo for his weapons (especially if he has ammo choices with his weapon)? Do I have to model a power switch on all my plasma weapons and have them set to the correct setting each time I use it.

I'm saying this partially in jest but all of you "if the model doesn't have it you can't use it" people sound very very serious for a game involving toy soldiers.

You take care of your army. I take care of mine. If you are a min-maxing jerk, then thats the last time I'm gonna crack a case of beer and play a PL game with you.

And this is why power levels are stupid. In a game where for most of its life gear has always been a point cost, to now asign an arbitrary value and say all gear is free is going to break the game.

Power levels are an attempt to being over AoS openness of gear but it does not work because not all weapons are equal and there is str and T to worry about. You will never not find someone that is going to abuse power points, unless you are super strict on what you can bring at which point might as well play a point gaem

 Backspacehacker wrote:


And this is why power levels are stupid. In a game where for most of its life gear has always been a point cost, to now asign an arbitrary value and say all gear is free is going to break the game.

Power levels are an attempt to being over AoS openness of gear but it does not work because not all weapons are equal and there is str and T to worry about. You will never not find someone that is going to abuse power points, unless you are super strict on what you can bring at which point might as well play a point gaem

Its the difference between two options vs 12 options

AoS point systems wont fully work on 40k with out some extensive limitations or just a social contract not to break the game.

The WYSIWYG argument is weird to me. Maybe its because I play at stores and in tournaments, but WYSIWYG is all I've ever done, and it's all anyone I know has every done either. Power Level doesn't impact this. I already have all the wargear I want, now it's just free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
Power level is not a concept that someone that plays iin a min/max waac environment will understand or want to understand, and that is to some degree understandable.

This. They are different worlds, and understandable in their own rights. They can't really infringe upon one another. Power level is for casual play, and that's completely fine.

 Desubot wrote:

AoS point systems wont fully work on 40k with out some extensive limitations or just a social contract not to break the game.

AOS point system doesn't really work in AOS either. Free gear issue exists there too. For example, if you want to field a Free Guild General on foot, without a banner, you're intentionally gimping yourself, as he could have both the banner and a pony for free.

 Crimson wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

AoS point systems wont fully work on 40k with out some extensive limitations or just a social contract not to break the game.

AOS point system doesn't really work in AOS either. Free gear issue exists there too. For example, if you want to field a Free Guild General on foot, without a banner, you're intentionally gimping yourself, as he could have both the banner and a pony for free.

Is that like the only thing? because i havent seen too many things like that. yeah you could take troops without the banner or musician but for the most part everyone gets to take them but asides from the banner musician or champion there arent additional options. so limit 3.

Now there probably are a bunch of complete miss equipment for some factions. nothing is perfect.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 davou wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
For all you strict WYSIWYGers out there. How do you deal with grenades? I mean do you have to declare which type of grenade the model has as well as how many of each? How about ammo clips? What's an Iron Halo look like? How can I be sure my opponent has the right types of ammo for his weapons (especially if he has ammo choices with his weapon)? Do I have to model a power switch on all my plasma weapons and have them set to the correct setting each time I use it.

I'm saying this partially in jest but all of you "if the model doesn't have it you can't use it" people sound very very serious for a game involving toy soldiers.

You take care of your army. I take care of mine. If you are a min-maxing jerk, then thats the last time I'm gonna crack a case of beer and play a PL game with you.

And this is why power levels are stupid. In a game where for most of its life gear has always been a point cost, to now asign an arbitrary value and say all gear is free is going to break the game.

Power levels are an attempt to being over AoS openness of gear but it does not work because not all weapons are equal and there is str and T to worry about. You will never not find someone that is going to abuse power points, unless you are super strict on what you can bring at which point might as well play a point gaem

Even less strict systems have worked for decades. What? Are 40k players genetically inferior to other wargamers if PL doesn't work?

the ONLY time PL fails, is when you stick it in the hand of people actively looking for every way to break something that they can find. Those people will break any asymmetric game you let them play anyway.

 davou wrote:
the ONLY time PL fails, is when you stick it in the hand of people actively looking for every way to break something that they can find. Those people will break any asymmetric game you let them play anyway.

or...people just happen to have units kitted in massively different ways already in their collections.

You dont need to try to break PL. Unit capability can vary wildly based on type and number of unit upgrades, which is exactly what PL doesnt take into account. These disparities will arise naturally and frequently without any attempt at breaking anything.

 Desubot wrote:

Is that like the only thing? because i havent seen too many things like that.

It's not the only thing, but stuff like that seems to be more prevalent in the old factions that were ported over from FB.

 Crimson wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Is that like the only thing? because i havent seen too many things like that.

It's not the only thing, but stuff like that seems to be more prevalent in the old factions that were ported over from FB.

I think those mostly end up being example of how negligible most non-weapon unit upgrades actually are. There are quite few easily convertable characters that almost no one uses on a horse because of how little of a difference it actually makes.

Apparently 10 Sternguards all with combi-plasmas cost 14PL, while 10 Tactical Marines cost 10PL and get 2 of them. That doesn't seem fair.

And yes, I do have all these Sternguards with full WYSIWYG.

[EDIT] What if one guy enjoys playing with lots of infantry with no special weapons. Let's say, 20 man Black Templar troops unit with jus bolters or chainswords. Or orks with nothing but Boyz. Or IG with just flashlights. And the other guy prefers to have his units equipped with lots of specialized weapons. Meltas, flamers, power fists etc. Do they still end up with the same number of units? (let's say SM vs SM) Even though one of them has a much higher quality of his troops. And the other guy's tactic of having a sea of cheaper, less equipped units doesn't really work, cause you know, his enemy has as much units. Just better.

On the other hand, if you consider GW's pt system, the points may or may not be accurate.
Some units are overpriced like the Falcon. The pt costs are still too high, although the pts were decreased from the index to the codex.

The point of power level is this -

Both turn up with a case of models at local LGS. Oh you looking for a game? Yeah let's do 50 PL. Then you use what's WYSIWYG in your case for a quick matchmaking experience.

It's overly obvious PL is meant for pick up games, or games where you don't want to spend the time to write a list and work out all your wargear.

It's open to abuse if you use it for the wrong purpose but it just takes a tad bit of common sense to not do that.

 AaronWilson wrote:
The point of power level is this -

Both turn up with a case of models at local LGS. Oh you looking for a game? Yeah let's do 50 PL. Then you use what's WYSIWYG in your case for a quick matchmaking experience.

It's overly obvious PL is meant for pick up games, or games where you don't want to spend the time to write a list and work out all your wargear.

It's open to abuse if you use it for the wrong purpose but it just takes a tad bit of common sense to not do that.

Minor tangent: do people actually do this? It seems kind of weird to me that you just show up at a store/club with a case full of models and no army list for using them. Even playing a pick-up game everyone I know has an army list prepared beforehand. Maybe it may need a minor adjustment up or down depending on your opponent, but this idea of showing up with an army but no list is just completely alien to me.

Slipspace wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
The point of power level is this -

Both turn up with a case of models at local LGS. Oh you looking for a game? Yeah let's do 50 PL. Then you use what's WYSIWYG in your case for a quick matchmaking experience.

It's overly obvious PL is meant for pick up games, or games where you don't want to spend the time to write a list and work out all your wargear.

It's open to abuse if you use it for the wrong purpose but it just takes a tad bit of common sense to not do that.

Minor tangent: do people actually do this? It seems kind of weird to me that you just show up at a store/club with a case full of models and no army list for using them. Even playing a pick-up game everyone I know has an army list prepared beforehand. Maybe it may need a minor adjustment up or down depending on your opponent, but this idea of showing up with an army but no list is just completely alien to me.

I run a local games club which is pretty popular, around 200 active members on the FB group and 15-20 attendees each Tuesday. Sometimes I don't have a game planned and will bring my box Zeerkers, a couple of transports, a couple of dreads and some bang bang tanks. More then a few times someone has come up looking for a game and I've thrown together a list few PL there and then on the spot using WYSIWYG with my models.

It doesn't happen everywhere and 90% of my game are done with points as the intention for games that want to be with a properly constructed list. For games where we just want to goof about for like 2 hours and roll some dice saying "100 PL?" and grabbing models out the case quickly works well.

Power level is used in my area quite often. It is also used exclusively in our campaign.

Important distinction: the competitive guys largely won't touch power level but they are typically preppiing for tournaments and playing waac style, which PL iis not appropriate for anyway.

Because people who use PL are never WAACs.

Newsflash- that type of person plays whatever is available. He doesn't care about the format only that he wins.

If only as humans we could somehow select what sort of people we play with / against and associate ourselves with like minded people.

Would seem to solve a lot of issues.

Oh wait.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Because people who use PL are never WAACs.

Newsflash- that type of person plays whatever is available. He doesn't care about the format only that he wins.

Not completely the case, its just a matter of, im going to take units that synergize well with one another, be it power level or points.

I'm sure thats true. Fortunately in my experience the guys playing power level are not super serious competitive players trying to win trophies and endorsements with little plastic dudes.

So while WAAC players can play anything, at least my area seems spared of them playing Power Level.

 auticus wrote:
I'm sure thats true. Fortunately in my experience the guys playing power level are not super serious competitive players trying to win trophies and endorsements with little plastic dudes.

So while WAAC players can play anything, at least my area seems spared of them playing Power Level.

And thats mostly because the mind set of competitive players will try to find good wombo combos, and use them. There is a big difference between WAAC vs a competitive player, the former will break any game point or PL just because they will do cheeky stuff. A competitive player will break PL with out really thinking because power levels inherently are not balanced and just picking energizing units is second nature. I mean when ever i pick a unit i wanna use the first thing i do is say, "Ok these guys are good, what other unit will make them better. " Not a WAAC,Kinda common sense.

We have a few competitive players in our campaign. They do all of the grand tournaments, have ITC rankings, etc. They however know how to dial down for casual campaigns and power level without trying to bust the game.

In fact, their power level armies are perfectly fine with the casuals power level armies. Just like in a casual game with points they know how to dial down.

Any competitive player also knows that the point system is also not balanced. Any competitive player knows the name of the game of competitive/waac 40k is to abuse the broken system as much as possible and deckbuild a victory before the game even starts if possible.

Being competitive doesn't mean always min/maxing your list and trying to take advantage of things. I'm also a competitive player. But I know if a synergized combo is busted or not. In a tournament or waac environment I'll take those all day long but in a campaign or casual environment I will opt not to.

Right place right time for everything.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I'm sure thats true. Fortunately in my experience the guys playing power level are not super serious competitive players trying to win trophies and endorsements with little plastic dudes.

So while WAAC players can play anything, at least my area seems spared of them playing Power Level.

And thats mostly because the mind set of competitive players will try to find good wombo combos, and use them. There is a big difference between WAAC vs a competitive player, the former will break any game point or PL just because they will do cheeky stuff. A competitive player will break PL with out really thinking because power levels inherently are not balanced and just picking energizing units is second nature. I mean when ever i pick a unit i wanna use the first thing i do is say, "Ok these guys are good, what other unit will make them better. " Not a WAAC,Kinda common sense.

Funny thing but people actually can tone down.

And besides point level is also inheritently not balanced. It's just myth that points are somehow balanced.

I don't disagree that power level is not balanced. Its not. But thats because it sits on an unbalanced foundation that is points.

If points are unbalanced, then anything derived from those points cannot be balanced.

Points or Power Level is unbalanced and in some cases flat out busted. You get the same type of game out of either.

Slipspace wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
The point of power level is this -

Both turn up with a case of models at local LGS. Oh you looking for a game? Yeah let's do 50 PL. Then you use what's WYSIWYG in your case for a quick matchmaking experience.

It's overly obvious PL is meant for pick up games, or games where you don't want to spend the time to write a list and work out all your wargear.

It's open to abuse if you use it for the wrong purpose but it just takes a tad bit of common sense to not do that.

Minor tangent: do people actually do this? It seems kind of weird to me that you just show up at a store/club with a case full of models and no army list for using them. Even playing a pick-up game everyone I know has an army list prepared beforehand. Maybe it may need a minor adjustment up or down depending on your opponent, but this idea of showing up with an army but no list is just completely alien to me.

Happens quite a lot with my group. I normally spend that time setting up a nice table and/or socializing. It's part of the reason I prefer power level. I can't be certain my opponent calculated their list correctly using points.

All this arguing about "power level keeps those filthy WAACs away"? This is exactly the kind of useless posturing and preening I was talking about.

"Oh I'm so casual, look at how casual I am. We should only play power level, that proves I'm casual. Only a filthy WAAC would play points, you're not a WAAC are you?"

Give me a break.

PL has clear utilities: it's a workaround for if you don't have a list handy, and it can be a gateway to introduce new players. The poster who said he uses power level to teach his wife and kids to play? That's a good use of it.

But points are the way the game is designed to be played and facilitate a better overall game experience. Writing a list ahead of time is not hard, that's what spreadsheets and printers are for.

I just feel that saying "neither are points balanced" doesn't really help promote PL. To me they are just gonna have same exact problems that points have, just magnified.

On the other hand, I have point costs for most units memorized. Cause I either take usually same upgrades for them, or they don't have any upgrades at all. So if I need to make a list I just need an idea and tops 3 mins. It's not like each time I play a 1500 I have to theorycraft my list from ground up. Especially in pick up games.

No, I disagree. There are people who want to play a game, who choose a force based on what's "best for its points", and the objective is to win as quickly and decisively as possible. There are people who want to fight a battle in the Warhammer 40,000 setting, who choose a force based on the background - the models they like, the story behind the army, the appropriate mix of units based on the background, and the objective is for both players to have fun playing out "what would happen". The former should use the Matched Play subset of the rules, points values and the half-dozen or so missions in that section of the rulebook. The latter have more scope for variety - the Open War cards for determining a mission, a little bit more variety in unit choice, and additional rules such as the Land Raider variants from CA2017. They're also open to simply making stuff up and going away from the published rules entirely.

There's obviously a spectrum between those two poles, but I think there's usually a bit of a gap between the two camps. I also disagree that Matched Play is "the way the game is designed to be played" - if that were the case, the Matched Play rules wouldn't be restricted. At best, Matched and Narrative Play are equally important.

I don't know about you but I never said only waac players play with points. I said in my area that the powergamers whose predominant game mode is waac won't touch Power Level and everyone else is ok with them.

I also commented that a couple of our powergamers also know how to tone it down and are fine wiith power level as well.

Thats just the observation.

Unless one is a rules dev, no one can postulate on how the game was designed to be played. One can equally say that points being pasted on to the back of the book in the corner means Power Level is how the game was designed to be played.

Neither would have any merit or backing.

I just feel that saying "neither are points balanced" doesn't really help promote PL. To me they are just gonna have same exact problems that points have, just magnified.

Saying that neither are points balanced isn't as much promoting PL as it is contesting the myth that points are balanced but PL is not.

Its a matter of taste. Competitive tournament style powergamers will more than likely prefer points because its more granular. Thats perfectly fine.

Players not worried about hyper optimization and deckbuilding tend to be ok with power level. Thats also perfectly fine.

Or you can ask your opponent before playing a game with him if he prefers "quattro formaggi" style of game or more of a friendly game. Usually that works. And if not, I myself change my lists to tone down if previously it was too one sided in my favour.

I don’t understand some of you guys. PL is simply a less granular point system. Full stop. Neither system creates a very good framework for balance, although I’d argue points at least gets closer.

Either way you have to agree to and understand what kind of game you’re playing if both people are to have fun.

I personally don’t like PL because it’s even easier than points to create bad matchups unintentionally, but whateva -if it works for your group then game on.

I mean yeah it always comes back to a social contract.

you can play pl or points or whatever just agree to play the way you want to play it.

if something is broke then agree to not play against it.

let the tourny players whom like to break things (its not really a bad thing) break the game till gw fixes it because they are not going to be watching random people on the internet play to make balancing decisions.

8th and its chapter approved has paved the ground work to balance it self over time. it just requires a ton of games and data. and its most likely going to involve the big tournies.

pl works for people on the fly or new people. it also probably works really well for apoc games.

dosiere wrote:
I don’t understand some of you guys. PL is simply a less granular point system. Full stop. Neither system creates a very good framework for balance, although I’d argue points at least gets closer.

Either way you have to agree to and understand what kind of game you’re playing if both people are to have fun.

I personally don’t like PL because it’s even easier than points to create bad matchups unintentionally, but whateva -if it works for your group then game on.

PL works well for educational games and for new players.

I remember when I started playing. I didn't immediately know that I had to pay points for the special weapons that came with a tactical squad. I assumed that when it said "may take one item from the special weapons list" that the weapon was free.

Most of you have been playing for a very long time, and have clearly forgotten what it's like to be brand new to this hobby, or to wargaming in general. It's daunting. The fun is not in the reading of the point sheets, the fun is in the playing. You learn fastest by actually playing and talking with your teacher/opponent. PL helps you get passed the "how do i get started?" stage much faster.

Every single person I know who started new in 8th, and is totally unaware of this argument, prefers PL to points. They also refuse to play against tournament-only players, because, and i quote, "those guys aren't fun to play with."

Take from this whatever you want.

There's a difference between competitive (people that want as balanced as possible because the competition/ stacking of the odds is where the fun lies), WAAC (who want every win possible no matter what) ,and simmply TG douchbaggery to use clear gutter tactics to get a win a game vs an opponent that was clearly not a match.

The first 2 will IMHO dislike PL for its randomness and imbalance, the third is just a douche no matter what system you use.

macexor wrote:
Apparently 10 Sternguards all with combi-plasmas cost 14PL, while 10 Tactical Marines cost 10PL and get 2 of them. That doesn't seem fair.

And yes, I do have all these Sternguards with full WYSIWYG.

[EDIT] What if one guy enjoys playing with lots of infantry with no special weapons. Let's say, 20 man Black Templar troops unit with jus bolters or chainswords. Or orks with nothing but Boyz. Or IG with just flashlights. And the other guy prefers to have his units equipped with lots of specialized weapons. Meltas, flamers, power fists etc. Do they still end up with the same number of units? (let's say SM vs SM) Even though one of them has a much higher quality of his troops. And the other guy's tactic of having a sea of cheaper, less equipped units doesn't really work, cause you know, his enemy has as much units. Just better.

What if one guy enjoys playing Imperial Guard and the other guy enjoys playing Tau, or Grey Knights, or Space Marines without special characters, or a shooty Ork army, or transports, or a melee army without infiltration tricks...

I'm not saying any of those things do better with power level. I'm just saying it's not sufficient to point out some weak things to prove power level is worse. And there are going to be armies with equal power levels and wildly different points, and other armies with equal points and wildly different power levels. That doesn't tell you which system is better either.

I haven't seen any proof that points are more balanced. Maybe they are, I don't know. The main reason there's no proof is that it's hard. I don't expect anyone to try. To the people who like points, it's just obvious, right? It's more granular. It accounts for more things. They updated the points in Chapter Approved, and they'll keep updating them.

However, with practically every argument here for why power level isn't balanced, the same argument can be made for points.

Oh, you found a unit that is way underpowered for its PL? Let me show you the Stompa.

You and your opponent have to agree not to be a jerk with his list building? There are plenty of threads complaining about WAAC armies with points. Has anyone complained yet for PL?

Certain armies are unviable or on a different tier with PL? I went over that for points above.

People can min/max PL? What, you're saying tournament lists don't exist?

Units will have too many upgrades? Are devastator squads without four heavy weapons a thing? You're afraid free power weapons for their sergeants are going to overpower them? Is anyone currently complaining that Deathwatch is overpowered?

So, as has been repeated over and over again, neither points nor PL make for a "perfectly balanced game." That being said, the question is 'how is the PL balance?' versus 'are PL balanced?'

I've not conducted any large surveys/observations of local games, so my observations and answers to this question are all anecdotal, but I'll offer them anyways. I'll also note that I think the question of what is/is not "balanced" ought to be examined within a competitive framework--saying that something is good for competitive play but bad for casual play sounds to me like a failure to not hold the rules/writers accountable. If a game is balanced well competitively, then it will be just as suitable for casual play--in fact, the telltale sign of "good balance" in such a game would be for there to be no need to really distinguish "casual" lists from "competitive" ones. As such, I'm going to ignore casual/narrative-centred arguments/examinations here. I have nothing against casual play, but saying "X is really balanced under the PL system as long as you don't do perfectly-legal Y thing" sounds like a matter of imbalance to me--and that is important to answering the question.


My main takeaway is that the degree of external "balance" (that is, the balance between X faction vs. Y faction on the battlefield) within PL games seems less-consistent than with points. There is a gulf between index armies and codex armies within the point system, and some armies are plagued by really terrible internal balance, but for the most part it seems like most armies can shine under the points system if their points are spent on the best units/upgrades possible--though internal balance can be severely lacking, *most* armies seem to have enough "good" choices to make a degree of external balance possible. If any two armies take the best options possible under the PL system, then it seems like there is a lot more potential for one army to end up well ahead of others--in particular, armies which rely on a lot of units which lack upgrade options (Necrons being one of the most glaring examples) seem to consistently end up behind those that have access to upgrades.

Even when not initially setting out to game the system, some pretty dramatic gulfs can occur under the PL system which seem wider than even some of the most egregious point game imbalances I've seen. While my IG army stays more-or-less similar across points and PL and my (index) Skitarii end up with a few more minor bells and whistles, one of my favourite armies, Deathwatch, can get very out of hand very quickly, even if the goal is just to "use the coolest models I have," rather than actively trying to break the game.

See, I have some ~60 or so of the power armoured guys. However, I rarely field more than 15-20 men in a given game. Less than half of my veterans are actually bolter boys, leaving me with a selection of 30+ different special weapons, heavy weapons, eclectic sergeant-types, and people pimped out with combi plasmas /and/ power weapons because I knew I had a surplus of models and built some guys purely to look cool. The thing is, in a PL game I could very well dump hundreds of points' worth of special gear into a 5-man squad just by randomly pulling out soldiers from my case while building my teams. A lot of these models are plasma guns, combi-plasmas and frag cannons, which all make for beautifully effective 'standard-issue' weapons in a PL game. If I actively try to put all my favourite/coolest-looking models into a game, then my 5-man squads come out even better-armed (completely wysiwyg, too) than when I actually try to game the system with a competitive point-based list, just by merit of the unit having an insane amount of upgrade potential. I don't need to give everyone thunder hammers along with their ranged weapons (and I don't, because I have all of one hammer guy floating around), but in an edition where bolter fire is lacklustre, it seems silly to not at least take combi-X weapons, to give the bolter fire a little extra help. And it seems to fit perfectly with the whole well-equipped, elite force fluff.

I just can't think of a way that a Necron list can min/max PL to compete with really silly Deathwatch lists, whereas with points it seems like every army has at least one netlist that can do work--even if it's uninspired and overdone.

PL seems to have more potential for overwhelming skewed 'fluke' matchups caused by having access to a larger collection, than points do. Using points seems to curtail the worst imbalances one can find in the PL system, whereas the reverse does not seem to be true. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the PL system--I do like how it makes a lot of factions' unit leaders pimped out like the fluff thinks they ought to be--but its version of balance seems to be somehow less so than the points system's version of balance.

 Marmatag wrote:

dosiere wrote:
I don’t understand some of you guys. PL is simply a less granular point system. Full stop. Neither system creates a very good framework for balance, although I’d argue points at least gets closer.

Either way you have to agree to and understand what kind of game you’re playing if both people are to have fun.

I personally don’t like PL because it’s even easier than points to create bad matchups unintentionally, but whateva -if it works for your group then game on.

PL works well for educational games and for new players.

I remember when I started playing. I didn't immediately know that I had to pay points for the special weapons that came with a tactical squad. I assumed that when it said "may take one item from the special weapons list" that the weapon was free.

Most of you have been playing for a very long time, and have clearly forgotten what it's like to be brand new to this hobby, or to wargaming in general. It's daunting. The fun is not in the reading of the point sheets, the fun is in the playing. You learn fastest by actually playing and talking with your teacher/opponent. PL helps you get passed the "how do i get started?" stage much faster.

Every single person I know who started new in 8th, and is totally unaware of this argument, prefers PL to points. They also refuse to play against tournament-only players, because, and i quote, "those guys aren't fun to play with."

Take from this whatever you want.

You'd have to be super dense and not read more than 10 pages of the codex if you didn't know you paid for certain weapons.

That's the most lousy excuse I've seen for anything in this game in YEARS. YEARS.

 ross-128 wrote:
But points are the way the game is designed to be played and facilitate a better overall game experience. Writing a list ahead of time is not hard, that's what spreadsheets and printers are for.

Nah neither is better than the other.

And if list isn't so hard to write how come there's list errors in tournaments all the time! I mean that's list you do for one specific event well in advance. Compared to regular game where you have often less time to boot it's even more of a hasle. If players who win tournament's can't be sure of not having made mistake how is regular players supposed to? Those are the kind of players who tend to know rules and point costs inside out much better than like 99% of players...

Lol. The "Points are balanced and only true way" believers are funny.,

 Likan Wolfsheim wrote:
So, as has been repeated over and over again, neither points nor PL make for a "perfectly balanced game." That being said, the question is 'how is the PL balance?' versus 'are PL balanced?'

The four games of 8th edition I've played or witnessed using power level and the Open War deck have all resulted in games which were close-fought battles, no single-turn victories and all involved had fun. To me, that means PL is a success and is working as advertised. I can't comment more than that. If things change in the future as we add more units to our armies (I've got a load of airmobile Elysians to paint and one opponent has Mortarion to do), then I'll reconsider.

40 pl games are only an hour tops and lots of fun.

You are always going to have players that prefer list building and you have those that hate it. Its really that simple. Those who like list building will push for point usage. I do find it odd people are trying to state that PL's are just as balanced as points. They are not nor are intended to be. PL's fill a specific purpose, just as points do. One is not better than the other. Priorities of the gamers involved in a game will dictate what system is used. And when two players meet with different priorities its best to flip a coin on it or do a one game of points and one game of PL's so both parties get something. This is no different than when a WAAC player plays a PuG with a Casual player. The WAAC will be expected to tone down his list while the Casual will be expected to up his list (if possible). My point is that it still comes down to communication between players.

For PuGs I find it best to use points, and it seems that is how the studio feels as well. For quick games with like minded players ill us PL's. Both have a place.

Maybe a controversial suggestion; and may have come up already haven't read the entire thread; but I feel like power level should go hand in hand with WYSIWYG

-this would A) stop the comp players from maxing on units they wouldn't invest in in points games, B) reward aesthetic upgrades that often get ignored in points games and C) give newer players who tend to build good looking but impractical loadouts a break for once...maybe even an edge over the experienced players?

 GamerGuy wrote:
Maybe a controversial suggestion; and may have come up already haven't read the entire thread; but I feel like power level should go hand in hand with WYSIWYG

-this would A) stop the comp players from maxing on units they wouldn't invest in in points games, B) reward aesthetic upgrades that often get ignored in points games and C) give newer players who tend to build good looking but impractical loadouts a break for once...maybe even an edge over the experienced players?

Honestly, my take on it is use the systems as they were designed. PL's for non match play quick games. Points for matched play, Its when you try to put a square peg in a circular peg hole that you get problems. Im not saying dont think outside of the box. Im sure some folks could get a close approximation of point value balance with PL's, but this will be the minority case I feel.

Power Level works fine for matched play. Just as points works fine for narrative play.

My 100 Power Level army comes to 1811 points, which means when I use points I can add a unit to my army. That's really the only difference. I've haven't felt the balance is off with one style or the other. The only significance different is the way some points only players view you.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Power Level works fine for matched play. Just as points works fine for narrative play.

My 100 Power Level army comes to 1811 points, which means when I use points I can add a unit to my army. That's really the only difference. I've haven't felt the balance is off with one style or the other. The only significance different is the way some points only players view you.

Being off by 200 points isn't something to scoff about IMO. As a Tzeentch player that difference would have meant bringing 3 extra exalted flamers, a fully kitted DP, or 6 units of 10xbrimmstone horrors.

I think the point a lot of people are trying to make is that PL is calculated based off of points which is the value that GW uses to balance the game, so saying that the actual point value doesn't matter is null.

 GamerGuy wrote:
Maybe a controversial suggestion; and may have come up already haven't read the entire thread; but I feel like power level should go hand in hand with WYSIWYG

-this would A) stop the comp players from maxing on units they wouldn't invest in in points games, B) reward aesthetic upgrades that often get ignored in points games and C) give newer players who tend to build good looking but impractical loadouts a break for once...maybe even an edge over the experienced players?

Well I have yet to play where WYSIWYG(apart from grenades and standard weapons models comes with like laspistol) isn't enforced anyway.

tneva82 wrote:

 GamerGuy wrote:
Maybe a controversial suggestion; and may have come up already haven't read the entire thread; but I feel like power level should go hand in hand with WYSIWYG

-this would A) stop the comp players from maxing on units they wouldn't invest in in points games, B) reward aesthetic upgrades that often get ignored in points games and C) give newer players who tend to build good looking but impractical loadouts a break for once...maybe even an edge over the experienced players?

Well I have yet to play where WYSIWYG(apart from grenades and standard weapons models comes with like laspistol) isn't enforced anyway.

This... Exactly...

WYSIWYG should be the strived for standard, regardless of whether it is points or PL, and is always enforced (within reason – i.e grenades etc) at events – casual, narrative or competitive.

Not to mention, it’s kinda the way the game is meant to be played. So saying PL is based on a WYSIWYG requirement is …

Irregardless of other faults, power levels have one thing I really like. Models costs less for bigger units. I dont have the books in front of me but I think marines costs 5pl for 5 and 9pl for 10. When I read the indexes this seemed true for all armies. Everybody knows MSU is better (morale, overkill, flexibility) but that's not represented by matched points in any way. In this special regard power levels are more balanced than points.

Gitdakka wrote:
Irregardless of other faults, power levels have one thing I really like. Models costs less for bigger units. I dont have the books in front of me but I think marines costs 5pl for 5 and 9pl for 10. When I read the indexes this seemed true for all armies. Everybody knows MSU is better (morale, overkill, flexibility) but that's not represented by matched points in any way. In this special regard power levels are more balanced than points.

Though reason only works generally for first plump. Seems to account for vet sergeant gear. But then if you have 11-15 guys that jump is same as first jump so basic guys price doesn't decrease as unit size.

It should though. Good thing HH has had this for years. But then again HH is superior anyway so no surprise.

Gitdakka wrote:
Irregardless of other faults, power levels have one thing I really like. Models costs less for bigger units. I dont have the books in front of me but I think marines costs 5pl for 5 and 9pl for 10. When I read the indexes this seemed true for all armies. Everybody knows MSU is better (morale, overkill, flexibility) but that's not represented by matched points in any way. In this special regard power levels are more balanced than points.

Isn't this just because their average point cost is closer to 9PL than ten when the size is increased. I e an initial group would cost 1.6PL which would convert to 2PL so two would cost 3.2PL=~3PL. So I don't believe it's there as a boon to take larger groups, just for fairness in calculation when converted from points.

This whole argument always goes in circles.

If you're making the case that points are more balanced than Power Level, and you use point based values to argue that PL is imbalanced, that's ridiculous. You're starting from the assumption that points are more balanced, and using that data to prove that points are more balanced.

 Marmatag wrote:
This whole argument always goes in circles.

If you're making the case that points are more balanced than Power Level, and you use point based values to argue that PL is imbalanced, that's ridiculous. You're starting from the assumption that points are more balanced, and using that data to prove that points are more balanced.

Points and Power Level are literally the same thing, they're both numerical values to represent that tabletop game value of a unit.

The difference is that Power Level uses a different scale (which in and of itself isn't an issue), but, more importantly, has no granularity, and that's the sole difference. The argument is that the execution of this concept, in the form of Power Level, having literally zero granularity that takes no account of upgrades, loadout, options, etc, is an inherently flawed mechanism in the first place simply because of that.

Points aren't perfect, however they are more granular, and, as a result, can more precisely portray differences between units, weapons, options, upgrades, etc. As a result, assuming they're at least as well executed as Power Level ratings, they're going to be more balanced because they're more nuanced. That fundamental difference is what makes Points a better balancing mechanism.

We don't have to reference *actual* point values for that, however, given that they are more precise because they can portray these differences, they do highlight issues with PL where granularity is not covered by PL.

If points mattered as much as you guys claim then a 10 point difference in two opposed armies would make a difference in the outcome. In practice it rarely does. This game is more horse shoes and hand grenades than a finely calibrated instrument.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
If points mattered as much as you guys claim then a 10 point difference in two opposed armies would make a difference in the outcome. In practice it rarely does. This game is more horse shoes and hand grenades than a finely calibrated instrument.

Except with Power Level the point differences themselves are in the dozens to hundreds.

10 points can be a difference in armies in that it can be an additional model or weapon. In a 2000 pt game that 10 points represents a .5% difference in army strength (which doesn't strike me as being very substantial) and is proportionate in its effect on the game.

However, the biggest effect on the game is random chance. There can be a substantial difference in points but hot dice vs cold dice could win the day for the smaller force. Of course skill has a part in victory as well.

All in all your argument isn't very persuasive. Otherwise, by your logic any points difference should determine the winner as being the player with the most points.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This whole argument always goes in circles.

If you're making the case that points are more balanced than Power Level, and you use point based values to argue that PL is imbalanced, that's ridiculous. You're starting from the assumption that points are more balanced, and using that data to prove that points are more balanced.

Points and Power Level are literally the same thing, they're both numerical values to represent that tabletop game value of a unit.

The difference is that Power Level uses a different scale (which in and of itself isn't an issue), but, more importantly, has no granularity, and that's the sole difference. The argument is that the execution of this concept, in the form of Power Level, having literally zero granularity that takes no account of upgrades, loadout, options, etc, is an inherently flawed mechanism in the first place simply because of that.

Points aren't perfect, however they are more granular, and, as a result, can more precisely portray differences between units, weapons, options, upgrades, etc. As a result, assuming they're at least as well executed as Power Level ratings, they're going to be more balanced because they're more nuanced. That fundamental difference is what makes Points a better balancing mechanism.

We don't have to reference *actual* point values for that, however, given that they are more precise because they can portray these differences, they do highlight issues with PL where granularity is not covered by PL.

If the granularity isn't done properly you're left with AM and Chaos curb stomping everyone for a whole edition.

If anything isn't done properly then it will be a failure, be it a game or anything else that you attempt to do.

Thats a problem of execution, not the concept, and PL is no less immune to execution issues in the exact same manner.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Thats a problem of execution, not the concept, and PL is no less immune to execution issues in the exact same manner.

Yes but "more granularity" doesn't mean "better balance" in practice.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Thats a problem of execution, not the concept, and PL is no less immune to execution issues in the exact same manner.

Yes but "more granularity" doesn't mean "better balance" in practice.

At that point however, we're into an argument of execution, not the fundamental concept, which is why we have Errata.

If both PL and Points are executed about as well as each other, points will be the better balanced system, the only time PL will be better is if Points are obscenely off and PL's are not which I don't see anyone making the case for (at least, that theyre any more off than most PL values).

As is, Tournaments and Matched Play used points for a reason, and PL is specifically put forward for games where tight balance is not a requirement. There is a reason for that and GW makes no secret of that.

With the current metagame, I don't think anyone can make a good case that PL's will result in better balance (and theyre not intended to). They may give us a different metagame, but certainly not a more balanced one. One will note that pretty much every major advocate for PL's is adding caveats like ultra strict WYSIWYG enforcement, "it works if you dont try to break it", etc. There's a reason GW didn't switch the game entirely over to PL's

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Thats a problem of execution, not the concept, and PL is no less immune to execution issues in the exact same manner.

Yes but "more granularity" doesn't mean "better balance" in practice.

At that point however, we're into an argument of execution, not the fundamental concept, which is why we have Errata.

If both PL and Points are executed about as well as each other, points will be the better balanced system, the only time PL will be better is if Points are obscenely off and PL's are not which I don't see anyone making the case for (at least, that theyre any more off than most PL values).

As is, Tournaments and Matched Play used points for a reason, and PL is specifically put forward for games where tight balance is not a requirement. There is a reason for that and GW makes no secret of that.

With the current metagame, I don't think anyone can make a good case that PL's will result in better balance (and theyre not intended to). They may give us a different metagame, but certainly not a more balanced one. One will note that pretty much every major advocate for PL's is adding caveats like ultra strict WYSIWYG enforcement, "it works if you dont try to break it", etc. There's a reason GW didn't switch the game entirely over to PL's

Yes it is strange a few people are trying to defend PL's by saying they are more balanced than points. Or that points are flawed so PL's must be better. The fact is that you dont need any of these thoughts. If you want to use PL's for any reason use them. If you want to use points go for it. If two players want different systems then flip a coin or do a 1/1. PL's are designed for quick games that dont need tight balance. It is a good system for that (with some flaws for sure). Points are great for matched play if no other reason than to introduce the illusion of fairness to the players. Its not a zero sum situation people.

After thinking about this for a minute I have determined I am wrong. Matched play states that points are to be used. So if two players are using the RAW then they should use points for match play. This of course can be house ruled or what have you, but the basic base line PuG will be matched play with points for this reason. And that is a good thing I think. It sets up some form of standard between two players who may have just met.

I've found PL good for quick pick up games, rules learning, and army learning. We just moved to regular points after play testing a dozen games or so with PL. There are some advantages with PLs because its fast, you can take any upgrade for the most part like sponsons on Lemans and adrenal/toxin sacks on nids, and turrets for firewarriors for pretty much free.

There is some unbalance in PLs, for instance my current 1500 point Tyranids list is 84 PL and my friends 1500 Space Marine list is 75. I think the Tyranids Power Points are alittle higher because they expect everyone to throw adrenal glands and Toxin sacks on every unit, so they made up for it in PL.

In the end, PL good for fun, points good for more competitive play.

IIRC, Power Level is proportional to the average of the minimum and maximum points value for a given unit. If a unit has more possible options, then its PL will be higher than for a unit with less or cheaper options.

I'm not claiming that PL is more balanced than points. I'm claiming that the overall experience of choosing an army using PL and then playing a game is at least as fun as using points, and possibly moreso. Nothing else is important. IMO, so I'll carry on doing things this way. If I was to play against most of you lot, who seem to think PL means "I can take all the upgrades for free", then I'd probably use points.

For me PL is for beginners and those wanting a small quick game. When we last used it i compared the PL to the point's of the list's and 1 list had a couple of hundred point's advantage. That killed it for us.

Who won the game?

Much of 40k is the illusion of choice. While you technically can build a devastator squad with 4 heavy bolters, no one does it in practice. A squad of devastators with heavy bolters should have a different cost than a squad with lascannons.

I get this.

But instead of looking at this in terms of cost, perhaps we should be looking in terms of overall effectiveness.

What would it take to make the heavy bolter valued equally to a lascannon?

So leading points first to balance is one way, but effectiveness is probably in the long run the better option anyway for adjustments.

If all the options cost the same we end up in a scenario where power = points.

I know this is an oversimplification of the problem but it is worth considering as an alternative to nickel and diming points costs.

 auticus wrote:
Unless one is a rules dev, no one can postulate on how the game was designed to be played. One can equally say that points being pasted on to the back of the book in the corner means Power Level is how the game was designed to be played.

Neither would have any merit or backing.

Unless of course you base it on the history of the game and how its de facto system has been granular points based since the beginning and PL only appeared this edition as a way for new people to learn or for people to set up a quick and casual narrative match.

 deviantduck wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Unless one is a rules dev, no one can postulate on how the game was designed to be played. One can equally say that points being pasted on to the back of the book in the corner means Power Level is how the game was designed to be played.

Neither would have any merit or backing.

Unless of course you base it on the history of the game and how its de facto system has been granular points based since the beginning and PL only appeared this edition as a way for new people to learn or for people to set up a quick and casual narrative match.

I would not condemn PL so harshly.

I've been playing since 2nd edition and currently use power levels. There's a tedium to building lists with points and the simplicity of power levels is appealing. My armies tend to be experimental, anything to cut down on time spent reconfiguring them is welcome.

My complaint about power levels is points tend to come out to less. I can usually fit another unit in a points list than I could in a PL list.

For a game that had been using a point system for a lot of editions. That was just terrible.

Points back then were way to lopsided and crazy that cheese was a common theme among everyone.

WAAC obviously exacerbated this and made it the old, (my cheese is better than your cheese) which lead to very strict builds that did not leave any room at all to experiment.

I remember people running list that everyone ran at the time. Seeing five people with the same list was not fun to watch nor to play against.

PL is quick, ill give it that. While points has precision in what a person can run. But i can guarantee that the PL system will actually be more diverse than the points system down the line.

Eventually, points will just be everyone picking the most points efficient units in their army and repeating this till the cows come home. Come much further down the line the game will just be stale for people who want to actually join the game and experience the hobby as it was intended.

Meanwhile, PL will have more diverse armies, each one more diverse than the other because people can build using a theme and not be restricted to an overarching stagnant meta that will eventually come out from Points.

Will points be more balanced in the long run? probably, GW is actually working to tweak the points so no funny business goes on, but the game style will be extremely boring and repetitive down the road as everyone settles in to a pattern, interrupted annually by minor tweaks to things as a way of GW to 'freshen' thing up.

Meanwhile, PL will always be fresh. As anyone can think of everything, wherever that be an idea, a concept or even just a piece of their own story in this universe. PL can tailor to all of those things.

Even now, people in Major tournaments are actually getting things wrong with their list. And remember these are list that are usually calculated down to the last point, yet people are still doing illegal things in these tournaments.

Some tourney organizers even agreed that PL works in their favour because of the scale of some of these tournaments (With a few restrictions that they all agree upon). When a TO needs to go through 20+ list (or even 50 - 100 + list as a group) looking through points to ensure everything is legal is just something that cant be reasonably done. PL makes their jobs a WHOLE lot easier, and it turns out people actually have more fun.

We havent even gotten every codex for every army out yet, yet people are still up in arms about the PL of the index and the codex armies being out of whack. That's because the index was only meant as a stopgap solution until GW got the codexes finalized

Moral of the story is this. Sure, you can keep to your points system. But i can tell you that the game will not be the 40k everyone knows and loves when everything is said and done, and the last thing i would play is something that feels like something else

mchammadad wrote:

I remember people running list that everyone ran at the time. Seeing five people with the same list was not fun to watch nor to play against.

PL is quick, ill give it that. While points has precision in what a person can run. But i can guarantee that the PL system will actually be more diverse than the points system down the line.

Eventually, points will just be everyone picking the most points efficient units in their army and repeating this till the cows come home.

This is just completely backwards. This issue is much more severe under the PL system. With PL the gap between optimally geared army and suboptimally geared army is much more sever than under points. There is no reason* to just not load all units with the best weapons. Under point you at least usually save points for taking weaker weapons or no weapons so you can have more units.


(*Besides aesthetics, fluff etc, but that applies to points too.)

People are very harsh against PL.

I'll repeat what I said in a much earlier thread on the subject:
Increased accuracy in a measurement system is only usefull in the correct circumstances.

Points are more precise, but a big outside factor in scenario/ board/... and they become quickly inaccurate. Remember Apocalypse even in 5th basicly told you that points weren't as accurate.

Also different things have different usablitiy in the 2 systems, giving a vehicle every upgrade in points is throwing them away in PL it's kind of expected and almost easier to remember. But if one guy doesn't follow this logic, boy it he gna be behind when you count out points. while in the game not a lot.

I once won a game where my opponent was up 200 points and he still won only narrowly because of his gameplay errors ( piecemeal engaging) and a bit of bad luck, but really putting 3/4 of your army in reserves with no manipulation in 7th, isn't bad luck it's bad strategy.

Well, I have a lot of 2000 pt CSM lists that are 115 PL, and a 1836 pt Ork list is 147.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Well, I have a lot of 2000 pt CSM lists that are 115 PL, and a 1836 pt Ork list is 147.

And I won a tournament yesterday with a 40 PL sisters list that was 972 pts. So compare that with your CSM and I'm fielding 3000 to your 2000.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Well, I have a lot of 2000 pt CSM lists that are 115 PL, and a 1836 pt Ork list is 147.

And I won a tournament yesterday with a 40 PL sisters list that was 972 pts. So compare that with your CSM and I'm fielding 3000 to your 2000.

Exactly. Compare that to the Orks, and you wind up with 3,500 about compared to under 2,000.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Exactly. Compare that to the Orks, and you wind up with 3,500 about compared to under 2,000.

But points are imperfect too, so this is actually absolutely fine... *eyeroll*

Noticed in a game I played yesterday that 43 PL nurgle vs 43 PL eldar ended up with a 200 point difference for the Eldar army on Battlescribe.

Surely that makes a a pretty big difference?

We ended up rebalancing our lists with pts before playing.

 deviantduck wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Unless one is a rules dev, no one can postulate on how the game was designed to be played. One can equally say that points being pasted on to the back of the book in the corner means Power Level is how the game was designed to be played.

Neither would have any merit or backing.

Unless of course you base it on the history of the game and how its de facto system has been granular points based since the beginning and PL only appeared this edition as a way for new people to learn or for people to set up a quick and casual narrative match.

Actually, from the beginning, it was expected that you'd have a GM to set up a scenario and decide the forces, and points was a secondary method.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 knas wrote:
Noticed in a game I played yesterday that 43 PL nurgle vs 43 PL eldar ended up with a 200 point difference for the Eldar army on Battlescribe.

Surely that makes a a pretty big difference?

I don't know; try it and see.

 deviantduck wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Unless one is a rules dev, no one can postulate on how the game was designed to be played. One can equally say that points being pasted on to the back of the book in the corner means Power Level is how the game was designed to be played.

Neither would have any merit or backing.

Unless of course you base it on the history of the game and how its de facto system has been granular points based since the beginning and PL only appeared this edition as a way for new people to learn or for people to set up a quick and casual narrative match.

Yeah. The history of the game hasn't always been granular points and even if it had been, that isn't really proof of their *current* design decisions. The game also always had terrain mattering until now, for example. AOS only has a power level system currently. Its no more a stretch to say the game was designed with power level as the base and points tacked on to appease people that need that level of detail. Considering how loopy the point system is in general and how off the points were and still are, that would also make perfect sense.

Well the rulebook (matched play pg. 212) does present Points as the typical and Power levels as an alternative.

"Typically, you and your opponent will build an army to an agreed points limit, but you could instead, for example, build armies that have a set number of units. Alternatively, you could use the Wounds characteristic or the Power Rating of each unit."

Yes for matched play it does. Matched play the expectation is granular points.

The next question that follows is... did the developers design the game with matched play as the primary focus?

AOS we know that was not the case.

After talking about it and looking at it from the SOB thread.

I really want to play PL tournament now with my SOB, they literally can have every Sister with a special weapon in 5 man units, each for 5PL's

You can have literally a Full 5man unit of Melta Guns in basically Open top Rhino with an Invul and +1 wound, x2 HF's a SB and HKM that has the Scout Rule for 9PL total.

Here is an Example of 100 PL's

Celestine x2 Gemini
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM

Canoness: Relic, Inferno Pistol
Imagifier
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM


When looking at a list like that, knowing that the entire army has Scout and can shoot from inside the Rhino, it just gets really silly. IDK if Space Marines could compete with that.

Just curious, but how many points would that list be?

A little over 2500 points

As a GK player I'm lucky to get 2K in 100PL.

OK... well my DE can get 2600+ pts at 100pl LOL.

Thats in total
20 DL's
32 Blasters
12 PGL's and 12 Agoniser's
10 Venoms
4 RWF's
2 Archons
50 Treuborns

Warriors are 3 PL, but can only take 2 blasters vs 5PL for 3 blasters 2 DL's. the Trueborns are well worth the PL

 knas wrote:
Noticed in a game I played yesterday that 43 PL nurgle vs 43 PL eldar ended up with a 200 point difference for the Eldar army on Battlescribe.

Surely that makes a a pretty big difference?

We ended up rebalancing our lists with pts before playing.

This makes just as much sense as designing two armies with points, noticing the PL are different, and therefore deciding points are unbalanced. I mean, if one army has 10 more PL than the other, surely that makes a pretty big difference?

Pink Horror wrote:

 knas wrote:
Noticed in a game I played yesterday that 43 PL nurgle vs 43 PL eldar ended up with a 200 point difference for the Eldar army on Battlescribe.

Surely that makes a a pretty big difference?

We ended up rebalancing our lists with pts before playing.

This makes just as much sense as designing two armies with points, noticing the PL are different, and therefore deciding points are unbalanced. I mean, if one army has 10 more PL than the other, surely that makes a pretty big difference?

The thing is, as was mentioned earlier, assuming Points and PL are of similar quality, points are going to be more balanced because they have increased precision and granularity.

And yet there is always someone crying about how something is too cheap or overcosted for it's ability. When has GW demonstrated the ability to refine the points with precision? I'm not saying Power level is a better system to points, I just don't think points are the panacea you lot claim.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
And yet there is always someone crying about how something is too cheap or overcosted for it's ability. When has GW demonstrated the ability to refine the points with precision? I'm not saying Power level is a better system to points, I just don't think points are the panacea you lot claim.

Just because it's not perfect, doesn't mean it's objectively better.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
And yet there is always someone crying about how something is too cheap or overcosted for it's ability. When has GW demonstrated the ability to refine the points with precision? I'm not saying Power level is a better system to points, I just don't think points are the panacea you lot claim.

Yeah, that's the thing. Points are borked, but since PL seems to be based on points (1 PL=20 Points, taking the average of upgrades) that means that PL is going to be just as borked, if not more.

Do we actually know how GW set power level? I've seen the theory that they're based on points, but I've never seen GW confirm it.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Do we actually know how GW set power level? I've seen the theory that they're based on points, but I've never seen GW confirm it.

And your alternate explanation is...

The evidence seems to point to that. I won't say that it's 100%, uncontestable truth, but I will say it seems likely.

 auticus wrote:
AOS only has a power level system currently. Its no more a stretch to say the game was designed with power level as the base and points tacked on to appease people that need that level of detail.

I think the bigger stretch is any claim that AOS was "designed", at least to start with.

 Dysartes wrote:

 auticus wrote:
AOS only has a power level system currently. Its no more a stretch to say the game was designed with power level as the base and points tacked on to appease people that need that level of detail.

I think the bigger stretch is any claim that AOS was "designed", at least to start with.

BAZINGA!
yeah AoS had no design to start with but that's for another thread.

Jumping in on this.

To me points feel more balanced. I've noticed the huge discrepancy between points and PL that has been pointed out before. I'm also more comfortable with points then I am with PL.

At the end of the day, I'd rather use points, but I'll use PL if it means getting a game it. No complaining. And while I'm not going to WAAC's my opponent, or take wargear for the sake of it being free, I'm also not going to apologize if my equal list in PL is 400 more under points either.

Just play what you feel comfortable with, cherish the few games you get outside of that comfort zone, it makes for a more well rounded player.

But if you tell me I'm wrong just because you dislike my preferred choice, you WON'T be the person setting up across from me.

A friend brought this to my attention

DE can have 3700pts in a 3 detachment list with 100PL. if a 4th Detachment its over 3800pts

Outrider x3, same detachment x3
Archon fully geared
Razorwing Flocks x12
Razorwing Flocks x12
Razorwing Flocks x12
Razorwing Flocks x12
Razorwing Flocks x12
Razorwing Flocks x12

2 Detachments add this
Beastmaster + Razorwing Flock unit x12

240 4 wound bodies, 8 attacks, Fly. 3726pts

Let me know if anyone else can get 2 armies worth of points for 100pl

I tend to use power level.

I find it fine because me and my buddy don't maximise the loadouts or spam units. I've added up the differences in power level to points for our battles before and they've always come out close enough when using this approach If one wants to do the make the best list you can thing (or at least close to), certainly use points.

Really I think power level works best for the "standard traditional 40k army" lovers, fair amount of troops, some elite infantry, the odd tank or dread.

If one works for you use it, why the need to be a jerk to people who are coming at the game from a different perspective I have no idea. (I used to dislike "power gamers" but I have come to the realisation I was being a jerk)

Play how you want to play, have fun.

Why are people acting like power levels are anything but a point system? They're a poorly-balanced point system, but they're still a point system. The only difference between power levels and the more detailed point system is that one accounts for variations in power between a unit's different configurations, while the other assumes that all configurations cost the same number of points. There is no possible situation where the second option gives better results than the first.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are people acting like power levels are anything but a point system? They're a poorly-balanced point system, but they're still a point system. The only difference between power levels and the more detailed point system is that one accounts for variations in power between a unit's different configurations, while the other assumes that all configurations cost the same number of points. There is no possible situation where the second option gives better results than the first.

Well, there is SOME possibilities. For instance, if a squad of Guard Infantry was 2 PL but cost 400 points, I think we can all agree that the PL is more balanced.

However, assuming similar effort was put into both, you're gonna see points be more precise and better reflective of reality.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Well, there is SOME possibilities. For instance, if a squad of Guard Infantry was 2 PL but cost 400 points, I think we can all agree that the PL is more balanced.

However, assuming similar effort was put into both, you're gonna see points be more precise and better reflective of reality.

Well yes, I'm talking about the system concepts themselves, not the exact numbers. Obviously if GW does a terrible job with one of them it's going to be worse, but that just says that GW screwed up the implementation.