By my math, 1 power is the equivelent of 20 points. The math generally seems to check out for things like Daemon Princes or rhinos which average out pretty evenly at 8 and 4....But basically anything that got a points change seems to be effed up. Cultists at 40 models cost a power equivelent of 240 (when in points they are 160), and stuff like Guardsman have the opposite effect, getting a discount in the points to power swap because of their nerf.
Power level was never super accurate to begin with. Its not meant to be used in games where you are trying to matched play each other and have a competition.
Its a loose framework to quickly create an army list and play the game.
It is suitable for players that don't care about trying to get granular in listbuildiing, and not suiitable for players that are trying to min/max and have a competition with the game.
This also spawns the dozen or so page thread going back and forth about what the game is to people, bringing us full circle back to someone posting a similar thread like this in a couple weeks to begin the journey anew.
I don't believe Power was ever meant to balance things in matched play the same way Points does. The way I see Power is that it's for large-scale Apoc level games, and for narrative or open play games, as a way to roughly judge the fighting effectiveness of each player's army.
Power was never meant to be used for real "balance" but approximate guidelines for large-scale games, narrative scenarios where you want a rough idea of force size, pick up games (when you aren't worried your opponent will be a powergamer) and the like. IMO they still serve a purpose.
What I mean is, with indexes and even codexes the power ROUGHLY reflected the points. But now, every time they change the points durastically it basically makes the power profile all but useless to judge a units individual power. Im fine with power being an aprox. Or a median, but its not even REMOTELY close in some cases after CA and FAQ changes.
vaklor4 wrote: By my math, 1 power is the equivelent of 20 points. The math generally seems to check out for things like Daemon Princes or rhinos which average out pretty evenly at 8 and 4....But basically anything that got a points change seems to be effed up. Cultists at 40 models cost a power equivalent of 240 (when in points they are 160), and stuff like Guardsman have the opposite effect, getting a discount in the points to power swap because of their nerf.
It becomes the "ideal" tool for an Apocalypse level game.
When quibbling over a plasma pistol points seems silly.
Yes, a fast and dirty method of trying to get a rough balance between forces.
It is at it's absolute worst for kill-team levels of play.
I find with how prevalent army build programs are, it is not that big a deal to add up the points a bit more accurately.
The absolute "sweet-spot" is when you have a hoard of miniatures and you group them together and you do not want to accurately count all the wargear on each and every model THIS is where I see it's value which fits in the Apocalypse style of play: bring everything in your collection.
So no, it is not "useless" it just has certain conditions where it is optimal and others that it seems very inappropriate.
<edit> Ah! Very good point brought up earlier: when the FAQs come out and make a bunch of changes, some units really could use a power level adjustment. It seems by GW's omission of updates that they are not supporting this points system.
In most units, even with points changes from Codices, the formula still stands for most units.
You take the minimum points cost of a unit with basic wargear, average that of the same minimum unit with its most expensive loadout, THEN divided by 20 and round.
You cannot, however, just multiple the Power level by 20 to "guess" the points value. it doesn't work in reverse.
And as far as I know, Power levels were adjusted with points costs too. For example, Eldar Shining Spears were 7PL in the Index for 3 models. They got cheaper in the Codex and thus they are now 5PL for 3 models.
Having said that, PLs were NEVER intended to create truly balanced armies, but rather ROUGHLY balanced armies for quick pick-up games.
I use them more than points because I don't get to go to the LGS as often and play more at home with my teenage boys, who are still learning.
Everyone thinks power level is another version of points. Its not. Stop comparing it to points.
My group has switched to 100% power level. We are burned out on tournaments and are just a casual group of garage hammer players now. Our games are typically not competitive. We pull out 100 PL, play, have fun, and that's it. I can equip my models how I want them and rule of cool my whole army.
We havent had a SINGLE issue where powerlevel has come off as cheesey or overpowered.
vaklor4 wrote: By my math, 1 power is the equivelent of 20 points. The math generally seems to check out for things like Daemon Princes or rhinos which average out pretty evenly at 8 and 4....But basically anything that got a points change seems to be effed up. Cultists at 40 models cost a power equivalent of 240 (when in points they are 160), and stuff like Guardsman have the opposite effect, getting a discount in the points to power swap because of their nerf.
It becomes the "ideal" tool for an Apocalypse level game.
When quibbling over a plasma pistol points seems silly.
Yes, a fast and dirty method of trying to get a rough balance between forces.
It is at it's absolute worst for kill-team levels of play.
I find with how prevalent army build programs are, it is not that big a deal to add up the points a bit more accurately.
The absolute "sweet-spot" is when you have a hoard of miniatures and you group them together and you do not want to accurately count all the wargear on each and every model THIS is where I see it's value which fits in the Apocalypse style of play: bring everything in your collection.
So no, it is not "useless" it just has certain conditions where it is optimal and others that it seems very inappropriate.
<edit> Ah! Very good point brought up earlier: when the FAQs come out and make a bunch of changes, some units really could use a power level adjustment. It seems by GW's omission of updates that they are not supporting this points system.
Thats my main point. I understand power is supposed to be for apoc and entry level gameplay, but it seems like GW has all but abandoned it as a system of army building. And there ARE armies that take power into account with matched play. Daemon Summoning gets real weird when the power youre rolling for doesnt really reflect the points that youre reserving for summoning.
thekerrick wrote: Everyone thinks power level is another version of points. Its not. Stop comparing it to points.
You're honestly arguing a system of adding up numbers based on units strength is different and not comparable to another system of adding up numbers based on units strength?
They're points. Just bigger, and they don't care about the plasma pistol your sergeant has, but they're still fundamentally a points based system and should absolutely be compared.
I personally would rather use Power Levels as I am not super into list building and can only be bothered to create one via a program. Warhammer 40K is too unbalanced regardless, so I don't want to waste my time worrying about every last combi-bolter's points in my army. I think Power Levels work fine if you already have a bunch of models built with particular load outs (i.e. typical unit load outs most have already modeled with their figures) and remember to make squads in prescribed blocks (usually 5, 10, 15, 20, etc.).
There is a difference in balance between Power Levels and Points, but I don't think it is nearly as wide of a gap as most players believe.
vaklor4 wrote: By my math, 1 power is the equivelent of 20 points. The math generally seems to check out for things like Daemon Princes or rhinos which average out pretty evenly at 8 and 4....But basically anything that got a points change seems to be effed up. Cultists at 40 models cost a power equivelent of 240 (when in points they are 160), and stuff like Guardsman have the opposite effect, getting a discount in the points to power swap because of their nerf.
I played in a 100 power level tourney. While I could play essentially the same list as my 2000 point matched, there were only 2 differences.
Power Levels: gave me more upgrades
Point based Matched: gave me more units
In my case in the tournament the upgrades gave me about 200-300 more points, but I lost 2 units which ended up being about the same cost. Shooting quality went up, while shooting volume went down. I was surprised at how even they seem to be.
vaklor4 wrote: Daemon Summoning gets real weird when the power youre rolling for doesnt really reflect the points that youre reserving for summoning.
Indeed it would, however I suspect 99% of the units are within 1PL of their true points level. I actually stopped playing Daemons because true "all flavors" undivided lists became unfeasible, so I don't have the codex, but have you actually tried the formula using the points and PL in the Codex?
For Example: Take a minimum 10 lesser Daemon unit,
points with no upgrade = XXpts
points with all upgrades possible = YYpts
XX + YY divided by 2 (getting an average) = XY
XY divided by 20 = PL
Rounding, you should get within 1PL of the unit's actual listed PL almost every time.
That's only a variance of roughly 20 pts.
If you take a variety of units (like you are SUPPOSED to) instead of spamming specific units, this variance should always even out.
Again, PL are ideal for casual pickup games, not tournaments
thekerrick wrote: Everyone thinks power level is another version of points. Its not. Stop comparing it to points.
Of course it is another version of points. It's literally a point system where all upgrades (other than adding additional models to a unit) cost zero points. It's used in the exact same way as any other point system, it's just less accurate and therefore an inferior system. The only advantage it offers is virtue signalling about how "casual" you are because you reject balance.
thekerrick wrote: Everyone thinks power level is another version of points. Its not. Stop comparing it to points.
My group has switched to 100% power level. We are burned out on tournaments and are just a casual group of garage hammer players now. Our games are typically not competitive. We pull out 100 PL, play, have fun, and that's it. I can equip my models how I want them and rule of cool my whole army.
We havent had a SINGLE issue where powerlevel has come off as cheesey or overpowered.
When someone just wants to plop down their collection and fight, yeah, I pull out that many Power POints of my favorite units and fight.
When that one player wants to do Power Points and then proxy all the upgrades because it's insane how awesome his guys are that way, I play Points instead.
"This tank has taken all the upgrades because why not" is not a good use of Power Points.
My group never was opposed to power level, it's just that list builders made it pretty unnecessary to not simply take points. That being said, whenever I make a list with battlescribe I realize that the powerlevel is actually pretty close to the 1:20 ratio despite CA, FAQ etc.
Bharring wrote: When someone just wants to plop down their collection and fight, yeah, I pull out that many Power POints of my favorite units and fight.
When that one player wants to do Power Points and then proxy all the upgrades because it's insane how awesome his guys are that way, I play Points instead.
"This tank has taken all the upgrades because why not" is not a good use of Power Points.
How did you do this in 7th? Why is it so much harder to add up points in 8th? The only argument I see for PL is "I'm really lazy and don't want to do math to make the game fair."
thekerrick wrote: Everyone thinks power level is another version of points. Its not. Stop comparing it to points.
Of course it is another version of points. It's literally a point system where all upgrades (other than adding additional models to a unit) cost zero points. It's used in the exact same way as any other point system, it's just less accurate and therefore an inferior system. The only advantage it offers is virtue signalling about how "casual" you are because you reject balance.
I do admit 'thekerrick" took that statement to a new level of illogic.
I agree that power levels is like the GW code-word for casual play, it appears to achieve no better purpose (other than a fast and dirty "rough" balancing and to heck with what the upgrades are... we don't care right?).
Yep, the competitive vs casual play argument, uh, how many are we up to now?
I believe fluff-bunnies should be mercilessly crushed! Does that make my position clearer?
Im not knocking players who prefer power, all the power to them. Im just wishing GW would actually CARE about those players and reflect any changes made to the units in points to Power, since usually the units that get changed are for good reason. You can be casual and not care about wargear costs, but its stupid to think using a stagnent system that doesnt fix OP or underpowered units is better. A tabletop game should be balanced, not just in tournaments.
I wouldn't close the book on power levels or points. They are 2 different systems for costing armies. Sometimes units cost more under one system, sometimes they cost lest.
For Chaos Space Marines, at least, power levels mostly favor tanks / elites more than troops. As someone already pointed out, Cultists are more expensive when playing power levels. A Predator, with a complete weapon load out, costs less relative to the total number of PLs you have to spend.
On the other hand, CSMs themselves get cheaper the more troops you add. The cost of a 20 man CSM squad with 2 lascannons is cheaper under power levels than under points.
I'm not sure how much rhyme or reason there is to this or how it applies to other armies.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: All I can say to the 1:20 is that it doesn't work for my army. My latest GK list is 2000 pts but 127 PL.
The list has: GMDK, Draigo, 1 Paladin squad (of 6), Ven Dread, Interceptors (5), 5 Strike Squads (5@), Storm Talon.
Grey Knights are an example of were Power Level really, really hurts an army. Because the paid options on GK are actually worse than the free ones, and PL takes these into account.
Any Grey Knights player who says "Sure, i'll play PL" is signing up to get even more screwed than they already are.
I liked PL at the start, but some armies are just proper fethed by it.
I wish people would stop saying upgrades are "free" with Power Levels. They are, in fact, part of what makes up a unit's PL, whether those upgrades are taken or not.
For example, 5 Tac marines are PL5, but are also 65pts with no upgrades at all. Using the 1PL=20pts, 5 Tacs should only have 3PL, not 5 But since 5 Tacs CAN be upgraded to well over 100+pts, the average between no upgrades and fully upgraded, divided by 20, does actually equal 5.
Upgrades are not "free", but they are assumed to have average upgrades included in the PL. Obviously if you take full upgrades you gain an advantages....SO DONT DO THAT!
The ability to do this does indeed make PL not well suited for competitive play, because there will be TFG who does it. But that does not mean PL are "useless" it just means you need to stop thinking like, or being pressured by the "TFG mentality" and just enjoy rolling dice.
And think about super heavies. Unlike normal units, their median can swing over 100 points. Depending on the knight or baneblade you take, you could be up or down by an entire troop units worth of power/points.
PL also hurts models that have uneven numbers of units that can be transported; say Ork Trukks that can carry 12 models. Do you use the PL for a squad of 10 Boyz, and toss two in for free, or do you use the PL for a squad of 15/20 boyz, and only bring two more?
Also, PL is a joke - it's basically a worse version of points; and only serves to allow armies with a million upgrades to fully upgrade their army, at a cheaper price than normal.
PL = (Max points+Min points)/2, roughly - this means that if you're buying as many upgrades as you can on a squad/model, you're always coming out cheaper than if you took them all and payed for them with points.
As a consept power is a GREAT idea.
Some of us hate nitpicking the equipments looking thru all the wargear for every single model in order to find out the cost, and thus dont want to play regual points match.
But the flaw with powerpoint is that it is ironicly made too simple.
A unit costing 7 powerpoints is in reality worth 5-9 powerpoints all depending on upgrades, and that is the main problem with powerpoints.
500p is 500p but 25 powerpoints that equals to 500p can be worth anywhere from 480-550points as it all depends on the wep selections and upgrades.
Upgrades/equipment needs their own powerpoints value and in that prossess a new power point scale has to be created.
Aka keep the 5 power value for a SM 5 man tac unit, but add a cost of 1 power for a marine with special wep and 2 power for a marine with heavy wep. (so a 5 man unit whit only bolters would cost 5 power, but a 5 man with a las cannon would cost 7 power)
This would reflect the fact that a upgraded 5 man tac squad is more powerfull then a defualt one and thus should cost more power points to field, and it allso teaches brand new players about the tradeof about upgrading a unit vs keeping it basic.
Breng77 wrote: I mean it was never a perfect 1 to 20 ratio, because options are involved and Power level takes into account the use of some upgrades.
I mean no it wasn't but at the same time it was. Take a squad of necron warriors. a full squad of 20 at 12 points a pop is 240 points and they are PL 12. So this is the most perfect scenario because they have no wargear options.
Every game store I've gone to uses points, because when you are playing with randos making sure everything is as fair as possible is generally the best policy. With the smallest effort PL can be busted wide open, and when your playing an unknown quantity that leads to all sorts of issues.
Power level is designed to be low effort, and non-competitive, and that's just not how most games against randos are played.
Bharring wrote: If upgrades aren't "free" in PL, then lack of upgrades are a huge cost.
Same effective arguments, different terms.
The argument I am attempting to make it that when using PLs, you should take neither zero upgrades or full upgrades, but rather SOME uprades. That is what the PL system is DESIGNED to accommodate.
Choosing to take no upgrades and handicap yourself, or going balls-to-the-wall with upgrades and being TFG, is your choice, but is not within the spirit of the rules.
I should preface by saying that I prefer points in almost all situations, but I see that value in PL and have actually sued them to good effect. If you use them as intended, everything is fine. If you try to break the system, it will get broken, and the same is true for all things in 40K.
Grimgold wrote: Every game store I've gone to uses points, because when you are playing with randos making sure everything is as fair as possible is generally the best policy. With the smallest effort PL can be busted wide open, and when your playing an unknown quantity that leads to all sorts of issues.
Power level is designed to be low effort, and non-competitive, and that's just not how most games against randos are played.
I completely agree with this. You shouldn't use PLs with "randos". But that still doesn't mean PLs are useless It just means you need to use them with already established friends. If you don't have any of those (friends) I can see how someone would think PL were useless
Galef wrote: or going balls-to-the-wall with upgrades and being TFG
So making optimal strategic choices is now "being TFG"? This says a lot about the mindset behind most PL advocacy.
You shouldn't use PLs with "randos". But that still doesn't mean PLs are useless
Sure it does. The purpose of a point system is to evaluate the strength of your army and allow you to build lists. If you can't use PL with random opponents and make good strategic choices about your lists then PL is a failed system and useless. Just use the normal point system like everyone else.
thekerrick wrote: Everyone thinks power level is another version of points. Its not. Stop comparing it to points.
My group has switched to 100% power level. We are burned out on tournaments and are just a casual group of garage hammer players now. Our games are typically not competitive. We pull out 100 PL, play, have fun, and that's it. I can equip my models how I want them and rule of cool my whole army.
We havent had a SINGLE issue where powerlevel has come off as cheesey or overpowered.
Yeup same here. FLGS uses PL for team tournies, keeps the nonsense at bay for the most part. Hard core players stay away, the Power Levels mean everyone can bring their fun stuff. Fun has been had since we went that route over points.
(We still have point matched play tournies, but the store tends to mix it up so it's not COMP every month lol.)
I also agree. If your primary games are random pick up games, then PL is definitely not suited to you. For anyone that plays primarily at an FLGS that is probably generally going to be the case.
Galef wrote: or going balls-to-the-wall with upgrades and being TFG
So making optimal strategic choices is now "being TFG"? This says a lot about the mindset behind most PL advocacy.
No, I am saying that using PL for pick up games is about HAVING FUN, not strictly about "making optimal strategic choices" If you cannot understand that, I'll never be able to adequately explain it.
But again, there is nothing wrong with making the best list you can. You use points for that. I use point for that. Put if that is ALL you want to do. Don't use PLs But also don't say PLs are useless as that is only for your POV. There are enough players who find them useful, ergo, THEY ARE USEFUL.
We use PL at the store I go to, no one really questions it and it seems to work mostly fine. I've honestly not bothered to look at how my armies would cost regular points wise.
I would never use PL for a pick up game that's a bleedin stupid idea asking for arguments to break out.
As for PL assuming a median load out that's just gobbledygook, no one can tell you what the median load out is so how are people supposed to know what's right and what's being TFG?
PL is and always been worthless and I say that as a casual.
Galef wrote: No, I am saying that using PL for pick up games is about HAVING FUN, not strictly about "making optimal strategic choices"
But how is a unit equipped with fewer upgrades "more fun" than a unit with all of the upgrades? You're assuming this weird polarity between optimal choices and fun choices.
There are enough players who find them useful, ergo, THEY ARE USEFUL.
There are a lot of players who find them useful, but the primary purpose seems to be virtue signalling about how "casual" they are rather than any actual advantage to PL over conventional points.
sfshilo wrote: Yeup same here. FLGS uses PL for team tournies, keeps the nonsense at bay for the most part. Hard core players stay away, the Power Levels mean everyone can bring their fun stuff. Fun has been had since we went that route over points.
And right here is the example of what I'm talking about. PL doesn't improve balance or the quality of the game, but saying "we're using PL" keeps the more competitive players from joining the event.
hobojebus wrote: I would never use PL for a pick up game that's a bleedin stupid idea asking for arguments to break out.
As for PL assuming a median load out that's just gobbledygook, no one can tell you what the median load out is so how are people supposed to know what's right and what's being TFG?
PL is and always been worthless and I say that as a casual.
Uh..actually you totally can find the median. You use basic math to find the median of all the wargear costs.
Frankly, I really don't see other purpose for PL besides ease of use. If you want to get an ad hoc game quickly going you might want to use them, but if you have more time to prepare there really is no reason to not use the points instead.
But how is a unit equipped with fewer upgrades "more fun" than a unit with all of the upgrades? You're assuming this weird polarity between optimal choices and fun choices.
I find it amusing that you literally can't fathom people intentionally playing sub-optimal lists. Playing sub-optimal units actually increases the tactical decisions you make during the game because you don't have an answer to everything. Neither list being optimal is more fun than both being optimal because things don't die as much. There's also the fact that you can just take models as they are and not worry about their weapon costs, which is just easier and people like me would rather not be bothered to count points.
Is it easy to break? Yes. But if no one tries to break it you're good.
sfshilo wrote: Yeup same here. FLGS uses PL for team tournies, keeps the nonsense at bay for the most part. Hard core players stay away, the Power Levels mean everyone can bring their fun stuff. Fun has been had since we went that route over points.
And right here is the example of what I'm talking about. PL doesn't improve balance or the quality of the game, but saying "we're using PL" keeps the more competitive players from joining the event.
To your point, I would agree that keeping any players out of an event is bad. However, most truly competitive events do, in fact, push out the casual player who just wants to put his models on the table, roll dice and NOT have his opponent just remove his units in 2 turns. Using PLs for events to keep more "cut throat" players allows casual plays to participate in events in the first place. Otherwise they could not do so at all.
It would be ideal if the system allowed both kinds of players participate EQUALLY in an event, but that is not the world we live in. Some of us don't care if we win, we just want to play. PLs make that easier.
Another use for PLs is to create 2 armies specifically designed to face each other an insure the game goes past turn 3 If one seems more powerful than the other, you can adjust accordingly without juggling points. I do this with my small collections of Marines, CSM and now Necrons to play very small games with my son. I could certainly do this with points, but I would have to spend more time tweaking points than just swapping wargear getting straight to playing
But how is a unit equipped with fewer upgrades "more fun" than a unit with all of the upgrades? You're assuming this weird polarity between optimal choices and fun choices.
I find it amusing that you literally can't fathom people intentionally playing sub-optimal lists. Playing sub-optimal units actually increases the tactical decisions you make during the game because you don't have an answer to everything. Neither list being optimal is more fun than both being optimal because things don't die as much. There's also the fact that you can just take models as they are and not worry about their weapon costs, which is just easier and people like me would rather not be bothered to count points.
Is it easy to break? Yes. But if no one tries to break it you're good.
^^^This^^^ If you use purely optimal lists against someone who doesn't know what the optimal choices even are, the game is not fun for either player.
Dandelion hit it on the head...and it's something which amuses me to no end.
This forum has a fair share of people who are borderline foaming-at-the-mouth mad about Power Level. A game mechanic they're not, in any way shape or form, forced to use. I love this kind of rage. Makes me smile. Couple that with the fact that said people don't actually understand how/why Power Level works, and it makes it even tastier.
Look, if you have an issue with a "terrible" unfathomable swing of X number of points; don't play Power Level. No one's holding a shuriken pistol to your head and telling you to. Just shut the feth up and play your game the way you want. And I say this as someone who pretty much only plays with points. Stop complaining about gak which doesn't actually impact you.
Elbows wrote: Stop complaining about gak which doesn't actually impact you.
No thanks. Bad design is still bad design even if I can use an alternate rule, and I have no obligation to pretend otherwise just because you don't like seeing negative comments.
Galef wrote: Using PLs for events to keep more "cut throat" players allows casual plays to participate in events in the first place.
Only because of virtue signalling, not because PL is a good system.
Another use for PLs is to create 2 armies specifically designed to face each other an insure the game goes past turn 3
PL has nothing to do with this. You can create the exact same army and add up the conventional points. In fact, the conventional point system is better for this goal because it allows you to more accurately evaluate the strength of each army and spot any imbalance that will allow one side to win the game quickly.
I could certainly do this with points, but I would have to spend more time tweaking points than just swapping wargear getting straight to playing
More time by a trivial amount. If you can add up PL points you can add up conventional points.
^^^This^^^ If you use purely optimal lists against someone who doesn't know what the optimal choices even are, the game is not fun for either player.
But what does this have to do with power levels? Calling your point system "power levels" doesn't solve this problem at all. And if you can deliberately tone down your PL list to not overwhelm someone who is bad at list creation then you can do the exact same thing with conventional points.
The one thing PL has going for it, as I see it, is that you don't have to go to the back of the Codex to find them, unlike points.
But that's just Codexes being annoying rather than a problem with the points system in itself.
I guess you could also house rule PL being used as kill points, instead of just 1 per unit?
More time by a trivial amount. If you can add up PL points you can add up conventional points.
It's not that trivial, especially if not using Battlescribe. Considering how annoyingly points are now scattered across several books, I can totally understand why everyone doesn't want to bother with them. It is basically a choice between ease of use and better balance. Some people may prefer the former over the latter.
Grocery store A sells 1 to 10 apples for $10.
Grocery store B sells 1 apple for $1.
If I ask you to buy 5 apples, which is the better store to buy apples from?
Will any customer at store A not buy 10 apples?
Isn't it more balanced and fair for new apple buyers to go to store B and both buy the same number of apples for the same price?
This has nothing to do with power level vs points. I just really like talking about expensive apples.
I guess you could also house rule PL being used as kill points, instead of just 1 per unit?
I was actually thinking that earlier. Seems like a decent idea.
Indeed. This could work whether you use Pts or PLs I definitely might steal this idea for my games at home. We haven't quite worked up to the tactical finesse of using objectives.
I am desperately trying to get both my kids into 40K and the easier I can make it, the better. My oldest is too hooking on video games and can't be bothered by even looking at a rulebook. My youngest, however, may eventually want to build an army of his own (Necrons) and PLs are easier to introduce than Pts and wargear options.
PLs allow you to play the models as they are without worry if them going over the "point" limit, or being so below the point limit that you have to cram in another unit (that you might not have)
Only because of virtue signalling, not because PL is a good system.
Why is it virtue signaling? The main appeal of power level is the ease of use. For me, ease of use > granularity. I really just don't care what upgrades cost. In fact, I think most upgrades are arbitrarily overcosted already. All units have restrictions on what they can take (eg 1 special weapon) so making upgrades expensive is kind of redundant anyway. Power level just assumes you take the upgrade, which is what I want to do anyway.
Again, we all know power is less precise than points and is more abusable, but many of us really don't care. Power level is instead a Godsend for getting right to a game. It's so easy I can make up a narrative scenario right before deciding the power level to play and what units to bring. Take a bunker assault for example: I get to take an army based around sieging because that's what an actual general would do, not some TAC list that wouldn't be appropriate for the mission. And I can do all of that in a few minutes.
Galef wrote: PLs allow you to play the models as they are without worry if them going over the "point" limit, or being so below the point limit that you have to cram in another unit (that you might not have)
But it really doesn't, because you aren't adding up power levels for just one army. You're trying to make two forces come out equal. If you have models to make units with power levels of 5, 6, and 8 then you will be short in a 20 PL game. If your opponent has the models for units with PL 5, 7, and 8 then they will be at 20 PL and have an advantage. Or maybe they have 6, 7 and 8, and can't make an army without either going over the 20 PL limit or being under it by the price of a whole additional unit. The PL system actually makes it harder to make exact point totals because you can no longer change the upgrades of a unit to adjust its point cost, you're stuck with a fixed point cost for that unit no matter how you equip it. It also gives an illusion of equality that may not be correct. You might both have exactly 20 PL, but depending on how your units are equipped one side may actually be significantly stronger. You're making the numbers equal for the sake of making the numbers equal, not balancing strength.
The real solution, which you can do with conventional points, is to treat the point limit as a rough estimate rather than an absolute number. Add up the points of your models, get them roughly close, and play the game. The fact that PL makes the fact that you're 1 point over the limit invisible by hiding upgrade costs doesn't matter because you don't care if you're playing 498 points vs. 501 points in a 500 point game.
Because you're using a point system that is worse at doing the job of a point system. The only thing PL does better than conventional points is allow you to tell the world "I use PL not points, I AM CASUAL". In all other situations, if you don't care about virtue signalling, conventional points do a better job.
And you see this demonstrated in the post I quoted. They're using PL, not because it does a better job of creating a balanced and enjoyable event, but because the sign saying "WE USE PL" makes the competitive players stay home.
The main appeal of power level is the ease of use. For me, ease of use > granularity. I really just don't care what upgrades cost. In fact, I think most upgrades are arbitrarily overcosted already. All units have restrictions on what they can take (eg 1 special weapon) so making upgrades expensive is kind of redundant anyway. Power level just assumes you take the upgrade, which is what I want to do anyway.
Do you play an army with different levels of upgrades? Because there's certainly a difference between an IG veteran squad with 3x flamer + mortar and 3x plasma + lascannon. You'll certainly care about the difference between the two when you're talking about hundreds of points across an entire army.
Take a bunker assault for example: I get to take an army based around sieging because that's what an actual general would do, not some TAC list that wouldn't be appropriate for the mission. And I can do all of that in a few minutes.
You can do this with points. Except now you have the benefit of a more accurate evaluation of the strength of your army. For example, the flamers you took because flamers are fluffy in a bunker assault cost an appropriate amount of points instead of the plasma-equivalent that is assumed by PL. The conventional point system gives you much more freedom to pick units based on fluff without feeling like you're sabotaging your chances of winning or taking "too much" stuff that you didn't pay for.
Peregrine wrote: You can do this with points. Except now you have the benefit of a more accurate evaluation of the strength of your army. For example, the flamers you took because flamers are fluffy in a bunker assault cost an appropriate amount of points instead of the plasma-equivalent that is assumed by PL. The conventional point system gives you much more freedom to pick units based on fluff without feeling like you're sabotaging your chances of winning.
And indeed this was my approach at first. However the limited models I have to use (because we can't just play Eldar against each other every game) made it difficult to make those changes easily with points. I often found that taking Lascannons on a Razorback, for example, were needed when facing Eldar, because we are using 1 Faclon tank. However, against the CSM I have with no vehicles, the Lascannons were worthless and the Razorback was better off having Assault cannons. Using PLs means we can play with exactly the same models in each game, but balance the weapons used so that one army wouldn't have a clear advantage over the other.
This has made our games last MUCH longer and engaged much more interest for my son to play. I would never use PLs in a normal sized game, but they have been very valuable for small learner games. And that's the point.
Galef wrote: PLs allow you to play the models as they are without worry if them going over the "point" limit, or being so below the point limit that you have to cram in another unit (that you might not have)
But it really doesn't, because you aren't adding up power levels for just one army. You're trying to make two forces come out equal. If you have models to make units with power levels of 5, 6, and 8 then you will be short in a 20 PL game. If your opponent has the models for units with PL 5, 7, and 8 then they will be at 20 PL and have an advantage. Or maybe they have 6, 7 and 8, and can't make an army without either going over the 20 PL limit or being under it by the price of a whole additional unit. The PL system actually makes it harder to make exact point totals because you can no longer change the upgrades of a unit to adjust its point cost, you're stuck with a fixed point cost for that unit no matter how you equip it. It also gives an illusion of equality that may not be correct. You might both have exactly 20 PL, but depending on how your units are equipped one side may actually be significantly stronger. You're making the numbers equal for the sake of making the numbers equal, not balancing strength.
The real solution, which you can do with conventional points, is to treat the point limit as a rough estimate rather than an absolute number. Add up the points of your models, get them roughly close, and play the game. The fact that PL makes the fact that you're 1 point over the limit invisible by hiding upgrade costs doesn't matter because you don't care if you're playing 498 points vs. 501 points in a 500 point game.
And the book has rules for balancing descrepencies in Power Level by giving out a number of Command Points based on the difference, thus solving your issue.
Blndmage wrote: And the book has rules for balancing descrepencies in Power Level by giving out a number of Command Points based on the difference, thus solving your issue.
That rule is a joke. You get one re-roll of a single die for every full ~200 point difference between the armies. That's nowhere near balanced.
I’ve seen power levels used for three reasons that actually make sense:
1) brand new players that don’t know what’s quite going on yet. There’s actually a lot of crap to learn once you start using an index/codex in a game. For the first couple, power level is good enough, especially as collections are limited and small.
2) ridiculously large games/apoc. There’s no point in trying to pretend there is a competitive outcome to achieve here or that it’s worth trying to have a fair game; it’s just about throwing models on the table becuase you and I have way too many.
3) a way to signal that you have finally realized that GW and 40k have given you no reason to take this game seriously, and have no desire to play anyone else who does so.
dosiere wrote: I’ve seen power levels used for three reasons that actually make sense:
1) brand new players that don’t know what’s quite going on yet. There’s actually a lot of crap to learn once you start using an index/codex in a game. For the first couple, power level is good enough, especially as collections are limited and small.
2) ridiculously large games/apoc. There’s no point in trying to pretend there is a competitive outcome to achieve here or that it’s worth trying to have a fair game; it’s just about throwing models on the table becuase you and I have way too many.
3) a way to signal that you have finally realized that GW and 40k have given you no reason to take this game seriously, and have no desire to play anyone else who does so.
We've cracked the code, power level only players are just nihilists
PL are different. Not better, or worse, just different. Points aren't perfect. PL isn't perfect. Different units / factions become top dog, depending on which way the wind blows.
As Galef points out, Tac Marines in PL are 5 for 5 dudes, or 9 for 10 dudes. Why? Because 5 Dudes have 2 upgrades (15 pts each) and then 10 dudes have 3 upgrades (another 15 points) = 175/20 or approximately 9 PL. Upgrades are estimated into PL at approximately 15 pts per upgradeable model, to the best of my ability to loosely estimate.
I've never played a game using PL, no particular interest. But assuming you aren't actively gaming the system to have ALL THE UPGRADES then I bet it's a workable system. I would be in favour of a system in which less granularity in unit size was used. 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 guys. Upgrade costs could be factored into the cost of units, and make all upgrades equally appealing, or at least give them reasonable functionality for a specific goal.
Flamers are close range anti-infantry. 6 auto-hits at S4, no cover.
Plasma is what it is.
Melta is what it is.
Grav / Grenade Launchers could be the missile launchers of Specials, giving two less awesome options but the flexibility to do two jobs... I guess. Spitballing here.
If Guardsman squads were 85 points, and you could take a special weapon, heavy weapon, and a Sergeant upgrade of your choice, you'd be looking at 8.5 points per wound (instead of the current 4) and they would fulfill their "intended" purpose as multi-purpose line troops that provide fire support.
Who takes Tacticals without a Combi Sarge and either Special or Heavy? Just make a 5 man 95 points with 2 upgrades, or 10 man with 3 upgrades for 175. If you want cheaper points per body, you buy 10 man squads. If you want more specials per point, take 5 man squads. If you still want a 5-man sit'n'shoot heavy squad, take 10 and combat squad.
A 5-Man tactical with a Plasma Gun or a 5-Man tactical with a Lascannon. Both are basically the same points. Both have different uses. Both would be workable choices if they were 80 points each. They aren't that different. People aren't going to start running melta-tacs unless they have a good reason, like Vulkan, or plan to Pod in double-squads or something. At which point they're as good as Plasma / LC tacs.
This approach makes units easier to balance, and price appropriately, as you have predictable and specific load outs.
EDIT: And don't you paint us Nihilists with that brush!
GW have literally spelt out that Power is for casual play, and that it’s roughly an average of minimum loadout cost and maximum loadout cost, divided by 20. Any debate around that is utterly pointless as we know from publications and interviews. (Don’t ask why FW Power levels are what they are, as they’re all over the shop...)
Why almost a year after they gave us Power and Points people are still whining, debating and goading each other about which system is best is beyond me. They are both valid, but for different people and different games. SHOCKER, right?
If one system is right for you, use it, and stop deriding those who use the other. Some of the name-calling in this thread is quite sad. Power and Points have different aims and uses, and are appropriate for different situations.
We need less Snobhammer and more people letting people play how they want, and not judging them for it, as that is pathetic behaviour...
JohnnyHell wrote: GW have literally spelt out that Power is for casual play, and that it’s roughly an average of minimum loadout cost and maximum loadout cost, divided by 20. Any debate around that is utterly pointless as we know from publications and interviews. (Don’t ask why FW Power levels are what they are, as they’re all over the shop...)
Why almost a year after they gave us Power and Points people are still whining, debating and goading each other about which system is best is beyond me. They are both valid, but for different people and different games. SHOCKER, right?
If one system is right for you, use it, and stop deriding those who use the other. Some of the name-calling in this thread is quite sad. Power and Points have different aims and uses, and are appropriate for different situations.
We need less Snobhammer and more people letting people play how they want, and not judging them for it, as that is pathetic behaviour...
I've never played a game using PL, no particular interest. But assuming you aren't actively gaming the system to have ALL THE UPGRADES then I bet it's a workable system. I would be in favour of a system in which less granularity in unit size was used. 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 guys. Upgrade costs could be factored into the cost of units, and make all upgrades equally appealing, or at least give them reasonable functionality for a specific goal.
I have used both systems and also(shock horror for some people no doubt. They would probably die out if they were to play like this!) without points. All have been different. Closest one that were close to balance was funnily enough without any official point system Next closest games have actually been PL games funnily enough....
I actually think PL are great for some pick up games. Looking for a 100PL game implies you want to play casual lists, and are probably more open to some houserules and/or exotic scenarios.
Someone looking for a 2000pts game could be looking for a very competitive game, or a casual one. You have to spend more time trying to figure out what the other person wants out of the game, and not everyone agrees on what is casual and what is tournament worthy (many people on this forum think a not-fully optimized list, that still only contains good units and none of the crappy ones, is a casual list).
Of course you can always end up playing against a jerk who just wants to abuse the system, but you would have an equally bad time if you played the same opponent with points.
I don't mind using points all the time, mostly because I think better balance is always better, and creating army lists is dead easy with apps. But I know a couple guys who couldn't be bothered to check the point cost of each individual piece of wargear (and usually look at their model, and not their army list, to know what options they brought), and these guys are great fun to play with. I would miss on the opportunity to play with them if I was closed to PL.
To me, Power Level feels more like a way to roughly quantify the ... well, power level ... of a force once you've chosen it, rather than a target to aim for like points.
By which I mean, choose a force based on whatever criteria you like (a full Batallion, three Patrols, an Imperial Guard infantry company, a Space Marine demi-company, whatever...), then total up the PL to compare it to your opponent to find out who gets the underdog bonus, (eg the cards in the Total War deck).
I use power level because i don't enjoy poring over an army list trying to min/max my gear load outs. Power level is fast and doesn't require me to have to dickaround with an army builder. I'm also not playing competitive games where we are playiing to bring A+ lists vs each other to see who wins, we typically are playing a narrative scenario so I don't care about that level of detail that the points give.
Additionally the point system in 40k is flat out just as busted if you are looking at thiings from a balance standpoint. I don't care if points is "more balanced" if its still busted. If they fix points (something they have never done in 20+ years because iit drives sales and appeases the people that love liistbuilding) then I'd consider usiing points.
It has nothing to do with virtue signalling. I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS in a similar way before official AOS points came out because after playing games like Saga, I prefer that style of army construction. I don't like spreadsheeting.
One of the best things people can do to maximize their enjoyment of 40k is to play through the three open play missions on page 191 using power level. And then do it again for the missions where the attacker and defender have different experiences (like the ones where the attacker gets a greater power level or has a different objective).
Just take what you think is cool and don't worry about taking the strongest thing with the best upgrades. If you find one person's army is very optimized against another, just adjust the power level the next time you play. All the missions say "roughly" for the amounts, like one half to double or roughly equal or whatever, so nudge it a bit if you find you need to.
I think this will give people a much more useful foundation for 40k than just going straight to matched play with even points all the time. Then add in some of the special rules from the narrative section, maybe grab an open war card deck. Maybe try some narrative scenarios if the forces and terrain described make sense for what you have.
Chamberlain wrote: I think this will give people a much more useful foundation for 40k than just going straight to matched play with even points all the time.
Why? What is gained by playing games where the winner is determined primarily by who put more points on the table?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Or maybe others could realize there are multiple ways to play none which is superior?
Oh look, another person in need of correction. Using a point system that is deliberately less accurate than the conventional point system but otherwise functions exactly the same way is not "multiple ways to play", it's one way to play and some people stubbornly virtue signalling about how "casual" they are because they reject balance.
Play Power Lvl for casual games, Apoc Play Points for competitive games, Tournaments
I've played both and I like both
Anyone saying that one is better than the other is just being narrow-minded, if they don't like one system then that's fine but neither system is superior to the other.
To the OP, no Power Lvls are not useless now, they still fulfil the same function they did when the rules came out.
tneva82 wrote: Or maybe others could realize there are multiple ways to play none which is superior?
Oh look, another person in need of correction. Using a point system that is deliberately less accurate than the conventional point system but otherwise functions exactly the same way is not "multiple ways to play", it's one way to play and some people stubbornly virtue signalling about how "casual" they are because they reject balance.
They don't function the same way, because one is more complex than the other. Some people don't like adding/subtracting individual weapons' point costs, and constantly flip through their codex to see how much each thing costs.
Listbuilding is a part of the hobby some people don't enjoy, just like some others don't like painting, or reading about the fluff. For these people, PL are much better, as it vastly simplifies something they don't like. Of course the result is a less balanced game, but the few people I know who hate counting points don't care about balance at all, they just want to put two armies of roughly the same power against each other and roll some dice. It's not about rejecting balance, it's about not wanting to put the effort to achieve better balance. Whether the effort is worth it or not is a matter of personal preference, about what you want about the game.
And you accuse people of "virtue signaling", yet start your post stating people are in need of correction. That shows how much you're willing to actually discuss the topic.
fresus wrote: They don't function the same way, because one is more complex than the other. Some people don't like adding/subtracting individual weapons' point costs, and constantly flip through their codex to see how much each thing costs.
Of course they function the same way. You add up the point cost of your units and compare it to the maximum point total for the game, adjusting as necessary. This is not complex math we're talking about here, it's basic addition that anyone but a small child is capable of with minimal effort.
Listbuilding is a part of the hobby some people don't enjoy, just like some others don't like painting, or reading about the fluff. For these people, PL are much better, as it vastly simplifies something they don't like.
You know what's even better if you hate doing basic addition for a few minutes and don't care about balance? Just putting some models on the table without adding up points at all.
And you accuse people of "virtue signaling", yet start your post stating people are in need of correction.
What do those two things have to do with each other?
Virtue signalling with PL = using an inferior system and reducing the quality of your game as a means of telling everyone how "casual" you are.
Telling people they are in need of correction = correcting bad arguments.
tneva82 wrote: Or maybe others could realize there are multiple ways to play none which is superior?
Oh look, another person in need of correction. Using a point system that is deliberately less accurate than the conventional point system but otherwise functions exactly the same way is not "multiple ways to play", it's one way to play and some people stubbornly virtue signalling about how "casual" they are because they reject balance.
I think the fallacy here is a point system is used so it is inferred some kind of balance is being attempted.
It appears to be misleading or the other view: sloppy.
If the attempt was to have some measure of fun or themed play one would think it would focus on unit type selections (Example: 3 troop and 1 HQ) or going a bit further into standardized scenarios with some specific rules for attacker/defender... maybe even some depth in the scenario where if objective 1 is achieved by turn 2 or not, a new objective is set. They tended to get into detail like this in the past like where "Planetary Onslaught" cobbled together Planetstrike, Stronghold Assault, and City Fight. I usually make scenarios to try to get a game so that after some test runs it seems to be a 50/50% chance for either side winning, I usually try swapping armies with my friend to make sure I am not prejudiced either way. Since this kind of focus seems rather lacking it seems to lean toward what Peragrine is saying: poor design, not enough play testing and a possible lack of care in general.
Detailed points costs for any change of a model's capability is necessary for any passing attempt at balance. GW has constantly had problems wrestling with units that confer abilities to other units: how do you scale the cost for that? Only method is by limiting what units and how many of them it can affect. There are many absolutely brain hurting forms of game theory that demonstrate how you can have good game balance, a means of gauging and rating that balance and how to add or trim as needed (yes, I can point to some if you really must have the links... or just use the power of google). GW just seems to not use those tools and so power levels is really just a lazy rule of thumb which my suggestion of taking X number of given unit types would not be all that much worse. It could even be better if framed with some rules to those selections.
I should correct myself and others when talking about power levels making the add-ons "free".
It is more assumed that you automatically get the very best you can, anything less is just choosing to handicap your game in the name of "fun".
I like to use 40k as a form of grim-dark simulator to create some moment in fictional time in the fluff.
BUT I do not like those epic moments to devolve into a badly one-sided affair, that is not "properly" representing the story.
Heck, it still hurts my brain to think some 10 marines fit in a Rhino or Drop Pod... we all have our various levels of "suspension of disbelief".
I am trying to make my friend happy by playing Bolt Action with vehicles in 1:48 scale rather than 1:56.
It really depends on where you derive your fun.
I want tactics and strategy while it all looking pretty or I will go back to my cardboard board game tokens.
Talizvar wrote: I think the fallacy here is a point system is used so it is inferred some kind of balance is being attempted.
It's not a fallacy at all, it's obvious truth. If you are adding up PL it's because you want balance, otherwise you'd just put models on the table and not care about what the point total is for each side.
Talizvar wrote: I think the fallacy here is a point system is used so it is inferred some kind of balance is being attempted.
It's not a fallacy at all, it's obvious truth. If you are adding up PL it's because you want balance, otherwise you'd just put models on the table and not care about what the point total is for each side.
By the same logic, you should paint all your models to crystal brush level, because at the end of the day it's still about putting paint on the model, otherwise you should just leave them unpainted.
PL require less effort, and yield worse balance. Some people are happy with the trade-off.
Talizvar wrote: I think the fallacy here is a point system is used so it is inferred some kind of balance is being attempted.
It's not a fallacy at all, it's obvious truth. If you are adding up PL it's because you want balance, otherwise you'd just put models on the table and not care about what the point total is for each side.
By the same logic, you should paint all your models to crystal brush level, because at the end of the day it's still about putting paint on the model, otherwise you should just leave them unpainted.
PL require less effort, and yield worse balance. Some people are happy with the trade-off.
This is sounding like a longer and more in-depth version of the "Speed-Accuracy" decision making debate.
I would say since the game is not a time dependent affair (other than fitting it into our daily lives) the emphasis on fast and inaccurate means of measure or scale seems unnecessary.
Much of the effort we are trying to save is easily performed by software that is offered for free.
The painting comparison is a nice one to bring up since it is important to me.
It can seem to take forever to try to paint to a good standard, the difference can be hours or days.
Time seems to be a much more a consideration with this element of the game so it could be an unfair comparison or more like: not applicable at all.
Peregrine is correct: if I am adding up points that IS to be balance. This is looking more like how many decimal places do I choose to use pi in a calculation or from a measuring device: depends on how tight a tolerance I am allowed.
Obviously, some of us require a much higher level of accuracy than others.
fresus wrote: By the same logic, you should paint all your models to crystal brush level, because at the end of the day it's still about putting paint on the model, otherwise you should just leave them unpainted.
PL require less effort, and yield worse balance. Some people are happy with the trade-off.
That's not a relevant comparison at all. Painting to crystal brush level is extremely difficult and beyond the ability of most people. Making a list with conventional points is barely any additional work over using PL as your point system, and anyone who isn't a small child is capable of doing it.
Just to clarify my position: Using Points rather than PLs is obviously the best way to balance 2 armies between each other.
That does not mean that PLs are useless in all situations. Sometimes (like right now where I am at work and cannot access my rule books) I like to do some list building in my head. PLs are MUCH easier to memorize to just get in the units I want to use, rather than remembering every single wargear points option for several different armies.
PLs also allow me to swap out wargear options in smaller games in which a few points may exceed the limit I am trying to reach. For example, I have a very small collection of Marines that my sons can use at home. About a dozen Marines with varied weapons, a Dread, a Razorback/Rhino/Pred chasis, 3 Bikes and some Assault Marines. That's about it.
PLs gives us the option to take Lascannons on the Razorback and Meltas in the Tac squad if the enemy army is using a tank, or Assault cannons on the RB and Plasmas on the Marines if there are no vehicles or monsters. The PL will stay the same and my son has the tools he needs to make the game fun. By using Points, the Lascannon/Melta loadout would be more expensive and my OCD would have to account for that somehow, either by dropping some other upgrade or giving the enemy list something extra.
PLs are very useful ***FOR ME***. If only for convenience sake and allowing me to change a list to give my son a fair chance against an army that he is playing against (that I also built)
I agree that Points are better for almost all other purposes, but if someone, somewhere finds a use for PLs, than a blanket statement that they are useless is inaccurate and should not be stated.
I am not trying to champion PLs as this magically great system that is on any level as good as points. I am arguing the semantics of someone saying they are useless. I find them useful, ergo that statement that they are useless HAS to be wrong.
Rolsheen wrote: Peregrine could you please explain your argument that Power Level is an inferior system and reducing the quality of your game?
The goal of using a point system is balance. PL doesn't account for variations in a unit's power between different upgrade choices, so it gives a less accurate evaluation of that unit's value on the table and therefore does a worse job of balancing the game. And balance obviously matters or you wouldn't be using a point system at all. So you're using a system that is worse at doing the job you're trying to use it for, where the only advantage is that it tells other people that you are "casual".
And you can see this in the posts I've quoted previously, from people saying "we use PL as a sign to competitive players that they aren't welcome".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: Sometimes (like right now where I am at work and cannot access my rule books) I like to do some list building in my head. PLs are MUCH easier to memorize to just get in the units I want to use, rather than remembering every single wargear points option for several different armies.
But what's the point in making those mental lists, if you can't use them in a real game (because in a real game you're going to spend an extra minute or two for the full point system)? It seems like worthless theorizing, nothing more.
PLs also allow me to swap out wargear options in smaller games in which a few points may exceed the limit I am trying to reach.
This just demonstrates why PL is a bad system. You're using PL so you can pretend that your swap isn't putting you over the point limit and giving you an advantage from having an illegal list.
By using Points, the Lascannon/Melta loadout would be more expensive and my OCD would have to account for that somehow, either by dropping some other upgrade or giving the enemy list something extra.
See, there's your problem. Get rid of the obsession with having a constant point cost for your list and just make the adjustments. Or, since this is just a casual game with a child using armies that you have built just make the swap and ignore the point cost. Who cares if you're playing at 498 points vs. 501 points in a 500 point game when you're playing a game with kids who don't even know what the point totals are?
Rolsheen wrote: Peregrine could you please explain your argument that Power Level is an inferior system and reducing the quality of your game?
The goal of using a point system is balance. PL doesn't account for variations in a unit's power between different upgrade choices, so it gives a less accurate evaluation of that unit's value on the table and therefore does a worse job of balancing the game. And balance obviously matters or you wouldn't be using a point system at all. So you're using a system that is worse at doing the job you're trying to use it for, where the only advantage is that it tells other people that you are "casual".
And you can see this in the posts I've quoted previously, from people saying "we use PL as a sign to competitive players that they aren't welcome".
Thank you for explaining, I now understand why your not making any sense. You don't understand the basis of using Power Lvls over Points and are making arguments on false ideas
Congrats, a few posters have run this thread into the ground within three pages.
Debate Pro-Tip: You can't just tell someone that their point of view is Wrong. You actually have to convince them. When was the last time that you saw an angry protester with a big sign, advocating a viewpoint you disagreed with, and that person changed your mind? Never? I'm going to go with Never.
I thought about locking this thread, but I'm going to leave it open. Be more respectful, don't try to shout down other posters.
And if you can't convince someone to agree with your viewpoint, it doesn't mean that they're wrong, or you're wrong, or you're bad at convincing, or that they're not comprehending your points. Learn when to let go.
-=Edit=- I'm also unhappy I had to read the phrase "virtue signaling". Makes me think that David Attenborough and Margaret Meade raised a child who is desperate to impress them. UGH.
@Peregrine: I just, I mean, why am I so bothered by this? And why are you trying to force me to use points, when I like using PLs for this purpose?
You are suggesting that I not be bothered by playing 498pts vs 501pts. I am not. Several of the lists I am making are 1PL off. That's a 20pts difference or more. The point is that I was unit X to have Y wargear in one game, or Z wargear in another without adjusting game size at all. I also do not have the Codices for Marines, CSMs or Necrons, yet I have the Indexes and about 500pts of all 3 armies.
I do not build to a certain PL. I take the units I want/have and balance the units with the other list. PL is just way to see if I am "close". I could do this with the points I have from the Indexes, probably spending a whopping 15 extra minute, no big deal, aside from having to physically change the numbers on my typed list.
But it's likely inaccurate to the Codices anyway, so why would I? Being 1 PL difference seems closer to a 20pt+ difference. Who cares if that is accurate. There are my games and I am playing within the legal rules.
All I want from this thread is the acknowledgement that PLs are indeed a useful tool FOR SOME PEOPLE IN SOME SITUATIONS. They are in the rules, I make legal lists with them, so they are useful.
Galef wrote: And why are you trying to force me to use points, when I like using PLs for this purpose?
I'm not forcing you to do anything. Your game is your game. But if you're going to post on a public discussion forum about how PL is a good system then I'm going to respond and explain why it isn't. If PL had never been created you'd be playing the exact same games with the exact same lists and having the exact same experiences. You probably never would have even thought that there was a need for the PL system to fill. PL has added nothing to your game. At best it has accomplished the same things that the conventional point system does, and is redundant.
Both are an attempt at providing some concept of 'balance', both fail beyond some subjective view of 'good enough'. In a game with so many parameters that will affect how a game will go there is no way any static point system can balance an individual game. I can play the same person with the same armies on different boards and/or different victory conditions and have very different views on which was balanced or not. I can play the same army on the same board with the same victory conditions and have different views on balance cos the player on the other side was different.
Those who turn up for a random game and grasp that will be being playing a lot faster than those who are believe that costing at some pistol vs sword granular level somehow provides better balance. Extra granularity does not equate to accuracy of balance, simply because it is more granular, and it certainly doesn't equate to rendering less granular not good enough for large numbers of people.
To the above poster, time is an issue - I turn up I want to get playing as gaming sessions are not that long and can easily overrun, I have no interest in wasting time working out a list to the Nth degree chasing spurious accuracy. A quick agreement that it is 50/60//70/100 PL or whatever, and totting up a few quick and easy numbers is simply faster than totting up rifles, pistols, swords and the like, even more so if it becomes someone trying to fiddle the last bits to max out the points. Somehow I always manage to have good, reasonably balanced games - and have certainly never felt that the granularity of 'point' has provided anything better.
If you always arrange stuff up front, and always expect lists/armies to be ready on arrival at a session with no further discussion, or have ready access to your digital apps etc then maybe the points work for you. If time is less an issue and you like fiddling with fiddly things then go for it.
I'm sure some can show theoretical PL forces that are supposedly one sided, just as there is plenty of discussion on the same vein but using points on these forums. Somehow theory and practise don't really collide where I play.
Galef wrote: And why are you trying to force me to use points, when I like using PLs for this purpose?
I'm not forcing you to do anything. But if you're going to post on a public discussion forum about how PL is a good system then I'm going to respond and explain why it isn't.
Ah, I see that there might be a misunderstanding here. I am not making the claim that PLs are a good system. I am saying they have been useful for me. There is a difference. I definitely think using points is a far superior system.
I've also tried to explain why PLs were useful for me. I get that you disagree and would use points for the same situation. But for whatever reason that I may not even know myself, I like using PLs for my very small, often cut short due to my kids lack of attention span, games at home.
Since I have found them useful, I am trying to argue that saying they are not useful cannot be true. My failure to convince anyone on "how" they have been useful shouldn't affect the argument that they have, indeed, BEEN useful.
puree wrote: Extra granularity does not equate to accuracy of balance, simply because it is more granular
Of course it does. If weapon A costs 5 points and weapon B costs 20 points then this is more accurate than assuming that both cost zero points. The only way it doesn't equate to accuracy of balance is if you deliberately make point costs that are the opposite of what they should be.
To the above poster, time is an issue - I turn up I want to get playing as gaming sessions are not that long and can easily overrun, I have no interest in wasting time working out a list to the Nth degree chasing spurious accuracy.
Then show up with standard 1000/1500/1750/2000 point lists. I mean, if you aren't doing this already then how do you know which models to bring to the game? Do you really bring your entire collection every time, just in case you need to play a 1640 point game?
A quick agreement that it is 50/60//70/100 PL or whatever, and totting up a few quick and easy numbers is simply faster than totting up rifles, pistols, swords and the like, even more so if it becomes someone trying to fiddle the last bits to max out the points.
Not necessarily. What do you do if you're at 71 PL in a 70 PL game and the only units you have cost a minimum of 5 PL? Do you play at 66 PL, equivalent to being ~80 points down? Or do you spend a bunch of time completely re-writing your list to be 70 PL? With conventional points this is much easier to fix, you can simply drop a single plasma gun or whatever if you're 5 points over and immediately start the game.
or have ready access to your digital apps etc then maybe the points work for you.
There are people who don't, in 2018? Aren't smartphones kind of universal at this point?
I thought PL was intended for kit by kit comparison.
A box of Death Guard only has 7 models and limited weapon options. Is there any evidence this might have been the intention? Do PL balance out better if restricting builds to the contents of a single kit?
Despite anything discussed here, I still think PL serves well for Apoc level games, where you're bringing 300-500 PL armies. At that point, small differences in points are irrelevant for the most part anyway.
Chamberlain wrote: I think this will give people a much more useful foundation for 40k than just going straight to matched play with even points all the time.
Why? What is gained by playing games where the winner is determined primarily by who put more points on the table?
Maybe the winner is not determined primarily by who put more points on the table? Maybe these are scenarios with victory conditions and deployment conditions that make the mismatch in points work?
or have ready access to your digital apps etc then maybe the points work for you.
There are people who don't, in 2018? Aren't smartphones kind of universal at this point?
This is a completely separate issue that I have strong feelings about. I personally prefer an actual book. I've actually never met anyone who can scroll to the same page in a digital as fast as I can just open my book to the right page (as I mark all my books with sticky note tabs). I also want a decent sized screen to look at (so not my smart phone) and am not willing to buy a tablet just for wargaming.
That is obviously my choice, and that's the point. PLs are not useful FOR YOU, because you've made the choice that points are better in all cases. My point is that having the choice between Pts and PLs is a good thing. It allows players to use the system that fits their needs. And that is very useful.
There are clearly several groups that have posted in this thread that are really enjoying PLs. If that is not a clear statement that they are indeed useful, than nothing I can say will every be able to sway you.
dosiere wrote: I’ve seen power levels used for three reasons that actually make sense:
1) brand new players that don’t know what’s quite going on yet. There’s actually a lot of crap to learn once you start using an index/codex in a game. For the first couple, power level is good enough, especially as collections are limited and small.
2) ridiculously large games/apoc. There’s no point in trying to pretend there is a competitive outcome to achieve here or that it’s worth trying to have a fair game; it’s just about throwing models on the table becuase you and I have way too many.
3) a way to signal that you have finally realized that GW and 40k have given you no reason to take this game seriously, and have no desire to play anyone else who does so.
We've cracked the code, power level only players are just nihilists
Hmm, I was actually being serious about point 3 in particular. This game, IMO obviously, cannot be taken seriously as a very competitive experience. Ergo, why put a bunch of effort into making it so. I only use points at this time becuase everyone else does; I’d just as happily use PL if anyone actually was using it. At home I rarely even bother with either system. I’d rather play the odd ball guy wanting to use PL than the horde of tournament practicing “pick up” games.
Are points more accurate? In most cases yes, I’d say so. Does it really matter considering what game we’re talking about? I’d say in most cases no, it doesn’t.
krodarklorr wrote: Despite anything discussed here, I still think PL serves well for Apoc level games, where you're bringing 300-500 PL armies. At that point, small differences in points are irrelevant for the most part anyway.
The root of the issue is that it isn't small differences in points. My friend and I both made 2000 point lists. At 2k points, his was 136 power level, mine was 86. We then scaled them both to 100 PL and I had a 400 point advantage. Multiply that times 5. We now both have 500 points of PL. I show up to the Apoc game against him with an additional 2000 points. That's pretty significant. Since the accuracy of balance is so skewed you're better off just putting whatever models on the table and calling it a day without bothering to use a point system at all.
I think one major point of contention with power levels I have is that it creates two streams of players if their lists do not take both into account.
I suppose it IS easy enough that both are tallied in the before mentioned list building programs.
Of course it gives a more min/max mindset person two completely different streams of list and loadout.
I have been trying to keep something of an open mind of both systems but it seems to add another element of separation in a game that should be striving to be inclusive.
I still have it in the back of my mind for use in huge Apocalypse games because tallying to that level of detail for "normal" costing for all my stuff could potentially drive me mad (or more-so than I am now) even with using list build programs BUT in large amounts a point here and there adds up quick.
In the end, whatever method / rules both players agree to play to is "correct" no matter what the argument.
Balanced enough or fair enough is the part up for debate on how badly do we want to divide an already divided player base?
The entire purpose of a set of rules and a game system is to find other players to play with that already conform to.
Now I feel I need to contact the players at my FLGS and confirm what system they prefer... I suspect I will receive good natured ridicule in response.
If you are trying to min/max powergame PL fails. If you are playing a less competitive style game PL is “close enough” to like produce as good a game as points will.
The issue is that the competitive side is looking at PL as not taking upgrades into account so it can be cheesed to your advantage. Which matters if you are trying to do just that. If you and your group are say showing up with 10 man tactical squads with grav guns and multi-melta, with grav pistol, powerfist sarges. PL is probably fine and actually more likely to produce a good game because you are not optimizing so would likely lose horribly in a points game.
krodarklorr wrote: Despite anything discussed here, I still think PL serves well for Apoc level games, where you're bringing 300-500 PL armies. At that point, small differences in points are irrelevant for the most part anyway.
The root of the issue is that it isn't small differences in points. My friend and I both made 2000 point lists. At 2k points, his was 136 power level, mine was 86. We then scaled them both to 100 PL and I had a 400 point advantage. Multiply that times 5. We now both have 500 points of PL. I show up to the Apoc game against him with an additional 2000 points. That's pretty significant. Since the accuracy of balance is so skewed you're better off just putting whatever models on the table and calling it a day without bothering to use a point system at all.
If you care a lot about balance in apoc you’re doing it wrong. Apoc is and always has been a mess when balance is a question, it isn’t about winning and losing a fair match.
deviantduck wrote: That's pretty significant. Since the accuracy of balance is so skewed you're better off just putting whatever models on the table and calling it a day without bothering to use a point system at all.
That is what was originally suggested when Apocalypse was dreamed up, ah, found the controversial revisiting of that by Jervis:
https://twitter.com/corehammer/status/621233761263460352 It is a hobby that can readily be scaled from 1(fluff) to 10(competitive) and many people trying to find a way to meet in the middle.
Agreed 40k has not been designed or even marketed as a highly strategic/tactical game.
I talk to my opponent and try to work it out from there: if he does not have fun or I don't, the game is dead to us.
In a tournament however, it is rules to the max damn the torpedoes.
You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.
I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game. That's the reason why they don't bother to update PLs. They don't think that changing anything in PL will mean anything in the long run.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.
THANK YOU.
Hmm, can you give an example of a recent unit that doesn't fit the formula anymore?
I answered the Daemon Summoning issue earlier, but as I do not have the most recent points/PLs available, I could not confirm if the formula still holds. Almost every unit I've seen that has updated points has also had their PL adjusted. And the formula still holds for those units Eldar Shining Spears and Necron Heavy Destroyers, for example had a points decrease AND a PL decrease
The median Pts to PL for those units still matchs the 1:20 ratio The only wargear Daemons have are Icons and Instruments and those were included in the PL from the Index
I prefer PL, myself, but I’ve seen claims that it isn’t fair to some armies/units/blah blah blah. I’m fine playing with points, too, and at least points undergo changes over time, theoretically maximizing the likelihood that things will be somewhat balanced.
topaxygouroun i wrote: I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game. That's the reason why they don't bother to update PLs. They don't think that changing anything in PL will mean anything in the long run.
To that last point, yes and no. In the short-long term, probably not. But what if some units DURASTICALLY change? The defiler already has 11 power, making its apparent median 220, which is actually on the high end if not highest possible after the CA point drop. What if they buff the defiler again? Its going to be corner cases if this does slip by undetected, but its such a quick thing to fix that GW just doesnt care about.
Also, Galef, read the above. Defiler is pretty bad, the highest you can get now is around 210. At 11 power, 220 points is NOT the middle.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.
PL was never intended to be adjusted, it is why PL was printed on the data slates and points were not. So it isn’t laziness just when you design a ball park system not designed to be stretched to its limits (there is a reason why matched play uses points), there is not really a reason to change them. So if you are super concerned with balance and someone pushing the limits of the system, use points they are designed for that. If you and yurbuddu just want to throw models on the table and have a ball park idea that you are on the same page as far as army “size” PL is fine:
topaxygouroun i wrote: I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game.
I really don't understand how PL helps such people, it seems to me it would be worse for them. In points better weapons tend to cost more, so gluing inferior weapons on your models will at least save you some points so you can have more stuff. With PL every option costs the same, so taking anything except the most powerful weapons is just gimping yourself. Now, you of course don't need to care about your weapons being bad, but you can not care about it with points too.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.
PL was never intended to be adjusted, it is why PL was printed on the data slates and points were not. So it isn’t laziness just when you design a ball park system not designed to be stretched to its limits (there is a reason why matched play uses points), there is not really a reason to change them. So if you are super concerned with balance and someone pushing the limits of the system, use points they are designed for that. If you and yurbuddu just want to throw models on the table and have a ball park idea that you are on the same page as far as army “size” PL is fine:
But as we're seeing from the plethora of points changes that GW's been putting out, I don't think you have to be "super concerned with balance" or "pushing the limits" to use them. I think it was short-sighted of GW to put the PL on the data slates (even if I do simultaneously appreciate it for summoning purposes.) Either way, just because the PL are printed doesn't mean they shouldn't be altered (especially since they already have done some PL altering.)
vaklor4 wrote: Also, Galef, read the above. Defiler is pretty bad, the highest you can get now is around 210. At 11 power, 220 points is NOT the middle.
Clearly then the Defiler needs it's PLs lowered. In which case, your OP makes sense. It isn't a perfect system and gets worse with each new release.
Although, to that I would argue that it's not the purpose of PLs to portray accurate comparisons between units, more of a rough estimate so that units are not wildly out of proportion to others.
Arguably, since many units are considers "over costed" garbage or "under costed" over powered spam, Points are about as accurate.
Out of curiosity, what is the lowest points cost for a Defiler, and the highest points cost?
topaxygouroun i wrote: I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game.
I really don't understand how PL helps such people, it seems to me it would be worse for them. In points better weapons tend to cost more, so gluing inferior weapons on your models will at least save you some points so you can have more stuff. With PL every option costs the same, so taking anything except the most powerful weapons is just gimping yourself. Now, you of course don't need to care about your weapons being bad, but you can not care about it with points too.
The point is your opponent isn’t min maxing either, and it lets you use your figures that might not fit into a points game because you put expensive gear on them.
The point is your opponent isn’t min maxing either, and it lets you use your figures that might not fit into a points game because you put expensive gear on them.
So are you not min maxing, or are you putting expensive gear on your modes? Which is it? And if one player is doing one thing and one the another, then it probably will have undesirable effects.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.
PL was never intended to be adjusted, it is why PL was printed on the data slates and points were not. So it isn’t laziness just when you design a ball park system not designed to be stretched to its limits (there is a reason why matched play uses points), there is not really a reason to change them. So if you are super concerned with balance and someone pushing the limits of the system, use points they are designed for that. If you and yurbuddu just want to throw models on the table and have a ball park idea that you are on the same page as far as army “size” PL is fine:
But as we're seeing from the plethora of points changes that GW's been putting out, I don't think you have to be "super concerned with balance" or "pushing the limits" to use them. I think it was short-sighted of GW to put the PL on the data slates (even if I do simultaneously appreciate it for summoning purposes.) Either way, just because the PL are printed doesn't mean they shouldn't be altered (especially since they already have done some PL altering.)
You missed the entire point, the intent of GW was points will be more balanced and be changed for balance. PL will be the easy way to play and won’t be changed that way people can just own their codex and still play without multiple sources.
vaklor4 wrote: To that last point, yes and no. In the short-long term, probably not. But what if some units DURASTICALLY change? The defiler already has 11 power, making its apparent median 220, which is actually on the high end if not highest possible after the CA point drop. What if they buff the defiler again? Its going to be corner cases if this does slip by undetected, but its such a quick thing to fix that GW just doesnt care about.
Also, Galef, read the above. Defiler is pretty bad, the highest you can get now is around 210. At 11 power, 220 points is NOT the middle.
Yes, as touched on before the sidetrack of fluff vs competitive: I think that completely depends on if GW supplies the occasion PL tweak as well as points changes as FAQs come out.
They are useless now IF changes are drastic enough that it demands a PL change but does not happen.
Yes, arguments of how fine a measurement is not the point, but at some point changes will be demanded if that system is supported.
Has anyone seen any power level changes as they roll out updates?
It would be nice to point to something.
I looked quickly through the updates and do not see PL changes but also points changes have been slight at first glance.
The point is your opponent isn’t min maxing either, and it lets you use your figures that might not fit into a points game because you put expensive gear on them.
So are you not min maxing, or are you putting expensive gear on your modes? Which is it? And if one player is doing one thing and one the another, then it probably will have undesirable effects.
Min/maxing is not the same as putting expensive gear on your stuff. It is about putting the most effective gear on your models. Right now in points there are plenty of bad options that are costly. They don’t make units great, and in points are actually bad choices. This is not the case in PL. So games can be more even if people are not making great choices.
vaklor4 wrote: To that last point, yes and no. In the short-long term, probably not. But what if some units DURASTICALLY change? The defiler already has 11 power, making its apparent median 220, which is actually on the high end if not highest possible after the CA point drop. What if they buff the defiler again? Its going to be corner cases if this does slip by undetected, but its such a quick thing to fix that GW just doesnt care about.
Also, Galef, read the above. Defiler is pretty bad, the highest you can get now is around 210. At 11 power, 220 points is NOT the middle.
Yes, as touched on before the sidetrack of fluff vs competitive: I think that completely depends on if GW supplies the occasion PL tweak as well as points changes as FAQs come out.
They are useless now IF changes are drastic enough that it demands a PL change but does not happen.
Yes, arguments of how fine a measurement is not the point, but at some point changes will be demanded if that system is supported.
Has anyone seen any power level changes as they roll out updates?
It would be nice to point to something.
I looked quickly through the updates and do not see PL changes but also points changes have been slight at first glance.
As far as I know, only FAQ and CA point changes arent touched. Any codex from index points ARE reflected. The Skull Cannon sat at 7 power before to reflect its 147 point cost, then went down to 5 to reflect its 100 point cost. So yes, they DO change power to reflect point costs, but just cant be arsed to do it outside of the big books.
vaklor4 wrote: To that last point, yes and no. In the short-long term, probably not. But what if some units DURASTICALLY change? The defiler already has 11 power, making its apparent median 220, which is actually on the high end if not highest possible after the CA point drop. What if they buff the defiler again? Its going to be corner cases if this does slip by undetected, but its such a quick thing to fix that GW just doesnt care about.
Also, Galef, read the above. Defiler is pretty bad, the highest you can get now is around 210. At 11 power, 220 points is NOT the middle.
Yes, as touched on before the sidetrack of fluff vs competitive: I think that completely depends on if GW supplies the occasion PL tweak as well as points changes as FAQs come out.
They are useless now IF changes are drastic enough that it demands a PL change but does not happen.
Yes, arguments of how fine a measurement is not the point, but at some point changes will be demanded if that system is supported.
Has anyone seen any power level changes as they roll out updates?
It would be nice to point to something.
I looked quickly through the updates and do not see PL changes but also points changes have been slight at first glance.
As far as I know, only FAQ and CA point changes arent touched. Any codex from index points ARE reflected. The Skull Cannon sat at 7 power before to reflect its 147 point cost, then went down to 5 to reflect its 100 point cost.
So yes, they DO change power to reflect point costs, but just cant be arsed to do it outside of the big books.
Which is an issue with updating the rules more than it is with the PL system itself. I definitely agree there are some units that need their PLs adjusted, though
topaxygouroun i wrote: I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game.
I really don't understand how PL helps such people, it seems to me it would be worse for them. In points better weapons tend to cost more, so gluing inferior weapons on your models will at least save you some points so you can have more stuff. With PL every option costs the same, so taking anything except the most powerful weapons is just gimping yourself. Now, you of course don't need to care about your weapons being bad, but you can not care about it with points too.
This is why some people will never understand power levels as a method of making a quick and fun game.
topaxygouroun i wrote: I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game.
I really don't understand how PL helps such people, it seems to me it would be worse for them. In points better weapons tend to cost more, so gluing inferior weapons on your models will at least save you some points so you can have more stuff. With PL every option costs the same, so taking anything except the most powerful weapons is just gimping yourself. Now, you of course don't need to care about your weapons being bad, but you can not care about it with points too.
This is why some people will never understand power levels as a method of making a quick and fun game.
I perfectly well understand that you don't need optimise all the time to have fun. I don't. My unit and gear choices are mostly dictated by aesthetics. It is just that the post I quoted was nonsensical. Power levels don't help "people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game." Either you don't care that your weapons are inferior, and you can not care about it under points too, but at least usually get compensated by couple of points which you can use for other stuff (but don't have to, if you really don't care), or you do care, and then the PL system is actively hurting you.
auticus wrote: If you come at the game from an optimization / power gaming standpoint, you'd never want nor understand why people use Power Level.
I don't approach the game from an optimization/power gaming standpoint, and I still don't understand the appeal of power level.
Nor did I until I got frustrated that certain builds hurt my small at home games and were only built at such to fit a points limit. Power levels allowed the freedom to take what we have/wanted without demanding dramatic changes to squeeze into a points limit.
Essentially, once I got to the point at which I thought "screw points limit" for convenience, Power levels started making sense to me. But I still use points for "real" games.
Essentially, once I got to the "screw points limit" for convenience, Power levels started making sense to me.
How? It is just another, less granular point system. You can say "screw points limit" under points too, and agree that the point limits are just approximate and play 1274 Vs. 1340 or whatever.
auticus wrote: If you come at the game from an optimization / power gaming standpoint, you'd never want nor understand why people use Power Level.
I don't approach the game from an optimization/power gaming standpoint, and I still don't understand the appeal of power level.
Because whatever the points system used the "power" gamer will pick what is optimal.
Agree to a rule and they follow it.
I think it IS a problem if anything outside of a book/codex update does not address the PL points.
Like with anything GW, product and rules just quietly stop being mentioned or updated... there is no closure with them, so it is hard to get too set on a given system they trot-out.
The detailed points costs have been supported since the game's inception, so historically has much to support that method.
auticus wrote: If you come at the game from an optimization / power gaming standpoint, you'd never want nor understand why people use Power Level.
I don't approach the game from an optimization/power gaming standpoint, and I still don't understand the appeal of power level.
Nor did I until I got frustrated that certain builds hurt my small at home games and were only build at such to fit a points limit.
Power levels allowed the freedom to take what we have/wanted without demanding dramatic changes to squeeze into a points limit.
Essentially, once I got to the "screw points limit" for convenience, Power levels started making sense to me.
But I still use points for "real" games.
-
I mean, if you don't care about optimization, what's stopping you from simply accepting a list of points that may not be an exact 1500pts? Why wouldn't a list at 1457 be acceptable if you're not bothered by optimization?
It still seems like a completely redundant, less versatile, less accurate point system that fills a need that doesn't exist. I never once in 4 editions now I've played it someone complain that points were too hard, complicated, a time waste, or such a bother that they wished a newer, less accurate point system of smaller numbers existed.
Anyone who says power isnt the same as points in its core concept is kidding themselves. And honestly, power is less fun to me. I enjoy using points because I can do stuff like 9 Models in a rhino with an Hq as the 10th, or taking combi bolters on my chosen, where in power levels it is a giant waste of points at 7 power. If you want to low ball models for actual strategy reasons, it feels like its just punishing knowing that im REALLY fielding about 5 powers worth, not 7.
I still want the armies to be roughly equal. PLs make this seem closer than using points. It also means that changes to optimize 2 opposing armies against each other do not affect army size.
Galef wrote: I still want the armies to be roughly equal. PLs make this seem closer than using points.
But that is purely illusory!
So is assuming points costs accurately reflect a unit's or wargear's true power. We all have our own illusions that help us get through life.
One person's illusion shouldn't be better than another's.
Galef wrote: I still want the armies to be roughly equal. PLs make this seem closer than using points.
But that is purely illusory!
So is assuming points costs accurately reflect a unit's or wargear's true power. We all have our own illusions that help us get through life.
One person's illusion shouldn't be better than another's.
-
Except no one is under the illusion that points make it perfect.
Galef wrote: I still want the armies to be roughly equal. PLs make this seem closer than using points.
But that is purely illusory!
So is assuming points costs accurately reflect a unit's or wargear's true power. We all have our own illusions that help us get through life.
One person's illusion shouldn't be better than another's.
-
It's fine to think that points aren't a true balance, but I also don't think power level is a good indication of a unit's true nature either. It's the difference between woodworking and metalworking. In woodworking, you'd shrug at being a 32nd of an inch off. In metalworking, being even 5 THOUSANDTHS of an inch off is unreasonable. The difference of a 20 division is massive, and although it makes things simple, I think it makes it too simple to justify in some cases, where wargear options are vast. It doesn't matter when you only have two options for wargear, but when your Veteran unit has about a dozen to choose from of wildly different point costs, the median power conversion starts to become bewildering depending on what wargear you take.
I think power is useful for the newest of the new people, and kids. Because points are dead easy too. They're a little more annoying than they used to be, but that's probably because GW wanted to push power.
JNAProductions wrote: I think power is useful for the newest of the new people, and kids.
Right. My sons are 11 and 13, and while they are very capable of using points, and I am the one making their lists anyway, the variance of power between the armies we are using is high.
The Marines we are using, for example, are not very competitive. Tacs, a Dread and a Razorback. Ya know, "classic" units. Compare to the 4000+pts of Eldar I own, of which there are not that many "uncompetitive" choices. or the CSM options we have that include 3 Oblits and Raptors that can drop in turn 1 and delete a unit or the Necrons we have that include 10 Warriors, Scarabs and Destroyers (again all "classic" choices) that all seem tailor made to kill Marines.
PLs allow us to give the Marines the right tools for the army they are facing and still "appear" equal. If we were to do the same but with points, the Marines might actually appear to have an advantage, even though we all know they actually do not.
JNAProductions wrote: I think power is useful for the newest of the new people, and kids.
Right. My sons are 11 and 13, and while they are very capable of using points, and I am the one making their lists anyway, the variance of power between the armies we are using is high.
The Marines we are using, for example, are not very competitive. Tacs, a Dread and a Razorback. Ya know, "classic" units.
Compare to the 4000+pts of Eldar I own, of which there are not that many "uncompetitive" choices.
or the CSM options we have that include 3 Oblits and Raptors that can drop in turn 1 and delete a unit
or the Necrons we have that include 10 Warriors, Scarabs and Destroyers (again all "classic" choices) that all seem tailor made to kill Marines.
PLs allow us to give the Marines the right tools for the army they are facing and still "appear" equal.
If we were to do the same but with points, the Marines might actually appear to have an advantage, even though we all know they actually do not.
-
Would it not be better to sit down with your kids, explain that the armies aren't very well balanced, and so to make it fair, Marines get a few extra points? You know, be honest with them?
Breng77 wrote: Min/maxing is not the same as putting expensive gear on your stuff. It is about putting the most effective gear on your models. Right now in points there are plenty of bad options that are costly. They don’t make units great, and in points are actually bad choices. This is not the case in PL. So games can be more even if people are not making great choices.
Uh, no, this is not true at all. There are still bad upgrade choices, and in fact there are more bad upgrade choices with PL. In a PL game you'd be insane to pay zero points for a grenade launcher when you can pay zero points for a plasma gun. In a points game you might have an argument for the cheaper but less effective grenade launcher if you need to save points on that unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: PLs allow us to give the Marines the right tools for the army they are facing and still "appear" equal.
If we were to do the same but with points, the Marines might actually appear to have an advantage, even though we all know they actually do not.
But why does it matter that they appear equal? You're the one writing both lists, your kids don't ever add up either the PL points or the conventional points and never know how much each list has. You're essentially saying that we need PL so that you don't have to get out a pen and change the numbers in the codex every time you change lists so that you can keep lying to yourself that the point totals are the same.
To be completely honest, I don't even tell my boys we are using points or PLs. They haven't reached that level of interest in 40K yet, sadly My concern is "accidentally" creating an army that is clearly more powerful than the other (because I am accustomed to optimizing lists using points), thus making the player who plays the "inferior" army completely disinterested in 40K. Using PLs gives me a way to do this easily. And yes, I could do so with points, but I want to use PLs. I find PLs preferable to points in this 1 instance only.
Galef wrote: PLs allow us to give the Marines the right tools for the army they are facing and still "appear" equal. If we were to do the same but with points, the Marines might actually appear to have an advantage, even though we all know they actually do not.
But why does it matter that they appear equal? You're the one writing both lists, your kids don't ever add up either the PL points or the conventional points and never know how much each list has. You're essentially saying that we need PL so that you don't have to get out a pen and change the numbers in the codex every time you change lists so that you can keep lying to yourself that the point totals are the same.
No, I am not saying that "we need PLs", just that it is easier for me than points, because when I use points I am intentionally trying to optimize the list to win. Using PLs reminds me that I am trying to write lists that are fun to play against each other, rather than to just win.
Keep in mind that I can often obsess over a list for days to ensure everything I need is in it and gets as close to the points limit as possible PLs are quick and easy and I don't care to be 1PL off, because it's not intended for competitive play. I just can't throw models down without some kind of "limit" or "level" on both sides.
Uh, no, this is not true at all. There are still bad upgrade choices, and in fact there are more bad upgrade choices with PL. In a PL game you'd be insane to pay zero points for a grenade launcher when you can pay zero points for a plasma gun. In a points game you might have an argument for the cheaper but less effective grenade launcher if you need to save points on that unit.
Indeed. I'm a fluffy player who writes suboptimal lists for aesthetic and thematic reasons. I actually like giving my IG guys grenade launchers, even though it is a gakky weapon. In a points game this is kinda stupid, in a PL game it would be utterly idiotic.
I think it would be handy for pickup games in which a group is down with some degree of list tailoring. You can show up for a game with a PL "x" army, and then sub / swap upgrades to suit your opponent.
You might want flamers in a couple units if your facing hordes of duders or you might want meltaguns if you're facing lots of tanks. With PL, you don't need to rejig your whole army and recalculate points, just swap appropriate models.
Again, not my cup of tea and I've only ever used points, but it could work for some. I don't give a fart in the wind if PL is dropped by GW, but if it works for some people all the power to them.
Breng77 wrote: Min/maxing is not the same as putting expensive gear on your stuff. It is about putting the most effective gear on your models. Right now in points there are plenty of bad options that are costly. They don’t make units great, and in points are actually bad choices. This is not the case in PL. So games can be more even if people are not making great choices.
Uh, no, this is not true at all. There are still bad upgrade choices, and in fact there are more bad upgrade choices with PL. In a PL game you'd be insane to pay zero points for a grenade launcher when you can pay zero points for a plasma gun. In a points game you might have an argument for the cheaper but less effective grenade launcher if you need to save points on that unit
Again only true when you are min maxing. When you are not paying any points for a poor upgrade is a penalty. This penalty does not exist in PL. If you aren't playing points there really isn't a good argument for sub optimal upgrades because taking no upgrades is typically better. Further there are options in points that are worse can cost more than other options. Like I said if you are not min/maxing PL is fine because you don't "pay for stuff that is sub optimal. In points there are times when no upgrades is optimal, and in those cases if you glue upgrades to your models you are at a disadvantage in points.
The issue you have is your mindset always defaults to min/maxing and so for you there is never a reason that playing power level that you would not take the best upgrades. In that case it works poorly.
When I play PL, I don't hold the other person to be exactly at say 50 PL since it's usually narrative based. I'm totally fine with them being at, say, 52 PL. Since I'm so lax with PL, points would change nothing. "Oh you want to take the extra flamer even though it would put you over points? Sure go ahead." Why? Because these are super casual games with close friends.
I'm not saying PL is better than points, but for people who just want to relax and have roughly even armies it's more than sufficient. Heck, one time I literally just threw models on the table and said "looks good", so at least PL is something to go off of.
So what? I don't understand the need for the "points are right and PL is wrong" crowd to point out the obvious. Points and PL are different ways of roughly balancing forces. Both are exploitable.
An assumption is made, that because points appear more granular that they MUST be more accurate as a balancing tool than PL is. I don't expect any of the points is the only way to play folks have experimented in any kind of way to determine the holistic effect of balance between the two systems.
Consider this. One weigh scale reads in 1 kg increments, and another weighs in 20 kg increments. Which one is more accurate?
One can't determine this based on the available data. The 20 kg increment scale could register a true 2040 kg as 2000 kg. But the 1 kg increment scale could register a true 2040 kg as 2087. In that case, although the increments are smaller, you still get a less accurate weight.
Same goes for points vs PL. Anyone care to argue that the points system in 40 k, in its single digit increments, is accurate to the effectiveness on the table top? Anyone?
Nope?
Single digit increments give the illusion of increased accuracy, but really only provides increased granularity. The two are not mutually inclusive.
( Source: Installs and services scale equipment on heavy machinery for the past 12 years. )
The idea that PL is less balanced than Points is simultaneously correct and incorrect. To the extent that the Points assigned to a model and wargear item are correctly balanced, Points are more balanced. However, we all know that GW is far from being exactly correct in the point level balance between different wargear options.
* We all know any Tournament Player will tell you that Meltaguns should not cost more than Plasmaguns.
* Similarly, we all know a Flamer has no business being 4 times the points of a Stormbolter.
* And point for point, a Flyrant is much better than a winged Daemon Prince, yet the cost a very similar amount of points. Ironically, The Flyrant cost more in PL
So saying Point is better than PL is not a factual statement. It is an opinion based on the idea that GW has the points more right than the PL.
Additionally, PL does serve other functions that Points do not. While PL does encourage the idea of loading up on upgrades because they are "free" (or already accounted for), it does do other things:
* Constrains List building: PL encourages you to build your list in a particular way. Someone mentioned above that Points "allows" them to buy 9 Marines to leave a space for a character in a Rhino. PL doesn't prevent that except for the perception that you paid for up 10 Marines when you went above 5 and feel compelled to take everything you can for your entry fee. Similarly, you don't want to take 6 marines in a unit because you have to "pay" for 10.
* Allows you to play with your toys: Yes, you can play with the cool model with the less optimized weapon value because your not "overpaying" for it.
* Allows you to get straight to the action: No matter how effective list building apps may be, you will never be able to build a Points-based List as fast as a PL list.
Do these reduce the quality of your game? That's a perceptional question. If you have a fun and challenging game, you had a quality game. Doesn't matter if the Points or PL were not precisely the same. Fun is fun. Not fun is not fun.
Azreal13 wrote: But you understand PL contributes literally nothing to that scenario that wasn't already covered by points?
It contributes to the scenario because I'm a lazy piece of crap. If I'm willing to let my opponent bring 5 more PL than me for a friendly game, why would I EVER bother counting up the points? I already know the armies are not 1:1. Counting up points would be redundant and a waste of time.
greatbigtree wrote: So what? I don't understand the need for the "points are right and PL is wrong" crowd to point out the obvious. Points and PL are different ways of roughly balancing forces. Both are exploitable.
An assumption is made, that because points appear more granular that they MUST be more accurate as a balancing tool than PL is. I don't expect any of the points is the only way to play folks have experimented in any kind of way to determine the holistic effect of balance between the two systems.
Consider this. One weigh scale reads in 1 kg increments, and another weighs in 20 kg increments. Which one is more accurate?
One can't determine this based on the available data. The 20 kg increment scale could register a true 2040 kg as 2000 kg. But the 1 kg increment scale could register a true 2040 kg as 2087. In that case, although the increments are smaller, you still get a less accurate weight.
Same goes for points vs PL. Anyone care to argue that the points system in 40 k, in its single digit increments, is accurate to the effectiveness on the table top? Anyone?
Nope?
Single digit increments give the illusion of increased accuracy, but really only provides increased granularity. The two are not mutually inclusive.
( Source: Installs and services scale equipment on heavy machinery for the past 12 years. )
...It doesn't /appear/ more accurate. It literally is more accurate than power. It's a literal fact that increments of 1 are more accurate than increments of 20.
alextroy wrote: The idea that PL is less balanced than Points is simultaneously correct and incorrect. To the extent that the Points assigned to a model and wargear item are correctly balanced, Points are more balanced. However, we all know that GW is far from being exactly correct in the point level balance between different wargear options.
* We all know any Tournament Player will tell you that Meltaguns should not cost more than Plasmaguns.
* Similarly, we all know a Flamer has no business being 4 times the points of a Stormbolter.
* And point for point, a Flyrant is much better than a winged Daemon Prince, yet the cost a very similar amount of points. Ironically, The Flyrant cost more in PL
So saying Point is better than PL is not a factual statement. It is an opinion based on the idea that GW has the points more right than the PL.
Additionally, PL does serve other functions that Points do not. While PL does encourage the idea of loading up on upgrades because they are "free" (or already accounted for), it does do other things:
* Constrains List building: PL encourages you to build your list in a particular way. Someone mentioned above that Points "allows" them to buy 9 Marines to leave a space for a character in a Rhino. PL doesn't prevent that except for the perception that you paid for up 10 Marines when you went above 5 and feel compelled to take everything you can for your entry fee. Similarly, you don't want to take 6 marines in a unit because you have to "pay" for 10.
* Allows you to play with your toys: Yes, you can play with the cool model with the less optimized weapon value because your not "overpaying" for it.
* Allows you to get straight to the action: No matter how effective list building apps may be, you will never be able to build a Points-based List as fast as a PL list.
Do these reduce the quality of your game? That's a perceptional question. If you have a fun and challenging game, you had a quality game. Doesn't matter if the Points or PL were not precisely the same. Fun is fun. Not fun is not fun.
Mostly true the only thing in favor of accuracy of points is that GW is actively addressing points and have not been doing so with power level. So if both scales are off the one being adjusted will presumably be more accurate at some point. That said we don't know when this point will be, nor does it really matter is people are enjoying using PL. The argument of "I'd rather do less math" is perfectly valid. If a game is meant to be highly competitive stick to points. If not do whatever makes you happy.
My friend and I play casually and we only use PL. We only need to know roughly how the armies compare, and it's trivial to rearrange units (e.g moving IG heavy weapons teams out of infantry squads to form a heavy weapons squad). What's important is that I already had the armies modelled (from 3rd edition) - I'm not picking units then loading them up with everything to maximize what I get for the PL.
I used to be very picky about making an army exactly 1000 points or whatever.. But I feel like a weight has been lifted. I want the battles I play at home to be asymmetric, we don't need the artificiality - the "gentleman's agreement" between the two armies - of having precisely equal strengths.
I used to be very picky about making an army exactly 1000 points or whatever.. But I feel like a weight has been lifted. I want the battles I play at home to be asymmetric, we don't need the artificiality - the "gentleman's agreement" between the two armies - of having precisely equal strengths.
So no, PL isn't useless.
Are you picky about bringing an exactly 50PL list? Or is 44 okay?
Either way, you do realize you could have just...not taken 1000pts, right? This really isn't a good reason to show off that PL isn't useless because you could have done the exact thing with points.
Chamberlain wrote: Don't confuse precision with accuracy. I can make very precise predictions about the future that will be woefully inaccurate.
Ha! I think the best example given to me on this topic:
Which is more accurate, a sign saying population 10632 or 10600?
Mind you, this is dealing with a birth and death rate but still makes the point of "false precision".
I am inclined to think that power levels do not contain enough precision however.
But again, "useless now", one could argue it was not all that terribly useful to begin with.
Galef wrote: I still want the armies to be roughly equal. PLs make this seem closer than using points.
But that is purely illusory!
So are points. Anybody thinking points are anything but illusion of balance are kidding themselves.
Funnily enough my most imbalanced top-100 list is mostly(like 80%+) are points. Then some power level. Most balanced games are without any point system
...It doesn't /appear/ more accurate. It literally is more accurate than power. It's a literal fact that increments of 1 are more accurate than increments of 20.
You *literally* could not be using the term "literally" more inaccurately. Which is fun.
Accuracy is a measure of correctness. Point Accuracy is important for competitive play. If a Grunt is worth a true 11 points, and GW says 10 are worth 130 points (no upgrade options) But only worth 6 PL, the PL rating is more accurate at 120 points (difference of 10 true point value) then the points value (20 point difference to true point value).
PL is less precise. It rounds 11 points up and presumably 10 points down.
This does not make it less accurate. GW's "calibration" of their point scale is demonstrably inaccurate. It is entirely possible that PL, even with maxed out upgrades, is a more accurate assessment of a unit's true value. I have made no attempt to determine if this is true.
In diagnostics, one must eliminate possibilities to determine the correct course of action. Since I doubt that much experimentation has been done with n that e regard to determine which system has greater accuracy, holistically, then we can not logically determine which system produces more balanced lists.
Crap. Now I want to try PL to see how it works in my casual group. Inconvenient.
PS: You're in my wheelhouse when we talk about precision, accuracy, repeatability... other scale terms. That's what points and PL are, a scale to describe the value of models, units and upgrades. I will pick at the terms if they're incorrect.
Yes, if GW spends a ton of time balancing PL and then ignores all of that data when writing the conventional point costs you could have a situation where PL is more accurate. That is not realistic, especially since GW is actively adjusting point costs but not PL. In any realistic situation conventional point costs are going to be at least as well balanced as PL because playtesting information is going to be shared between the two. Any cases where PL is more accurate are going to be individual outliers, fluke events where a unit was changed at the last minute or similar.
If you want to nitpick the technical definition of "accuracy" then conventional points have greater potential for accuracy than PL, and in real-world use are almost certainly using that potential.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: * Allows you to play with your toys: Yes, you can play with the cool model with the less optimized weapon value because your not "overpaying" for it.
No. No. No. This is not how it works. Less-optimized choices still exist with PL, and you are still overpaying for bad choices. If you have a choice between paying 5 points for a squad with a flamer or 5 points for a squad with a plasma gun then you are overpaying for the flamer squad. Moving the point cost from an upgrade cost to a whole-unit cost doesn't change the fact that you are overpaying. In fact it makes it more common to overpay for things. In a PL game your point cost for the unit is fixed regardless of upgrades, so any upgrade (including declining to take an upgrade option) that is not the most powerful choice is overpaying for the unit. In a game with conventional points you at least in theory have the ability to choose between an expensive but powerful option or a weaker option that gets you a cheaper point cost.
The only way that PL lets you play the "cool model" with bad upgrade choices is the virtue signalling aspect: by declaring that you are using PL as your point system you're telling people that you're playing a "casual" game and that careful list optimization is not welcome, so playing with a less-optimized list is ok.
* Allows you to get straight to the action: No matter how effective list building apps may be, you will never be able to build a Points-based List as fast as a PL list.
This only works under the assumption that you are treating the point limit in a PL game as a rough guideline and not a hard limit, but treating the point limit in a conventional points game as a hard limit. If you have a hard point limit with PL it can actually take more time to build a list because the smallest point increment you can add or remove is an entire unit at once. This makes it much harder to get an exact combination of units that reaches the point limit without going over. If you're at 51 points out of 50 and your cheapest unit costs 7 points you're going to have to rebuild your entire list to come up with a combination of units that works out better while still covering your strategic needs. In a game with conventional points if you're at 1505 out of 1500 you can probably drop a single weapon upgrade and play the game.
...It doesn't /appear/ more accurate. It literally is more accurate than power. It's a literal fact that increments of 1 are more accurate than increments of 20.
You *literally* could not be using the term "literally" more inaccurately. Which is fun.
Accuracy is a measure of correctness. Point Accuracy is important for competitive play. If a Grunt is worth a true 11 points, and GW says 10 are worth 130 points (no upgrade options) But only worth 6 PL, the PL rating is more accurate at 120 points (difference of 10 true point value) then the points value (20 point difference to true point value).
PL is less precise. It rounds 11 points up and presumably 10 points down.
This does not make it less accurate. GW's "calibration" of their point scale is demonstrably inaccurate. It is entirely possible that PL, even with maxed out upgrades, is a more accurate assessment of a unit's true value. I have made no attempt to determine if this is true.
In diagnostics, one must eliminate possibilities to determine the correct course of action. Since I doubt that much experimentation has been done with n that e regard to determine which system has greater accuracy, holistically, then we can not logically determine which system produces more balanced lists.
Crap. Now I want to try PL to see how it works in my casual group. Inconvenient.
PS: You're in my wheelhouse when we talk about precision, accuracy, repeatability... other scale terms. That's what points and PL are, a scale to describe the value of models, units and upgrades. I will pick at the terms if they're incorrect.
First off, literally hasn't been literal forever. Authors of high regard like Charles Dickens used it figuratively, so just because people use the word literally a bit too much sometimes, it doesn't make it incorrect. ANYWAYS, back to the real topic. When talking about this, we have to remove any conceptions about being tournament or casual ready. I've done the math comparing dozens of units to eachother (because my work is boring to the point where doing math equations is more fun), and I can safely say there are units that are just strictly better, for the same point cost. With the arrival of CA and Codexes, those weaker units (for the most part) have seen price reductions to compensate for this.
Heck, Codex changes recieved Power changes as well, relative to their cost. A 147 point Skull Cannon was dropped 2 power when it got dropped to 100 points. That's a relative 40 point drop, which falls in line with the math. It's really, really easy to break this game down into raw probability math, but obviously I don't do that for normal games. Despite how much i've talked about math in Warhammer, I do bring weak units knowing they're weak, because I just love their look (An example being the awful, but so nice looking Bloodcrushers).
Either way, I prefer a smaller unit of measurement in most instances. That's just me, I know a lot of people don't care, and that's something I can live with, unlike half the other people here who prefer points and seem to think people are wrong for liking Power. Power is fine, but how GW is handling power is not. They clearly don't care enough about Power, and that was my intentions of the first post.
They started off with a relative and easy to follow math scheme. If something is worth 100, it's 5 power. Find the median of wargear if it has any, and add that on as well. If something has the option of a jetpack or wings, give the option to add a power to relatively increase the cost in line with the points cost. (Daemon Princes are a perfect example, going from 157 to 180, which falls pretty in line with 8 and 9 power, multiplied by 20.)
But after the indexes, and even MORE so after CA? That stuff went out the window fast. Every major list of points changes only vaguely saw Power fall in line, and that was if you're lucky. There's absolutely no reason that some things should cost in Power what they do. And if you want an even more hilarious breaking of the standard, read the CA changes to Forgeworld. Nearly everything in those changes are now off the Power to Points scale. It's awful. It makes using a lot of those Forgeworld models for anything outside of hyper casual or Apocalypse almost impossible if you want a balanced game in Power games.
So, unlike a LOT of posters (And shout outs to the Mod who didn't lock this thread, this is an important topic, you rock.), I don't hate Power, but I REALLY wish GW would love it more.
*EDIT* I also want to point out that although i'm using 100% Chaos units for my information, I also have open access and know the points and power of other armies too. I just know the Chaos books like the back of my hand, so it's easier to type.
To be fair, you made a claim to "literal fact" both parts of which were incorrect. Spade is a spade.
Regarding the rest, we're mostly in agreement. I haven't followed the trends in PL, as previous to about an hour ago I didn't really care about it at all. But now, upon reflection, it is /possible/ that PL is a more accurate assessment of the true value (on the whole) of units that I hadn't considered. PL may work as intended for all I know. I've never tried it. Maybe units didn't need adjusting as much on the PL scale.
I know from direct experience that Point scale is inaccurate. Regardless of adjustments there are simply too many units that don't work "right" when using that scale. Individual models may be more accurate at the point level, but units certainly aren't and 40k is fundamentally a unit vs unit game, which leaves it unbalanced.
I'm now interested in testing whether or not PL creates more balanced games. Model / unit precision is less precise, but may be more accurate when valuing an entire army.
PS: My meta does not use Forge World. Nothing against it in particular, we've just never felt the need to bring it in. So I wouldn't know anything about FW trends.
This only works under the assumption that you are treating the point limit in a PL game as a rough guideline and not a hard limit, but treating the point limit in a conventional points game as a hard limit.
The whole point of PL is to play with a soft limit. Just look at the narrative missions, some say "the attacker should take about 1/3 more PL than the defender". They also say that if a player has a lower PL, then they are the underdog and they win ties. As you can see the whole system is based on being flexible. I could very well use points, but PL does the same thing in less time. It's also a refreshing way to get out of the "I need to fit 50 more points in" mentality since you're no longer worried about minutiae.
This only works under the assumption that you are treating the point limit in a PL game as a rough guideline and not a hard limit, but treating the point limit in a conventional points game as a hard limit.
The whole point of PL is to play with a soft limit. Just look at the narrative missions, some say "the attacker should take about 1/3 more PL than the defender". They also say that if a player has a lower PL, then they are the underdog and they win ties. As you can see the whole system is based on being flexible. I could very well use points, but PL does the same thing in less time. It's also a refreshing way to get out of the "I need to fit 50 more points in" mentality since you're no longer worried about minutiae.
This only works under the assumption that you are treating the point limit in a PL game as a rough guideline and not a hard limit, but treating the point limit in a conventional points game as a hard limit.
The whole point of PL is to play with a soft limit. Just look at the narrative missions, some say "the attacker should take about 1/3 more PL than the defender". They also say that if a player has a lower PL, then they are the underdog and they win ties. As you can see the whole system is based on being flexible. I could very well use points, but PL does the same thing in less time. It's also a refreshing way to get out of the "I need to fit 50 more points in" mentality since you're no longer worried about minutiae.
You can do all of those things with points.
Exactly. You can play a game of "1500 points for the defender, 2000 points for the attacker" instead of "15 points for the defender, 20 points for the attacker". Making all upgrades cost zero points and dividing the unit costs by 20 does not enable any alternate gameplay options. It's, again, about virtue signalling and using PL as a way to demonstrate that people who want a strict point limit are not welcome.
Right, but since doing those things is about not getting into the minutia, it would make no sense to use a system about tracking every little cost. Using points to accomplish what Dandelion is talking about would be not caring about minutia by diving into minutia.
Chamberlain wrote: Right, but since doing those things is about not getting into the minutia, it would make no sense to use a system about tracking every little cost. Using points to accomplish what Dandelion is talking about would be not caring about minutia by diving into minutia.
If you're so unconcerned about the "minutia" then why use a point system at all? Just put some models on the table and if it's an attacker/defender scenario give the attacker a bigger pile of models. People say they "aren't concerned about the minutia" but then they embrace a point system where the sole purpose is tracking such things.
What if it's not the sole purpose? What if it's only the purpose you see? What if a general guideline is good enough for what other people want to do with 40k? Look at examples in the open and narrative scenarios. "this mission works especially well when the Power Level of one army is between a third higher and double that of the other"
And as well, that's a false dicotomy. That either you should care about every little points cost or not care about point systems of any kind. It's okay to be in the middle and care about a low resolution points system that fits within a range like the scenarios talk about.
Chamberlain wrote: Right, but since doing those things is about not getting into the minutia, it would make no sense to use a system about tracking every little cost. Using points to accomplish what Dandelion is talking about would be not caring about minutia by diving into minutia.
Makes no sense.
The thing is, you're still caring about the minutiae; you still have to decide, or note, the various upgrades and weapons you've decided to take or how many models in your units you've taken using power levels or points. The literal only difference is one system you spend a few extra seconds adding a few more numbers together.
You're right I can. But I don't want to. I don't need things to be exact, which (in my case) makes points redundant next to PL. Since PL requires all of 10 seconds to figure out, I'd much rather use it over points.
Like Chamberlain said, a general guideline is nice and is far superior to just throwing models on the table. (which I have also done) PL is sufficiently balanced. It's not as balanced as points (theoretically), but it works well enough. And that's good enough for me.
greatbigtree wrote: To be fair, you made a claim to "literal fact" both parts of which were incorrect. Spade is a spade.
Regarding the rest, we're mostly in agreement. I haven't followed the trends in PL, as previous to about an hour ago I didn't really care about it at all. But now, upon reflection, it is /possible/ that PL is a more accurate assessment of the true value (on the whole) of units that I hadn't considered. PL may work as intended for all I know. I've never tried it. Maybe units didn't need adjusting as much on the PL scale.
I know from direct experience that Point scale is inaccurate. Regardless of adjustments there are simply too many units that don't work "right" when using that scale. Individual models may be more accurate at the point level, but units certainly aren't and 40k is fundamentally a unit vs unit game, which leaves it unbalanced.
I'm now interested in testing whether or not PL creates more balanced games. Model / unit precision is less precise, but may be more accurate when valuing an entire army.
PS: My meta does not use Forge World. Nothing against it in particular, we've just never felt the need to bring it in. So I wouldn't know anything about FW trends.
I think some models are actually underpowered within the confines of PL. A Vindicator to me is not worth its Power Level, from the few games i've played. Additionally, Possessed and a few other units from the Chaos index i've noticed just have strictly better counterparts within the books if you only use PL, where usually Points is what makes the difference between them.
Also, there's a Forgeworld Daemon that got bumped from around 700 to 1400. With no power change. Its power cost is still the same as the other ones that hover around 700.
Chamberlain wrote: Look at examples in the open and narrative scenarios. "this mission works especially well when the Power Level of one army is between a third higher and double that of the other"
"This mission works especially well when the point total of one army is between a third higher and double that of the other".
Oh wait, that's exactly what your version is already saying. Calling your points "power" instead of "points" doesn't change the fact that you're adding up point costs to determine the strength of an army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: Since PL requires all of 10 seconds to figure out, I'd much rather use it over points.
Point cost takes the same time, at least in the situation you're describing. You're assuming WYSIWYG with upgrades (instead of taking every possible upgrade when you use your army in a PL game), and probably fixed unit composition. That makes it easy to list a fixed point cost for every unit in your collection and add them up when you play a game. Adding 5 + 6 + 11 + 3 + 14 + 25 is the same as adding 100 + 125 + 55 + 290 + 480. The only difference is that one is a more accurate evaluation than the other.
The thing is, you're still caring about the minutiae; you still have to decide, or note, the various upgrades and weapons you've decided to take or how many models in your units you've taken using power levels or points. The literal only difference is one system you spend a few extra seconds adding a few more numbers together.
I really don't note down what I take since I play WYSIWYG. I just take the squads off my shelf, add up the total and remove/add units as needed. We're talking 10 seconds of mental math.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: The only difference is that one is a more accurate evaluation than the other.
The thing is, you're still caring about the minutiae; you still have to decide, or note, the various upgrades and weapons you've decided to take or how many models in your units you've taken using power levels or points. The literal only difference is one system you spend a few extra seconds adding a few more numbers together.
I really don't note down what I take since I play WYSIWYG. I just take the squads off my shelf, add up the total and remove/add units as needed. We're talking 10 seconds of mental math.
Point cost takes the same time, at least in the situation you're describing.
Not at all. Take a guard command squad: it's 2 PL If it has a vox, flag and medic: 6*4 + 5 +5 +10= 44 pts
Right there I just spent time looking up the individual costs, and adding them up. Or I could just says its 2 PL and be done with it.
Then I have to do the same thing for every other unit.
I think it's totally possible that some units are more accurately costed using points and others using power level. Points are more precise, but that doesn't mean they more accurately represent the power of something on the table top. That would only be true if GW got the individual weapon options correctly costed.
And given that the same weapon held by different units costs the same points, I think it's unlikely that they have. If they're not taking into account the abilities of the wielder of a weapon, how likely is it that the weapon is accurately costed?
Precision for the illusion of accuracy is what points is about.
Point cost takes the same time, at least in the situation you're describing.
Not at all. Take a guard command squad: it's 2 PL If it has a vox, flag and medic: 6*4 + 5 +5 +10= 44 pts
Right there I just spent time looking up the individual costs, and adding them up. Or I could just says its 2 PL and be done with it.
Then I have to do the same thing for every other unit.
You still have to look up the PL cost of every single unit, and add up any extra PLs if your squad size is larger.
If it's the same, why should I bother with points?
To some people, it does. Not many people around my area play WYSIWYG. It's NICE to have the stuff on the model, but sometimes you can't have that.
OK, then those people can use points. I'm not saying that PL is BETTER than points. I'm just saying that for my purposes PL is sufficient to have a good game, and that it isn't "useless".
Point cost takes the same time, at least in the situation you're describing.
Not at all. Take a guard command squad: it's 2 PL If it has a vox, flag and medic: 6*4 + 5 +5 +10= 44 pts
Right there I just spent time looking up the individual costs, and adding them up. Or I could just says its 2 PL and be done with it.
Then I have to do the same thing for every other unit.
You still have to look up the PL cost of every single unit, and add up any extra PLs if your squad size is larger.
That's still a bit more simple than points i'd grant you...But I can also remember most of my codex's point costs off the time of my head, along with point costs of a bunch of other units from other armies. I may just be a math genius or have the memory of a god, or it could be that some people are just more casual than me. I play on a near weekly basis, so I've memorized all that stuff. People who play once a month or less? Forget about it, they'll be looking points up until next edition rolls around.
Also, i'm literally agreeing that power is fine, and my entire point the last few pages has been saying both is fine, but power has bene forgotten by GW. It's not my fault it got hijacked by the war of casual vs competitive gaming.
Dandelion wrote: I really don't note down what I take since I play WYSIWYG. I just take the squads off my shelf, add up the total and remove/add units as needed. We're talking 10 seconds of mental math.
Then PL offers you nothing. All of your units have a fixed price and you can add up the conventional points just as fast as you can add up the power points. The only difference is that one will be a more accurate evaluation than the other.
You say that as if it matters.
Obviously it does, otherwise you wouldn't be adding up point costs at all. You'd just put some models on the table, say "that looks about right", and start rolling dice.
This is the annoying thing about PL advocates, you make these super-narrow special cases where you care about balance precisely enough to add up one kind of points but not enough to use the more accurate points. In 7th edition you never would have thought that PL is what you need, or that the conventional point system is not handling your games well enough. But now in 8th you're starting from the assumption that PL must have a purpose and carefully crafting a scenario specifically to support PL. Instead you should be asking what design need PL fills, what situation exists where PL has a meaningful advantage, and the answer is "nowhere".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: I'm not saying that PL is BETTER than points. I'm just saying that for my purposes PL is sufficient to have a good game, and that it isn't "useless".
That's practically the definition of useless. It isn't better than points, so it is redundant. If PL was removed from the game tomorrow, completely erased from everyone's memory, nobody would notice its absence. It is 100% useless.
You still have to look up the PL cost of every single unit, and add up any extra PLs if your squad size is larger.
And with points I have to look up the cost of every single unit by finding the cost of every model, weapon and upgrade. Add them up for each unit, then add up each unit for my total. Or I could just skip step 1 and play PL. Because in the games I've played, PL is sufficiently balanced.
Dandelion wrote: I really don't note down what I take since I play WYSIWYG. I just take the squads off my shelf, add up the total and remove/add units as needed. We're talking 10 seconds of mental math.
Then PL offers you nothing. All of your units have a fixed price and you can add up the conventional points just as fast as you can add up the power points. The only difference is that one will be a more accurate evaluation than the other.
You say that as if it matters.
Obviously it does, otherwise you wouldn't be adding up point costs at all. You'd just put some models on the table, say "that looks about right", and start rolling dice.
This is the annoying thing about PL advocates, you make these super-narrow special cases where you care about balance precisely enough to add up one kind of points but not enough to use the more accurate points. In 7th edition you never would have thought that PL is what you need, or that the conventional point system is not handling your games well enough. But now in 8th you're starting from the assumption that PL must have a purpose and carefully crafting a scenario specifically to support PL. Instead you should be asking what design need PL fills, what situation exists where PL has a meaningful advantage, and the answer is "nowhere".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: I'm not saying that PL is BETTER than points. I'm just saying that for my purposes PL is sufficient to have a good game, and that it isn't "useless".
That's practically the definition of useless. It isn't better than points, so it is redundant. If PL was removed from the game tomorrow, completely erased from everyone's memory, nobody would notice its absence. It is 100% useless.
WROOOOOOOOOOOOONG!...Nah, not that wrong. My only counter arguement is that last line of text. Daemonic Summoning needs Power levels for an easy baseline to roll dice off of.
Dandelion wrote: Not at all. Take a guard command squad: it's 2 PL If it has a vox, flag and medic: 6*4 + 5 +5 +10= 44 pts
Right there I just spent time looking up the individual costs, and adding them up. Or I could just says its 2 PL and be done with it.
Then I have to do the same thing for every other unit.
Ok, so you had to add it up. Now every time you pull that unit off your shelf (since you play WYSIWYG it will always be the same) you know that it is 44 points and you add +44 to your total. You're doing the exact same thing with having it cost 2 points, except you're accounting for the fact that your version of the squad is far less effective than the 4x plasma command squad someone else might take (which would still cost the same 2 points under the PL system).
That's still a bit more simple than points i'd grant you...But I can also remember most of my codex's point costs off the time of my head, along with point costs of a bunch of other units from other armies. I may just be a math genius or have the memory of a god, or it could be that some people are just more casual than me. I play on a near weekly basis, so I've memorized all that stuff. People who play once a month or less? Forget about it, they'll be looking points up until next edition rolls around.
I have no problem memorizing a good chunk of the point costs for my army.
Also, i'm literally agreeing that power is fine, and my entire point the last few pages has been saying both is fine, but power has bene forgotten by GW. It's not my fault it got hijacked by the war of casual vs competitive gaming.
There is no war between casual vs competitive here. I'll bet most of the people in here who are 'pro-points' are still fundamentally casual players. Which is part of the issue, where players who prefer power levels seem to paint anyone else has not casual, as though power levels are the only way to be casual.
I'm simply stating its a completely redundant system that offers nothing new or special or noteworthy. It was a waste of space in the rulebook and a waste of the devs time.
Peregrine wrote: This is the annoying thing about PL advocates, you make these super-narrow special cases where you care about balance precisely enough to add up one kind of points but not enough to use the more accurate points.
It's like there's a happy medium or something.
Like all the people doing points in Age of Sigmar. It's the equivalent of 40k power level and it works fine there too.
starting from the assumption that PL must have a purpose and carefully crafting a scenario specifically to support PL. Instead you should be asking what design need PL fills, what situation exists where PL has a meaningful advantage, and the answer is "nowhere".
bs. Power level/AoS Points works in actual practice.
It's not a carefully crafted scenario at all, but the everyday experience of gamers who use these systems.
It isn't better than points, so it is redundant. If PL was removed from the game tomorrow, completely erased from everyone's memory, nobody would notice its absence.
No, I'm pretty sure some people would go "Why is it so much easier to build an army using the AoS points system than in 40k? Maybe they should make a simplified one like AoS has but for 40k."
That massive difference between the points systems in the two games would probably jump out just as starkly as when the general's handbook was first released and people clearly noticed the difference from 40k (some decrying it, others enjoying it).
Ok, so you had to add it up. Now every time you pull that unit off your shelf (since you play WYSIWYG it will always be the same) you know that it is 44 points and you add +44 to your total. You're doing the exact same thing with having it cost 2 points, except you're accounting for the fact that your version of the squad is far less effective than the 4x plasma command squad someone else might take (which would still cost the same 2 points under the PL system).
Well, less effective at what? The plasma team and the flag team have different roles. The plasma team is more killy but the flag team buffs units better. Besides, using plasma as a counterpoint to PL is misleading since it's one of the biggest problem weapons even in point games.
But that's not the question. The question is where PL works better than conventional points, what you need to prove to justify the existence of PL. Merely working in a situation where conventional points would also work is not justification. And to get the situation where PL is better you have to carefully craft very specific terms of the scenario, setting everything up specifically to support the use of PL.
No, I'm pretty sure some people would go "Why is it so much easier to build an army using the AoS points system than in 40k? Maybe they should make a simplified one like AoS has but for 40k."
Now pretend that AoS doesn't exist, because we're talking purely about 40k. If you didn't play some other game and only had 40k to look at you'd never have come up with PL as a system. The conventional point system of previous editions would have worked just fine for your goals.
(Because if we're going to talk about comparing 40k to other games, well, there are a lot of changes that need to be made.)
Dandelion wrote: Well, less effective at what? The plasma team and the flag team have different roles. The plasma team is more killy but the flag team buffs units better. Besides, using plasma as a counterpoint to PL is misleading since it's one of the biggest problem weapons even in point games.
This is IG we're talking about. The buff you take is "buy a second squad". On average, in most situations, the plasma CCS will be better than the buff unit. The flag unit might not be worthless, but it's still less powerful. And it has a higher point cost to reflect this. Making them both cost 2 points does nothing to improve the game.
But that's not the question. The question is where PL works better than conventional points, what you need to prove to justify the existence of PL.
Wow is your bias showing.
Why is it that PL is the system that needs justification?
Wouldn't it make more sense for the utility of a more precise but more time consuming approach to be what needs justifying?
I think points and PL both have their uses and that the only justification either system needs is that people enjoy using them as part of their hobby. That's all the justification you ever need for a gaming pursuit.
Now pretend that AoS doesn't exist, because we're talking purely about 40k.
Now who is constructing artificial situations to support their own position?
Chamberlain wrote: Why is it that PL is the system that needs justification?
Because the reasons for the conventional point system to exist are clear, and that system is already justified. The question now is, once you have the conventional point system, why PL should exist. And the answer is that it has no purpose, and GW should drop it.
Now who is constructing artificial situations to support their own position?
The question was "if you had never seen PL before would you have come up with the idea and felt a need for it". A response of "yes, because I saw PL already" is not an answer to that question.
But that's not the question. The question is where PL works better than conventional points, what you need to prove to justify the existence of PL.
Wow is your bias showing.
Why is it that PL is the system that needs justification?
Wouldn't it make more sense for the utility of a more precise but more time consuming approach to be what needs justifying?
And the question is not one of which is better, but of whether or not PL is useful. In terms of it's 1:20 ratio with points shifting as points are adjusted and in terms of whether or not people actually do stuff with it that works for them.
I think the 1:20 ratio thing is dead, but that PL is obviously useful as a faster, lower resolution system for setting up games. After all, it hasn't actually been established that the higher resolution of points actually works better than the PL/AoS system.
Now pretend that AoS doesn't exist, because we're talking purely about 40k.
Now who is constructing artificial situations to support their own position?
You realize people don't always have 2 minutes to make an army, right? Part of the fun my playgroup has is planning a match for a weekend, and spending a solid 4 days tailoring a list using points. It's not about tailoring to be OP, it's just tailoring to be the way they want.
Because the reasons for the conventional point system to exist are clear, and that system is already justified. The question now is, once you have the conventional point system, why PL should exist. And the answer is that it has no purpose, and GW should drop it.
How many people need to tell you about how they find PL useful before you accept it? Are you incapable of understanding that other people might like to use systems you don't like? That it might offer them something they want?
The biggest problem with your theories against power level is they are totally demolished by the real world. People are playing AoS and PL games in 40k. So you have real world evidence of people finding the approach useful.
When your theories don't line up with reality, they are bad theories.
The question was "if you had never seen PL before would you have come up with the idea and felt a need for it". A response of "yes, because I saw PL already" is not an answer to that question.
The best thing about other people's ideas is that I don't have to think them up. There are a million inventions that I never would have thought of.
This says nothing about the value of any of those inventions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vaklor4 wrote: You realize people don't always have 2 minutes to make an army, right? Part of the fun my playgroup has is planning a match for a weekend, and spending a solid 4 days tailoring a list using points. It's not about tailoring to be OP, it's just tailoring to be the way they want.
Definitely. List crafting can be an enjoyable hobby in of itself. More power to those who want to do that! It's a good thing there's a detailed points system for those who want to do that.
I don't accept Peregrine's idea of justification. I think it's totally bunk. Systems like power level and points don't need justification when it comes to hobby gaming beyond their enjoyment. If people like something and find it useful, that's enough. My questioning of the justification of points was just an attempt to shed some light on the implications of Peregrine's demands for justification. I do not in any way consider points system useless.
Because the reasons for the conventional point system to exist are clear, and that system is already justified. The question now is, once you have the conventional point system, why PL should exist. And the answer is that it has no purpose, and GW should drop it.
How many people need to tell you about how they find PL useful before you accept it? Are you incapable of understanding that other people might like to use systems you don't like? That it might offer them something they want?
The biggest problem with your theories against power level is they are totally demolished by the real world. People are playing AoS and PL games in 40k. So you have real world evidence of people finding the approach useful.
When your theories don't line up with reality, they are bad theories.
The question was "if you had never seen PL before would you have come up with the idea and felt a need for it". A response of "yes, because I saw PL already" is not an answer to that question.
The best thing about other people's ideas is that I don't have to think them up. There are a million inventions that I never would have thought of.
This says nothing about the value of any of those inventions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vaklor4 wrote: You realize people don't always have 2 minutes to make an army, right? Part of the fun my playgroup has is planning a match for a weekend, and spending a solid 4 days tailoring a list using points. It's not about tailoring to be OP, it's just tailoring to be the way they want.
Definitely. List crafting can be an enjoyable hobby in of itself. More power to those who want to do that! It's a good thing there's a detailed points system for those who want to do that.
I don't accept Peregrine's idea of justification. I think it's totally bunk. Systems like power level and points don't need justification when it comes to hobby gaming beyond their enjoyment. If people like something and find it useful, that's enough. My questioning of the justification of points was just an attempt to shed some light on the implications of Peregrine's demands for justification. I do not in any way consider points system useless.
Trust me, do you think I enjoy Peregrine's posts? But he's entitled to his opinion. All of you are. No matter how I disagree or agree, I can't prove any of you guys any less right or wrong, because that's not my goal. We don't have to fight over power or points, because the people who use power will use it, and points people will use points. Be it because they originally played AoS or 7th edition, one person isn't wrong for wanting to choose how they learned. It doesn't make them wrong, because people using points can still play casually, and people playing power don't WANT to play in tournaments, obviously.
At the end of the day, I just want GW to release some sort of power FAQ, or Power changes in the 2018 CA. Some people don't care about the power level and just use it as gospel in the codex or even index, but there is still that shred of grey in the middle that like to use power, but think it could use some tweaking.
I don't think you're wrong, I don't think Peregrine is wrong, or anyone else on this thread. I think GW is wrong.
Chamberlain wrote: How many people need to tell you about how they find PL useful before you accept it?
One, if they have a good reason for it. So far the reasons have been nothing more than "I do it because I can" and "PL is great for virtue signalling about how competitive players aren't invited".
The biggest problem with your theories against power level is they are totally demolished by the real world. People are playing AoS and PL games in 40k. So you have real world evidence of people finding the approach useful.
That doesn't demolish anything. People could be playing those games with the conventional point system and having the same, or even a better, experience. The existence of a less-accurate point system does not improve their experience.
The best thing about other people's ideas is that I don't have to think them up. There are a million inventions that I never would have thought of.
This says nothing about the value of any of those inventions.
You're missing the point here. If PL was a useful system and has all the benefits you claim then people would have noticed these situations in previous editions. You'd have people complaining about how much effort it takes to make a list, or how ridiculous it is to care about which upgrades a unit has. But nobody cared about those things until 8th happened and they needed a reason to justify the existence of PL.
Systems like power level and points don't need justification when it comes to hobby gaming beyond their enjoyment.
Sure they do. GW has to spend effort on writing and maintaining them, and that effort needs justification. And if you're going to claim that PL is a good or useful system then you need to justify your claim with more than "it's good because I use it".
Trust me, do you think I enjoy Peregrine's posts? But he's entitled to his opinion. All of you are. No matter how I disagree or agree, I can't prove any of you guys any less right or wrong, because that's not my goal. We don't have to fight over power or points, because the people who use power will use it, and points people will use points. Be it because they originally played AoS or 7th edition, one person isn't wrong for wanting to choose how they learned. It doesn't make them wrong, because people using points can still play casually, and people playing power don't WANT to play in tournaments, obviously.
I totally agree. I think advocating the scrapping of either PL or Points is a bad position to hold. I'd even like to see points with weapon costs added to Age of Sigmar so those who like that approach can have it there as well.
At the end of the day, I just want GW to release some sort of power FAQ, or Power changes in the 2018 CA. Some people don't care about the power level and just use it as gospel in the codex or even index, but there is still that shred of grey in the middle that like to use power, but think it could use some tweaking.
I don't think you're wrong, I don't think Peregrine is wrong, or anyone else on this thread. I think GW is wrong.
I see merit here. If a low resolution approach to balancing a game can be improved by occasionally revisiting the power level points on data sheets, that would be cool if they did that in CA2018.
That doesn't demolish anything. People could be playing those games with the conventional point system and having the same, or even a better, experience. The existence of a less-accurate point system does not improve their experience.
A "less accurate" point system could be better balanced if that's what the designers used to balance the game. Anyway, it made my games better so I don't know what your problem is.
You're missing the point here. If PL was a useful system and has all the benefits you claim then people would have noticed these situations in previous editions.
Not true. People could easily think that points took too long but never said anything because they assumed it was the only system available/possible.
Chamberlain wrote: How many people need to tell you about how they find PL useful before you accept it?
One, if they have a good reason for it. So far the reasons have been nothing more than "I do it because I can" and "PL is great for virtue signalling about how competitive players aren't invited".
Sorry, but your satisfaction with the reasons of others is not the ultimate standard. Whether or not GW should scrap something isn't ultimately impacted by your inability to accept the decisions and preferences of others.
That doesn't demolish anything. People could be playing those games with the conventional point system and having the same, or even a better, experience. The existence of a less-accurate point system does not improve their experience.
And when they report that it does and give you their reasons, you just dismiss them, ascribe other motivations to them like "virtue signaling."
You have to preemptively dismiss all evidence that falsifies your position in order to continue holding it.
If PL was a useful system and has all the benefits you claim then people would have noticed these situations in previous editions. You'd have people complaining about how much effort it takes to make a list, or how ridiculous it is to care about which upgrades a unit has. But nobody cared about those things until 8th happened and they needed a reason to justify the existence of PL.
This goes against everything we know about innovation. New ideas and ways of doing things don't just show up because they are universally obvious. And people want all sorts of things they could not have thought of on their own.
It says nothing about the utility of a simpler points system that most people would not have thought of it. It's hard to see the need for something before you even conceive of it.
GW has to spend effort on writing and maintaining them, and that effort needs justification.
Well, GW's sales are awesome and their return on this effort has been great. If what they are doing now is working for them, why should they scrap part of what makes 8th different and wildly more successful than previous editions?
Sorry, but the relative success of 8th vs 7th is enough of a reason for GW to keep power levels. Their awesome sales are likely the result of a combination of factors, but there's just no reason to change course here at all. Especially not to take away something people keep saying they like just because you can't accept their reasons for liking it.
Just because no one complained within earshot of you doesn't mean nobody ever complained.
GW also said that 8th edition was the game the customers asked for. If that's true, that would include Power Level. I think it's very likely that people praised the simplicity of the AoS point system and GW decided it was a good idea to listen to their customer base when it came to 8th ed 40k.
That doesn't demolish anything. People could be playing those games with the conventional point system and having the same, or even a better, experience. The existence of a less-accurate point system does not improve their experience.
A "less accurate" point system could be better balanced if that's what the designers used to balance the game. Anyway, it made my games better so I don't know what your problem is.
You're missing the point here. If PL was a useful system and has all the benefits you claim then people would have noticed these situations in previous editions.
Not true. People could easily think that points took too long but never said anything because they assumed it was the only system available/possible.
But nobody cared about those things until 8th happened and they needed a reason to justify the existence of PL.
I guess i'm nobody.
Just because no one complained within earshot of you doesn't mean nobody ever complained.
I've always disliked points and PL gave me a way to not deal with them.
If you're incapable of accepting a differing viewpoint, then this discussion is moot. I feel both sides should come to an agreement that the others choice is theirs and doesn't effect their gameplay one way or another.
If GW got rid of points how would you guys react? I would assume (given the tone of some posts)tableflipping and pouting about how their granularity is gone. The reason nobody said anything before is they didn't know that there was another option.
If you like points, fine. if you like PL, fine. neither system effects anyone who doesn't use it. I could care less about balance, the only thing I care about is having fun. If points gave me what I'd need, I'd use them. PL does, so I use them.
I just made a 75 / 1500 list for AM and SM, then I made a 93 / 1850 list for both AM and SM. I didn't load up on options I wouldn't normally take, and the lists were 1 PL of the Point target.
PL would allow me to take low value upgrades in places I normally wouldn't, in places were there's no "point" value. Like adding power axes to Infantry sergeants, or taking Voxes because I have the models but there's no "point" justification to doing so.
I normally take expensive upgrades on my Tac squads. Lascannon combi-flamer and Power Sword on my Sarge. Sallies have the reroll for the lascannon on the move, and Vulkan boosts the flamer and ccw if things get close. So the PL gave me a slight advantage, but also made taking a couple extra wounds prohibitively expensive, so I wound up taking extra units instead. It's not that different, but a little bit.
In terms of accuracy (proper definition meaning an accurate measure) both means of list creation seem equal. Roughly a 1% difference in value. While I could have exploited the system to add another 100 "points" of upgrades, they'd be things I wouldn't take because they aren't worth the points... so maybe 50 points of true value at most. Were I to actively milk the system, I might make a 3% difference in true value.
In my very limited experiment here, the SM would have more true value benefit from this, which would more accurately balance them against AM, which is an improvement in game balance. Anecdotal evidence and very limited, so weak evidence at best. Interesting to me that bough.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: There is an ignore button that people can use. Sometimes reading a person's posts aren't worth the aggravation. For example, I may have gotten myself a temporary suspension by failing to let things slide. It is counter productive to come here and get stressed out.
Let the seagulls live in their dumps, picking through the trash. The best-case scenario when you argue with a seagull is that it poops on you. It won't stop squawking, eating garbage and crapping on everything nearby. So just don't worry about them. Ignore them, and enjoy your time here.
I wonder, if we only had power levels, what would the tournament lists look like? Would they be any more outrageous than an army of flyrants, mawlocs, and spores?
Tournament play (aggressive, aiming for the top play) is not about balance. It's about squeezing every last ounce of power out of a limited pool of imbalanced choices. PL has the potential to change what is more imbalanced, but it probably is about the same.
If you think about it, people are already paying points for "good" upgrades and options. They aren't paying points for stuff that doesn't do much. Off the top of my head, Voxes from the Guard. They don't do anything worth their points. I could put a Plasma Pistol on the Sarge instead for the same points and that would be good... but most people don't do that either. So if I add a Vox for 5 points, true value MAYBE 2 points, it's not really changing the True Value of my Guard army by much of anything, but spread around on 6 units adds up to something important I would need to cut or downgrade.
Same deal, with PL I could put power fists on each of my characters that could take one. How much difference would it make? Nothing significant. Look out! I'm hitting with one Power Fist attack before I'm slaughtered! Glad I paid 12 points for that! And it might get 2 wounds of damage out. Whoopee! I spent over 60 points to put a fist on each character, just in case they charged something... which would be stupid. They'll probably be killed before they can even attack, if they're charged.
The more I look at it, the more PL is becoming attractive. I've got models from past editions that used to have useful upgrades. I do my best to WYSIWYG with my models, so I haven't been playing my Voxes, or Characters with Upgrades. With PL, I could do that and not worry that I'm screwing myself by taking cool looking models that do SFA. The Commissar with the Book and Power Fist is one of my Favourite models, but it's such a point sink he hasn't seen the table. I'd love to get him back out there. My old "Command Squad" Vox was a custom made, oversized comm unit that was on the ground beside a kneeling Vox dude. There used to be a "Master Vox" upgrade that was useful, so I built it. It became just another Vox for my command squad, but I liked putting it on the table when it was worth it's points. With PL, I miss out on the opportunity to give that duder something else, but I usually keep a couple naked dudes there to soak wounds anyhow. And it's not like the Vox is useful. :(
Pink Horror wrote: I wonder, if we only had power levels, what would the tournament lists look like? Would they be any more outrageous than an army of flyrants, mawlocs, and spores?
You would see an interesting shift: People would load up as many options as possible since taking anything less than the best is "lost" points or opportunity.
It would be a game with a large focus on accessories a form of "Monty Haul" system.
By having to pay for all options in a more detailed points system, people only get what they need and it would appear more "reasonable", except of course anything that has too good a "deal" in points would still be spammed.
BUT people who are only concerned with "casual play" will do what they always do: play whatever they have/want and win/lose according to the same whims of their opponent.
Because I found no matter what system you create, it has little or no affect on casual play other than how much they field, no change of strategy will occur.
That is why a "simpler" points system is wanted since it is looked on as a necessary evil and has little impact on that kind of play other than how much make-work they have to do.
That is why I see the next logical step is just picking a set number of unit types: it would be more in line with the desires of those who appreciate PL's.
Would I be all that far off in this line of thought?
This is why the argument with Peregrine can be so strong: he IS right that it is a terrible system for applying points to "balance" the game BUT it is one step closer for those who do not want to tally points at all and think little about a common/standardized "balance" being achieved.
Bharring wrote: When someone just wants to plop down their collection and fight, yeah, I pull out that many Power POints of my favorite units and fight.
When that one player wants to do Power Points and then proxy all the upgrades because it's insane how awesome his guys are that way, I play Points instead.
"This tank has taken all the upgrades because why not" is not a good use of Power Points.
Have an exalt! I agree with this 100% PL is fine if the intent is to have a quick game or works into the theme (dare I say narrative). It's not good for playing against TFG because he wants to abuse the system and max upgrade everything for free.
the cosmic serpent wrote: It's not good for playing against TFG because he wants to abuse the system and max upgrade everything for free.
I do have to point out that it is not "abuse".
It is allowed by the rules.
Cup half full or half empty?
You paid the points, do you choose to have the upgrades or not?
Do you regularly ask to see your opponent's list and then decide which points system you use?
greatbigtree wrote: So what? I don't understand the need for the "points are right and PL is wrong" crowd to point out the obvious. Points and PL are different ways of roughly balancing forces. Both are exploitable.
An assumption is made, that because points appear more granular that they MUST be more accurate as a balancing tool than PL is. I don't expect any of the points is the only way to play folks have experimented in any kind of way to determine the holistic effect of balance between the two systems.
Consider this. One weigh scale reads in 1 kg increments, and another weighs in 20 kg increments. Which one is more accurate?
One can't determine this based on the available data. The 20 kg increment scale could register a true 2040 kg as 2000 kg. But the 1 kg increment scale could register a true 2040 kg as 2087. In that case, although the increments are smaller, you still get a less accurate weight.
Same goes for points vs PL. Anyone care to argue that the points system in 40 k, in its single digit increments, is accurate to the effectiveness on the table top? Anyone?
Nope?
Single digit increments give the illusion of increased accuracy, but really only provides increased granularity. The two are not mutually inclusive.
( Source: Installs and services scale equipment on heavy machinery for the past 12 years. )
This is a false syllogism. In your scenario above you can only prove that the more granular system (1kg) is more inaccurate versus the less granular system (20kg) because you have a 3rd system accepted as officially accurate to measure the previous 2. In GW's game, there is no 3rd system to measure what is most 'correct'. So, the more granular system is by default more accurate. If there was a 2nd form of power level that rounding units up to the nearest 10, how would you feel then? Would you use the points system to determine if the base 20 versus base 10 system was the more accurate system? I can already see the arguments comparing the three. 40k is a model based system and so should the points system be. No one should have to pay points for something they don't have on the table, which PL forces you to do.
Chamberlain wrote: How many people need to tell you about how they find PL useful before you accept it? Are you incapable of understanding that other people might like to use systems you don't like? That it might offer them something they want?
The issue isn't whether or not there are people out there that find the non-granular system of points called PL useful, the argument is whether or not the PL points system is useless compared to a more granular points system. Which of course, it is, since it is redundant and inaccurate. If you want to base PL's usefulness on feelings and people liking it, then remember that there's a whole lot of people out there that feel the earth is flat.
As a final note, the people arguing they don't have time to come up with a points based list are currently spending their time arguing on a forum when they could be using that time to come up with points based lists. I for one am not a fan of anyone who shows up at their games store looking for a pickup game without pre-made lists. If you don't have time to grasp how many points your units are worth, why would I assume you spent any time learning any of the rules of the game. I tend to avoid these people. I usually carry a 50 and 100 PL, 1500, and 2k list with my army when I show up anywhere... but maybe I hold myself and fellow 40k'rs to too high of standards.
For a day or so the thread was bumping towards the bottom of the page. Those first people were right, people will use any excuse to soap box their opinions
deviantduck wrote: If you don't have time to grasp how many points your units are worth, why would I assume you spent any time learning any of the rules of the game. I tend to avoid these people. I usually carry a 50 and 100 PL, 1500, and 2k list with my army when I show up anywhere... but maybe I hold myself and fellow 40k'rs to too high of standards.
You are better than most: you make lists for both PL and points AND two different values of each.
I swear you actually want to play people and not limit yourself.
I do admit, I see that as a similar gauge of "work ethic" where if adding up some points is too much effort, learning the rules is a much bigger challenge in comparison.
I do not mind teaching someone new and it can be fun, the same folk that have been around a for months seems mind numbingly painful to teach even some basic points about the rules (it is the smallest it has EVER been, learn it please! ).
Not bothering to fully assemble models (nevermind paint), the surprising "discussions" of what the rules "should" be in given circumstances certainly demonstrates that there are all kinds that get into the hobby.
It sounds like we get trapped in symptoms of what we like or don't like with a system: what behavior do we want to promote?
If GW constantly updated PL values as they do point cost tweaks, would anyone who uses power levels care? I strongly suspect not.
As long as a PL value is given as new units are released, that is most likely all the support that system needs.
Is it "useless now"? Depends who you ask.
deviantduck wrote: This is a false syllogism. In your scenario above you can only prove that the more granular system (1kg) is more inaccurate versus the less granular system (20kg) because you have a 3rd system accepted as officially accurate to measure the previous 2. In GW's game, there is no 3rd system to measure what is most 'correct'. So, the more granular system is by default more accurate. If there was a 2nd form of power level that rounding units up to the nearest 10, how would you feel then? Would you use the points system to determine if the base 20 versus base 10 system was the more accurate system? I can already see the arguments comparing the three. 40k is a model based system and so should the points system be. No one should have to pay points for something they don't have on the table, which PL forces you to do.
Points being more "accurate" (actually it's "precise" since GW is still working through points) doesn't mean a game will be more balanced. In a 500 pt game I can fit a LOW such as a baneblade. If I play against someone who only has a couple anti-tank guns then the game is not balanced whether you use points or PL. There is an external social contract that is required between players before a game begins to determine if the game is fair. Points and PL give players a baseline to work off of when comparing units, but good judgement of which units will skew a game is also required. So as a guideline, PL is just as good as points but is more convenient and flexible.
As a final note, the people arguing they don't have time to come up with a points based list are currently spending their time arguing on a forum when they could be using that time to come up with points based lists. I for one am not a fan of anyone who shows up at their games store looking for a pickup game without pre-made lists. If you don't have time to grasp how many points your units are worth, why would I assume you spent any time learning any of the rules of the game. I tend to avoid these people. I usually carry a 50 and 100 PL, 1500, and 2k list with my army when I show up anywhere... but maybe I hold myself and fellow 40k'rs to too high of standards.
You're making assumptions about how people play. Not everyone goes to a club or store to play every friday. A lot of people have a couple friends that they play with at their own house. The dynamic between players is much different than at a store in the sense that pre-made lists aren't required. People just grab what they feel like playing that day and PL is just easier to add up.
deviantduck wrote: This is a false syllogism. In your scenario above you can only prove that the more granular system (1kg) is more inaccurate versus the less granular system (20kg) because you have a 3rd system accepted as officially accurate to measure the previous 2. In GW's game, there is no 3rd system to measure what is most 'correct'. So, the more granular system is by default more accurate. If there was a 2nd form of power level that rounding units up to the nearest 10, how would you feel then? Would you use the points system to determine if the base 20 versus base 10 system was the more accurate system? I can already see the arguments comparing the three. 40k is a model based system and so should the points system be. No one should have to pay points for something they don't have on the table, which PL forces you to do.
Points being more "accurate" (actually it's "precise" since GW is still working through points) doesn't mean a game will be more balanced. In a 500 pt game I can fit a LOW such as a baneblade. If I play against someone who only has a couple anti-tank guns then the game is not balanced whether you use points or PL. There is an external social contract that is required between players before a game begins to determine if the game is fair. Points and PL give players a baseline to work off of when comparing units, but good judgement of which units will skew a game is also required. So as a guideline, PL is just as good as points but is more convenient and flexible.
Except it's not. Accurate is the precise word. Accuracy refers to the closeness of a measured value to a standard or known value. In PL versus Pts, Pts are more granular and therefore more precise becoming the accurate standard to which PL is measured against. So, by definition, points are the accurate scale. Any list using the points scale is both more accurate and more precise than PL. Unless of course you make a 1300 point list for a 2000 point army. Then it would be an accurate list with poor precision.
As a final note, the people arguing they don't have time to come up with a points based list are currently spending their time arguing on a forum when they could be using that time to come up with points based lists. I for one am not a fan of anyone who shows up at their games store looking for a pickup game without pre-made lists. If you don't have time to grasp how many points your units are worth, why would I assume you spent any time learning any of the rules of the game. I tend to avoid these people. I usually carry a 50 and 100 PL, 1500, and 2k list with my army when I show up anywhere... but maybe I hold myself and fellow 40k'rs to too high of standards.
You're making assumptions about how people play. Not everyone goes to a club or store to play every Friday. A lot of people have a couple friends that they play with at their own house. The dynamic between players is much different than at a store in the sense that pre-made lists aren't required. People just grab what they feel like playing that day and PL is just easier to add up.
I get that. My and my army of Budweisers watched my two buddies play a game Saturday night. Although not deployed on the tabletop, my army suffered many casualties. I only referenced pickup games at games stores because most of the PL arguments are about the speed at which they can create a list at games stores using PL vs Points and I feel that is poppycock. This game is expensive and time consuming. Put in the extra 5 minutes worth of effort and get the most out of it. But, if you are playing in your own house, I would think that you would have even more time available to create points based lists.
Pink Horror wrote: I wonder, if we only had power levels, what would the tournament lists look like? Would they be any more outrageous than an army of flyrants, mawlocs, and spores?
Well, the Flyrant/Mawloc/Spore build comes out about the same, but you could trade the Mawlocs roughly 1:1 with 30 bug devourer Termagant squads, so there is that....
More importantly, tournament players are going to optimize, because its a tournament.
Pink Horror wrote: I wonder, if we only had power levels, what would the tournament lists look like? Would they be any more outrageous than an army of flyrants, mawlocs, and spores?
Well, the Flyrant/Mawloc/Spore build comes out about the same, but you could trade the Mawlocs roughly 1:1 with 30 bug devourer Termagant squads, so there is that....
More importantly, tournament players are going to optimize, because its a tournament.
But to that I would add that when you stop using points and start using PLs, "optimized" becomes less about what options are the most cost effective and more about what weapons are just better tools for what you want to do. Certain choices actually become viable that were not under the points system, and variety is always a good thing. Make of that what you will.
It seems like a lot of people in this thread treat 40k mostly as listbuilding exercise with actual gaming a distant second.
Why not compare lists instead, no need for miniatures or setting up games. 40k is about well painted miniatures on a nice table creating an entertaining game, not who can make the best use of the last 5 points.
jhnbrg wrote: Why not compare lists instead, no need for miniatures or setting up games. 40k is about well painted miniatures on a nice table creating an entertaining game, not who can make the best use of the last 5 points.
7th ed actually got to the point that we were basically doing that before everyone in my group decided they were done with it. We realized that we pretty accurately knew how the game was going to turn out before we started.
I can think of more than a couple times we'd pull our stuff out, look at each other's lists, the obvious winner asking the obvious loser if that's something he'd want to spend 3+ hours doing.
Then instead we'd usually just walk down to the local bar to have drinks and talk about how awesome we remembered 5th edition being.
Except it's not. Accurate is the precise word. Accuracy refers to the closeness of a measured value to a standard or known value. In PL versus Pts, Pts are more granular and therefore more precise becoming the accurate standard to which PL is measured against. So, by definition, points are the accurate scale. Any list using the points scale is both more accurate and more precise than PL. Unless of course you make a 1300 point list for a 2000 point army. Then it would be an accurate list with poor precision.
Considering that the point values of models and weapons do not always reflect their in game value, I would say that there is a difference. Right now you're comparing points to points and power to points. Of course points will be closer to points and thus more "accurate". But if you want to take a look at the overall balance of the game the difference is minor. Like I said, playing a game requires both players to accept that the match-up as fair. Points and Power help guide this decision but it is only the first part in determining if a particular game is balanced. 500 pts of tanks vs 500 pts of bolter marines is not balanced.
I get that. My and my army of Budweisers watched my two buddies play a game Saturday night. Although not deployed on the tabletop, my army suffered many casualties. I only referenced pickup games at games stores because most of the PL arguments are about the speed at which they can create a list at games stores using PL vs Points and I feel that is poppycock. This game is expensive and time consuming. Put in the extra 5 minutes worth of effort and get the most out of it. But, if you are playing in your own house, I would think that you would have even more time available to create points based lists.
It depends on the person's schedule. I have more free time than my buddy so whenever he comes over we try to get a quick game in. PL helps immensely with that.
Dandelion wrote: Considering that the point values of models and weapons do not always reflect their in game value, I would say that there is a difference.
That may be true on a few scattered items as the meta shifts, but that's a balance issue and not point system debate. Overall, the points reflect the weapons value because that's the only thing to reflect their value. The meta might shift around costs/usefullness of items, but the points are their value. It's like saying Gold isn't worth it's current Dollar value. It is because that's what it's current dollar value is. The argument isn't if gold is worth it's dollar amount, the argument is do you want to pay $10 dollars for $10 worth of gold or round it up to $20 for the sake of speed and laziness.
Dandelion wrote: Considering that the point values of models and weapons do not always reflect their in game value, I would say that there is a difference.
That may be true on a few scattered items as the meta shifts, but that's a balance issue and not point system debate. Overall, the points reflect the weapons value because that's the only thing to reflect their value. The meta might shift around costs/usefullness of items, but the points are their value. It's like saying Gold isn't worth it's current Dollar value. It is because that's what it's current dollar value is. The argument isn't if gold is worth it's dollar amount, the argument is do you want to pay $10 dollars for $10 worth of gold or round it up to $20 for the sake of speed and laziness.
Points are a way to quantify the value of weapons, models etc... The actual in game value of something depends on how useful it is. PL also measures this value, but in a less rigorous method. It's a trade off. Do you think the convenience of PL justifies the lack of precision? Well, that depends on who you are and what you want. There's nothing wrong with having a secondary point system that is optional. If someone likes it they use it, if not who cares? It's not like I'm suggesting PL>points, just that under certain circumstances PL is preferable.
In physics, all measurements are rounded to the nearest significant figure because the "exact" number you got isn't the true value of whatever you were measuring, and anything close to it is close enough. I think the same applies to an extent in points. Sure you have an exact point figure, but does that properly measure the exact effectiveness of the list? No, because it's not just about raw independent values. There's the synergies between units also at play as well as what your opponent brings. So points aren't 100% accurate and PL is a close enough approximation (for certain people).
No one wants to do power level when find out what 15 dc with infernus pistols and power weapons are like. And vanguard with all hammers and stormshields.
Martel732 wrote: No one wants to do power level when find out what 15 dc with infernus pistols and power weapons are like. And vanguard with all hammers and stormshields.
Not...entirely? Deathwatch armies can spend 2PL for an 80-90pt model, but you're still stuck with T4/3+ single-Wound models costing effectively 40pts. It still doesn't really work.
deviantduck wrote: In GW's game, there is no 3rd system to measure what is most 'correct'. So, the more granular system is by default more accurate.
Not at all! The default is "we don't know which is more accurate." Without the 3rd system to check things, you can't know if points are more accurate.
Also, the analogous third thing would be actual balance in the game. If you check two scales by using a third system of actual objects with real mass that you know, then the analogue here would be some sort of objective measure of balance in a game.
Until you have that, you don't actually know which is more accurate. The precision of the granular points systems is something people easily conflate with accuracy though.
the argument is whether or not the PL points system is useless compared to a more granular points system.
So this is instantly falsified by a single person saying they find using PL easier. That is a use they find for PL compared to the more granular system. I'm one such individual. As are others in this very thread. Therefore, PL is not useless compared to a more granular system.
If you want to base PL's usefulness on feelings and people liking it, then remember that there's a whole lot of people out there that feel the earth is flat.
All that's left is insulting those that disagree with you? Comparing them to flat earthers?
Perhaps consider the possibility that people who find PL easier to use are honestly reporting their experiences?
As a final note, the people arguing they don't have time to come up with a points based list are currently spending their time arguing on a forum when they could be using that time to come up with points based lists.
So then you admit that PL has a use compared to the more granular points sytem? That people use it to save time so they can have fun on an Internet discussion board?
Points are a way to quantify the value of weapons, models etc... The actual in game value of something depends on how useful it is. PL also measures this value, but in a less rigorous method. It's a trade off. Do you think the convenience of PL justifies the lack of precision? Well, that depends on who you are and what you want. There's nothing wrong with having a secondary point system that is optional. If someone likes it they use it, if not who cares? It's not like I'm suggesting PL>points, just that under certain circumstances PL is preferable.
In physics, all measurements are rounded to the nearest significant figure because the "exact" number you got isn't the true value of whatever you were measuring, and anything close to it is close enough. I think the same applies to an extent in points. Sure you have an exact point figure, but does that properly measure the exact effectiveness of the list? No, because it's not just about raw independent values. There's the synergies between units also at play as well as what your opponent brings. So points aren't 100% accurate and PL is a close enough approximation (for certain people).
The problem with the secondary PL point system, as peregrine has tirelessly stated, is that it's redundant. It also drives the wedge between casual and competitive communities deeper forcing them even farther apart which is bad for the game and bad for all its players. Before the dumpster fire of 8th, the argument was about internal codex balance, external codex balance, and army composition derived from said balance. Now before we have the army composition discussion we have to decide which point system to even create that army composition from. I've played both and it is crazy how lopsided games can be in the PL point system.
You can keep buying everything using $20 bills when you get no change. I'm going to use $1 bills. Just don't complain when you're broke.
deviantduck wrote: In GW's game, there is no 3rd system to measure what is most 'correct'. So, the more granular system is by default more accurate.
Not at all! The default is "we don't know which is more accurate." Without the 3rd system to check things, you can't know if points are more accurate.
Also, the analogous third thing would be actual balance in the game. If you check two scales by using a third system of actual objects with real mass that you know, then the analogue here would be some sort of objective measure of balance in a game.
Until you have that, you don't actually know which is more accurate. The precision of the granular points systems is something people easily conflate with accuracy though.
The default is points because that's what's been used for 30 years through 8 editions. PL was suddenly shoe-horned in as a fast, friendly and less accurate way of creating a roster. They created a redundant point system. Balance would be the closest thing to a 3rd party that could exist, but that's a really intangible, subjective yard stick. Points is the scale because GW invented it and said this is the scale. They invented the space men, they wrote the rules, they created the points. We're just opinions. They are the fact. They said this little blue space man is 13 points. Done. You can say 'well, maybe he's really 12, or maybe he's 14', to argue about balance, but you'd be wrong. He's 13. They told us that. Or... you can use power level and go, 'Eh, let's just call it 20 cause addition is hard.' (the public you, not you in particular.)
the argument is whether or not the PL points system is useless compared to a more granular points system.
So this is instantly falsified by a single person saying they find using PL easier. That is a use they find for PL compared to the more granular system. I'm one such individual. As are others in this very thread. Therefore, PL is not useless compared to a more granular system.
99% useless? If PL had never existed we'd never miss it.
If you want to base PL's usefulness on feelings and people liking it, then remember that there's a whole lot of people out there that feel the earth is flat.
All that's left is insulting those that disagree with you? Comparing them to flat earthers? Perhaps consider the possibility that people who find PL easier to use are honestly reporting their experiences?
I was insinuating flat earthers are the end result when people rely on feelings instead of facts.
As a final note, the people arguing they don't have time to come up with a points based list are currently spending their time arguing on a forum when they could be using that time to come up with points based lists.
So then you admit that PL has a use compared to the more granular points sytem? That people use it to save time so they can have fun on an Internet discussion board?
PL is the crutch the human race limps on into the dismal future of the Wall-E situation. PL is the beginning of the end times.
Points costs can go up or down. Power Levels stay the same. This should demonstrate that the two don't equate, so one can't make the other useless/useful. Most of the issues people have seem to come from starting with one system as a basis and showing how the other doesn't match it. They don't match because they aren't meant to.
I love Power Levels. Weapons and upgrades aren't free, they just aren't factored in when calculating a unit's value, and in that system, they don't need to be. I pick my units and give them whatever I feel will be effective or look cool. The trooper grabs his weapon on the way out of the ship, he's not buying it with the company bank account, using whatever is left after Barry shelled out for the Lascannon
With a good scenario, terrain and opponent, you can't go wrong and even asymmetric games can be a lot of fun. If you prefer to focus on efficiency and the intricacies at the list-building stage, have to face randoms or people that min-max, or like to yourself, or worry about losing/gaining an unfair advantage etc. there's a different system called points you might be more comfortable with. That's not virtue-signalling either, everyone plays for their own reasons.
I don't find PL useless because the points change. The points system has no bearing on power levels or my use for them.
deviantduck wrote: The default is points because that's what's been used for 30 years through 8 editions.
Kang: "The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again. Tomorrow, when you are sealed in the voting cubicle, vote
for me, Senator Ka... Bob Dole."
You'd think after 3 decades of points systems failing in 40k people wouldn't believe in those so fervently.
They're just a tool for setting up games. They're not perfect and there seems to be no real advantage to making them more and more detailed.
Is there really any difference in the balance of tournament 40k vs tournament Sigmar?
Can any system to balance games really survive the concerted effort to break them? To use the very system to set up balanced games to seek out imbalanced lists in order to win?
Comparing Points to a measurement of Mass is a fair comparison, because we're seeking balance of armies. If I put a mass of 2000 kg on one side of a balance, and a mass of 2000 kg on the other side, it doesn't matter if there are 2000x 1 kg masses on one side, and 100x 20 kg masses on the other. Both sides have 2000 kg.
Both systems can generate balanced games, hypothetically.
The comparison to $1 vs $20 is demonstrably false. By paying in $20 increments I may get a better deal ($109 value for $100) or I may get a worse deal ($99 value for $100) but by the time we get to $2000 we would be out by no more than 1%, or $20. If you think GW's point system is more accurate than 1%, you may not be fairly assessing the situation.
This discussion is using incorrect definitions for specific terms, and is reaching incorrect conclusions by using "common vernacular" in place of specifically defined terms. See y'all in a couple days with a more technical thread.
It also drives the wedge between casual and competitive communities deeper forcing them even farther apart which is bad for the game and bad for all its players.
I really don't see this at all. How does using a different point system drive a wedge between communities? I'm sure those competitive players really wish they could play against narrative gamers, but OH NO! that stupid PL got in the way again! If anything it probably reduces chaffing between the groups since casual players won't be getting curbstomped by competitive players on a regular basis.
Before the dumpster fire of 8th, the argument was about internal codex balance, external codex balance, and army composition derived from said balance. Now before we have the army composition discussion we have to decide which point system to even create that army composition from. I've played both and it is crazy how lopsided games can be in the PL point system.
It's still about unit balance and composition even in PL. The game plays a little different but it's never been lopsided for me.
The default is points because that's what's been used for 30 years through 8 editions. PL was suddenly shoe-horned in as a fast, friendly and less accurate way of creating a roster. They created a redundant point system. Balance would be the closest thing to a 3rd party that could exist, but that's a really intangible, subjective yard stick. Points is the scale because GW invented it and said this is the scale. They invented the space men, they wrote the rules, they created the points. We're just opinions. They are the fact. They said this little blue space man is 13 points. Done. You can say 'well, maybe he's really 12, or maybe he's 14', to argue about balance, but you'd be wrong. He's 13. They told us that. Or... you can use power level and go, 'Eh, let's just call it 20 cause addition is hard.' (the public you, not you in particular.)
Ergo, points are arbitrary and don't necessarily reflect balance. Just like PL.
deviantduck wrote: 99% useless? If PL had never existed we'd never miss it.
Define "we". Also, PL only needs 1 use to be useful. It's faster than points, therefore it's useful. QED
I was insinuating flat earthers are the end result when people rely on feelings instead of facts.
Ahem:
They invented the space men, they wrote the rules, they created the points. We're just opinions. They are the fact.
Said company also made PL. I guess PL values are a true reflection of army strength.
Anyway, PL is basically just a gauge for how big a battle you want. It does it's job well enough if you understand what it's for. Arguing that it's useless is really pointless. It has a use. You don't use it. I use it. End of story.
deviantduck wrote: The problem with the secondary PL point system, as peregrine has tirelessly stated, is that it's redundant.
If one group of players likes one system and another likes a different system, is one really redundant? Seems like they are having a use. Giving people the option they want to choose.
Make record sales and then the next announcement after that is that they are still growing more than expected?
Are you sure 8th is an actual dumpster fire and not just not meshing with you personally? I think 8th might be what a ton of people have been looking for from a 40k edition for a long time.
The default is points because that's what's been used for 30 years through 8 editions.
Given that data sheets have power level and points are found tucked in the back in an appendix, isn't it more reasonable to say that power level is the default and points are the add on?
Points is the scale because GW invented it and said this is the scale.
If GW saying it makes it so, then I guess Power Level is the new scale. It's the one right on the data sheets and not tucked in the back.
Personally, I'd like both 40k and Age of Sigmar to both have both systems of points and power level as different people like them for different reasons.
They invented the space men, they wrote the rules, they created the points. We're just opinions. They are the fact.
And power levels are right on the data sheets. "They are the fact" as you say.
But actually an argument from authority isn't something you should rely on.
greatbigtree wrote: Comparing Points to a measurement of Mass is a fair comparison, because we're seeking balance of armies. If I put a mass of 2000 kg on one side of a balance, and a mass of 2000 kg on the other side, it doesn't matter if there are 2000x 1 kg masses on one side, and 100x 20 kg masses on the other. Both sides have 2000 kg.
Mass is the 3rd party that is considered accurate already, so you're comparing both systems to a 3rd party. We don't have this luxury in our game. We have to compare the systems to each other which leaves PL with the short end of the stick.
greatbigtree wrote: Both systems can generate balanced games, hypothetically.
5 SoB Dominions with bolters = 60 pts or 5 PL.
5 SoB Dominions with 4 Meltas, 1 Combi-Melta, and 1 Inferno Pistol = 156 pts, or 5 PL.
It doesn't look like we're both going to end up balanced. In fact, we end up with 3120 pts vs 2000 pts.
This is an extreme example but it suggests PL has way more room for unbalanced games, whether intentional or not.
greatbigtree wrote: If you think GW's point system is more accurate than 1%, you may not be fairly assessing the situation.
The 1% was referring to the only argument anyone has said that wasn't feelings based is that PL has simpler addition that lets you calculate the totals faster. So it's 99% useless instead of 100%.
greatbigtree wrote: Both systems can generate balanced games, hypothetically.
5 SoB Dominions with bolters = 60 pts or 5 PL.
5 SoB Dominions with 4 Meltas, 1 Combi-Melta, and 1 Inferno Pistol = 156 pts, or 5 PL.
It doesn't look like we're both going to end up balanced. In fact, we end up with 3120 pts vs 2000 pts.
This is an extreme example but it suggests PL has way more room for unbalanced games, whether intentional or not.
That's because you're using points as a metric for balance. No matter what you do points will always be the most comparable to...points. It's like saying yards are more accurate than meters because 1 meter is 1.1 yards and 1 yard is....1 yard. Points and PL are different like how meters and yards are different. They do the same thing but not quite in the same way.
For your example: a full on melta army is about the worst idea ever. Even ignoring the fact that meltas are overpriced no one would ever actually play that, other factors such as long ranged support, anti-infantry and your own vehicles dampen any such extremes from actually occurring. That 3000 pts list would be eaten alive by most standard 2000 pt lists (especially Orks or Guard). Which just shows how meaningless that point value is. (the inferno pistol is basically wasted points as well)
I gotta just say power levels are garbage. You get stuff like the traitor knight costing something like 5 power levels less for the knight warden for the exact same thing because the upgrades are averaged out. Also the entire system falls apart in an instant once one guy starts maxing his units for it by just taking all the high cost upgrades.
mew28 wrote: I gotta just say power levels are garbage. You get stuff like the traitor knight costing something like 5 power levels less for the knight warden for the exact same thing because the upgrades are averaged out. Also the entire system falls apart in an instant once one guy starts maxing his units for it by just taking all the high cost upgrades.
when I use PL, my opponent and I already have an understanding we're playing for a scenario/specific mission and not cheese/spamming. it's kinda the exact opposite of what those of us who play PL want in a game. usually we play to a scenario, did one back in jan I defended w 75pl against his 100pl. it was unbalanced on purpose. we play all wysiwyg and consistent loadouts.
The primary weakness of points is that it treats everything as having isolated value. A bolter-wielding Space Marine is 13 points regardless of whether he's a Tactical Marine in a Combat Squad or an ablative wound for his unit of Devastators, for example. That doesn't make much sense, since each Marine will contribute differently to the outcome of the game.
Some units become more effective the larger they are - Ork Boyz, for example. Others are more efficient when taken in smaller units.
Similarly, most weapons will be more effective when wielded by a model with higher BS. Short-ranged weapons will be more effective when wielded by units with high Movement or deep-strike capability. Any weapon will be more effective when mounted on a platform that survives long enough to use it. The points system (with a few exceptions) struggles to take this into account.
The points system is basically terrible at accounting for "combined value" - the true value of a unit can be more (or less!) than the sum of its parts.
That's the niche where a PL system could really shine, if it was implemented correctly. Unfortunately, they decided to just go with a less-precise version of the points system, which just compounds the problem.
mew28 wrote: I gotta just say power levels are garbage. You get stuff like the traitor knight costing something like 5 power levels less for the knight warden for the exact same thing because the upgrades are averaged out. Also the entire system falls apart in an instant once one guy starts maxing his units for it by just taking all the high cost upgrades.
when I use PL, my opponent and I already have an understanding we're playing for a scenario/specific mission and not cheese/spamming. it's kinda the exact opposite of what those of us who play PL want in a game. usually we play to a scenario, did one back in jan I defended w 75pl against his 100pl. it was unbalanced on purpose. we play all wysiwyg and consistent loadouts.
when I play points I kinda expect a diff game. I play against Primarchs and do decent against them. so I hope for more "balance" and I get it w points.
hell back in the day we used to play no points just run what ya bring. so I guess that's open play.
I'm disappointed in the number of times I've had to read the phrase "virtue signalling" in this thread. Apparently any expression of opinion must have an ulterior motive now.
Yep. Thats why I've mentioned I use PL because I prefer simpler methods for constructing armies, and it has nothing to do with me trying to signal that my virtue is superior to someone that likes points.
Power levels would have worked out if they had just limited the forces more into more templated version and worded it differently.
If they had said a Tactical squad for a Space Marines was 10 PL and comes with a Sarge with a Power sword, A Lascannon Heavy Weapon, and a Plasma Gun special. If you choose, you can replace the Power sword with a Chain sword, the Lascannon with a ML/ Plasma cannon/ Heavy Bolter/Multi Melta, and the Plasma gun with a Flamer/Melta gun for no cost. You can also bring less than 10 troopers if you choose.
Reemule wrote: Power levels would have worked out if they had just limited the forces more into more templated version and worded it differently.
If they had said a Tactical squad for a Space Marines was 10 PL and comes with a Sarge with a Power sword, A Lascannon Heavy Weapon, and a Plasma Gun special. If you choose, you can replace the Power sword with a Chain sword, the Lascannon with a ML/ Plasma cannon/ Heavy Bolter/Multi Melta, and the Plasma gun with a Flamer/Melta gun for no cost. You can also bring less than 10 troopers if you choose.
That's the best suggestion I've read. A fast points system for balanced games using Pre-Fab units. That is a useful system that fills the gap between granular points and a pile of models. I wouldn't let them swap out anything though.
EnTyme wrote: I'm disappointed in the number of times I've had to read the phrase "virtue signalling" in this thread. Apparently any expression of opinion must have an ulterior motive now.
It's just a rhetorical technique that donkey-caves on the internet have discovered is an effective way to undermine an argument without engaging in a merit-based discussion. Any time someone uses the term, you can immediately and in good conscience ignore or dismiss them, because you can be certain they're not arguing in good faith and will add nothing of value to the conversation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: Power levels would have worked out if they had just limited the forces more into more templated version and worded it differently.
If they had said a Tactical squad for a Space Marines was 10 PL and comes with a Sarge with a Power sword, A Lascannon Heavy Weapon, and a Plasma Gun special. If you choose, you can replace the Power sword with a Chain sword, the Lascannon with a ML/ Plasma cannon/ Heavy Bolter/Multi Melta, and the Plasma gun with a Flamer/Melta gun for no cost. You can also bring less than 10 troopers if you choose.
Yeah, that would have worked much better. The ideal would have been if they'd managed to deliver on the notion that the members of each class of weapon follow a "separate but equal" idea - that a plasma gun would be equal in "power" (and therefore cost) to a flamer or a meltagun, but with different specialised roles.
kadeton wrote: It's just a rhetorical technique that donkey-caves on the internet have discovered is an effective way to undermine an argument without engaging in a merit-based discussion. Any time someone uses the term, you can immediately and in good conscience ignore or dismiss them, because you can be certain they're not arguing in good faith and will add nothing of value to the conversation.
No, it's an entirely accurate way of describing the situation. People are using PL because they believe that "casual" games and players are superior and the use of PL is a statement to more competitive players that they aren't welcome. Their game isn't improved by using a point system that is less balanced, they're just "casual" players so they use the "casual" system and reject the "competitive" system. I'm not sure why this is a controversial claim, people have openly admitted it in this thread.
Yeah, that would have worked much better. The ideal would have been if they'd managed to deliver on the notion that the members of each class of weapon follow a "separate but equal" idea - that a plasma gun would be equal in "power" (and therefore cost) to a flamer or a meltagun, but with different specialised roles.
This would have worked fine, if GW had done it. A system where a unit has a fixed point cost and all of its upgrade options have equal strength on the table would have worked. In fact, it would have been great for a mass-scale game like 40k, where the standard game has effectively become Epic in 28mm. But the system can't work if, as GW did in 8th, the upgrade options have a wide range of strengths and there are unit configurations that are clearly more effective for their point cost than others.
(And of course the system would also have been improved by GW dropping the ridiculous "power level" name and just calling it what it is: a point system.)
You read way too much into the use of power. And it being about players signaling to other players that they are not welcome. The closest it might come to that is people signaling that they are looking for a more casual experience and that is perfectly fine, the competitive player can either play with them or not based on if he wants to play a casual game. You act like these players would play against hardcore competitive lists before because points, and now they won’t and that letting you know is bad. It has nothing to do with superiority over other players it is “I like to play the game less seriously, if you want the same cool, if not then we shouldn’t play each other.” Is it really that hard to understand that people might enjoy the game differently than you do?
Regardless of points vs PL, virtue signalling is a thing and it should be picked up on, and can be legitimately picked up on. Sometimes people use it just to dismiss, but sometimes it's warranted.
Breng77 wrote: And it being about players signaling to other players that they are not welcome.
Of course it is. Direct quote:
Yeup same here. FLGS uses PL for team tournies, keeps the nonsense at bay for the most part. Hard core players stay away, the Power Levels mean everyone can bring their fun stuff. Fun has been had since we went that route over points.
The closest it might come to that is people signaling that they are looking for a more casual experience and that is perfectly fine, the competitive player can either play with them or not based on if he wants to play a casual game.
IOW, it is virtue signalling. Instead of saying "I'm looking for a game with weak lists" people are using PL as a sign of how "casual" they are.
Is it really that hard to understand that people might enjoy the game differently than you do?
Of course not. But assuming that all upgrades cost zero points is not "enjoying the game differently". It doesn't change the way the game is played, it doesn't work any better for "casual" play, and it just changes the way you build the strongest possible list. PL isn't about improving the game experience, it's about showing off how "casual" you are in front of everyone else.
So you interact with jerks sorry for you, but to take that out on everyone who might enjoy something that you don't is meaningless.
SO it is a problem for you to know how casual someone is? Virtue signaling implies that they somehow feel that they are better than you because of it. That is not my experience mine is that they don't enjoy the same level of list design you do, or level of play and it is easier to avoid both with PL because people like you who want serious competition want points. There is literally no difference between "want a game?" "Sure" "ok 50 power!" "Oh I don't play power", "oh sorry that I don't play points." (or the opposite) than "Want a game?", "sure, 1500 points." "Ok what do you play." "Eldar" "oh I really don't want to play eldar I'll pass." Except in one instance people pass on the game based on expected level of competition, and the other they pass based on faction. Or further along list. I bring lists to games and typically they are points and on the competitive side. If there is only one guy at the store and he wants a casual game I'd much rather play power because then I don't have to re-write a list using points from the ground up, but can instead quickly grab my stuff and get to the table.
PL isn't about building the strongest possible list for most people that use it because they aren't interested in doing that. Which is why they use PL in the first place. This is your disconnect, you cannot seem to fathom an environment where people might build lists on the spot, and/or not try to build the most powerful list possible. In both those cases PL works decently well. Bottom line is there is not "bad, wrong fun." The only justification PL needs is that some people enjoy it more than points. You don't and thats fine, and if your local area is all PL trying to exclude you that sucks, but it might also speak to the need for the system. If those players consistently held events where they got stomped it may well have created the culture that exists.
Breng77 wrote: PL isn't about building the strongest possible list for most people that use it because they aren't interested in doing that. Which is why they use PL in the first place. This is your disconnect, you cannot seem to fathom an environment where people might build lists on the spot, and/or not try to build the most powerful list possible. In both those cases PL works decently well. Bottom line is there is not "bad, wrong fun." The only justification PL needs is that some people enjoy it more than points. You don't and thats fine, and if your local area is all PL trying to exclude you that sucks, but it might also speak to the need for the system. If those players consistently held events where they got stomped it may well have created the culture that exists.
It's also great for those interested in models as it removes the issue where you have to trim down on gear to stay within points, often adding in stuff that just makes things too expensive to be worth it. And then during army build you have extra hassle shuffling up units around to ensure you didn't go 1 pts up because your sergeant has bolt pistol rather than laspistol.
Makes hobby also cheaper as you don't need tons of alternative models!
And in the end either way game is unbalanced. Points have their good sides but balance is not one of those. If you want to play balanced games you do not use points.
Breng77 wrote: So you interact with jerks sorry for you, but to take that out on everyone who might enjoy something that you don't is meaningless.
Not true at all. Plenty of people enjoy things I don't enjoy and I have no problem with that. For example, I have zero interest in hardcore competitive 40k tournaments but I don't go around ranting about "WAACTFGs" or whatever. That's because, unlike a lot of "casual" players, competitive players seem mostly content to organize and play in competitive events and don't have the same smugly condescending attitude towards people who enjoy other things.
There is literally no difference between "want a game?" "Sure" "ok 50 power!" "Oh I don't play power", "oh sorry that I don't play points." (or the opposite) than "Want a game?", "sure, 1500 points." "Ok what do you play." "Eldar" "oh I really don't want to play eldar I'll pass."
Of course there is a difference. Asking for a PL game doesn't really explain what you're looking for, except for the weird virtue signalling aspect where PL is assumed to be "casual" because it is a poorly designed system. And it's absurd to say "I don't play points" when talking about using a point system like PL to play your game.
The correct way to handle the situation is to have a conversation about what kind of list strength everyone is looking to play at, which can be done just fine with the conventional point system, but that doesn't have the same opportunity to show off how "casual" you are because you're using a less-balanced point system and making your game worse.
This is your disconnect, you cannot seem to fathom an environment where people might build lists on the spot
I honestly can't. Do people really bring their entire collections to a game just in case they want to make list changes? Hauling the models for a standard list or two is already enough of a pain, I can't imagine having to carry thousands of points of extra stuff and building lists right before the game.
In both those cases PL works decently well.
It may "work", but so does the conventional point system. The power level point system adds nothing to the situation, other than virtue signalling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: And then during army build you have extra hassle shuffling up units around to ensure you didn't go 1 pts up because your sergeant has bolt pistol rather than laspistol.
No, instead you have the extra hassle of shuffling entire units because you're one point over the limit. PL makes this situation worse because the minimum point increment that you can adjust your list by is a larger percentage of the total. If you're one point over in a conventional points game you can just say "my sergeant has a laspistol" and play the game. If you're one point over in a PL game you have to swap an entire unit and hope that the point costs work out correctly.
Makes hobby also cheaper as you don't need tons of alternative models!
This is hilarious because people will also claim that one of the strengths of PL is that you can swap out upgrades (and therefore alternative models) easily because they all cost zero points. By this argument you need more alternative models if you use PL as your point system.
If you want to play balanced games you do not use points.
Peregrine wrote: Do people really bring their entire collections to a game just in case they want to make list changes? Hauling the models for a standard list or two is already enough of a pain, I can't imagine having to carry thousands of points of extra stuff and building lists right before the game.
Given I only really get to play with PL, store rules, I can tell you that basically yes, people bring their case, then agree a number of power levels, and given it's so simple the lists are ready to go in 2 or 3 minutes. It's handy for size disconnects. Lets say I brought around 100 PL, and the other person only brought around 50. It's far quicker to make a 50 PL list to match the other guy's than make a new 1000 point list. Then later in the day if someone has 80 PL you can easily make an 80PL list on the spot.
Peregrine wrote: Do people really bring their entire collections to a game just in case they want to make list changes? Hauling the models for a standard list or two is already enough of a pain, I can't imagine having to carry thousands of points of extra stuff and building lists right before the game.
Why do you automatically go to the most ridiculous extreme? That people are hauling around entire collections? Why not assume that they are hauling around the equivalent of the "standard list or two" of a single faction and then just picking from those based on what the other people bring and are interested in doing for a game? Why assume the least reasonable behaviour?
Are weekly games are usually at a particular level as people can come directly from work and transporting more models is annoying. Some still bring like 50% more than what was talked about and then decide on the spot. Others bring a pre written list. Our monthly club days though, people bring more stuff, but never entire collections except for apocalypse type days (which would be discussed in advance). And yes we do arrange our games and pick our forces right on the spot. There might be three people ready to play and the scenario recommends roughly equal armies, so maybe the two imperial players will team up at 25 PL each while the necron player puts down 50 PL or so. Or we might end up playing an attacker and defender scenario where one side is supposed to have half again as much as the other. Lots of the scenarios recommend different army sizes for the attacker and defender, so making our lists in advance and only bringing those would be a very bad idea.
I do find it funny that people get mad about virtue signaling.
"Hey! Stop being such a good person over there! What's more, stop telling people you're a good person! We don't need your type around here, you good person who is proud to be a good person! We want good people who will shut up and take it lying down!"
Chamberlain wrote: Why do you automatically go to the most ridiculous extreme? That people are hauling around entire collections? Why not assume that they are hauling around the equivalent of the "standard list or two" of a single faction and then just picking from those based on what the other people bring and are interested in doing for a game? Why assume the least reasonable behaviour?
Because if you aren't hauling around a standard collection and just have the equivalent of a standard list or two then the "time savings" of PL is meaningless. You just pull out your standard list and play. If you're making adjustments it's usually going to be in the form of fixed unit swaps (trading an infantry squad for a LRBT, etc) from your standard units, because you don't have a ton of spare models to change which units you have. Adding +220 points is not meaningfully faster than adding +11 points for the same unit. The only time you care about saving a few minutes adding up point costs if if you're building a list from scratch out of everything you own and have no idea what you're going to use or how your units are going to be equipped.
Lots of the scenarios recommend different army sizes for the attacker and defender, so making our lists in advance and only bringing those would be a very bad idea.
If you're playing these scenarios so frequently then why not start having standard lists for them? If you bring a collection of lists in 250 point increments you can easily set up those games. Need to play 2v1? Pull out your 1000 point lists and a 2000 point list. Attacker gets 50% more points? 1000 points and 1500 points. Etc. Pulling out a standard list is even faster than adding up power level points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I do find it funny that people get mad about virtue signaling.
"Hey! Stop being such a good person over there! What's more, stop telling people you're a good person! We don't need your type around here, you good person who is proud to be a good person! We want good people who will shut up and take it lying down!"
You're missing the point about virtue signalling. It isn't about being a good person, it's about telling people how superior you are. People who use PL as virtue signalling aren't good people (at least no more so than anyone else), they're just smugly condescending about how they are playing "real 40k" and everyone else is "doing it wrong" and "WAACTFGs".
I must say the only impression I get from this thread is you, Peregrine signalling everyone who is playing with PL that he/she is "doing it wrong" or a "CAAC" player. Your posts come across for me as the kind of "virtue signalling" you're describing the PL-users with. By now everyone here has understood that PL has no use for you, no problem with that. But I don't see the need of trying to convince everybody that they're playing the game wrong when they don't use the point system or die-hard army lists you seem to prefer.
Because if you aren't hauling around a standard collection and just have the equivalent of a standard list or two then the "time savings" of PL is meaningless.
I'm not convinced it is because I see it happen every month. If I bring around 150 PL give or take and then play as part of a multiplayer game where we have somewhere around 50 PL each, then I have the equivalent of one and a half 'standard lists' but could make so many different forces. The next game during the day might be at 97 PL. Then maybe a skirmish with like 21. What it will be will depend on what everyone is doing, who's ready to play a game, who's still in the middle of a game and what table space and terrain is available when we want to start.
Lots of the scenarios recommend different army sizes for the attacker and defender, so making our lists in advance and only bringing those would be a very bad idea.
If you're playing these scenarios so frequently then why not start having standard lists for them? If you bring a collection of lists in 250 point increments you can easily set up those games. Need to play 2v1? Pull out your 1000 point lists and a 2000 point list. Attacker gets 50% more points? 1000 points and 1500 points. Etc. Pulling out a standard list is even faster than adding up power level points.
So now I need to have standard lists with set point chunks I play over and over? Why would I give up variety if I don't have to? Why have the same 1000 points I play? Why not put the stuff in my carrying case that I think is cool and just figure it out before the game? It's super fast with PL and I don't have to pre build these rigid chunks.
No, instead you have the extra hassle of shuffling entire units because you're one point over the limit. PL makes this situation worse because the minimum point increment that you can adjust your list by is a larger percentage of the total. If you're one point over in a conventional points game you can just say "my sergeant has a laspistol" and play the game. If you're one point over in a PL game you have to swap an entire unit and hope that the point costs work out correctly.
This just shows that you don't know how to use PL. PL does not have a hard cap that you cannot exceed like points usually do. A game of 49 PL vs 52 PL is perfectly fine. And of course the underdog gets a nifty bonus such as winning tie breakers.
The thing is that PL is useful for determining the overall size of the game. 25 PL is a small game, 50 PL is a medium sized game, etc... And since army composition is more important for balance than strict points, having a difference of 3-5 PL won't really change the outcome of the game anyway. So any inconsistencies between points and PL don't matter because the PL wasn't even matched in the first place.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I must say the only impression I get from this thread is you, Peregrine signalling everyone who is playing with PL that he/she is "doing it wrong" or a "CAAC" player. Your posts come across for me as the kind of "virtue signalling" you're describing the PL-users with. By now everyone here has understood that PL has no use for you, no problem with that. But I don't see the need of trying to convince everybody that they're playing the game wrong when they don't use the point system or die-hard army lists you seem to prefer.
The Bird of Prey isn't virtue signaling. He's not saying PL is useless because they're CAAC players, he's saying the PL is a useless system compared to granular points. Several people on here have argued that they use it to keep other players excluded, and they are virtue signalling. From my experience over the last few editions I've seen a lot more WAAC players make dumbed down lists and play fluffy games versus CAAC players than I've seen CAAC players stepping up and appeasing the WAAC crowd. I've definitely gotten the 'it's my ball, i'm going home' vibe from casual players way more than competitive players.
Dandelion wrote: PL does not have a hard cap that you cannot exceed like points usually do.
Wrong. Tolerance for exceeding the point limit has nothing to do with whether your upgrades cost zero points or not. This may be how some people do it, but it is not a rule provided by GW. You can play with conventional points and treat the point limit as a rough estimate, and you can (as many people seem to do) treat the point limit in a PL game as an absolute limit. Don't give the broken PL system credit for something you can do regardless of which point system you're using.
Dandelion wrote: PL does not have a hard cap that you cannot exceed like points usually do.
Wrong. Tolerance for exceeding the point limit has nothing to do with whether your upgrades cost zero points or not. This may be how some people do it, but it is not a rule provided by GW. You can play with conventional points and treat the point limit as a rough estimate, and you can (as many people seem to do) treat the point limit in a PL game as an absolute limit. Don't give the broken PL system credit for something you can do regardless of which point system you're using.
Actually GW does explicitly permit PL imbalances. Some of the narrative and Open War Card missions even use "the player with the highest power level..." or "the player with the lowest power level..." to determine things instead of the players rolling off. I think the player with the lowest PL even gets to go first.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Actually GW does explicitly permit PL imbalances. Some of the narrative and Open War Card missions even use "the player with the highest power level..." or "the player with the lowest power level..." to determine things instead of the players rolling off. I think the player with the lowest PL even gets to go first.
Not that I would expect you to have read them.
Permit =/= require. The missions allow armies with different power levels, they do not provide any guidance on how much of a difference is "close enough" or require that at least a 1-point difference in PL be acceptable. Nor do any of GW's rules require that a game with conventional points treat the point total as an absolute limit or have both armies use the same point limit. You are free to treat the point limit in a PL game as a hard limit (and in a 20 PL game with a hard point limit a player who brings 19 PL will still be "the player with the lowest point total" and get the relevant advantages, just like bidding for initiative in X-Wing) and you are free to treat the point limit in a conventional points game as a rough guideline.
It's actually right in the very first scenario. The one that comes with the free rules primer pamphlet/PDF.
"Before battle begins, determine each army’s Power Level by adding together the Power Ratings of all the units set up in that army; whichever player has the lowest is the Underdog"
The default expectation of 8th edition 40k right from the beginning is games where the power levels don't have to match.
Then if you go to the main rulebook and start working through the game content you'll find a mix of equal and unequal missions with very few mandating that they have to be equal.
I think I may start another thread about this, but very little of the game content for 8th edition 40k mandates equal power level.
Again, unequal points and having a hard limit are not mutually exclusive concepts. For example, in X-Wing tournaments the 100 point limit is absolute. If your list is 101 points you will be disqualified for cheating. However, the game still gives initiative to the player with the lowest point total. Players bid for initiative by deciding how many points under the limit they will be, and you often get 100-point games with 99 points vs. 97 points or whatever.
Ambush - recommends against having many units with the FLY keyword, difference determines attacker/defender
Patrol - if one side is a third higher or more, they are the attacker
Blitz - recommends against having many units with the FLY keyword, difference determines attacker/defender
Sabotage - recommend 50 to 100 PL with few if any monsters and vehicles. difference determines attacker/defender
Rescue - recommend 50 to 100 PL with few if any monsters and vehicles. difference determines attacker/defender
Ambush at Dhorak Pass - recommends against having many units with the FLY keyword, difference determines attacker/defender, requires certain faction types like cadian tanks, alpha legion and daemons
Matched play: "POINTS LIMIT In a matched play game, you will need to determine with your opponent the points limit for your game. Usually, both players will use the same limit, but this does not need to be the case."
So not even an absolutely requirement here. It's usually equal, but not universal.
Retrieval Mission - agreed points limit
No Mercy - agreed points limit
The Scouring - agreed points limit
Big Guns Never Tire - agreed points limit
Secure & Control - agreed points limit
The Relic - agreed points limit
Cleanse & Capture - agreed points limit
Contact Lost - agreed points limit
Tactical Escalation - agreed points limit
Spoils of War - agreed points limit
Cloak & Shadows - agreed points limit
Deadlock - agreed points limit
Planetfall - Explicitly has attacker with higher PL
Firesweep - Difference determines underdog and gives extra CP
Bunker Assault - Explicitly has attacker with higher PL
Tactical Strike - recommends flyers and fortifications for the defender, Explicitly has attacker with higher PL
Carnage - differing power levels assumed to produce ranking for turn order in a multiplayer game
Warhammer 40k rulebook: Number of missions with a set limit: 12. Number without: 17 And many missions don't even have you compare PL until after deployment is finished. You just need to be in the ballpark like one third to twice as many.
On to Chapter Approved:
Spoiler:
Apocalypse missions (huge multiplayer team games): Race to Destruction - Difference determines underdog.
Nigh March - Difference determines underdog.
Exterminatus! - Difference determines underdog.
Planet Strike Missions (attack defender missions with separate army construction rule):
Planetfall - Attacker must be higher, defender given fortifications which can be based on the deployment map
Desperate Assault - Attacker must be higher, defender given fortifications which can be based on the deployment map
Seize and Destroy - Attacker must be higher, defender given fortifications which can be based on the deployment map
Stranglehold - Attacker must be higher, defender given fortifications which can be based on the deployment map
Forlorn Hope - Attacker must be higher, defender given fortifications which can be based on the deployment map
Planetquake - Attacker must be higher, defender given fortifications which can be based on the deployment map
Stronghold Assault Mission (attack defender missions with separate army construction rule):
Breakthrough - Attacker must have more PL, defender must have fortifications, both have customer detachments they use
Bunker Assault - Attacker must have more, defender must have fortifications, both have customer detachments they use
All-out Attack - Attacker must have more, defender must have fortifications, both have customer detachments they use
Crossfire - Attacker must have more, defender must have fortifications, both have customer detachments they use
The Big Push - Attacker must have more, defender must have fortifications, both have customer detachments they use
Last Stand - Attacker must have more, defender must have fortifications, both have customer detachments they use
Front-line Warfare - agreed points limit
Kill Confirmed - agreed points limit
Resupply Drop - agreed points limit
Targets of Opportunity - agreed points limit
Scorched Earth - agreed points limit
Tactical Gambit - agreed points limit
Dominate and Destroy - agreed points limit
Race to Victory - agreed points limit
Ascension - agreed points limit
Sealed Orders - agreed points limit
Roving Patrol - agreed points limit
Recon - agreed points limit
Chapter Approved: Number of missions with a set limit: 12. Number without: 15
Total: With limit: 24. Without 32.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Again, unequal points and having a hard limit are not mutually exclusive concepts. For example, in X-Wing tournaments the 100 point limit is absolute. If your list is 101 points you will be disqualified for cheating. However, the game still gives initiative to the player with the lowest point total. Players bid for initiative by deciding how many points under the limit they will be, and you often get 100-point games with 99 points vs. 97 points or whatever.
You're not looking at the actual rulebook and what it says.
There's no limit like that for the majority of the scenarios. Go read them. Go play them. They are fun.
This is from the matched play section of Chapter Approved:
"The total points value of your army is the sum of all the Detachment points values in your army plus any reinforcement points you have chosen to put aside (see below). The points value of your army should not exceed the points limit you are using for the battle."
That is for matched play battleforged with points. This concept just does not apply to the 32 scenarios that don't use limits like that nor the missions generated by the Open War cards.
Not requiring a hard limit =/= not having a hard limit. GW gives no guidance on whether to treat the point limit in a PL game as a hard limit, a rough guideline, or anywhere in between. You just compare point totals, something that happens the same way in a hard-limit game as it does in a soft-limit game.
Another thing to remember is that in many of the missions (pretty much all of Open and Narrative) you get to know the mission before you pick your army. Selecting your army is after you determine the mission being played.
I guess you could pre build your army to a specific points value with a set 1000 or 2000 points but you don't have to. And if you're going to be building an army on the fly, then a faster system like PL is very useful.
Also, the idea that you could not compare point totals until after you've deployed just doesn't match with reality. Even when treating the point limit as a soft limit you're still going to say "let's play a 50 point game" so you each know roughly how much stuff to bring. You're not going to have nonsense scenarios where nobody has any idea how big the game is, you end up with a 10-point skirmish army against a 500-point Apocalypse army and the game is over in one shooting phase.
Peregrine wrote: Not requiring a hard limit =/= not having a hard limit.
Non required hard limits. LOL. I'm sure all the married bachelors play 40k that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Also, the idea that you could not compare point totals until after you've deployed just doesn't match with reality. Even when treating the point limit as a soft limit you're still going to say "let's play a 50 point game" so you each know roughly how much stuff to bring. You're not going to have nonsense scenarios where nobody has any idea how big the game is, you end up with a 10-point skirmish army against a 500-point Apocalypse army and the game is over in one shooting phase.
Wargaming is a group activity involving people. So of course you talk about things. And you get your ball pack set when you do the army selection part of the mission. If Only War says you need "roughly equal" then why would you bring a 10 PL skirmish vs a 500 PL apocalypse army?
I don't know why you don't want to even see it in the text that Open and Narrative play simply don't have the points limit of matched play. None, as in zero, of the scenarios talk about power levels as any sort of limit. They're always in very general comparative terms and differences are assumed to the point that they are used to determine other parts of the scenario like who is the defender or underdog or whatever.
You've spent this entire thread and how many months since 8th came out critiquing, complaining about and advocating for the scrapping of a power level system that you don't even know the basics of how to use. Stop and think about that.
Chamberlain wrote: Non required hard limits. LOL. I'm sure all the married bachelors play 40k that way.
Try reading again? "GW does not require a hard limit" is not the same thing as "don't use a hard limit". The actual situation is that GW does not specify that you treat the point limit as a hard limit in a PL game, but they don't say not to either. They give no guidance at all on how much, if at all, you should exceed the agreed-on point total by and all of their "lower player gets a bonus" mechanics are perfectly compatible with an X-Wing style system with a hard limit and a bid for the preferred side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: If Only War says you need "roughly equal" then why would you bring a 10 points skirmish vs a 500 point apocalypse army?
You wouldn't. But you're the one who said that you wouldn't add up points until after deployment. If you genuinely don't add up points until after deployment then you won't know how uneven the forces are because you'll have no idea how many points you're deploying. The obvious fact is that you're adding up points during list construction, and both players know exactly what point totals they have before putting a single model on the table.
I don't know why you don't want to even see it in the text that Open and Narrative play simply don't have the points limit of matched play. None, as in zero, of the scenarios talk about power levels as any sort of limit. They're always in very general comparative terms and differences are assumed to the point that they are used to determine other parts of the scenario like who is the defender or underdog or whatever.
They don't talk about it, presumably because it's such an obvious thing that it doesn't need to be stated explicitly. Before the game you agree on a point total, whether you're using PL or conventional points. Whether to treat the agreed-on point total as a hard limit or a soft limit is an entirely separate question. The missions themselves don't care, they just assign the lower-point advantages to a player regardless of whether your 50-point game is 48 points vs. 52 points with a soft limit or 49 points vs. 50 points with a hard limit (and a bid for underdog status).
You've spent this entire thread and how many months since 8th came out complaining about a power level system that you don't even know the basics of how to use. Stop and think about that.
I'm not sure why you're so stubborn on this. "PL doesn't work the way you think, it's even worse" is hardly a compelling defense of the concept.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:I must say the only impression I get from this thread is you, Peregrine signalling everyone who is playing with PL that he/she is "doing it wrong" or a "CAAC" player. Your posts come across for me as the kind of "virtue signalling" you're describing the PL-users with. By now everyone here has understood that PL has no use for you, no problem with that. But I don't see the need of trying to convince everybody that they're playing the game wrong when they don't use the point system or die-hard army lists you seem to prefer.
This, maybe Peregrine should try out a PL game without any of their preconceived notions. But probably couldn't lower themselves to not play with points.
That's fine, the rest of us (and GW) will continue to use PL and have fun.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:I must say the only impression I get from this thread is you, Peregrine signalling everyone who is playing with PL that he/she is "doing it wrong" or a "CAAC" player. Your posts come across for me as the kind of "virtue signalling" you're describing the PL-users with. By now everyone here has understood that PL has no use for you, no problem with that. But I don't see the need of trying to convince everybody that they're playing the game wrong when they don't use the point system or die-hard army lists you seem to prefer.
This, maybe Peregrine should try out a PL game without any of their preconceived notions. But probably couldn't lower themselves to not play with points.
That's fine, the rest of us (and GW) will continue to use PL and have fun.
Racerguy180 wrote: This, maybe Peregrine should try out a PL game without any of their preconceived notions. But probably couldn't lower themselves to not play with points.
That's fine, the rest of us (and GW) will continue to use PL and have fun.
I could try playing a game without points, but that wouldn't prove anything about PL. PL is a point system, calling your points "power levels" instead of "points" doesn't change what it is. And making upgrades cost zero points does not change how the game is played. Nor does re-scaling the point system by dividing everything by 20.
At this point, I'm praying for a thread lock. Not sure what has been accomplished other than me realizing I probably just "ignore" another poster. We're also pretty far off-topic from the OP. We went from "Do power levels need to be updated?" to "Does power level even exist" to " blah, blah, blah, virtue signaling, blah, blah". Time for me to bow out of this one.
Peregrine is militant in all of his opinions. You're never going to get a concession out of him. Regardless of how well the argument is constructed. He is incapable of seeing any other opinion than his own, as valid.
Racerguy180 wrote: This, maybe Peregrine should try out a PL game without any of their preconceived notions. But probably couldn't lower themselves to not play with points.
That's fine, the rest of us (and GW) will continue to use PL and have fun.
I could try playing a game without points, but that wouldn't prove anything about PL. PL is a point system, calling your points "power levels" instead of "points" doesn't change what it is. And making upgrades cost zero points does not change how the game is played. Nor does re-scaling the point system by dividing everything by 20.
Power levels do not guarantee "fun".
It is just another means of "matching up" to armies for play.
It will not prevent someone from taking way less or way more upgrades to the unit than "normal".
I really hate it when someone brings a really plain / weak army with no real tactical thought for it and suddenly I am the bad guy even though I use the same power levels.
That seems to be a lesser issue with full points, it does not remove it completely but it sure helps.
If the points were money and we were shopping for something, we would shop around and try to get the most bang for our buck.
It feels like how companies want you to buy their tokens/credits to make the money you spend even more abstract so you are less inclined to do the math of how much the thing you are getting really costs.
Somehow by abstracting the real "worth" of the units makes it all the more "casual".
Just trying to wrap my brain around the need for two systems.
Power Levels seem the easiest to Min/Max so they seem rather useless pointing to the OP.
I think that is why you do not see tournaments made to PL's: it is like shooting fish in a barrel.
As to justification of fluff: there are quite a few armies that can easily justify getting all the toys because they REALLY need them all!
Chamberlain wrote: Non required hard limits. LOL. I'm sure all the married bachelors play 40k that way.
Try reading again? "GW does not require a hard limit" is not the same thing as "don't use a hard limit". The actual situation is that GW does not specify that you treat the point limit as a hard limit in a PL game, but they don't say not to either. They give no guidance at all on how much, if at all, you should exceed the agreed-on point total by and all of their "lower player gets a bonus" mechanics are perfectly compatible with an X-Wing style system with a hard limit and a bid for the preferred side.
GW does in fact treat points as having a hard limit; neither player may exceed their chosen points limit. No such rule exists for PL. Therefore GW does not require a hard limit in PL.
Point levels do not accurately indicate a unit's capabilities. Particularly when it comes to upgrades.
While one could, hypothetically, load up units like Vanguard Vets and Death Company and the like with expensive upgrades, you very quickly run into diminishing returns. Look at a 10 man unit with 2 Power Fists vs a 10 man unit with 10 power fists... how many models will likely make it to combat?
Yes, they could drop and charge something and absolutely murderate it. To death. And then to removed from the Game. Then to the really removed from even the removed from the game zone.
But... it's probably going to be a screening unit, at the competitive level. You probably could have done the same with 2 fists. So you then get shot up. A lot. Because getting hit by that again on something valuable would be one of those things you'd like to avoid. So you wind up with maybe 4 guys left over?
The "point" of this, is that the True Value of that unit never really gets higher than 10 dudes with 2, maybe 3 fists. Points invested beyond that are "wasted" because you get little to no return on them. Hence, using the PL approach can (and does) create a more realistic True Value, regardless of the upgrades taken on such a unit. Presuming you were going to take a handful anyway, and you were.
Points in that case gives you a potential value, but not a true value. How often would you get to harness that full potential? Seldom, if ever. The PL equivalent gives you a more accurate relative value for that unit.
That only really holds in those extreme examples though. What about a devestator squad with 2 lascannons Vs 4. which gives a more accurate representation. Because few upgrades effect durability in this game it is reasonable to say that if you have to pay for the upgrades maxing out on squads that can take a ton of upgrades is never worth it, but might be if you don't pay for it.
In the end powerlevel (if taken competitively) just shifts the meta toward units with effective or no upgrades as it hurts those units with marginal upgrades that never get taken but that you "pay for" in power level.
Take a squad of vanguard veterans. They are 8 powerlevel for 5 with jump packs, the equivalent of 160 points. Their base point cost for this is 90 points. So unless you invest 70 points into wargear that is effective for this squad, they are not very good in powerlevel. Essentially if in points you aren't willing to invest 70 points because they are too fragile, then they probably are never good in power level regardless of what you equip them with even if you can load them down with enough wargear to get them to 210 points (all thunder hammer and plasma pistol, and melta bombs) so you Ne 50 free points. The squad while it hits harder, still dies as easily. Just the Thunder hammers comes close to the 160 mark, at 170 points so if you wouln't run a squad of Venguard vets with 5 thunderhammers in points, you are likely never to do so in power (assuming you care about efficiency at all).
The real beneficiaries are armies where you already want equipment that puts them over their PL cost. So devestators with 4 lascannons and a cherub, benefit a bit because you save ~10 points.
So it just changes the meta and what is good.
Personally I prefer points, but I have used power and see situations where I would prefer to do so.
I keep hearing upgrades are "free" for PL.
I look at it as cup half full: you are allowed full use of any upgrades you feel you need, taking anything less is a "loss" of what points you paid for.
The Sternguard example seems a bit strange with power fists, the devastator squad is better since from turn one you have full use of your 4 lascannons.
As mentioned, it changes the "meta" where if you like your upgrades, say maybe it brings 'character" to your squads, then this is the points system for you.
Reemule wrote: Power levels would have worked out if they had just limited the forces more into more templated version and worded it differently.
If they had said a Tactical squad for a Space Marines was 10 PL and comes with a Sarge with a Power sword, A Lascannon Heavy Weapon, and a Plasma Gun special. If you choose, you can replace the Power sword with a Chain sword, the Lascannon with a ML/ Plasma cannon/ Heavy Bolter/Multi Melta, and the Plasma gun with a Flamer/Melta gun for no cost. You can also bring less than 10 troopers if you choose.
That's the best suggestion I've read. A fast points system for balanced games using Pre-Fab units. That is a useful system that fills the gap between granular points and a pile of models. I wouldn't let them swap out anything though.
Thanks!
Why wouldn't you let people swap stuff out? Its for cheaper stuff. Just sticking to the example if Player A wants his guys with a Heavy Bolter over a Lascannon with his Tac, isn't that a benifit to you even though he is just going to use the Hellfire strategem on you all the time?
I have really felt the issues with PL have been people feeling that it provides too many options where people can min/max and get more than they should. If you corrected that with some simple verbiage, the problem goes away. The most expensive option is the base purchase. Its only where someone wants to take a perceived cheaper option would they be making the bargains that make the game interesting.
Min/maxing with Power Levels just isn’t in the spirit of what they’re intended for. TFG-ing Power is just silly. It’s a pick up and play mechanic, not an environment for min-maxers. Looking at it with that philosophy is all kinds of wrong and explains why some folk can’t see the point in Power Levels.
Myself, I found they generated imbalances too often as my opponent does proxy-min-max and I don’t, so Points gave us a more level playing field. It in no way makes Power invalid, just not for me very often.
So say you take the last 2000 point army you played and then play it against the winning lists of either the LVO or Adeptiicon.
Take a 100 PL army where you just take what's cool to you and then take it against a 100 PL army built by the same people who come up with the top tournament lists.
Is anyone really under the illusion that a given points or PL list will be equal to another? What about the illusion that they should be? Or can be? Maybe those are more appealing illusions.
If the goal is a system where every combination of things at a given points or power level produces a game where only player skill and luck decide the outcome, then both points and power level are useless.
Fortunately though, that's not the goal of those systems. They're just tools to set up games and they're supposed to produce different results when people use them for different purposes.
The key is to make sure you and your opponent are looking for the same thing. Like when you go to a tournament you agree that the system should be used to make the most powerful thing possible.
Perhaps there is a range of expectations and the real key to making 40k work for people is to communicate with one another, stop insulting their approach to a game and just work on finding people who want the same thing and being flexible enough when you find people who want what is close enough to what you want from the experience.
The original post was more about the 20:1 ratio for points:power ratings. With points getting updated, that is no longer as universal as it once was. Does that make power level useless? No, because it was never about being a 20:1 conversion of points. That might be how it was originally calculated, but that's not what gives it validity or utility.
Can you use it to set up games? Yes.
Does it offer something other systems don't? Yes.
Do you personally like it or not? Irrelevant.
What though? What can exclusively be done by power levels that can't be done with points?
More relaxed army building which is blessing for those who are interested in more of modeling so they can build models without too much worry. Also great for those who want to build armies cheaper in money wise.
tneva82 wrote: More relaxed army building which is blessing for those who are interested in more of modeling so they can build models without too much worry.
Ignoring the cost of upgrades is not "more relaxed" and doesn't save you from worrying. Better and worse upgrade choices still exist, and a poorly optimized PL list is still weak. And any player attitudes about playing with lower-power lists and not optimizing everything happen exactly the same way under the conventional point system.
Also great for those who want to build armies cheaper in money wise.
PL does nothing to change the financial cost of an army.
Also good way to ensure you avoid tfg's!
Or just give TFG a clear message that you're a "casual" player with a bad list and therefore easy prey for their optimized PL list.
What though? What can exclusively be done by power levels that can't be done with points?
More relaxed army building which is blessing for those who are interested in more of modeling so they can build models without too much worry. Also great for those who want to build armies cheaper in money wise.
Also good way to ensure you avoid tfg's!
How does power levels help modellers over points? Model what you want, and then just pay the points for that model. I also can't fathom a reason power levels make your army cheaper.
*Edit* I also scratch my head whenever people say power levels are great for when you don't care about min-maxing or making optimal choices, but then are bothered that certain builds using points is not optimal (like the HK missile example above). If you don't care about optimization, then at least have the consistency to not care about optimization in both systems.
frozenwastes wrote: Gaming buddy of mine put hunter killer missiles on his rhinos.
In a points game, this would make his overall list worse.
In a PL game, this would not make his overall list worse.
Gaming buddy of mine didn't put hunter killer missiles on his rhinos.
In a points game, this would make his overall list better.
In a PL game, this would make his overall list worse.
Changing which units are the best choice is not an improvement, it's just change.
This is actually a good point, but in a different way. I agree with your posts so far, that PL is just sacrificing granularity for an illusion of casualness and a minuscule amount of extra simplicity.
But what PL does offer is a different meta. Consider a competitive player who might want to use different armies and fight different armies than the current FOTM without intentionally gimping themselves. PL allows you to do that, since PL is not a direct translation from points and free upgrades also affect different units to varying degrees.
It would hardly be more balanced, or offer more choice than points, but it would offer different choice, and let's be honest, the current 40k ruleset with points doesn't offer that many options anyway if you want to be optimal.
PL isn’t concerned with you upgrades so you aren’t punished for putting cool gear on a model for appearance in points you are. As such if you don’t want to worry about upgrade efficiency in points I pay for those suboptimal choices.
Breng77 wrote: PL isn’t concerned with you upgrades so you aren’t punished for putting cool gear on a model for appearance in points you are. As such if you don’t want to worry about upgrade efficiency in points I pay for those suboptimal choices.
Of course PL is concerned with upgrades. You are punished for NOT putting upgrades on models. Like the look of LRBTs without sponsons? Too bad, sucks to be you, your list is going to be bad if you don't glue those sponsons on.
That's what points and 
).
