For the first time I was looking online at the data scrolls for the figures in the Know No Fear set, and I noticed the Power Levels. What are these? I thought the codexes came with more points per model. These Power Levels seem rather generic. Were they only used for the Know No Fear set, or the Dark Imperium and the First Strike as well?
I was trying to see if the forces included in Know No Fear were balanced and it seems to be 33-29 in favor of the Imperium. I was thinking, that if you wanted to add additional models to the Know No Fear set, like a Lieutenant, how you would know his Power Level if they didn't use that point system in Dark Imperium?
Power level tends to come to within about 5% of 1PL = 20pts if you aren't building a list to deliberately exploit corner cases. It's fine for pick-up games but the fact that you can deliberately exploit corner cases makes it not a great idea for competitive games.
Power level also is REALLY screwy with some armies, especially ones with lots of weird points. For example, Chaos Spawn are 2 power level, because they're 33 points. That's a 7 point reduction when converted to a points list. Cultists are worth 3 power level, equally 60 points...Even though the absolute maximum you could ever achieve is 49 in a 10 man squad, meaning it would be a closer estimate to have it be 2 power, but since that'd make their wargear 100% free, they couldn't possibly do that.
Daemons also have a similar issue, where they are priced to estimate the total cost on top of always having an instrument and/or icon per 10 models, when we all know you basically only ever need one of each, regardless of unit size, meaning the cost is fine for 10 bloodletters or horrors, but the moment you go up to 30, it's mildly over expensive.
Power levels were the way that GW intended people to play the game. Not implemented very well, and somewhat generic, they aren't very endearing to people.
GW provided points used in Match Play in a data sheet at the back of the book. This was on purpose as the points in match play are intended to change over time as the game grows or changes and some models gain or lose battlefield roles and power.
Every datasheet will have a Power Level recorded on it, so models in Know No Fear, or even new out of any recent box, will have Power Level attached.
It's not designed for ultra-precise, uber-competitive gameplay which I've largely fallen out of love with.
Yes, there can be abuses and shortfalls (not taking heavy weapons on Devastators, for example, would be a massive shortfall), but I find that it lets me play with wargear I'd never normally consider, and play a more relaxed WYSIWYG.
I have Battlescribe, and I still maintain that Power Level is faster to build lists. I know there's die-hard Power Level opposers out there, and they're welcome to that opinion, but my personal experience of PL is far better than normal points.
As said above, roughly every 20 points is worth 1 PL.
If you play the game long enough, you learn your codex points by heart. Heck, if you play often enough you can learn MULTIPLE codexes by heart. I know roughly half the game's point values, and I play weekly. My friend plays Orks and plays maybe once every two months, and can still remember every point value. It's not rocket science, or advanced.If you have even a shred of devotion for the game, you can easily remember 20-30 different numbers.
PL is also provenly bad for narrative games, since unless you bring perfectly even unit sizes, you are reducing your army size considerably. If I want to bring Khorne Berzerker units of 8 for fluff reasons, I automatically lose out on 32 points worth of models without even adding wargear.
Oh, I've been playing long enough that I can remember points from several editions ago, for multiple codexes. Remembering isn't a problem.
But frankly, I don't care enough to calculate every weapon, every upgrade, every model, when I'll have a more relaxed game taking a blank unit, paying a flat price, and just playing by what I see on the model.
Power levels could have worked, GW just approached them wrong.
I think if they had said...
A Tac squad is PL 10. It comes with a Sarge with a Plasma Pistol and Power fist, and it is 10 men, and 1 has a Lascannon, and one has a plasma gun, but at no cost change you can take these weapons, (all the normal tac squad weapon swaps) And at no cost you can take less models if desired)
It would have done better. Not sure why they didn't do that. And of course did that for all the options. Predators come with Dual lascannon turrets, Lascannon sponson, a HK missile, and a Stormbolter. But you can take less.. The Rhino comes with all these, but you can take less, no charge.
Power Level was GW du... STREAMLINING the game because people apparently found points too difficult to work out. Rumour has it they were going to axe points entirely but the playtest team threatened to out them and cause a backlash if they did.
It's basically a way for people to bash their toy soldiers together without accounting for every single upgrade. Only works if you pretend that the point of a game is to win, because otherwise it's free Plasma Guns and Power Fists for everyone.
Reemule wrote: Power levels could have worked, GW just approached them wrong.
I think if they had said...
A Tac squad is PL 10. It comes with a Sarge with a Plasma Pistol and Power fist, and it is 10 men, and 1 has a Lascannon, and one has a plasma gun, but at no cost change you can take these weapons, (all the normal tac squad weapon swaps) And at no cost you can take less models if desired)
It would have done better. Not sure why they didn't do that. And of course did that for all the options. Predators come with Dual lascannon turrets, Lascannon sponson, a HK missile, and a Stormbolter. But you can take less.. The Rhino comes with all these, but you can take less, no charge.
Well they didn't, so PL isn't going to work.
I really fail to see where the difference is functionally...
Reemule wrote: Power levels could have worked, GW just approached them wrong.
I think if they had said...
A Tac squad is PL 10. It comes with a Sarge with a Plasma Pistol and Power fist, and it is 10 men, and 1 has a Lascannon, and one has a plasma gun, but at no cost change you can take these weapons, (all the normal tac squad weapon swaps) And at no cost you can take less models if desired)
It would have done better. Not sure why they didn't do that. And of course did that for all the options. Predators come with Dual lascannon turrets, Lascannon sponson, a HK missile, and a Stormbolter. But you can take less.. The Rhino comes with all these, but you can take less, no charge.
Well they didn't, so PL isn't going to work.
I really fail to see where the difference is functionally...
Assigning PL based on the most expensive possible loadout rather than some imaginary average.
Which has its own problems, because you then have to say things "Here's your Deathwatch Veteran squad, it costs 30 PL, but you can have boltguns if you want to, you just still have to pay 60pts/model for a model that's overpriced at 18pts".
I'm curious if PLs work if players are limited to what can actually be made out of the box. Overall, I think they actually work fine for the most part, but they're not done in a way that gives players to trust that they work at all.
LunarSol wrote: I'm curious if PLs work if players are limited to what can actually be made out of the box. Overall, I think they actually work fine for the most part, but they're not done in a way that gives players to trust that they work at all.
I once compared my WYSIWYG army with my brother's (both built straight out of the box): going from equal PL to points we were about 30 pts off in a 50 PL game. I tried a couple variants and they were all fairly close in pts. Generally, the more varied the army, the closer it gets. (cuz averages)
That said, we rarely ever have games of equal PL. Generally we play within 5PL of each other, but we have had larger differences. And in the casual setting the difference isn't really felt since most of our games have been pretty close, usually ending only because we run out of turns.
Disclaimer: we play Cities of Death with loads of terrain, so pretty much every unit is rocking a 2+ or 3+ sv which is why our games last so long. (ever tried flushing 2+ sv guardsmen out of a ruin? Spoiler: it's not easy)
vaklor4 wrote: If you play the game long enough, you learn your codex points by heart.
Until GW revises the points in Chapter Approved.
It's usually not gonna be by a large amount though. I already know Intercessors are 18 points off the top of my head, and the base is 20 with Deathwatch.
Ah, power levels...the most fun thing to watch people get upset about. It's a mechanic to play with a softer value system which isn't as detailed...and is then berated heavily for...not being detailed.
If the system had been implemented any different, it would be just as berated - most notably by the people who don't use it.
Power level is (as mentioned above) essentially one power level per 20 points, assuming "most" wargear options, and infantry are priced in blocks. The intent is to provide you with a game in which your armies will end up being within a couple hundred points of each other (i.e. a negligible difference for most games).
Because infantry are purchased in blocks, people whinge and complain. In many instances a squad is five models, and another one-to-five models is X additional power. This is to cover any number of additional models without a player getting anything for free (because you can imagine the shitstorm which would occur if units had a more averaged cost and people took the best options, essentially getting some items for "free" --- the world would be on fire).
Power Level is completely fine for new players, quick pick up games, super fast army building, larger games like Apocalypse style games, etc. People who rage against power level existing (because somehow that affects them) have historically been non-power players, and refuse to acknowledge that power level can be understood and built against similar to points. They'd rather foam at the mouth and trash talk something they don't use - because this is the internet?
Power Level is also not adjusted the way points are - because the power level values are intended for a "close enough" army building method, and mathhammer is thrown out the window. Note that the majority of Forgeworld large and superheavy vehicles experiences a gigantic points hike, but their power level stayed the same. So if you're doing a big silly apocalypse game, or just power level gaming, they're still the same original cheaper cost. This prevents them from being taken frequently in tournaments, but they're still not priced out of normal or narrative play.
I have no idea what you're talking about but I've never seen anyone ever complain about PL existing. Number one complaint I've ever seen is that it's done kinda poorly.
SHUPPET wrote: I have no idea what you're talking about but I've never seen anyone ever complain about PL existing. Number one complaint I've ever seen is that it's done kinda poorly.
I have. The internet is a strange place sometimes.
vaklor4 wrote: The real question is WHAT DOES THE SCANNER SAY ABOUT HIS POWER LEVEL?
Considering Roboute Guilliman is only 18 PL, I wonder what the hell 9000 power level would look like
Also its the scouter not scanner. Minor correction
And now I'm imagining DBZ Abridged Nappa running around the 40k universe like some version of Trazyn the Infinite: "Vegeta, it's a Squig! Can I keep it?"
At least his baldness would fit right in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: I have no idea what you're talking about but I've never seen anyone ever complain about PL existing. Number one complaint I've ever seen is that it's done kinda poorly.
It was a over a year ago, but when PL was revealed at the start of the edition I remember a lot of freaking out about GW dumbing down the game and getting ride of points, ect, ect, ect. That largely died down as time went one and I think most people forgot about it.
That said, locally PL was popular in the indexes, but as the codexes have come out and we have more options (for some units) and more special rules being stacked up I've seen a shift to points being more common.
I don't dislike PL myself, but it needs some fine-tuning (like maybe adding the cost of certain weapons into the PL for units or something), but it was definitely an interesting idea that could work with more finetuning. That said PL needs to be adjusted based on unit points cost. When Intercessors dropped from 20 to 18ppm they dropped 20 points for a full sized squad of 10 and that should have been changed in their PL, but it was left alone.
Every datasheet will have a Power Level recorded on it, so models in Know No Fear, or even new out of any recent box, will have Power Level attached.
It's not designed for ultra-precise, uber-competitive gameplay which I've largely fallen out of love with.
Yes, there can be abuses and shortfalls (not taking heavy weapons on Devastators, for example, would be a massive shortfall), but I find that it lets me play with wargear I'd never normally consider, and play a more relaxed WYSIWYG.
I have Battlescribe, and I still maintain that Power Level is faster to build lists. I know there's die-hard Power Level opposers out there, and they're welcome to that opinion, but my personal experience of PL is far better than normal points.
As said above, roughly every 20 points is worth 1 PL.
Yep, this is pretty much my view of it too. I've no real problem with points but I've been really enjoying how quick and easy PLs make things.
I honestly wish MORE people picked up PL, and that GW improved it to make it better for you guys. The better the split in the rulings they make between the competitive and casual community the better for everyone. This last FAQ embodies why.
Honestly, Im fine with people using PL, but i'd never use PL myself aside from Apocalypse games (where I can't be asked to count up 10,000+ points of wargear and models.)
The major complaint I have for PL is chapter approved and the major FAQs. GW have done absolutely zip all to amend the power level for the units changed in those FAQs and the book, even though some of them REALLY need it.
If you do PL, Guilliman is still an absolutely undercosted monster, since all of his nerfs were from the FAQs and the CA book.
That's just a radical example, but a really good example none the less.
vaklor4 wrote: Honestly, Im fine with people using PL, but i'd never use PL myself aside from Apocalypse games (where I can't be asked to count up 10,000+ points of wargear and models.)
The major complaint I have for PL is chapter approved and the major FAQs. GW have done absolutely zip all to amend the power level for the units changed in those FAQs and the book, even though some of them REALLY need it.
If you do PL, Guilliman is still an absolutely undercosted monster, since all of his nerfs were from the FAQs and the CA book.
That's just a radical example, but a really good example none the less.
As someone who *does* use PLs, I’d agree with this. I know it’s a rough metric, but there are still some fairly obvious outliers; it’d be nice to see it tweaked from time to time.
If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?
KTG17 wrote: If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?
Nothing, except I get the impression that PL players aren't playing the game like that. Which is why it's not for everyone, and that's fine.
KTG17 wrote: If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?
The same thing that doesn't stop people from bringing 5 Terminators with power fists and combi-meltas
KTG17 wrote: If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?
The GSC list I just used in a game (points) was 75 PL and 1250 points on the dot. If i was using PL, I'd be essentially counted as 250 points (20%) higher for the same list. Would you like to play a game of 1250 vs 1500?
A tau list I have sitting around? The same 75 PL, but... 2053 points.
How much would you enjoy playing 1250 vs 2053?
Talinsin wrote: The GSC list I just used in a game (points) was 75 PL and 1250 points on the dot. If i was using PL, I'd be essentially counted as 250 points (20%) higher for the same list. Would you like to play a game of 1250 vs 1500?
A tau list I have sitting around? The same 75 PL, but... 2053 points.
How much would you enjoy playing 1250 vs 2053?
Hey, i've beat people in a handicap game before!
However, this. This arguement cannot be stated enough. There is a horrible imbalance in Power Level that goes far beyond "just casual" and goes into "just sloppy".
The major complaint I have for PL is chapter approved and the major FAQs. GW have done absolutely zip all to amend the power level for the units changed in those FAQs and the book, even though some of them REALLY need it.
Minor correction: GW did adjust the PL of Knights in the admech codex to match to Knight codex. Now, if only they'd do that for other units...
Power Level and point player here. No there are some bad outliers in balance but as is always said, that is the case with points too.
When people post things like "what's to stop someone abusing it horribly" I really do wonder about the mindset though. Power. Levels. Are. Not. For. Matched. Play.
Ahem, with that off my chest I do get the feeling that many on this forum are more worried about their opponent possibly scamming them in some way or another than actually enjoying the game.
There are many of us out here who could not give two hoots if there is 4 point difference per model or whatever. I mean...beyond making the most efficient list possible who cares?
That's not what power levels are there for. They've given you the tools for that.
If somebody does decide to make sure their army is maxed out to the extreme with power levels without telling their opponent first (honestly I've seen it argued on here that this is the only reason anyone looks to play with PL) then I rather think that they'd be asked to tone it down or play a game with points in future as. That person clearly does not have the maturity to be playing a different type of game.
I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity that makes someone max out on upgrades. That's just a different mindset.
Some people are in it because they just want to throw dice and faff about. Others want everyone involved to try their hardest to win, so they can get a challenging and rewarding game.
And neither side is wrong. It's totally fine to just use the game as an excuse to drink some brews, hang with friends, and have a good time. It's also fine to focus on the game itself.
JNAProductions wrote: I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity that makes someone max out on upgrades. That's just a different mindset.
Some people are in it because they just want to throw dice and faff about. Others want everyone involved to try their hardest to win, so they can get a challenging and rewarding game.
And neither side is wrong. It's totally fine to just use the game as an excuse to drink some brews, hang with friends, and have a good time. It's also fine to focus on the game itself.
Forgive me I meant if one is abusing power level in order to get a win in a game mode that is not really about that then I'd consider them a little immature. No offence to people who enjoy making a ruthless list but really that's what points are for, letting you tinker away with the minutia finding the best value.
JNAProductions wrote: I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity that makes someone max out on upgrades. That's just a different mindset.
Some people are in it because they just want to throw dice and faff about. Others want everyone involved to try their hardest to win, so they can get a challenging and rewarding game.
And neither side is wrong. It's totally fine to just use the game as an excuse to drink some brews, hang with friends, and have a good time. It's also fine to focus on the game itself.
Forgive me I meant if one is abusing power level in order to get a win in a game mode that is not really about that then I'd consider them a little immature. No offence to people who enjoy making a ruthless list but really that's what points are for, letting you tinker away with the minutia finding the best value.
Well, I guess we interpreted the situation differently.
I saw it as PUG, all that's said is "50 PL game" or whatever. One person brings a very casual, non-competitive list, the other brings a list armed to the teeth.
You saw it as including a decent amount of pre-game talk, where it was made clear this was just a friendly throw-down.
I definitely agree that, if someone says "Hey, let's just have a fun, non-competitive game" and you bring the hardball, you're a jerk.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Oh, I've been playing long enough that I can remember points from several editions ago, for multiple codexes. Remembering isn't a problem.
But frankly, I don't care enough to calculate every weapon, every upgrade, every model, when I'll have a more relaxed game taking a blank unit, paying a flat price, and just playing by what I see on the model.
Of course, YMMV.
this ^---^
If I'm playing a veteran player(RT or 2ed) like me, we play PL, if I'm playing the younger guys in our group I'll play points. I generally prefer PL since I hate cutting or adding to get to a specific point value. it generally works out even and I have no problem facing someone at a handicap.
KTG17 wrote: If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?
Nothing? It's just not as powerful as you think - that unit is 7 PL, which translates to about 140 points. It costs 124 points if you bought it using points. Throw a useless powerfist on the champion and it's still cheaper for points than for PL.
In general, PL works fine when you want to quickly write up a list from the models you have, or where piling upgrades onto units doesn't actually do a whole lot like in apoc. No upgrades you can buy for points are going to save you from a castellan (or bigger) shooting you.
KTG17 wrote: If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?
KTG17 wrote: If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?
Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.
Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.
If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.
Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.
If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.
So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?
Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.
Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.
If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.
So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?
Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.
Then use points. It's simple.
PL is abusable, if it wasn't then points wouldn't need to exist.
Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.
If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.
So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?
Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.
I don't think it is a great system, but then again, the aim is not always to build a good list, but simulate a battle in the fictional universe. If your aim is to build as good list as possible than the PL is the wrong system for you.
Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.
If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.
So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?
Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.
There's a worlds distance of difference between a good list and I took my time to find every loophole and silly rules interaction to break the game open as much as I can. PL is designed to quickly get your models on the table and maybe try some new models for a causal game. It's clear from GW it was not meant to be used during what GW considers a matched play environment.
Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.
If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.
So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?
Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.
"Good" is relative.
Good doesn't always mean ultra-competitive soup CP farm "if it's 1% less powerful it's trash" lists.
"Good" to someone could be the Ultramarines Second Company, built exactly as shown in the Space Marine Codex (so ten man squads, Devastators using a variety of weapons within the same squad, Sergeants carrying power swords and power fists despite it not being 100% points efficient)
"Good" could be an all Terminators list, with one person's entire TDA collection squaring off against a horde of Tyranids through a narrow pass, a la 300.
"Good" could be simply whatever wargear and units you like to field.
In that respect, Power Level is brilliant at making "Good" lists. If you're going in to make min-maxed competitive lists, you're using the wrong way to make them. It's like using a paint roller to paint a model - the roller is suited for making good painted walls and ceilings, not for making good painted miniatures.
TL;DR Power Level is, IMO, successful in what it is designed to do, and is not designed to fill the role that normal points do.
Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.
If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.
So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?
Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.
Min/maxxing to get the most points for your PL doesn't always translate to "building a good list". Deathwatch Marines are 2PL/model, which sounds like they should be 40pts/model, but in this thought experiment it is possible for me to build teams loaded with combi-plasmas and heavy thunderhammers that cost upwards of 60pts/model, and still only pay 2PL/model. Does that mean my list is better/more OP, or am I still spending 40pts per single-Wound T4 model?
Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.
If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.
So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?
Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.
Min/maxxing to get the most points for your PL doesn't always translate to "building a good list". Deathwatch Marines are 2PL/model, which sounds like they should be 40pts/model, but in this thought experiment it is possible for me to build teams loaded with combi-plasmas and heavy thunderhammers that cost upwards of 60pts/model, and still only pay 2PL/model. Does that mean my list is better/more OP, or am I still spending 40pts per single-Wound T4 model?
I mean, it's better to get the most out of your models. No, Veterans don't seem a good choice in PL due to that, but if you're gonna field them, might as well bring them for a bear.
I guess part of why I responded the way I did is that the poster above me said "If I have the models for it"-meaning they're still playing WYSIWYG.
Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.
If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.
So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?
Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.
Min/maxxing to get the most points for your PL doesn't always translate to "building a good list". Deathwatch Marines are 2PL/model, which sounds like they should be 40pts/model, but in this thought experiment it is possible for me to build teams loaded with combi-plasmas and heavy thunderhammers that cost upwards of 60pts/model, and still only pay 2PL/model. Does that mean my list is better/more OP, or am I still spending 40pts per single-Wound T4 model?
I mean, it's better to get the most out of your models. No, Veterans don't seem a good choice in PL due to that, but if you're gonna field them, might as well bring them for a bear.
I guess part of why I responded the way I did is that the poster above me said "If I have the models for it"-meaning they're still playing WYSIWYG.
WYSIWYG is certainly a good control on people trying to min/max PL. I don't know about you but I don't have a lot of Deathwatch Veterans built with combi-plasmas and thunderhammers.
There's a sort of implicit don't-look-at-the-man-behind-the-curtain about PL; it works fine barring some corner cases if you need a quick shortcut to list-building or you're just starting, but if you start to try and explore the corner cases it falls apart. It isn't a "good system" because it's built on top of a system that's already fuzzy and imprecise, it compounds its own errors on top of extant points-cost errors, and you should definitely not use it if you're taking the game seriously or organizing a tournament, but it works reasonably well as the quick/casual shortcut it was designed as.
If power levels were not written into the rules, it would be called cheating.
Here's a fun exercise to try.
Take a 100 PL list and max out each unit. Translate that list into points. Divide the points by the PL and see what number you get.
Then take a 100 PL list from an army you don't like - Grey Knights, for example - and get the points for that. Do the same division and compare them.
In an ideal world, you would get the same number for how points translate to power levels for each Codex. But that's not going to happen, you are going to find each Codex gives a different number.
The problem is it's so unfair. For 100 PL, I can get 2450 points of CSM and 1780 points of Grey Knights. That's never going to be fun.
You should always play WYSIWYG anyway. But yeah, PL weirdly works better if you play using points most of the time, and have your unit's equipped under that assumption. Then it is unlikely that your units actually are decked out with every piece of most expensive gear they in theory could take.
vaklor4 wrote: Honestly, Im fine with people using PL, but i'd never use PL myself aside from Apocalypse games (where I can't be asked to count up 10,000+ points of wargear and models.)
The major complaint I have for PL is chapter approved and the major FAQs. GW have done absolutely zip all to amend the power level for the units changed in those FAQs and the book, even though some of them REALLY need it.
If you do PL, Guilliman is still an absolutely undercosted monster, since all of his nerfs were from the FAQs and the CA book.
That's just a radical example, but a really good example none the less.
I mean all Apocalypse are going to be scheduled ahead of time basically. If you have time to make a 2000 point list, it isn't much longer to make a 10000, surprisingly.
vaklor4 wrote: Honestly, Im fine with people using PL, but i'd never use PL myself aside from Apocalypse games (where I can't be asked to count up 10,000+ points of wargear and models.)
The major complaint I have for PL is chapter approved and the major FAQs. GW have done absolutely zip all to amend the power level for the units changed in those FAQs and the book, even though some of them REALLY need it.
If you do PL, Guilliman is still an absolutely undercosted monster, since all of his nerfs were from the FAQs and the CA book.
That's just a radical example, but a really good example none the less.
I mean all Apocalypse are going to be scheduled ahead of time basically. If you have time to make a 2000 point list, it isn't much longer to make a 10000, surprisingly.
Oh, believe me I did try. Originally we were gonna bring 10,000 points, but after three days, we decided it was just kinda...Too much to account. I only got half way through army building and I was about two full sized pieces of paper in. (Bare in mind neither of us had a particularly large amount of lords of war.)
techsoldaten wrote: If power levels were not written into the rules, it would be called cheating.
Here's a fun exercise to try.
Take a 100 PL list and max out each unit. Translate that list into points. Divide the points by the PL and see what number you get.
Then take a 100 PL list from an army you don't like - Grey Knights, for example - and get the points for that. Do the same division and compare them.
In an ideal world, you would get the same number for how points translate to power levels for each Codex. But that's not going to happen, you are going to find each Codex gives a different number.
The problem is it's so unfair. For 100 PL, I can get 2450 points of CSM and 1780 points of Grey Knights. That's never going to be fun.
last time I checked war isn't fair, so why should wargaming be? PL is not for anyone trying to play hardcore or anything other than for fun.
I dont care if it's fair, it's the challenge of being the underdog or specifically picking an objective to deny your opponent. I think most PL players kinda feel the same, at least everyone I've played PL with.
techsoldaten wrote: The problem is it's so unfair. For 100 PL, I can get 2450 points of CSM and 1780 points of Grey Knights. That's never going to be fun.
So you're saying 2000 points of CSM are equal to 2000 points of Grey Knights? Wait till Karol hears about that!
Sgt_Smudge wrote:TL;DR Power Level is, IMO, successful in what it is designed to do, and is not designed to fill the role that normal points do.
Well then it needs to start being balanced as such. gak like Alpha Legion and Raven Guard was perfectly fine, hell it improved the game, at matched level. If it was ruining casual play it should have been given rules for casual / power level play and not fethed with for matched.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:TL;DR Power Level is, IMO, successful in what it is designed to do, and is not designed to fill the role that normal points do.
Well then it needs to start being balanced as such. gak like Alpha Legion and Raven Guard was perfectly fine, hell it improved the game, at matched level. If it was ruining casual play it should have been given rules for casual / power level play and not fethed with for matched.
I'm not talking about matched play though? I'm talking purely about the different types of points, not the systems they're attached to.
If you're salty about the changes made in the FAQ, that's unrelated to this discussion.
vaklor4 wrote: Honestly, Im fine with people using PL, but i'd never use PL myself aside from Apocalypse games (where I can't be asked to count up 10,000+ points of wargear and models.)
The major complaint I have for PL is chapter approved and the major FAQs. GW have done absolutely zip all to amend the power level for the units changed in those FAQs and the book, even though some of them REALLY need it.
If you do PL, Guilliman is still an absolutely undercosted monster, since all of his nerfs were from the FAQs and the CA book.
That's just a radical example, but a really good example none the less.
I mean all Apocalypse are going to be scheduled ahead of time basically. If you have time to make a 2000 point list, it isn't much longer to make a 10000, surprisingly.
Oh, believe me I did try. Originally we were gonna bring 10,000 points, but after three days, we decided it was just kinda...Too much to account. I only got half way through army building and I was about two full sized pieces of paper in. (Bare in mind neither of us had a particularly large amount of lords of war.)
Making lists is all part of the fun, and point optimization goes with that. Trying to squeeze every last point is pretty fun.
If it helps, have an idea in mind, and separate the sections by 2500. Everything will eventually come together and you'll figure out how to fill in everything.
Making lists is all part of the fun, and point optimization goes with that. Trying to squeeze every last point is pretty fun.
To you. It is fun to you. Not everybody feels that way.
I love making lists, but the last bit of points squeezing is my least favorite bit. Mind you, power level has the opposite effect, where it feels like im working with feet when I should really be working with inches.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:TL;DR Power Level is, IMO, successful in what it is designed to do, and is not designed to fill the role that normal points do.
Well then it needs to start being balanced as such. gak like Alpha Legion and Raven Guard was perfectly fine, hell it improved the game, at matched level. If it was ruining casual play it should have been given rules for casual / power level play and not fethed with for matched.
I'm not talking about matched play though? I'm talking purely about the different types of points, not the systems they're attached to.
If you're salty about the changes made in the FAQ, that's unrelated to this discussion.
It's not a separate discussion at all. It's the most important part of this discussion. Its no point having a working ruleset for casual play if they are going throw changes aimed at casual into matched play. I'm not even remotely salty at that part of the FAQ, I don't run either army and it's inclusion is a net buff for own. I just don't like what it means from a game design perspective, and that's why I mentioned it, as it's my number one point of improvement concerning having two separate game modes. Not sure what all this gaslighting is about.
Hi, long time lurker here. I just wanted to add.
My group has played since 8th went live. using only PL.
We have found its great for casual play. I can blam a list out in 10 mins and play.
I have one of the largest collections on figs over 500 PL in Tyranids.
PL requires talking to your opponent about the game. I think we have only seen one real unbalanced game and that was due to a list building error.
PL works great for casual play.
SHUPPET wrote: Its no point having a working ruleset for casual play if they are going throw changes aimed at casual into matched play.
This statement depends on the premise that competitive play is more important than "casual". If you discard that premise and assume that "casual" is more important then it's 100% fine to make "casual"-oriented changes as a priority and not care about the side effects on the tiny minority of hardcore tournament players.
Not that there's really any conflict between the two. Good balance and good design are good regardless of who is playing the game, and both "casual" and competitive play can be improved simultaneously. If a change is genuinely good for "casual" games then it's almost certainly also good for competitive play, and we should ignore the whining from tournament players who don't like their meta being changed.
Pl don't work too well for units that have varying gear options that they don't want to take. Like nobz. All the power klawz and stuff is included in their price tag even though you don't generally want to take all the pks. Furthermore, they're calculated on the pre-ca prices.
They are also not evenly distributed among armies. It's a usual situation to get a 100 pl game where one army ends up with 1700 pts and another one with 2300.
Pl are a way to introduce new players to the game. Or to play apoc games where balance is not a consideration.
I was watching the Warhammer TV twitch stream with Duncan last night (from Friday the 6th, I think), and they were talking about narrative games. For example, the climax of the Tyranid invasion of Macragge. That was the 1st company's defence of the polar fortress. You know the forces present - only 100 Terminators, Vanguard and Sternguard. Just round up all the appropriate models you have. No point worrying about the points value, since you'll be using the models as they are. Just tot up the PL to see roughly how many Tyranids to start with, and perhaps to use as a victory condition (for example, say the marines need to kill the same PL as themselves in 'nids before being wiped out for them to win, perhaps).
You could use points, but there's no real benefit to doing it. You've already chosen the forces, so you'd just be doing a more fiddly calculation.
SHUPPET wrote: Its no point having a working ruleset for casual play if they are going throw changes aimed at casual into matched play.
This statement depends on the premise that competitive play is more important than "casual". If you discard that premise and assume that "casual" is more important then it's 100% fine to make "casual"-oriented changes as a priority and not care about the side effects on the tiny minority of hardcore tournament players.
There's zero premise at all for that, in fact my statements are aimed at being to the benefit of the casual scene just as much as the competitive by not having changes aimed at one scene tied to both game modes. But I knew when I saw your quote you were probably going to do your tried and truest strategy of opening with a strawman and then discussing that for the next for next paragraph or two.
The change that I referenced concerning Alpha Legion and Raven Guard for example, are two armies that I'm not sure even have a major win between them. Both were nerfed the hardest of all armies in the competitive scene that I can think of, even GSC are still in a better state I think. They were fine competitively, hell they even add a good dynamic, they were a great meta cop that encouraged people to take screens and screen properly. They rely heavily on going first and are far from OP, and have their place in the game.
This change is almost certainly brought on by whining from casual players that hurrdurr I was hotdropped turn 1 and everything charged and surrounded my ball of dreads that I didn't split and i didn't get to play gw please fix. The armies were very punishing against low skill, or casual players. This is the exact sort of design change that belongs in casual modes were they don't want to have to deal with that sort of stuff, but a change that negatively impacts matched play and removes a great dynamic from the equation.
Peregrine wrote: and we should ignore the whining from tournament players who don't like their meta being changed.
I love the meta being changed. I'd hate to have a stale meta. This change particularly is of no negative impact to me and benefits my armies. However what I dislike is this heavy handed touch that has basically removed the unique elements of Alpha Legion and Raven Guard from the competitive discussion. Luckily, at least it's the kinda of change that doesn't invalidate many models, and anyone can just play those armies as whatever faction they want really. I don't think this is a salt influenced discussion at all, it's just aimed at taking a sensible look at how we can improve the game. This just seems like you gaslighting as per usual.
AndrewGPaul wrote: You've already chosen the forces, so you'd just be doing a more fiddly calculation.
Except you haven't chosen the forces, your own plan says "total up the point costs for the marines and then match them against an appropriate point value of enemies". The only difference between the possible point systems is that the one you propose using is less accurate and less likely to produce the desired game.
You've already chosen the Marine side, in this example. Calculating the exact points cost isn't required.
What I missed out, mind you, is that the Tyranid force is an endless wave. What I'm suggesting is a quick way to determine the Tyranids' starting forces. Doesn't need to even be PL; you could just eyeball it, or drop down all the 'nids you have. You could use points, but I don't see that the extra time spent results in a better experience.
AndrewGPaul wrote: You've already chosen the Marine side, in this example. Calculating the exact points cost isn't required.
What I missed out, mind you, is that the Tyranid force is an endless wave. What I'm suggesting is a quick way to determine the Tyranids' starting forces. Doesn't need to even be PL; you could just eyeball it, or drop down all the 'nids you have. You could use points, but I don't see that the extra time spent results in a better experience.
Getting a roughly estimated point value instead of "all the nids" would just result in a better turn 1-2. It would generally mean the Marines actually have a chance in hell of surviving until the mid-game, where if you just dumped all your nids out turn 1, even Nid shooting being as meh as it is will still smear the marines across the tabletop.
This change is almost certainly brought on by whining from casual players that hurrdurr I was hotdropped turn 1 and everything charged and surrounded my ball of dreads that I didn't split and i didn't get to play gw please fix. The armies were very punishing against low skill, or casual players. This is the exact sort of design change that belongs in casual modes were they don't want to have to deal with that sort of stuff, but a change that negatively impacts matched play and removes a great dynamic from the equation.
Am almost 100% sure that the changes were not made because of casual players. What they do look like,is as if some dudes at the studio or playtest team played eldar for a long time with great success and suddenly were facing armies that could beat them, not problem yet, but which were so efficient they could be piloted to a win by a scrub like me, HUGE problem for tournament players. No of the casual players problems were adressed in the FAQs, nothing got updated to make the game more fun at a casual level. What was done though, was the nerfing of one specific easy enough to play list that could let players like me beat up a GT champion.
AndrewGPaul wrote: You've already chosen the Marine side, in this example. Calculating the exact points cost isn't required.
What I missed out, mind you, is that the Tyranid force is an endless wave. What I'm suggesting is a quick way to determine the Tyranids' starting forces. Doesn't need to even be PL; you could just eyeball it, or drop down all the 'nids you have. You could use points, but I don't see that the extra time spent results in a better experience.
This change is almost certainly brought on by whining from casual players that hurrdurr I was hotdropped turn 1 and everything charged and surrounded my ball of dreads that I didn't split and i didn't get to play gw please fix. The armies were very punishing against low skill, or casual players. This is the exact sort of design change that belongs in casual modes were they don't want to have to deal with that sort of stuff, but a change that negatively impacts matched play and removes a great dynamic from the equation.
Am almost 100% sure that the changes were not made because of casual players. What they do look like,is as if some dudes at the studio or playtest team played eldar for a long time with great success and suddenly were facing armies that could beat them, not problem yet, but which were so efficient they could be piloted to a win by a scrub like me, HUGE problem for tournament players. No of the casual players problems were adressed in the FAQs, nothing got updated to make the game more fun at a casual level. What was done though, was the nerfing of one specific easy enough to play list that could let players like me beat up a GT champion.
What you say is the opposite of the case. The better a player is, the worse AL and RG were against them. If what you say was true, and any old nobody could beat a GT winner with it - where was the GT wins for either army? You wouldn't have a laughing chance va Nick Nanavatis Eldar with your Raven Guard. The armies were scrub killers, not the other way around, and good players were able to screen them out efficiently. They were a capable army but not OP. That element is gone now.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:TL;DR Power Level is, IMO, successful in what it is designed to do, and is not designed to fill the role that normal points do.
Well then it needs to start being balanced as such. gak like Alpha Legion and Raven Guard was perfectly fine, hell it improved the game, at matched level. If it was ruining casual play it should have been given rules for casual / power level play and not fethed with for matched.
I'm not talking about matched play though? I'm talking purely about the different types of points, not the systems they're attached to.
If you're salty about the changes made in the FAQ, that's unrelated to this discussion.
It's not a separate discussion at all. It's the most important part of this discussion. Its no point having a working ruleset for casual play if they are going throw changes aimed at casual into matched play. I'm not even remotely salty at that part of the FAQ, I don't run either army and it's inclusion is a net buff for own. I just don't like what it means from a game design perspective, and that's why I mentioned it, as it's my number one point of improvement concerning having two separate game modes. Not sure what all this gaslighting is about.
What "ruleset" for casual play? It's a different method of organising points, the rest of the system is fine. I use Power Level in Matched Play just fine.
Who says that the changes they've made to Matched Play are purely for the "Casual mode"? Maybe those changes are just changes because GW wanted to change Matched Play? Which is unrelated to this discussion.
This discussion is about Power Level. Not Matched Play. Inherently, one does not affect the other.
Just because there's a different way you *could* calculate your army doesn't change the rest of the game. You can use points in Narrative games. You can use Power Level in Matched. The discussion is about the difference of PL vs Points, which the gamemode has no outcome on.
AndrewGPaul wrote: You've already chosen the Marine side, in this example. Calculating the exact points cost isn't required.
What I missed out, mind you, is that the Tyranid force is an endless wave. What I'm suggesting is a quick way to determine the Tyranids' starting forces. Doesn't need to even be PL; you could just eyeball it, or drop down all the 'nids you have. You could use points, but I don't see that the extra time spent results in a better experience.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:TL;DR Power Level is, IMO, successful in what it is designed to do, and is not designed to fill the role that normal points do.
Well then it needs to start being balanced as such. gak like Alpha Legion and Raven Guard was perfectly fine, hell it improved the game, at matched level. If it was ruining casual play it should have been given rules for casual / power level play and not fethed with for matched.
I'm not talking about matched play though? I'm talking purely about the different types of points, not the systems they're attached to.
If you're salty about the changes made in the FAQ, that's unrelated to this discussion.
It's not a separate discussion at all. It's the most important part of this discussion. Its no point having a working ruleset for casual play if they are going throw changes aimed at casual into matched play. I'm not even remotely salty at that part of the FAQ, I don't run either army and it's inclusion is a net buff for own. I just don't like what it means from a game design perspective, and that's why I mentioned it, as it's my number one point of improvement concerning having two separate game modes. Not sure what all this gaslighting is about.
What "ruleset" for casual play? It's a different method of organising points, the rest of the system is fine. I use Power Level in Matched Play just fine.
Who says that the changes they've made to Matched Play are purely for the "Casual mode"? Maybe those changes are just changes because GW wanted to change Matched Play? Which is unrelated to this discussion.
This discussion is about Power Level. Not Matched Play. Inherently, one does not affect the other.
Just because there's a different way you *could* calculate your army doesn't change the rest of the game. You can use points in Narrative games. You can use Power Level in Matched. The discussion is about the difference of PL vs Points, which the gamemode has no outcome on.
The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.
SHUPPET wrote: The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.
But maybe Games Workshop's vision for what they want Matched Play to be is different from yours. Maybe they still want Matched Play changing, regardless of other factors?
And again, what has this got to do with Power Level?
SHUPPET wrote: The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.
But maybe Games Workshop's vision for what they want Matched Play to be is different from yours. Maybe they still want Matched Play changing, regardless of other factors?
And again, what has this got to do with Power Level?
Maybe their vision is different from mine. And maybe it's different from yours. And maybe they want Knights + IG to dominate the meta forever, and maybe they want GK to be a terrible army. Your line of reasoning is a pointless cop-out that has no place in a forum for discussion. The same response could be given to literally anything said on this forum, this is a place where people can have their own say on issues THEY perceive with the game, or gw's vision.
And if you can't see what this has to do with PL, I don't know what to tell you. The argument literally wouldn't exist without PL. It's what I feel is the most important part of making the system work well, and at the same time is mutually beneficial in the system itself helping to change go smoothly. This has everything to do with PL, and it's the next logical step to improving the fact that they have two tiers of gameplay now.
The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.
There are two (well, 3 but only 2 matter here) rulesets: Narrative and Matched. Narrative uses PL and Matched uses points. All beta rules (and organizes play suggestions) thus far have only applied to matched play. Narrative hasn't changed since CA added new missions and scenario rules/stratagems.
So they're already doing what you want them to do.
The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.
There are two (well, 3 but only 2 matter here) rulesets: Narrative and Matched. Narrative uses PL and Matched uses points. All beta rules (and organizes play suggestions) thus far have only applied to matched play. Narrative hasn't changed since CA added new missions and scenario rules/stratagems.
So they're already doing what you want them to do.
But they're not. This is pretty well established, in fact I first heard the concept from someone literally on the playtesting staff (and you all can too if interested) who feels that there is no split between casual and competitive rulesets at the moment, and casual players are playing matched with little incentive or direction to play PL, and GW is taking this into account during FAQ season, and as a result the competitive ruleset of matched is making concessions for casual-stomping elements one way or another - some that are fine competitively get left in, some get ruled out, and that's not ideal for anyone. The next logical step is to start specifying casual friendly rules for PL play.
SHUPPET wrote: The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.
But maybe Games Workshop's vision for what they want Matched Play to be is different from yours. Maybe they still want Matched Play changing, regardless of other factors?
And again, what has this got to do with Power Level?
Maybe their vision is different from mine. And maybe it's different from yours. And maybe they want Knights + IG to dominate the meta forever, and maybe they want GK to be a terrible army. Your line of reasoning is a pointless cop-out that has no place in a forum for discussion. The same response could be given to literally anything said on this forum, this is a place where people can have their own say on issues THEY perceive with the game, or gw's vision.
It would be a cop out if this discussion was ABOUT Matched Play. It's not. If you want to talk about Matched Play, you can make a thread on it, which the forum supports. The forum does NOT support talking about anything in a thread which is not related to it.
This thread for discussion is about Power Level. Not a free-for-all.
The reason I'm not engaging with this Matched Play debate is because that's not what I wanted to talk about in this thread. This thread is about Power Levels.
And if you can't see what this has to do with PL, I don't know what to tell you. The argument literally wouldn't exist without PL. It's what I feel is the most important part of making the system work well, and at the same time is mutually beneficial in the system itself helping to change go smoothly. This has everything to do with PL, and it's the next logical step to improving the fact that they have two tiers of gameplay now.
What has it got to do with Power Level? Power Level can be used in Matched and Narrative/Open. It's not exclusive to either.
This honestly sounds like you want to talk about the difference between Matched Play and Open/Narrative Play - unfortunately, Power Level doesn't really have anything to do with that. If you want to talk about Matched/Narrative/Open, have you considered making a thread?
The people saying Power Level is for casual fluffy games and is a good rough estimate of points seem to be willfully ignoring the opposing argument.
When we're playing a 75 PL game and I take my fun GSC list (not competitive, balanced TAC list that adds up to 1250 points) vs my fun 75 PL Tau list (not competitive, silly missile spam list that adds up to 2053 points), we're not getting a roughly even match. We're getting two fun, casual lists that will end in an absolute massacre that will be fun for neither side.
If it was only WAAC list building that breaks the system, I'd admit that it was fine for casual games. When casual, fun list building breaks the game to a point where one side has about 60% more than the other, then there's a problem.
SHUPPET wrote: The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.
But maybe Games Workshop's vision for what they want Matched Play to be is different from yours. Maybe they still want Matched Play changing, regardless of other factors?
And again, what has this got to do with Power Level?
Maybe their vision is different from mine. And maybe it's different from yours. And maybe they want Knights + IG to dominate the meta forever, and maybe they want GK to be a terrible army. Your line of reasoning is a pointless cop-out that has no place in a forum for discussion. The same response could be given to literally anything said on this forum, this is a place where people can have their own say on issues THEY perceive with the game, or gw's vision.
It would be a cop out if this discussion was ABOUT Matched Play. It's not. If you want to talk about Matched Play, you can make a thread on it, which the forum supports. The forum does NOT support talking about anything in a thread which is not related to it.
This thread for discussion is about Power Level. Not a free-for-all.
The reason I'm not engaging with this Matched Play debate is because that's not what I wanted to talk about in this thread. This thread is about Power Levels.
And if you can't see what this has to do with PL, I don't know what to tell you. The argument literally wouldn't exist without PL. It's what I feel is the most important part of making the system work well, and at the same time is mutually beneficial in the system itself helping to change go smoothly. This has everything to do with PL, and it's the next logical step to improving the fact that they have two tiers of gameplay now.
What has it got to do with Power Level? Power Level can be used in Matched and Narrative/Open. It's not exclusive to either.
This honestly sounds like you want to talk about the difference between Matched Play and Open/Narrative Play - unfortunately, Power Level doesn't really have anything to do with that. If you want to talk about Matched/Narrative/Open, have you considered making a thread?
I'm literally talking about something equally relevant to matched play as it is to PL. And both topics are very relevant here anyway, it's literally the only measure we have of PL. My entire point is based around the support that I think PL needs to succeed, yes this also improves matched play equally at the same time, but doesnt make it any less relevant to PL. Disagree by all means if you have any logical reason to do so, but at this point it's clear you are just reaching for cop-outs. If you think what I'm posting isn't relevant to this thread get a mod, because as it stands the only one derailing relevant discussion is you with this nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talinsin wrote: The people saying Power Level is for casual fluffy games and is a good rough estimate of points seem to be willfully ignoring the opposing argument.
When we're playing a 75 PL game and I take my fun GSC list (not competitive, balanced TAC list that adds up to 1250 points) vs my fun 75 PL Tau list (not competitive, silly missile spam list that adds up to 2053 points), we're not getting a roughly even match. We're getting two fun, casual lists that will end in an absolute massacre that will be fun for neither side.
If it was only WAAC list building that breaks the system, I'd admit that it was fine for casual games. When casual, fun list building breaks the game to a point where one side has about 60% more than the other, then there's a problem.
If casual fun list building breaks the game, that's part of the reason PL needs more support.
AndrewGPaul wrote: You've already chosen the Marine side, in this example. Calculating the exact points cost isn't required.
What I missed out, mind you, is that the Tyranid force is an endless wave. What I'm suggesting is a quick way to determine the Tyranids' starting forces. Doesn't need to even be PL; you could just eyeball it, or drop down all the 'nids you have. You could use points, but I don't see that the extra time spent results in a better experience.
Getting a roughly estimated point value ...
The Power Level, perhaps?
Sorry, meant to saw Power Level I posted that when I was FAIRLY tired.
SHUPPET wrote: I'm literally talking about something equally relevant to matched play as it is to PL. And both topics are very relevant here anyway, it's literally the only measure we have of PL.
I don't understand how it's the "only measure of PL"? Power level is just a different way you could build your list. Nothing more than that.
Changes to the wider game don't have to be related, and in my view are not, to power level.
My entire point is based around the support that I think PL needs to succeed, yes this also improves matched play equally at the same time, but doesnt make it any less relevant to PL. Disagree by all means if you have any logical reason to do so
I believe I have. If you don't find that sufficient, fair enough.
If you want to fix Matched Play, I don't see what Power Level has to do with that. Power Level can be used in Matched. Points can be used for Narrative.
Talinsin wrote: If casual fun list building breaks the game, that's part of the reason PL needs more support.
PL needs support, but I don't think it's as broken as normal points. I'd be open to a potential split value for units - one if they have no upgrades, one if they do take any. The barebones one is a few PL less, and the "upgrades" one is the same (changed for balance) as the current ones.
The only thing we have to measure PLs success as a system against is matched play. The fact that it's just a new way to build your list is exactly the point, and has been the driving focus of every post I've made.
I don't "just want to fix matched play". I want to improve both matched and PL at the same time, by having PL get more focused support from GW. Jesus, it's like you're not even reading.
SHUPPET wrote: The only thing we have to measure PLs success as a system against is matched play.
This is where I lose you. How is matched play all we have? The only thing we have to compare PL to is the standard points system. That's not "Matched Play". The other aspects of "Matched Play" (so Tactical Restrain, Battle Brothers, etc etc) have no bearing on Power Level.
I swear I'm having de ja vu about posting in a thread about this .. Hmmm
anyways
I'd love if Power Level was an appropriate option to play 40K .. to be able to just pick up models and throw them on a table really quick.
But my chosen factions are at polar opposites of the spectrum.
Necrons - zero choice for gear ... Gauss or Tesla is the hardest choice.
Raven Guard - on the other hand every single model has a choice of several dozen guns and knives and grenades and moist towlettes.
and that's the problem... where so much choice exists when up against an unknown opponent where you want to offer a fun experience as well as take a fun time..
how do you 'KNOW' when too much is too much
one heavy bolter ? ..3 Las cannons .. quad las stormraven or the bolters ...
when nothing has a price ... nothing has a value, so take all the things ... I don't think I'm an awful person for taking a few plasma hell blasters ... they're the only Primaris models I own ... but now I'm suddenly the incarnation of Horus himself for putting them on the table in a power level game ...
But if you weren't compelled to put EVERY possible upgrade on every possible unit, then Power Level work just fine.
PL is based on the average points cost for a unit that is neither un-upgraded, not fully decked out, but rather has the "medium" wargear options.
In short, Power Level will never work for Power gamers, which from those terms alone is ironic.
Not saying anyone in particular is a Power gamer, but if you compulsion is to always take max upgrades "because you can" than of course PLs wouldn't work for you.
If, however, your units were built in a specific way that only adds a few upgrades without the bells and whistles, then PLS work out pretty balanced regardless of playing Necrons or Ravenguard.
Field an army you would be fine playing against and you'll be fine. If you don't want to use power level that's fine too. You don't need to rationalize it's awful to not use it.
Not saying anyone in particular is a Power gamer, but if you compulsion is to always take max upgrades "because you can" than of course PLs wouldn't work for you.
If, however, your units were built in a specific way that only adds a few upgrades without the bells and whistles, then PLS work out pretty balanced regardless of playing Necrons or Ravenguard.
-
that's my entire point though ... my models aren't all built to a competitive standard ... but nowhere is it explained in the book ... that in a 5 man dev squad
3 HBs = good ... but woe betide the man whom taketh a 4th heavy bolter ... and plasma is right out !
so it's left up to me to GUESS if I'm suddenly a power gamer by proxy. and the only measure I have at my disposal is .. how many POINTS are these upgrades ? ... right .. yeah I'm at 200 points of models compared to my mate 120points of necrons ... so I should tone it back a bit.
Power gives Zero indication of where the line is for any inexperienced player to do ... which is the true irony that Narrative is aimed at new players
I will add that I only ever use PLs to make lists for BOTH players, i.e. using my models to play against my other models in games at home against my kids.
This kind of game, and those in which 2 players that always seem to only play against each other, are where PLs are ideal.
Army A consistently beating Army B? Give Army B more upgrades and Army A less. PL stays the same. done.
This is a game designed for players to have fun.
Balanced army lists are equal and fair, resulting in more fun for both players.
Using [Power Level] is a points based system.
Using [Points] is a points based system.
[Power Level] is less granular points than [Points].
Less granularity leads to more imbalance.
More imbalance is less fun for both players.
Less fun is the opposite of the game's intentions.
[Power Level] filled a hole that didn't exist to accomplish a task worse than a system that already existed.
Crimson Devil wrote: I pay 12 points for a powerfist and I get 3 attacks with it. I also pay 12 points for a servo-arm and get 1 attack with it.
Granular points are certainly more fun.
For me, this is part of the appeal with PL. Different wargear options essentially cost the same, so I can take what makes the most sense. In a decent sized army, PL should even out between units that are more or less cost efficient. And armies that are "overcosted" can be somewhat closer to those that are "undercosted" when using PL. GKs, for example are horrible right now when using points, while Eldar are great. If you use PLs instead, the GKs are able to get better wargear to compensate.
Eldar will still be better, but the disparity is not so great, thus the GK player is more likely to have fun. That is the intended purpose of PL. Does it always work out this way? Obviously not, but it CAN and that is my point. With effort, Power Levels CAN be a way to balance 2 armies to be more equal. But likewise it can specifically be abused to increase the disparity. It is always up to the players which direction this goes.
When you have no say in your opponent's list (like in a tourney) than points will be much better.
SHUPPET wrote: The only thing we have to measure PLs success as a system against is matched play.
This is where I lose you. How is matched play all we have? The only thing we have to compare PL to is the standard points system. That's not "Matched Play". The other aspects of "Matched Play" (so Tactical Restrain, Battle Brothers, etc etc) have no bearing on Power Level.
I don't understand what you mean.
This part is not super important to what I was saying, but when everyone, including the people PL is designed for, have been using a different system for decades, the point of reference we have is the original system. Matched Play is not an off topic factor in a thread about why do/dont people play PL. Not that it was the focus of what i was saying. Which is that PL deserves more separate focus if it's own to properly take off, especially if it's in a state already now where some are able to play it, it's time to sharpen that up
GKs, for example are horrible right now when using points, while Eldar are great.
If you use PLs instead, the GKs are able to get better wargear to compensate.
only GK do not have any good upgrades to take. Unlike eldar who suddenly are running every bell and whistle their lists. In normal games they may not be running star engines, matrix etc on everything. In a power points game they will, they would be stupid to not to.
What is even more gross, is that the power points of GK units scale just as wack as the points. In power points a unit of paladins or termintors still costs as much as a knight etc
Eldar will still be better, but the disparity is not so great, thus the GK player is more likely to have fun.
no it does not. I tried in 3 games, it changes nothing vs eldar opponents other then them having access to more vehicle upgrades
deviantduck wrote:This is a game designed for players to have fun.
Balanced army lists are equal and fair, resulting in more fun for both players.
Using [Power Level] is a points based system.
Using [Points] is a points based system.
[Power Level] is less granular points than [Points].
Less granularity leads to more imbalance.
More imbalance is less fun for both players.
Less fun is the opposite of the game's intentions.
[Power Level] filled a hole that didn't exist to accomplish a task worse than a system that already existed.
See, I agreed up until you assumed that Power Level being slightly less balanced (I wouldn't say imbalanced) than points made it less fun.
Toiling over lists with a fine-tooth comb and being unable to take aesthetic wargear on models which I so wanted to wasn't fun. Throwing down a random Tactical Squad, and eyeballing based on the weapons that squad is armed with is far more fun for myself.
YMMV.
Karol wrote:
GKs, for example are horrible right now when using points, while Eldar are great.
If you use PLs instead, the GKs are able to get better wargear to compensate.
only GK do not have any good upgrades to take. Unlike eldar who suddenly are running every bell and whistle their lists. In normal games they may not be running star engines, matrix etc on everything. In a power points game they will, they would be stupid to not to.
And right there is why you, or the hypothetical Eldar player, shouldn't play Power Level.
You don't play Power Level to field every possible upgrade and max out on every tiny advantage (meltabombs on my characters! plasma pistols and power fists on all my sergeants! hunter killers for daaaaaaaaaays!). You take it as a fast method of getting your guys on table, and not worrying about the minutia of trying to skimp on that power sword to afford a minor sidegrade. You take it because you're more interested in playing a faster, more loose, game. I understand that's not for everyone, and some people say that their fun comes from believing the game to be as balanced as possible. Which is why they use points. Leave power to the rest.
What is even more gross, is that the power points of GK units scale just as wack as the points. In power points a unit of paladins or termintors still costs as much as a knight etc
Isn't that because it assumes that every Terminator could be armed with a Daemon Hammer? Or maybe that's simply not even a power level issue?
Except that's how Power Level works. If you aren't taking every single possible upgrade you can, you're automatically at a disadvantage. Whereas a more granular system makes you make actual choices when building a list. Of course you aren't going to take a Combi-Weapon, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bomb, and Power Fist on every Sergeant with points, because you actually need to choose whether or not you put all your eggs in one basket.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except that's how Power Level works. If you aren't taking every single possible upgrade you can, you're automatically at a disadvantage. Whereas a more granular system makes you make actual choices when building a list. Of course you aren't going to take a Combi-Weapon, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bomb, and Power Fist on every Sergeant with points, because you actually need to choose whether or not you put all your eggs in one basket.
If you play strictly WYSIWYG and with only (well) painted miniatures, PL is superior to points.
If you are the person that must squeze out every little advantage and consider winning the ultimate goal then you can perhaps not really understand the advantage of PL?
I only use power level simply because both points and power levels lead to the same gaming experience for me in 40k. That being a very imbalanced broken one that requires like-minded people to have a good time with.
Points being more granular means nothing to me when the end result is still a broken imbalanced mess. Its just a more granular broken imbalanced mess.
deviantduck wrote:This is a game designed for players to have fun.
Balanced army lists are equal and fair, resulting in more fun for both players.
Using [Power Level] is a points based system.
Using [Points] is a points based system.
[Power Level] is less granular points than [Points].
Less granularity leads to more imbalance.
More imbalance is less fun for both players.
Less fun is the opposite of the game's intentions.
[Power Level] filled a hole that didn't exist to accomplish a task worse than a system that already existed.
See, I agreed up until you assumed that Power Level being slightly less balanced (I wouldn't say imbalanced) than points made it less fun.
I won't get into the nitty gritty because there's been a dozen threads hashing this out before. Some armies have close balance using power levels, some armies are way off. Overall, all armies are more balanced when you use points over PL.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Toiling over lists with a fine-tooth comb and being unable to take aesthetic wargear on models which I so wanted to wasn't fun. Throwing down a random Tactical Squad, and eyeballing based on the weapons that squad is armed with is far more fun for myself. YMMV.
You can still slap a squad a tacs down loaded however you want with points, too. Just because it's points doesn't mean you have to nitpick/optimize your list. It only means when you are both at the same points level it will be closer to balanced. I get the appeal of slap it down and move on, but I've spent too much time and money to sit down and play a game where one player is at a stark disadvantage versus the other. It makes the game less enjoyable for both parties.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Except that's how Power Level works. If you aren't taking every single possible upgrade you can, you're automatically at a disadvantage. Whereas a more granular system makes you make actual choices when building a list. Of course you aren't going to take a Combi-Weapon, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bomb, and Power Fist on every Sergeant with points, because you actually need to choose whether or not you put all your eggs in one basket.
Only if you treat it like it's a disadvantage. As far as I see it, it's freedom to take whatever I think looks cool or fluffy or simply how I've modelled it. I wouldn't, nor would my opponents, take wargear that wasn't modelled on the model, because that would be abusing the intent of the game we're playing.
A more granular system discourages me from taking equipment because I like the look of it. I love the look of Sergeants tooled up with exotic melee weapons, pistols, etc etc. Devastator Sergeant with plasma pistol and thunder hammer? Sign me up! In points, that would be hamstringing myself, because why would I pay points for equipment I'm hardly ever going to use?
If you're going in to Power Level with the mentality of "I must take everything to maximise combat potential", then that's exactly why you shouldn't play Power Level.
deviantduck wrote:I won't get into the nitty gritty because there's been a dozen threads hashing this out before. Some armies have close balance using power levels, some armies are way off. Overall, all armies are more balanced when you use points over PL.
Those armies will still be imbalanced when using points. A Grey Knight Terminator-fest list will still be imbalanced compared to a tooled up Cadian/BA/Knight soup. A list of 30 Tactical Marines will still be imbalanced to a Guard gunline with Leman Russes and Basilisks for days.
Using points won't change that imbalance. In my experience, take with salt, power level hasn't been imbalanced at all.
You can still slap a squad a tacs down loaded however you want with points, too.
But spending points on upgrades which won't be used (hi thunder hammer Devastator Sergeant!) is handicapping myself. Yes, I say above that "you shouldn't go in with the mentality of being 100% efficient", but that's for Power Level. Points, by it's very design, encourages efficiency.
Just because it's points doesn't mean you have to nitpick/optimize your list. It only means when you are both at the same points level it will be closer to balanced. I get the appeal of slap it down and move on, but I've spent too much time and money to sit down and play a game where one player is at a stark disadvantage versus the other.
"That's like, your opinion, man."
All I can say is that in my experience (salt required), none of my PL games have had a stark disadvantage that wouldn't have been there if we'd played points.
It makes the game less enjoyable for both parties.
[Citation Needed] Power Level doesn't automatically mean less fun. Balanced doesn't automatically mean more fun. If it does to you, great. That doesn't make it a fact that applies to everyone.
deviantduck wrote:I won't get into the nitty gritty because there's been a dozen threads hashing this out before. Some armies have close balance using power levels, some armies are way off. Overall, all armies are more balanced when you use points over PL.
Those armies will still be imbalanced when using points. A Grey Knight Terminator-fest list will still be imbalanced compared to a tooled up Cadian/BA/Knight soup. A list of 30 Tactical Marines will still be imbalanced to a Guard gunline with Leman Russes and Basilisks for days.
Using points won't change that imbalance. In my experience, take with salt, power level hasn't been imbalanced at all.
You're comparing the balance of unit effectiveness not points. That's every other thread on this forum except this one. Grey Knights actually benefit from PL because they have a lot of expensive wargear they can take free.
deviantduck wrote:You can still slap a squad a tacs down loaded however you want with points, too.
But spending points on upgrades which won't be used (hi thunder hammer Devastator Sergeant!) is handicapping myself. Yes, I say above that "you shouldn't go in with the mentality of being 100% efficient", but that's for Power Level. Points, by it's very design, encourages efficiency.
You said you like PL because you can just slap down units. I said you can slap down units in points, too. And you replied with but that's handicapping yourself. We've come full circle.
deviantduck wrote:Just because it's points doesn't mean you have to nitpick/optimize your list. It only means when you are both at the same points level it will be closer to balanced. I get the appeal of slap it down and move on, but I've spent too much time and money to sit down and play a game where one player is at a stark disadvantage versus the other.
"That's like, your opinion, man."
All I can say is that in my experience (salt required), none of my PL games have had a stark disadvantage that wouldn't have been there if we'd played points.
It's not opinion. PL is less balanced than Points. You can refer to the 600pt deficit referenced earlier in this thread or the PL v Points breakdown threads that have popped up over the last 1.5 years.
deviantduck wrote:It makes the game less enjoyable for both parties.
[Citation Needed]
Power Level doesn't automatically mean less fun. Balanced doesn't automatically mean more fun. If it does to you, great. That doesn't make it a fact that applies to everyone.
True. Fun is subjective. But I'm speaking in terms of the vast majority of players, not the outliers. Go to a game store and try and find a pickup game. Tell them you're playing 2000 points and they're playing 1400. I'd like to see the number of takers.
deviantduck wrote:I won't get into the nitty gritty because there's been a dozen threads hashing this out before. Some armies have close balance using power levels, some armies are way off. Overall, all armies are more balanced when you use points over PL.
Those armies will still be imbalanced when using points. A Grey Knight Terminator-fest list will still be imbalanced compared to a tooled up Cadian/BA/Knight soup. A list of 30 Tactical Marines will still be imbalanced to a Guard gunline with Leman Russes and Basilisks for days.
Using points won't change that imbalance. In my experience, take with salt, power level hasn't been imbalanced at all.
You're comparing the balance of unit effectiveness not points. That's every other thread on this forum except this one. Grey Knights actually benefit from PL because they have a lot of expensive wargear they can take free.
Units are compared via points. A unit is as effective as it's cost allows. Power Level, being roughly based on the standard points, is affected by this.
deviantduck wrote:You can still slap a squad a tacs down loaded however you want with points, too.
But spending points on upgrades which won't be used (hi thunder hammer Devastator Sergeant!) is handicapping myself. Yes, I say above that "you shouldn't go in with the mentality of being 100% efficient", but that's for Power Level. Points, by it's very design, encourages efficiency.
You said you like PL because you can just slap down units. I said you can slap down units in points, too. And you replied with but that's handicapping yourself. We've come full circle.
No, slapping units down isn't handicapping in and of itself. Slapping units down and having to pay for upgrades which will make my list more expensive is a handicap.
In power level, the costs come baked into the units. It wouldn't matter what they were armed with, as it was just the flat price. When points come in, that means aesthetic upgrades have a tangible effect on what I can actually take in my army.
If I agree to play a 50PL game, I can slap down any models with any upgrades. If I agree to play a 1000 point game, I need to make sure that I don't go overboard because I thought a thunder hammer looked cool.
deviantduck wrote:Just because it's points doesn't mean you have to nitpick/optimize your list. It only means when you are both at the same points level it will be closer to balanced. I get the appeal of slap it down and move on, but I've spent too much time and money to sit down and play a game where one player is at a stark disadvantage versus the other.
"That's like, your opinion, man."
All I can say is that in my experience (salt required), none of my PL games have had a stark disadvantage that wouldn't have been there if we'd played points.
It's not opinion. PL is less balanced than Points. You can refer to the 600pt deficit referenced earlier in this thread or the PL v Points breakdown threads that have popped up over the last 1.5 years.
No, it has the POTENTIAL to be less balanced. It doesn't mean that every PL game will be less balanced. Unless you mean to tell me that a points game for all-GK Terminators vs Souperium is more balanced than a Power Level mirror match game.
I admit PL has the potential to be less balanced. That doesn't make it guarenteed.
deviantduck wrote:It makes the game less enjoyable for both parties.
[Citation Needed]
Power Level doesn't automatically mean less fun. Balanced doesn't automatically mean more fun. If it does to you, great. That doesn't make it a fact that applies to everyone.
True. Fun is subjective. But I'm speaking in terms of the vast majority of players, not the outliers. Go to a game store and try and find a pickup game. Tell them you're playing 2000 points and they're playing 1400. I'd like to see the number of takers.
And the vast majority is...?
In my community, vast majority are PL players. We go in with the expectation of playing PL, and everything that comes with it.
The way you phrase that question makes it sound like ALL PL games will end up like that, with an imbalance of points. That's rarely been the case in my experience, and sounds a lot like a biased outlook.
I understand you have your experiences, I respect that. At the same time, I have my own experiences. I don't feel that you're recognizing that.
only GK do not have any good upgrades to take. Unlike eldar who suddenly are running every bell and whistle their lists. In normal games they may not be running star engines, matrix etc on everything. In a power points game they will, they would be stupid to not to.
And right there is why you, or the hypothetical Eldar player, shouldn't play Power Level.
You don't play Power Level to field every possible upgrade and max out on every tiny advantage (meltabombs on my characters! plasma pistols and power fists on all my sergeants! hunter killers for daaaaaaaaaays!). You take it as a fast method of getting your guys on table, and not worrying about the minutia of trying to skimp on that power sword to afford a minor sidegrade. You take it because you're more interested in playing a faster, more loose, game. I understand that's not for everyone, and some people say that their fun comes from believing the game to be as balanced as possible. Which is why they use points. Leave power to the rest.
Isn't that because it assumes that every Terminator could be armed with a Daemon Hammer? Or maybe that's simply not even a power level issue?
two things. First upgrades like melta bombs or vehicle upgrades are free in money you don't have to model them. So people will take them while they can, why would they not take them when they are free. Guess how many hammers are there in a 5 man termintor box? zero in the metal one, and one in the plastic box. By the way this is another fun fact about power differences between armies in w40k. the eldar army costs less to make in optimal version, then the most optimal GK one.
And you are right I don't understand the faster and loose argument. If someone has an option to take an upgrade for free, they will not ponder for days if they should or should not take them. They just will do it.
two things. First upgrades like melta bombs or vehicle upgrades are free in money you don't have to model them. So people will take them while they can, why would they not take them when they are free. Guess how many hammers are there in a 5 man termintor box? zero in the metal one, and one in the plastic box. By the way this is another fun fact about power differences between armies in w40k. the eldar army costs less to make in optimal version, then the most optimal GK one.
And you are right I don't understand the faster and loose argument. If someone has an option to take an upgrade for free, they will not ponder for days if they should or should not take them. They just will do it.
Your looking through the lenses of the only reason to take an unit, option or upgrade is win da GAME. Rather than, let me take something because it looks cool or fits the background. PL is for quickly having a fun friendly game or trying something new. Like every other version 40k, the game works better if both players hold back from breaking the game wide open.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And right there is why you, or the hypothetical Eldar player, shouldn't play Power Level.
You don't play Power Level to field every possible upgrade and max out on every tiny advantage (meltabombs on my characters! plasma pistols and power fists on all my sergeants! hunter killers for daaaaaaaaaays!). You take it as a fast method of getting your guys on table, and not worrying about the minutia of trying to skimp on that power sword to afford a minor sidegrade. You take it because you're more interested in playing a faster, more loose, game. I understand that's not for everyone, and some people say that their fun comes from believing the game to be as balanced as possible. Which is why they use points. Leave power to the rest.
Isn't that because it assumes that every Terminator could be armed with a Daemon Hammer? Or maybe that's simply not even a power level issue?
two things. First upgrades like melta bombs or vehicle upgrades are free in money you don't have to model them. So people will take them while they can, why would they not take them when they are free.
Meltabombs absolutely do have models. Vehicles upgrades also. Not all upgrades, mind, but there is a soft limit where you realise if a person is making up upgrades to milk the system, or if they genuinely want that item.
Guess how many hammers are there in a 5 man termintor box? zero in the metal one, and one in the plastic box.
What's in the box doesn't change the fact you can equip the squad that way. If your argument is "I wish GW gave us what the unit can be equipped with in the box/GW shouldn't let GK take hammers", that's fair. If not, I don't see what Power Level has to do with that.
By the way this is another fun fact about power differences between armies in w40k. the eldar army costs less to make in optimal version, then the most optimal GK one.
By cost, do you mean cost in money or points? If money, that's got nothing to do with this. If points - that's just poor balance across the entire game, for GK.
And you are right I don't understand the faster and loose argument. If someone has an option to take an upgrade for free, they will not ponder for days if they should or should not take them. They just will do it.
And that person isn't someone who Power Level is aimed at.
It would be like saying "what's the point in kicking the ball in football when I could just pick it up and run with it to the goal?"
HoundsofDemos wrote: Your looking through the lenses of the only reason to take an unit, option or upgrade is win da GAME. Rather than, let me take something because it looks cool or fits the background. PL is for quickly having a fun friendly game or trying something new. Like every other version 40k, the game works better if both players hold back from breaking the game wide open.
This is 100% wrong.
With PL as your point system you are punished for taking anything but the most powerful upgrade options. If you take a flamer instead of a plasma gun because it looks cool you are still paying the point cost of the more powerful (and more expensive) plasma gun and making your army worse. Or if you decide not to take a power weapon on your sergeant because you don't think a mere sergeant should have such a priceless relic in your fluff, well, you had to pay the points for a power fist and plasma pistol even if you're not going to use them. This means the powerful incentive is to take every possible upgrade, always taking the best ones.
With the conventional point system this isn't a problem. Flamer looks cool? Pay the lower point cost for it. Don't want that power weapon? Don't pay for it. You have a lot more room to take things that look cool or fit your fluff or whatever because you're only paying for the upgrades you're actually taking, not some theoretical maximum power set of upgrades. This puts the fluff/model-focused player at less of a disadvantage, making the conventional point system far superior for the goal of having a balanced game.
The real reason PL exists is for virtue signalling about how "casual" a player you are. By sabotaging your own experience you get to show off how little you care about good game design or balance or anything even vaguely related to the hated competitive play, establishing your "casual" credentials. This is why PL advocates will constantly talk about how great PL is for "casual" games without ever proving the claim, and treat "it isn't worse than conventional points sometimes" as equivalent to "it works better". They know there's no advantage from a pure game design point of view, it's all about smug moral superiority about their chosen approach to the game.
Your looking through the lenses of the only reason to take an unit, option or upgrade is win da GAME. Rather than, let me take something because it looks cool or fits the background. PL is for quickly having a fun friendly game or trying something new. Like every other version 40k, the game works better if both players hold back from breaking the game wide open.
in that case why do you need power levels at all? Why not just ignore points and PL altogether and just place models on the table and then play
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except that's how Power Level works. If you aren't taking every single possible upgrade you can, you're automatically at a disadvantage. Whereas a more granular system makes you make actual choices when building a list. Of course you aren't going to take a Combi-Weapon, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bomb, and Power Fist on every Sergeant with points, because you actually need to choose whether or not you put all your eggs in one basket.
If you play strictly WYSIWYG and with only (well) painted miniatures, PL is superior to points.
If you are the person that must squeze out every little advantage and consider winning the ultimate goal then you can perhaps not really understand the advantage of PL?
You clearly haven't seen these supposed "WAAC" armies being entered into tournaments. They look better than most people's armies that play casual. Sorry but that's how it is. So I don't get this supposed generalization that only people who paint well and play WYSIWYG have an easier time with points.
It isn't hard to add points and create a list as long as you have an elementary understanding of math. Sorry but that's a pathetic excuse.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Except that's how Power Level works. If you aren't taking every single possible upgrade you can, you're automatically at a disadvantage. Whereas a more granular system makes you make actual choices when building a list. Of course you aren't going to take a Combi-Weapon, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bomb, and Power Fist on every Sergeant with points, because you actually need to choose whether or not you put all your eggs in one basket.
Only if you treat it like it's a disadvantage. As far as I see it, it's freedom to take whatever I think looks cool or fluffy or simply how I've modelled it. I wouldn't, nor would my opponents, take wargear that wasn't modelled on the model, because that would be abusing the intent of the game we're playing.
A more granular system discourages me from taking equipment because I like the look of it. I love the look of Sergeants tooled up with exotic melee weapons, pistols, etc etc. Devastator Sergeant with plasma pistol and thunder hammer? Sign me up! In points, that would be hamstringing myself, because why would I pay points for equipment I'm hardly ever going to use?
If you're going in to Power Level with the mentality of "I must take everything to maximise combat potential", then that's exactly why you shouldn't play Power Level.
deviantduck wrote:I won't get into the nitty gritty because there's been a dozen threads hashing this out before. Some armies have close balance using power levels, some armies are way off. Overall, all armies are more balanced when you use points over PL.
Those armies will still be imbalanced when using points. A Grey Knight Terminator-fest list will still be imbalanced compared to a tooled up Cadian/BA/Knight soup. A list of 30 Tactical Marines will still be imbalanced to a Guard gunline with Leman Russes and Basilisks for days.
Using points won't change that imbalance. In my experience, take with salt, power level hasn't been imbalanced at all.
You can still slap a squad a tacs down loaded however you want with points, too.
But spending points on upgrades which won't be used (hi thunder hammer Devastator Sergeant!) is handicapping myself. Yes, I say above that "you shouldn't go in with the mentality of being 100% efficient", but that's for Power Level. Points, by it's very design, encourages efficiency.
Just because it's points doesn't mean you have to nitpick/optimize your list. It only means when you are both at the same points level it will be closer to balanced. I get the appeal of slap it down and move on, but I've spent too much time and money to sit down and play a game where one player is at a stark disadvantage versus the other.
"That's like, your opinion, man."
All I can say is that in my experience (salt required), none of my PL games have had a stark disadvantage that wouldn't have been there if we'd played points.
It makes the game less enjoyable for both parties.
[Citation Needed]
Power Level doesn't automatically mean less fun. Balanced doesn't automatically mean more fun. If it does to you, great. That doesn't make it a fact that applies to everyone.
Then if you want to make the model that way, pay the points for it. I'm sure every Imperial Guard Sergeant would look cool with a Power Fist, but you don't do it for a reason. With Power Level, you haven't a reason NOT to.
Aside from aesthetic - I don't give my Guard sergeants fists because they don't appeal to me. On the other hand, I don't care about ever getting to use the plasma pistol on my Devastator Sergeant, but in points systems, even if I didn't want to use it, I'd have to pay for it.
I don't care about my list being unoptimised for PL. I don't care that I'm not maxing out what I could take. I do take issue with being discouraged from taking aesthetic upgrades in points system.
Your looking through the lenses of the only reason to take an unit, option or upgrade is win da GAME. Rather than, let me take something because it looks cool or fits the background. PL is for quickly having a fun friendly game or trying something new. Like every other version 40k, the game works better if both players hold back from breaking the game wide open.
in that case why do you need power levels at all? Why not just ignore points and PL altogether and just place models on the table and then play
Because even in a "who cares let's just roll dice" game you want at least SOME measure that 2 opposing armies are roughly equal. 50 GK terminators vs 100 Ork Boys probably isn't going to be a fun game for the Orks. But if you use PLs, you'll see that 25 GKTs vs 200 Ork Boys is probably more fair for both sides and therefore more fun.
Points are used when more "nit-picking" is required
The real reason PL exists is for virtue signalling about how "casual" a player you are. By sabotaging your own experience you get to show off how little you care about good game design or balance or anything even vaguely related to the hated competitive play, establishing your "casual" credentials. This is why PL advocates will constantly talk about how great PL is for "casual" games without ever proving the claim, and treat "it isn't worse than conventional points sometimes" as equivalent to "it works better". They know there's no advantage from a pure game design point of view, it's all about smug moral superiority about their chosen approach to the game.
This is true. All advocates of Power Level are morally superior to Peregrine in every way.
JohnnyHell wrote: Everyone should stop worrying about how others choose to have fun.
right? "How dare you have fun differently, how dare you not take all this 100% seriously?"
Apologies to those who are just discussing this as an intellectual exercise but get a grip. Some people use power level and find it a perfectly adequate system. As the great philosopher said, deal with it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Aside from aesthetic - I don't give my Guard sergeants fists because they don't appeal to me. On the other hand, I don't care about ever getting to use the plasma pistol on my Devastator Sergeant, but in points systems, even if I didn't want to use it, I'd have to pay for it.
I don't care about my list being unoptimised for PL. I don't care that I'm not maxing out what I could take. I do take issue with being discouraged from taking aesthetic upgrades in points system.
So you don't really get to use the Plasma Pistol on your Sergeant, and you complain if you want it you need to pay points for it? Even though you don't get to use it? So you probably shouldn't pay points for a upgrade that you won't use.
That's literally the same as I made mention of earlier about cramming as many upgrades as you can into a unit because they are effectively free.
Also that's HARDLY an aesthetic upgrade. That's an actual frickin weapon. Convert your Bolt Pistol fancy for all I care. If you want a Plasma Pistol though you need to pay for it.
The real reason PL exists is for virtue signalling about how "casual" a player you are. By sabotaging your own experience you get to show off how little you care about good game design or balance or anything even vaguely related to the hated competitive play, establishing your "casual" credentials. This is why PL advocates will constantly talk about how great PL is for "casual" games without ever proving the claim, and treat "it isn't worse than conventional points sometimes" as equivalent to "it works better". They know there's no advantage from a pure game design point of view, it's all about smug moral superiority about their chosen approach to the game.
This is true. All advocates of Power Level are morally superior to Peregrine in every way.
It's even funnier that Peregrine berates PL players for "smug moral superiority". Truly brilliant levels of self-awareness!
The real reason PL exists is for virtue signalling about how "casual" a player you are. By sabotaging your own experience you get to show off how little you care about good game design or balance or anything even vaguely related to the hated competitive play, establishing your "casual" credentials. This is why PL advocates will constantly talk about how great PL is for "casual" games without ever proving the claim, and treat "it isn't worse than conventional points sometimes" as equivalent to "it works better". They know there's no advantage from a pure game design point of view, it's all about smug moral superiority about their chosen approach to the game.
This is true. All advocates of Power Level are morally superior to Peregrine in every way.
It's even funnier that Peregrine berates PL players for "smug moral superiority". Truly brilliant levels of self-awareness!
It's probably because you're defending a bad system by saying it's fine if you don't break it. That makes NO sense to defend a system like that.
Your looking through the lenses of the only reason to take an unit, option or upgrade is win da GAME. Rather than, let me take something because it looks cool or fits the background. PL is for quickly having a fun friendly game or trying something new. Like every other version 40k, the game works better if both players hold back from breaking the game wide open.
in that case why do you need power levels at all? Why not just ignore points and PL altogether and just place models on the table and then play
Because even in a "who cares let's just roll dice" game you want at least SOME measure that 2 opposing armies are roughly equal.
50 GK terminators vs 100 Ork Boys probably isn't going to be a fun game for the Orks. But if you use PLs, you'll see that 25 GKTs vs 200 Ork Boys is probably more fair for both sides and therefore more fun.
Points are used when more "nit-picking" is required
-
points would also do the same thing but would be less likely to cause an unbalanced game the PLs
That’s what I do not get. You say you want the game to be roughly equal but then say it better to use the army building system that is least likely to do that
Sgt_Smudge wrote: [As far as I see it, it's freedom to take whatever I think looks cool or fluffy or simply how I've modelled it. I wouldn't, nor would my opponents, take wargear that wasn't modelled on the model, because that would be abusing the intent of the game we're playing.
A more granular system discourages me from taking equipment because I like the look of it. I love the look of Sergeants tooled up with exotic melee weapons, pistols, etc etc. Devastator Sergeant with plasma pistol and thunder hammer? Sign me up! In points, that would be hamstringing myself, because why would I pay points for equipment I'm hardly ever going to use?
If you're going in to Power Level with the mentality of "I must take everything to maximise combat potential", then that's exactly why you shouldn't play Power Level.
If you don't care about maximising combat potential when using power level, why would you care that taking options which hamstring yourself when using points?
You have the exact same freedom to take whatever you think looks cool under either system.
Either you care about maximising potential or you don't, surely? Why would whether you care about if you're hamstringing yourself change due to which version of a points system you're using?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So you don't really get to use the Plasma Pistol on your Sergeant, and you complain if you want it you need to pay points for it? Even though you don't get to use it? So you probably shouldn't pay points for a upgrade that you won't use.
But I'm not stopping myself taking other units by taking that aesthetic choice. I've got nothing wrong with "paying" for it. I'm more annoyed about having to sacrifice other units because my guys are how I modeled them.
That's literally the same as I made mention of earlier about cramming as many upgrades as you can into a unit because they are effectively free.
Not really. I don't go in with the mindset of "ooh, I need to maximise the irrelevant point value of this unit and make EVERYTHING as powerful as it can be!!". I go in with the mindset of "I'd like this unit, and this unit, and this unit. He looks like a cool model, I'll grab you. Yeah, lemme roll to hit with his... plasma gun? Yup, looks like a plasma gun to me, let's go!"
Call it stupid, call it what you want, but that's my PERSONAL idea of enjoyment.
Also that's HARDLY an aesthetic upgrade. That's an actual frickin weapon. Convert your Bolt Pistol fancy for all I care. If you want a Plasma Pistol though you need to pay for it.
The model is a plasma, because that's what I thought looked cool. It's not a bolt pistol. I've got bolt pistols on other guys.
Sorry, but I'd rather play a game which is more relaxed, and PERSONALLY more fun to me, than have someone demanding I pay for what is essentially a cosmetic upgrade (seeing as it won't be used).
Thought I'd emphasise that "personally", because it appears that my idea of fun is wrong.
The real reason PL exists is for virtue signalling about how "casual" a player you are. By sabotaging your own experience you get to show off how little you care about good game design or balance or anything even vaguely related to the hated competitive play, establishing your "casual" credentials. This is why PL advocates will constantly talk about how great PL is for "casual" games without ever proving the claim, and treat "it isn't worse than conventional points sometimes" as equivalent to "it works better". They know there's no advantage from a pure game design point of view, it's all about smug moral superiority about their chosen approach to the game.
This is true. All advocates of Power Level are morally superior to Peregrine in every way.
It's even funnier that Peregrine berates PL players for "smug moral superiority". Truly brilliant levels of self-awareness!
It's probably because you're defending a bad system by saying it's fine if you don't break it. That makes NO sense to defend a system like that.
Point are fine, until they're broken. See - I dunno, every model whose point have been changed since 8th? Why bother defending them? /sarcasm
Because I enjoy the system of PL. You don't. Good for you. Let people enjoy things, especially when they don't affect you.
PL is less accurate, but somewhat easier to use point system. Nothing less, nothing more. If you think the increased ease of use is worth the lost accuracy go for it, if you don't, then don't.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: [As far as I see it, it's freedom to take whatever I think looks cool or fluffy or simply how I've modelled it. I wouldn't, nor would my opponents, take wargear that wasn't modelled on the model, because that would be abusing the intent of the game we're playing.
A more granular system discourages me from taking equipment because I like the look of it. I love the look of Sergeants tooled up with exotic melee weapons, pistols, etc etc. Devastator Sergeant with plasma pistol and thunder hammer? Sign me up! In points, that would be hamstringing myself, because why would I pay points for equipment I'm hardly ever going to use?
If you're going in to Power Level with the mentality of "I must take everything to maximise combat potential", then that's exactly why you shouldn't play Power Level.
If you don't care about maximising combat potential when using power level, why would you care that taking options which hamstring yourself when using points?
Because paying for that power sword means I can't buy X unit, because now I went over the points limit.
I don't mind having to skimp on a unit because I bought another unit. I mind being penalised for what is essentially aesthetic upgrades.
You have the exact same freedom to take whatever you think looks cool under either system.
Not really. In points, I have to pay for the option to take what looks cool. In PL, I can take what I want.
Either you care about maximising potential or you don't, surely? Why would whether you care about if you're hamstringing yourself change due to which version of a points system you're using?
I don't care about potential. I care about the message being sent, which is "yeah, you built your guy like this, so you gotta pay for that. Sorry, can't take that unit now, because you thought he looked cool."
I could play points, but why would I, when I get more personal enjoyment from PL?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: PL is less accurate, but somewhat easier to use point system. Nothing less, nothing more. If you think the increased ease of use is worth the lost accuracy go for it, if you don't, then don't.
Crimson wrote: PL is less accurate, but somewhat easier to use point system. Nothing less, nothing more. If you think the increased ease of use is worth the lost accuracy go for it, if you don't, then don't.
In this thread we don't take to that kind of sensible talk. "Get to fighting or get away!"
auticus wrote: That and you can say the same thing about the point system. Its fine, if you don't break it.
At least the upgrades aren't free. You can make it a different price on the regular point system, but they're always free with Power Level.
Thats correct. The upgrades aren't free. But either method ends in a broken mess if you break the points / power level. Broken Mess == Broken Mess to me.
Crimson wrote: PL is less accurate, but somewhat easier to use point system. Nothing less, nothing more. If you think the increased ease of use is worth the lost accuracy go for it, if you don't, then don't.
"better" is subjective and is based on what you want. PL is better at being easy to use, for example. So, there's not much to discuss really, just let people choose what they like.
I've found that Power Levels make list building for narrative games much easier. No need to worry about the fiddly points, it's too granular sometimes, being 5 points over in a 2000 point game isn't cool, but being under, sure, even though that 5 points is 0.25% of the max.
I've always run with points having a +- 1 % margin.
Power levels nix that issue. And if there's a mis balance in PL, due to narrative list building, the book actually tells you how to address that by giving CP.
I've seen many posts where people say that 40k should price things on a per unit, rather than per model basis. It's a good idea. PL is basically that, but if you bring that up, the folks advocating per unit pricing backtrack.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because paying for that power sword means I can't buy X unit, because now I went over the points limit.
You're rather selfishly looking at this from the point of view of what makes your personal army best and choosing the point system that allows you to optimize it. Have you considered the opposite situation? For example, the fact that a squad with flamers is cheaper than one with plasma guns in the conventional point system might allow you to include X unit, while the PL point system has both upgrades cost the same and denies the opportunity to make the first unit cheaper and free up enough points to take X.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not really. I don't go in with the mindset of "ooh, I need to maximise the irrelevant point value of this unit and make EVERYTHING as powerful as it can be!!". I go in with the mindset of "I'd like this unit, and this unit, and this unit. He looks like a cool model, I'll grab you. Yeah, lemme roll to hit with his... plasma gun? Yup, looks like a plasma gun to me, let's go!"
Call it stupid, call it what you want, but that's my PERSONAL idea of enjoyment.
I will call it stupid because it is stupid, and I seriously doubt you (or anyone else) actually play that way. Are you honestly telling me you care so little about the rules that you don't even know what weapons your models are armed with until you look down at the table (after rolling dice to hit) and see what they're holding? That you don't make any strategic plans and just say "let me roll some dice, who knows what they might be"? If that's genuinely your attitude towards the game why even play a game at all? Just make gun noises and push your toys around the table.
Sorry, but I'd rather play a game which is more relaxed, and PERSONALLY more fun to me, than have someone demanding I pay for what is essentially a cosmetic upgrade (seeing as it won't be used).
Oh really? Never going to be used? You mean, if your model with a plasma pistol is within 12" of a target you're going to decline to shoot because it's "just cosmetic"? Of course not. You're going to shoot that plasma pistol. What you're asking for here is to get the power of the upgrades you're taking without having to pay for them.
So because you have fun with power levels means we can’t have a discussion on a forum about which point system is better?
If you guys can stop being condescending, you'll get a conversation. But since Peregrine & Slayer-fan continue to act like we're a bunch of moronic donkey-caves, then no you won't.
It's hardly a straw man when it's the only justification for PL, other than virtue signalling. Over and over again PL advocates talk about how much easier it is to do the basic math of adding up point costs.
Peregrine wrote: Just make gun noises and push your toys around the table.
This describes me. I just need dice to figure out if the gun noises hit. I also play the Dawn of War voice packs sometimes. And video game music too. Games get intense man.
Peregrine wrote: It's hardly a straw man when it's the only justification for PL, other than virtue signalling. Over and over again PL advocates talk about how much easier it is to do the basic math of adding up point costs.
Well, it is easier. Doesn't mean we're stupid though. My job as a pilot requires me to do mental math all the time, so when I'm relaxing I like to relax.
Oh, I know. This isn't the first PL thread to show up. Unfortunately, it would seem that there is a massive disconnect between people who play for funsies and people who play for the competition. Peregrine has a certain perspective and simply can't or refuses to fathom any other as being even remotely valid, and comes off as aggressive and condescending. Besides, he doesn't even like 8th edition, so I don't know why his opinion even matters to those of us that do.
Mmmpi wrote: I play for funsies and I vastly prefer points for most of the reasons posted.
I don't play PL when I can avoid it for the reasons posted here.
Oddly enough, we've run into a situation where Peregrine (ugh) is actually right.
Which is fine because you're doing what you like. Buy why can't PL players just get along without being called either stupid or virtue signalers? I personally don't care enough about points to bother counting them all up. I've done it before and it was fine, but I just prefer the ease of use PL provides regardless of any imbalances. And honestly, my games with PL have been more balanced than most basketball games I've played and I enjoyed those.
Mmmpi wrote: I play for funsies and I vastly prefer points for most of the reasons posted.
I don't play PL when I can avoid it for the reasons posted here.
Oddly enough, we've run into a situation where Peregrine (ugh) is actually right.
Which is fine because you're doing what you like. Buy why can't PL players just get along without being called either stupid or virtue signalers? I personally don't care enough about points to bother counting them all up. I've done it before and it was fine, but I just prefer the ease of use PL provides regardless of any imbalances. And honestly, my games with PL have been more balanced than most basketball games I've played and I enjoyed those.
Honest question: How much harder is it to add up points than PL?
If the issue is that points are in the back of the book while PL is right there, that's GW making points LESS convenient to make PL seem better-they used to have points right there on the page with unit rules.
I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.
I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either.
Honest question: How much harder is it to add up points than PL?
If the issue is that points are in the back of the book while PL is right there, that's GW making points LESS convenient to make PL seem better-they used to have points right there on the page with unit rules.
When PL takes 3 seconds to do and points can take several minutes, including swapping out certain loadouts to stay under points, I'd say it's considerably easier. And no I don't use battescribe, so don't even bring it up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mmmpi wrote: I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.
I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either.
Each time a PL thread pops up someone says: "PL sux no one uses it", to which someone else replies: "no, I use it and I like it" and by the end of it the second player is accused of being a stupid casual lording his casualness over the normies because he never got past a second grade level of math. So stop insulting us and we'll stop talking about it, it's really that simple.
And considering a game takes several hours... I don't see five minutes as an awful amount of time to spend making a list. Not to mention, as time goes on, you'll memorize points values. I can rattle off all my Nurgle Daemons without looking at the book, easy.
Dandelion wrote: Well, it is easier. Doesn't mean we're stupid though. My job as a pilot requires me to do mental math all the time, so when I'm relaxing I like to relax.
So why do you use a point system (yes, PL is a point system, just a less accurate one) and play a game that requires doing mental math if you want to make reasonable decisions about strategy?
Oh, I know. This isn't the first PL thread to show up. Unfortunately, it would seem that there is a massive disconnect between people who play for funsies and people who play for the competition. Peregrine has a certain perspective and simply can't or refuses to fathom any other as being even remotely valid, and comes off as aggressive and condescending. Besides, he doesn't even like 8th edition, so I don't know why his opinion even matters to those of us that do.
No, there is a disconnect between people who sabotage their own experience to prove how "casual" they are and people who use the superior point system. It doesn't matter if you're "casual" or competitive or whatever, the conventional point system is better in all situations. You are never going to improve your game experience, casual or competitive, by having a less-accurate evaluation of a unit's strength when determining the forces each player will have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: And considering a game takes several hours... I don't see five minutes as an awful amount of time to spend making a list. Not to mention, as time goes on, you'll memorize points values. I can rattle off all my Nurgle Daemons without looking at the book, easy.
Exactly. You're talking about a few minutes of extra time, at most, in a 2-3 hour game. And it would be even less time if GW wasn't so stubborn about pushing their shiny new toy on everyone and hadn't deliberately used a poor organization system for conventional points to make PL look more appealing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson Devil wrote: Your problem is you don't respect anyone that disagrees with you.
No, I don't respect people that disagree with me for terrible reasons. People who disagree with me and have legitimate reasons to back up their disagreement don't lose any respect. If you're feeling disrespected over your disagreement it's 100% your fault.
Mmmpi wrote: I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.
I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either.
Each time a PL thread pops up someone says: "PL sux no one uses it", to which someone else replies: "no, I use it and I like it" and by the end of it the second player is accused of being a stupid casual lording his casualness over the normies because he never got past a second grade level of math. So stop insulting us and we'll stop talking about it, it's really that simple.
Or, every time one of these threads pops up someone says "I think points are better for x/y/z reasons", and they get back, "Well, I only play casually". As if the person he's talking to is a WAAC donkey ditch. So, yeah. Drop the insults and the passive aggressiveness.
So why do you use a point system (yes, PL is a point system, just a less accurate one) and play a game that requires doing mental math if you want to make reasonable decisions about strategy?
Because less mental math is better mental math. I also find it amusing that you think unbalanced games don't involve reasonable decisions about strategy but whatever.
No, there is a disconnect between people who sabotage their own experience to prove how "casual" they are and people who use the superior point system. It doesn't matter if you're "casual" or competitive or whatever, the conventional point system is better in all situations. You are never going to improve your game experience, casual or competitive, by having a less-accurate evaluation of a unit's strength when determining the forces each player will have.
Prove that I am sabotaging my experience to show how casual I am. Prove it.
Now, considering the only people I play PL against are my family, tell me, what do I have to gain from showcasing my casualness to them? They know who I am. They don't give a rat's ass about how "casual" I am in a game about tiny toy soldiers. And most of them don't even know competitive 40k is even a thing.
Also, one of my brother's is only passingly interested in 40k and I've only played Open Play *gasp* against him.
As for your last point, granular points will not somehow make my gaming experience better because at the end of the day they are all arbitrary and pretty inconsistent across books anyway.
PL just gives a rough idea of the size of game we want to play: 25PL is small and quick, 100 PL is big and will take a while. Whether I'm at 95 PL and my opponent is at 105 PL it doesn't really matter. My most recent game involved only playing my fully painted models against my brother's fully painted models. It ended up being my 38PL vs his 43PL... and I won. Would calculating points have changed that?
Also, don't forget, I can guarantee you that my games are not at all like any games you've played, between house rules and board set-up you'd barely recognize it as the 40k you're likely used to. So it's really not reasonable for you to make broad assumptions about how I like to push toys around.
I'm not asking you to understand, I'm asking you to let live.
Mmmpi wrote: I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.
I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either.
Each time a PL thread pops up someone says: "PL sux no one uses it", to which someone else replies: "no, I use it and I like it" and by the end of it the second player is accused of being a stupid casual lording his casualness over the normies because he never got past a second grade level of math. So stop insulting us and we'll stop talking about it, it's really that simple.
Or, every time one of these threads pops up someone says "I think points are better for x/y/z reasons", and they get back, "Well, I only play casually". As if the person he's talking to is a WAAC donkey ditch. So, yeah. Drop the insults and the passive aggressiveness.
I didn't intend to insult, but when your counter (i.e that I'm virtue signaling) has no bearing on the opposition's stance then I feel justified in showing how ridiculous that supposition is.
plus, if my statement seemed passive aggressive, how do you think your statement looks to me? Hint: it's very passive aggressive. So you really only have yourself to blame for my response.
Dandelion wrote: Because less mental math is better mental math.
That's not answering my question. If you want to minimize mental math then why do you use a point system that involves doing mental math to add up the point costs of your units? Why do you play a game that is very heavy on mental math instead of something less math-focused?
I also find it amusing that you think unbalanced games don't involve reasonable decisions about strategy but whatever.
That's not what I said at all. The point about strategy decisions is about mental math, not balance. Making reasonable decisions about strategy in 40k requires doing mental math on things like evaluating a unit's average damage and how likely it is to succeed at killing potential targets. And it requires doing that all game, with calculations that are more complicated than adding up point costs. But here you are, focusing on reducing a minute or two of mental math in list construction instead of the 2-3 hours you have to do during the rest of the game.
Prove that I am sabotaging my experience to show how casual I am. Prove it.
You are using a point system that is worse for casual play, where the sole advantage over the conventional point system is that it allows you to make a public statement (such as your forum posts here) about how "casual" you are by rejecting balance. If you weren't doing this just to prove how "casual" you are then you'd use the conventional point system and improve your games.
My most recent game involved only playing my fully painted models against my brother's fully painted models. It ended up being my 38PL vs his 43PL... and I won. Would calculating points have changed that?
If you aren't going to care about a 13% difference in point costs then why are you bothering with a point system at all? You don't need it to figure out how big the game is, just throw down roughly equal piles of models on each side and start playing. Want a short game? Put down 2-3 squads. Want a longer game? Make it 5-6 squads and a couple of tanks. I mean, you're defining your game by "all of our painted models" here so why add up point costs at all?
Also, don't forget, I can guarantee you that my games are not at all like any games you've played, between house rules and board set-up you'd barely recognize it as the 40k you're likely used to.
If you aren't playing 40k then why are you talking about your games on a 40k forum?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: I'm not asking you to understand, I'm asking you to let live.
You're free to leave this discussion at any time. Let's not pretend that I'm hunting you down and forcing you to listen to my hated of PL, you voluntarily joined a discussion about the subject and that includes having your statements criticized.
Mmmpi wrote: I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.
I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either.
Each time a PL thread pops up someone says: "PL sux no one uses it", to which someone else replies: "no, I use it and I like it" and by the end of it the second player is accused of being a stupid casual lording his casualness over the normies because he never got past a second grade level of math. So stop insulting us and we'll stop talking about it, it's really that simple.
Or, every time one of these threads pops up someone says "I think points are better for x/y/z reasons", and they get back, "Well, I only play casually". As if the person he's talking to is a WAAC donkey ditch. So, yeah. Drop the insults and the passive aggressiveness.
I didn't intend to insult, but when your counter (i.e that I'm virtue signaling) has no bearing on the opposition's stance then I feel justified in showing how ridiculous that supposition is.
plus, if my statement seemed passive aggressive, how do you think your statement looks to me? Hint: it's very passive aggressive. So you really only have yourself to blame for my response.
Ah, projection. As for myself, I've been very open on how I feel about it. I openly said my point/accusation. So you really only have yourself to blame for my response.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, don't forget, I can guarantee you that my games are not at all like any games you've played, between house rules and board set-up you'd barely recognize it as the 40k you're likely used to.
If you aren't playing 40k then why are you talking about your games on a 40k forum?
This is rather a good point. If we 'can't understand' your home brew system, then why argue it's merits by those of us who play the normal rule set?
If you aren't going to care about a 13% difference in point costs then why are you bothering with a point system at all? You don't need it to figure out how big the game is, just throw down roughly equal piles of models on each side and start playing. Want a short game? Put down 2-3 squads. Want a longer game? Make it 5-6 squads and a couple of tanks. I mean, you're defining your game by "all of our painted models" here so why add up point costs at all?
In that particular example we already knew we had roughly similar sized armies because we had experience with them, I just added them up later out of curiosity, so no we didn't add up points before. But that's the thing they're roughly similar. PL gives us roughly similar forces to use, especially when trying to devise a narrative. It just is easier to get right than straight up eyeballing it and is easier then. That's really about it. It's not better than points, it's just different and it has pros and cons.
Really though, I was just trying to show that points aren't a necessary metric for fun. They're nice and useful don't get me wrong, but fun games can be played without them.
If you aren't playing 40k then why are you talking about your games on a 40k forum?
ITC isn't 40k either but people talk about that too.
You are using a point system that is worse for casual play, where the sole advantage over the conventional point system is that it allows you to make a public statement (such as your forum posts here) about how "casual" you are by rejecting balance. If you weren't doing this just to prove how "casual" you are then you'd use the conventional point system and improve your games.
That's not proof. That's just an argument. The point is that you can't really prove your premise. I mean, were I to go to a random store or club I'd just use what they're using: either points or PL. The only time the whole debate about the worth of PL comes up is with people like you. To date, I've only defended PL to 6 or 7 people, and all of that has been online. I'm not making threads dedicated to praising casual games. I've even weighed in on points discussions based on the point based games I've played. This really isn't an all or nothing division here.
And I don't really know what I'd get out of you knowing I play PL sometimes. I mean, as far as I know you're just a bird and as far as you know I'm just a flower. It's an anonymous site. Were I to quit dakka in the next 5 minutes, your opinion of me would have 0 effect on my life.
You're free to leave this discussion at any time. Let's not pretend that I'm hunting you down and forcing you to listen to my hated of PL, you voluntarily joined a discussion about the subject and that includes having your statements criticized.
You missed the point. It was a more general commentary on accepting differing preferences even if you yourself don't subscribe to them.
Ah, projection. As for myself, I've been very open on how I feel about it. I openly said my point/accusation. So you really only have yourself to blame for my response.
Then don't be upset when I call out your accusation. And your second sentence makes no sense since you started it.
If you aren't playing 40k then why are you talking about your games on a 40k forum?
This is rather a good point. If we 'can't understand' your home brew system, then why argue it's merits by those of us who play the normal rule set?
Perhaps I didn't convey the idea clearly. No two groups of gamers will play the same version of 40K. Between differing metas, interpretations of rules, house rules (even official ones like ITC), terrain usage, armies in use etc... and that's before considering personal playstyles. The only person that I know of actually playing 40k by the rules is BaconCatBug. Even GW isn't playing the 40k they wrote. A such, it is pretty arrogant to presume to know how and why people play the game.
While I love that there is a second ruleset aimed at casual play I actually somewhat agree with SlayerFans criticism on PL. This is a thread for discussing it, and "if you don't like it don't play it" isn't an answer, he's literally just giving the reasons why he thinks it's a bad system and chooses not to play it. Some people don't do discussion well.
On the other hand, Peregrine as usual comes in being overly hostile, while burning down a bunch of strawmen he hastily constructed himself, and, as is par for his course, just made this place more abysmal to discuss anything at all. Wish we could just have a measured conversation as we were doing before, even if some people weren't being that receptive to it it's a hell of a step up from whatever this just became over the last page.
CrownAxe wrote:So because you have fun with power levels means we can’t have a discussion on a forum about which point system is better?
Better is subjective. Which is EXACTLY my point.
We can absolutely discuss why we might think it is better for ourselves, but a lot of people seem to be incapable of understanding that other people's ideas of "better" isn't the same as their own.
Because I have fun with PL means it is better for me. If you want to discuss why you prefer yours without insulting my enjoyment, I'm all ears.
Peregrine wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because paying for that power sword means I can't buy X unit, because now I went over the points limit.
You're rather selfishly looking at this from the point of view of what makes your personal army best and choosing the point system that allows you to optimize it.
And you do the same with yours - you choose points because it "optimises" your list because you didn't take every upgrade. You don't want to be charged for equipment you didn't take, which is fair enough for you. Still optimising in that sense.
Have you considered the opposite situation? For example, the fact that a squad with flamers is cheaper than one with plasma guns in the conventional point system might allow you to include X unit, while the PL point system has both upgrades cost the same and denies the opportunity to make the first unit cheaper and free up enough points to take X.
Have you considered that I really don't care that much what the unit is armed with so much that I get to field the unit in the first place? It might just be a case of perception, but having the unit prices be flat costs doesn't make me think "oh, I really wish I could shave a few points off this unit so I could fit another one in". It's probably a perception thing, but that's what I see.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not really. I don't go in with the mindset of "ooh, I need to maximise the irrelevant point value of this unit and make EVERYTHING as powerful as it can be!!". I go in with the mindset of "I'd like this unit, and this unit, and this unit. He looks like a cool model, I'll grab you. Yeah, lemme roll to hit with his... plasma gun? Yup, looks like a plasma gun to me, let's go!"
Call it stupid, call it what you want, but that's my PERSONAL idea of enjoyment.
I will call it stupid because it is stupid, and I seriously doubt you (or anyone else) actually play that way. Are you honestly telling me you care so little about the rules that you don't even know what weapons your models are armed with until you look down at the table (after rolling dice to hit) and see what they're holding? That you don't make any strategic plans and just say "let me roll some dice, who knows what they might be"? If that's genuinely your attitude towards the game why even play a game at all? Just make gun noises and push your toys around the table.
And this is why people don't play you.
Sorry, is my idea of fun wrong? You're genuinely telling me that I shouldn't play 40k because I don't do it the way you do?
(And yeah, I'm honestly saying all of that. No, don't worry, I wouldn't play you either.)
Sorry, but I'd rather play a game which is more relaxed, and PERSONALLY more fun to me, than have someone demanding I pay for what is essentially a cosmetic upgrade (seeing as it won't be used).
Oh really? Never going to be used? You mean, if your model with a plasma pistol is within 12" of a target you're going to decline to shoot because it's "just cosmetic"? Of course not. You're going to shoot that plasma pistol. What you're asking for here is to get the power of the upgrades you're taking without having to pay for them.
Actually, if my opponent was in that 12" range, I'd probably be charging them. Not to mention the Sergeant would probably be dead by this point.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:If you think points are that hard to calculate that you need power levels...yeah you wouldn't be terribly smart.
Yes, because insulting the intelligence of the other side of the discussion is such a polite and respectful thing to do.
And just from a numbers perspective, it is patently easier. I'm not saying points are hard, but I am saying that 1+1 is easier than 1+1+1+1+1+1. There are literally less numbers involved, and less variables.
Again, points aren't hard. I've used them for decades beforehand. But maybe I would rather pay a flat cost than calculate every minute detail.
Peregrine wrote:It's hardly a straw man when it's the only justification for PL, other than virtue signalling. Over and over again PL advocates talk about how much easier it is to do the basic math of adding up point costs.
It IS physically easier. 1+1 is easier than 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1.
I don't play PL to virtue signal. I play it because I enjoy it more, for myself. If I wanted to virtue signal, I'd be saying that anyone who played points was a WAAC powergamer, and that casual was the only way to play.
It's not. It's the way I prefer to play, but each to their own.
Mmmpi wrote:I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.
I've read six pages of people calling other people's ideas of fun wrong, and even some claiming that they shouldn't be playing the game because of it.
I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either
That's fair. Just like you don't want to be called WAAC tryhard TFGs because you optimise relentlessly, doesn't mean you get to insult other people's ideas of fun. *
*that was made in jest, before anyone comes in claiming I called all points players WAAC tryhard TFGs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: While I love that there is a second ruleset aimed at casual play I actually somewhat agree with SlayerFans criticism on PL. This is a thread for discussing it, and "if you don't like it don't play it" isn't an answer, he's literally just giving the reasons why he thinks it's a bad system and chooses to play it. Some people don't do discussion well.
Which is fair enough - except Slayerfan also insults people's intelligence, and doesn't respect that other people have fun differently.
Sharing your own opinion on why you dislike it? Absolutely fine.
Saying someone is playing the "wrong" way, and their idea of fun makes them less smart? Not so dandy.
On the other hand, Peregrine as usual comes in being overly hostile, while burning down a bunch of strawmen he hastily constructed himself, and, as is par for his course, just made this place more abysmal to discuss anything at all. Wish we could just have a measured conversation as we were doing before, even if some people weren't being that receptive to it it's a hell of a step up from whatever this just became over the last page.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And you do the same with yours - you choose points because it "optimises" your list because you didn't take every upgrade. You don't want to be charged for equipment you didn't take, which is fair enough for you. Still optimising in that sense.
So let me get this straight: "a unit's point cost should reflect its actual strength, including purchased upgrades, as closely as possible" is optimizing just like "I don't want this particular upgrade I like to cost me points, so I want to use the point system where I get it for free"? Are you serious?
Have you considered that I really don't care that much what the unit is armed with so much that I get to field the unit in the first place? It might just be a case of perception, but having the unit prices be flat costs doesn't make me think "oh, I really wish I could shave a few points off this unit so I could fit another one in". It's probably a perception thing, but that's what I see.
IOW, you want to get all of your upgrades for free so you don't have to consider whether or not they are worth points compared to having additional units. I get that you want free stuff for yourself, but that doesn't make it good game design.
And this is why people don't play you.
Plenty of people play me. But if people whose idea of playing a game is to mindlessly roll dice at each other without even being aware of what their units are equipped with want to refuse to play me then no, I don't think I'm missing anything.
You're genuinely telling me that I shouldn't play 40k because I don't do it the way you do?
I'm questioning why you bother to play 40k at all when you reject the entire concept of a game. If you aren't even bothering to look at what weapons a unit has until after you've already rolled to hit then you aren't playing a game anymore, you're rolling dice mindlessly and counting who gets more 4+ results. Maybe this is the sort of "beer and pretzels" game where you have to get black-out drunk to find it appealing?
Actually, if my opponent was in that 12" range, I'd probably be charging them. Not to mention the Sergeant would probably be dead by this point.
You do realize that you can shoot AND charge, right? And you didn't answer my question. If you had a plasma pistol shot would you decline to fire because the pistol is "just aesthetic" or would you insist that the plasma pistol on your model exists rules-wise and take the shot?
I'm not saying points are hard, but I am saying that 1+1 is easier than 1+1+1+1+1+1. There are literally less numbers involved, and less variables.
Both are so trivially easy that I find it unbelievable that anyone, other than small children, could complain that either is meaningfully harder than the other. Or that, in the age of universal smartphones, anyone could care whether they're putting 1+1+1+1 or 112+33+55+80 into their calculator to add up the point costs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: They're nice and useful don't get me wrong, but fun games can be played without them.
However, it is much more likely that a game that is better balanced via using the superior point system will be more fun. The fact that you can, by blind luck, have a balanced game using a less-accurate point system does not make the alternative better.
ITC isn't 40k either but people talk about that too.
ITC doesn't claim that it's so far from 40k that I wouldn't recognize it. If your game is genuinely that different then your discussion of it doesn't belong on a 40k forum because it isn't 40k. It's like me trying to argue that the conventional point system is better than PL because in X-Wing you need to add up the cost of upgrades to determine half-points values for damaged ships.
And I don't really know what I'd get out of you knowing I play PL sometimes. I mean, as far as I know you're just a bird and as far as you know I'm just a flower. It's an anonymous site. Were I to quit dakka in the next 5 minutes, your opinion of me would have 0 effect on my life.
If it's all so meaningless then why are you posting here? You clearly care enough about the subject to participate in the discussion and want people to know that you like PL, otherwise you wouldn't be here. So please drop this absurd argument.
You missed the point. It was a more general commentary on accepting differing preferences even if you yourself don't subscribe to them.
Why should I accept your ridiculous preferences in the context of a discussion of those preferences? If you want to have your preferences without criticism then leave this thread, go play silently, and don't present them for discussion. If you want to say "I like X" in a discussion forum then you should be prepared for someone else to say "no, X sucks".
Perhaps I didn't convey the idea clearly. No two groups of gamers will play the same version of 40K. Between differing metas, interpretations of rules, house rules (even official ones like ITC), terrain usage, armies in use etc... and that's before considering personal playstyles. The only person that I know of actually playing 40k by the rules is BaconCatBug. Even GW isn't playing the 40k they wrote. A such, it is pretty arrogant to presume to know how and why people play the game.
Huh. I played 40K in Western MA in multiple stores, even dipping down into Northern Connecticut. I've played in California. Now I'm playing in Japan. I'm literally playing the same game in all three areas. So, yeah. Don't give me that dung.
Then don't be upset when I call out your accusation.
And I don't really know what I'd get out of you knowing I play PL sometimes. I mean, as far as I know you're just a bird and as far as you know I'm just a flower. It's an anonymous site. Were I to quit dakka in the next 5 minutes, your opinion of me would have 0 effect on my life.
There's that passive aggressive again. Seriously. If you don't care, why are you still replying?
If people don't want to be asked why they are posting here or told to leave then they shouldn't make elaborate declarations of how they don't care about the subject (but stubbornly insist on posting about it anyway) or try to pretend that criticizing their posts in a discussion forum is equivalent to coming to their house unprovoked and lecturing them about how they need to stop having fun the wrong way.
And considering a game takes several hours... I don't see five minutes as an awful amount of time to spend making a list. Not to mention, as time goes on, you'll memorize points values. I can rattle off all my Nurgle Daemons without looking at the book, easy.
Perhaps. But then again, perhaps someone prefers to use those extra minutes to watch a Youtube video about cute baby sloths making funny noises. And who am I to tell them that it is a bad trade-off... actually sounds pretty damn awesome trade-off when I think about it.
I almost exclusively use points, as I usually arrange my games well beforehand, but PL are perfectly fine for more ad hoc 'Let's play in half and hour, grab some models' type of situations.
I gota go with Peregrine PL has no real use in the end unless you don't play to win and basic addition is hard for you. The simple fact that it is so easy to game PL compared to points kinda ruins it for me at least.
same here, PL is a great thing for 2 folks who have never played and want to throw down with the easy build zero option models that came in Dark Imperium or forgebane.
but once you have a collection, and 'Choices' of models ..
Playing PL can end up like playing chess where the White player is missing a queen and 7 pawns.
40K is at its core a tactical strategy game and it feels bad to hand out a beating with a superior force, (Regardless of skill)
it feels worse to be on the other end of that repeatedly and then later find out that in points you were always going to lose, the balance swings too far.
One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.
Couple of examples. I have Death Guard from the box set and the push-fit cases. I could convert these, but it wouldn't look quite as nice without spending a bunch more time on it. So I have two power fists and two plague swords which I may not want to take. What are my options? Either tell my opponent "They're not really there this game", which makes me feel worse for not playing WYSIWYG and which could potentially lead to confusion or feelbads for my opponent, or I can suck it up and pay the points - and that means I can't take the extra Nurgling squad I wanted, all because I've taken four melee upgrades for a unit which I never want to even approach combat.
More extreme example. Deathwatch. I have the Deathwatch squad from Overkill. It's lovingly painted, and I originally got it for display. Now I have started gaming with Deathwatch. In a points game, I'm forced to either shelve them, take counts-as way too far, or not only take them as a badly-optimised unit but pay points for the privilege. In PL, I would have to pay a touch more for the biker or the terminator, but it's nowhere near as bad.
PL games? I don't have to worry about these frustrations. They don't ruin the experience, no, but they do detract from it. But in PL games, I could take a unit that I built to look cool and play it as-is, no issues.
I play points. I do think that, for people interested in 40K as a competitive game, points are better. I also think that, for people interested in 40K as a cinematic experience or as a side bonus to owning a model collection, PL makes a lot of sense as a way to remove these little niggles.
Playing PL can end up like playing chess where the White player is missing a queen and 7 pawns.
How does playing with points not give you these exact same results?
The entire point of listbuilding is to break the points OR power level and to field a chess force of all queens if you can.
This.
PL games are actually more balanced than points-games, more often than not, mainly because people don't have as many pre-broken net/meta lists and adding toys to models for free is a great counter to the extremes of hordes and Knights that dominate tournaments (or did pre-FAQ).
Of course, if there'd be a proper PL-based tournament circuit, people would probably break it as quickly and easily as the points system and people willing to put the work in to break PL probably can.
But the idea that I couldn't possibly make two lists of equal point values that aren't ludicrously imbalanced is hilarious. Pick a Top Nova list or something (even post FAQ) and play it against equal points of all-White Scars Terminators or a Kroot army or something. There's nothing in PL that could produce imbalances worse than those in points.
Uses I have found for PLs: --Great for throwing together a Force quickly from an army you don't normally play and aren't that serious about (but somehow have the models anyway) --Great for lists in which you are putting together for BOTH players that will be playing several games against and tweaking wargear options to make them feel on-par with each other. I, for example, have a small collection for Marines, CSm and Necrons that I exclusively play against each other with my sons at home. PLs mean I can start with medium wargear options and if one list is consistently better, I can tone it down or buff up the other lists without changing the level of the game, just swap out for other choices. --Great when you do not have the Codex or CA or BattleScribe, but can remember each unit's PL
What PLs are not great at is: Putting together a serious list mean for competitive play
Since 99% of player tend to do the later and probably less than 1% do the former, Points are objectively the better choice. But that in no way makes PLs "useless" If 1 person finds it useful, by definition, it's useful.
1 thing I actually don't like about PL is that you often cannot just add 1 additional model without paying the PL for several additional models. Sometimes, I just want to make a 3-man unit into a 4-man unit, NOT a 6 man, but the PL increase is the same for either
Aelyn wrote: One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.
Couple of examples. I have Death Guard from the box set and the push-fit cases. I could convert these, but it wouldn't look quite as nice without spending a bunch more time on it. So I have two power fists and two plague swords which I may not want to take. What are my options? Either tell my opponent "They're not really there this game", which makes me feel worse for not playing WYSIWYG and which could potentially lead to confusion or feelbads for my opponent, or I can suck it up and pay the points - and that means I can't take the extra Nurgling squad I wanted, all because I've taken four melee upgrades for a unit which I never want to even approach combat.
More extreme example. Deathwatch. I have the Deathwatch squad from Overkill. It's lovingly painted, and I originally got it for display. Now I have started gaming with Deathwatch. In a points game, I'm forced to either shelve them, take counts-as way too far, or not only take them as a badly-optimised unit but pay points for the privilege. In PL, I would have to pay a touch more for the biker or the terminator, but it's nowhere near as bad.
PL games? I don't have to worry about these frustrations. They don't ruin the experience, no, but they do detract from it. But in PL games, I could take a unit that I built to look cool and play it as-is, no issues.
I play points. I do think that, for people interested in 40K as a competitive game, points are better. I also think that, for people interested in 40K as a cinematic experience or as a side bonus to owning a model collection, PL makes a lot of sense as a way to remove these little niggles.
I 100% see this as my reason for liking PL over points.
PL is very new, but it really does make the modelling and such, weapon choices, etc less stressful.
Like, does it make you want to have every possible thing modelled properly? Kinda, but I play Necrons, Nids, and Kroot, so my options are minimal or not a modelled thing Ian many cases. Then again, it gets you to buy models, and have bigger collections.
I've always themed my army collections around something. For my Necrons, it's an awakening tomb, hence having 5 full squads of Scarabs and tons of Spyders and Warriors.
In some ways, I feel like the flat cost per unit really helps when looking at your whole collecting and putting things together for a list. You don't need to worry who has what, interms of points for wargear, you just need to remember a simple, usually single digit, cost for the whole thing, and the "extra models" cost. It makes it far far easier to simply look over your forces at a tabletop distance and know the costs, rather than having to pick up and examine models to see what they have modelled on them.
Since 99% of player tend to do the later and probably less than 1% do the former, Points are objectively the better choice.
I've seen a lot of people using this as an argument, and it amazes me. (Not picking on you specifically, just using this as an example.)
Do people really think that out of the however many hundred of thousands players there are worldwide, the vast majority are primarily interested in competitive play? I would eyeball it, based on my personal experience*, as closer to 30% "serious lists meant for competitive play" and 70% other.
I know people who are collectors and painters first, and use games almost as an excuse to actually use their models.
I know people who dabble in half a dozen armies, with one or two "mains", but a bunch of small armies meant for silly casual games.
I know people who collect "historical" forces, buioding to very specific designs taken from novels or the theoretical army design provided in other fluff.
I know people who like to design for scenarios and narrative games.
None of the above require perfect balance, and are well-suited for PL to provide a rough balance. The more refined point system simply isn't necessary.
Of course, I also know people who play competitively, for whom points are entirely appropriate.
* Yes, this is anecdotal, and is not a perfect view of the playerbase - but the same is true for anyone's experience, unless they've actually conducted proper market research.
He's not saying they're interested in competitive play. You can be a casual player and still use points. I've been doing it for five editions now.
"I know people who are collectors and painters first, and use games almost as an excuse to actually use their models. "
Can still use points.
"I know people who dabble in half a dozen armies, with one or two "mains", but a bunch of small armies meant for silly casual games. "
Can still use points.
" I know people who collect "historical" forces, buioding to very specific designs taken from novels or the theoretical army design provided in other fluff. "
Can still use points, though narrative play would probably be best for this one.
"I know people who like to design for scenarios and narrative games."
Narrative play
"None of the above require perfect balance, and are well-suited for PL to provide a rough balance. The more refined point system simply isn't necessary. "
But points still works better. Particularly if you're trying to achieve a balanced game. Particularly on the part where you only pay for the upgrades and models you actually want to take.
CrownAxe wrote:So because you have fun with power levels means we can’t have a discussion on a forum about which point system is better?
Better is subjective. Which is EXACTLY my point.
We can absolutely discuss why we might think it is better for ourselves, but a lot of people seem to be incapable of understanding that other people's ideas of "better" isn't the same as their own.
Because I have fun with PL means it is better for me. If you want to discuss why you prefer yours without insulting my enjoyment, I'm all ears.
First and foremost, I don't care if people use PL. Enjoy. Have fun. Just don't tell me that it's more balanced than Points. Better is not subjective when you refer to math. Your Fiat might be a better fit for you and you have more fun driving it, but don't try and argue that it'll outpace a Lambo. PL is the less balanced point system.
He's not saying they're interested in competitive play. You can be a casual player and still use points. I've been doing it for five editions now.
He literally said 99% of players tend to put together "serious list[s] meant for competitive play."
And I never said that casual players can't use points - my point was just that for certain types of players, the game types and gaming emphasis means that the granularity provided by points isn't necessary to get the kind of experience they're looking for, and that is almost certainly a much larger portion of the target market than he claimed.
I'm a casual player, and I use points, so I know it's possible. I've been doing it for *six* editions now, so there but people on game forums are generally those who take the games more seriously than average, and it can lead to a skewed view of the demographic - and that's as true here as the various other game forums I go to.
My comment about 99% of players building for a "competitive" list wasn't supposed to mean exclusively tourney player. Even casual players build list with the intent to win, or at the very least play several turns. You cannot do this if you don't make "competitive" decisions with you list. The vast majority of players want their lists to perform, otherwise they are just putting stuff on the table to be removed. Serious, as-in, takes the time to build the list with any measure of care. You always WANT your list to succeed in some way, otherwise what are you trying to accomplish?
I have yet to met a player of ANY game who wants to lose every single game they every play... ...except maybe some Ork players....just kidding
And most players are not in control of their opponent's decisions for their list. Sure you can have that conversation, but the idea of Points or PLs is that you shouldn't need to. Both lists SHOULD be balanced, but we all know that isn't always the case. So you build with this in mind, regardless of how competitive you are trying to be. That is what I meant by the 99% of players bing "serious". I didn't mean "hardcore"
Galef wrote: My comment about 99% of players building for a "competitive" list wasn't supposed to mean exclusively tourney player.
Even casual players build list with the intent to win, or at the very least play several turns. You cannot do this if you don't make "competitive" decisions with you list.
The vast majority of players want their lists to perform, otherwise they are just putting stuff on the table to be removed.
Serious, as-in, takes the time to build the list with any measure of care. You always WANT your list to succeed, otherwise what are you trying to accomplish?
In my experience, most people want to have fun from their game.
For some people, this just means winning. For some, it means telling a story, or making a story that can be told and retold for time immemorial. For some, it's an excuse to spend time with an old friend, or to bond with their kid. There are lots of reasons people play the game.
The goal of the game is to win, but the point of the game is to have fun.
And I don't recall equating competitive players with tournament players (if I had, it would have been closer to 5% competitive, and I think that's generous.) I like to be competitive, but I've only played in one tournament ever, and that was a doubles event at Warhammer World - hardly the most intensive environment.
Crimson Devil wrote: Your problem is you don't respect anyone that disagrees with you.
No, I don't respect people that disagree with me for terrible reasons. People who disagree with me and have legitimate reasons to back up their disagreement don't lose any respect. If you're feeling disrespected over your disagreement it's 100% your fault.
A big part of the problem is casual players using Match Points.
They would have a happier game if they stuck with PL.
But by using points they fool themselves into thinking they can and should have an opinion in balance and competitive play and they get angry when they don't comprehend they are using something not intended for them in the wrong way.
For the first time I was looking at the back of my codex books and I noticed "points". What are these? I thought the codexes came with Power Levels per unit. These points seem rather incredibly imbalanced. Why would a lascannon cost the same amount of points when fighting an army of a million gaunts, as it seems to be worthless compared to it's utility when fighting an army of vehicles? Conversely why are flamers so cheap when they are devastating to a horde army? Points make zero sense.
judgedoug wrote: For the first time I was looking at the back of my codex books and I noticed "points". What are these? I thought the codexes came with Power Levels per unit. These points seem rather incredibly imbalanced. Why would a lascannon cost the same amount of points when fighting an army of a million gaunts, as it seems to be worthless compared to it's utility when fighting an army of vehicles? Conversely why are flamers so cheap when they are devastating to a horde army? Points make zero sense.
Although I applaud your comical attempt, you're disingenuously misconstruing what balance means. The points reflect the balance between the lascannon vs the flamer vs all enemies, not just cherry picked targets. After all, you're balancing the entire game. All weapons with all armies against all other armies. Your example is a tactical discussion, not a balance one. The game is rock, paper, scissors. Sometimes you pay for the rock and end up fighting the paper. Furthermore, the Power Level points system has you paying for the lascannon weather you take it or not. The Points points system gives the granularity to pick and choose to help you design a better well rounded army. I know which system I'd prefer in every possible scenario.
What should really happen is people should be happy that other people are happy playing the way they like to. Sometimes it feels like people take it as a personal affront for how someone else enjoys their game.
I have never played 8th with points, I love playing with PL though, it helps me organise what I'm going to bring with less fuss. In fact, I would not have returned to 40k if PL did not exist. Everyone I play with also plays PL, none of us worries about winning 40k, but I don't begrudge those who want to play with points or those who don't want to play with points or PL. I don't even begrudge those who want to house rule the game so much it's unrecognizable. Go have fun, that's what's important.
Now if someone wants to do an MDA analysis on PL or points and discuss the differences between the MDA of the two systems that might be interesting.
judgedoug wrote: For the first time I was looking at the back of my codex books and I noticed "points". What are these? I thought the codexes came with Power Levels per unit. These points seem rather incredibly imbalanced. Why would a lascannon cost the same amount of points when fighting an army of a million gaunts, as it seems to be worthless compared to it's utility when fighting an army of vehicles? Conversely why are flamers so cheap when they are devastating to a horde army? Points make zero sense.
Although I applaud your comical attempt, you're disingenuously misconstruing what balance means. The points reflect the balance between the lascannon vs the flamer vs all enemies, not just cherry picked targets. After all, you're balancing the entire game. All weapons with all armies against all other armies. Your example is a tactical discussion, not a balance one. The game is rock, paper, scissors. Sometimes you pay for the rock and end up fighting the paper. Furthermore, the Power Level points system has you paying for the lascannon weather you take it or not. The Points points system gives the granularity to pick and choose to help you design a better well rounded army. I know which system I'd prefer in every possible scenario.
But that's not how points work at the moment.
If equal points means things are balanced against all armies, why are 2000 points of Primaris White Scars built from the starter box so much worse than the Catachan/Castellan/BA Captains combo of 2000 points?
If these or other mathematically conceivable examples aren't balanced, points cannot claim that advantage over PL.
judgedoug wrote: For the first time I was looking at the back of my codex books and I noticed "points". What are these? I thought the codexes came with Power Levels per unit. These points seem rather incredibly imbalanced. Why would a lascannon cost the same amount of points when fighting an army of a million gaunts, as it seems to be worthless compared to it's utility when fighting an army of vehicles? Conversely why are flamers so cheap when they are devastating to a horde army? Points make zero sense.
Although I applaud your comical attempt, you're disingenuously misconstruing what balance means. The points reflect the balance between the lascannon vs the flamer vs all enemies, not just cherry picked targets. After all, you're balancing the entire game. All weapons with all armies against all other armies. Your example is a tactical discussion, not a balance one. The game is rock, paper, scissors. Sometimes you pay for the rock and end up fighting the paper. Furthermore, the Power Level points system has you paying for the lascannon weather you take it or not. The Points points system gives the granularity to pick and choose to help you design a better well rounded army. I know which system I'd prefer in every possible scenario.
What is comical is a zealous, religious belief in "balance" and that assigning a number to something that has an finite variation of random chance and variables is somehow going to do anything at all.
The problem with the balance argument is that balance has no set or concrete meaning in game design. Really balance in game design boils more down to the players emotional response to a game and the context of that game. Balance in Chess, for example, is not equivalent to balance in Snakes and Ladders. One gives a sense of balance based on player skill and player skill alone, the latter, as it is a game designed for parents to play with children or children to play with other children, gives a sense of balance by being random dominant.
So before we can argue whether PL or points in 40k are balanced we must first come to a mutual definition of what balance means in both of those situations, keeping in mind that player milieu is going to affect that definition.
"Is Chess a balanced game?
That question is impossible to answer if you do not understand what balance means in this context. The concept of balance is a highly “squishy” one—one prone to hand waving instead of definition. A person can mean many things by “balance.” One definition is that players have an even chance to win, all else being equal. However, balance can be tricky. If all players have an equal chance to win, does that speak to the game’s mechanisms or the player’s abilities? What reason does a player ever have to get better at a game if the game’s balance always gives him the same chance of winning?" ~ from Players Making Decisions: Game Design Essentials and the Art of Understanding Your Players
Crimson Devil wrote: Points should really be adjusted based on your opponent's army. It's the only way to make them accurate.
I don't know how to respond to this. "Oh? You're playing nids. Well I need another 25% advantage because of my opinion. Deal with it."
I was building off of Judgedoug's suggestion. A Lascannon should be priced x vs this army and y vs that army. Makes sense if you want real balance. If you want it balanced vs the whole game, then you're going to certain inequities baked in, and that just seems to be counter to the goal.
Crimson Devil wrote: Points should really be adjusted based on your opponent's army. It's the only way to make them accurate.
I don't know how to respond to this. "Oh? You're playing nids. Well I need another 25% advantage because of my opinion. Deal with it."
I was building off of Judgedoug's suggestion. A Lascannon should be priced x vs this army and y vs that army. Makes sense if you want real balance. If you want it balanced vs the whole game, then you're going to certain inequities baked in, and that just seems to be counter to the goal.
You can't have dynamic pricing based off your opponent. It would be impossible for 2 people to make a list.
A: I built a 2000 point list. (How? You don't know what your opponent has.)
B: Here's my list. It's 2000, too.
A: Oh, well you have this and this and this, so now i'm back down to 1830. I'll add in this and this and this. Back to 2k.
B: Gotcha. Well you adding this and this changed the price of my list. So now i'm at 1750. I'll add in this and this. Ah, back to 2k.
A: Well crap. Now I'm at 2150. Better tweak a couple things...
Repeat forever.
Hence, set points.
judgedoug wrote: For the first time I was looking at the back of my codex books and I noticed "points". What are these? I thought the codexes came with Power Levels per unit. These points seem rather incredibly imbalanced. Why would a lascannon cost the same amount of points when fighting an army of a million gaunts, as it seems to be worthless compared to it's utility when fighting an army of vehicles? Conversely why are flamers so cheap when they are devastating to a horde army? Points make zero sense.
Although I applaud your comical attempt, you're disingenuously misconstruing what balance means. The points reflect the balance between the lascannon vs the flamer vs all enemies, not just cherry picked targets. After all, you're balancing the entire game. All weapons with all armies against all other armies. Your example is a tactical discussion, not a balance one. The game is rock, paper, scissors. Sometimes you pay for the rock and end up fighting the paper. Furthermore, the Power Level points system has you paying for the lascannon weather you take it or not. The Points points system gives the granularity to pick and choose to help you design a better well rounded army. I know which system I'd prefer in every possible scenario.
What is comical is a zealous, religious belief in "balance" and that assigning a number to something that has an finite variation of random chance and variables is somehow going to do anything at all.
I didn't realize a 6 sided die had an infinite number of sides.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: That is correct. It is very difficult to perfectly balance a game like 40k.
And that can be fine.
But when people claim points = balance, thats where the arguments will certainly spring forth. Because points do not equal balance.
Points equal structure to build an army within.
No one claims points achieve perfect balance. The argument is Points are mathematically more precise than PL and get us closer to balance.
The goal of the game is to win, but the point of the game is to have fun.
Agreed. But that means making conscious choices during your list building step (i.e. your are moderately "serious" about the list) and giving that you wish to actually play (rather than have your opponent just tell you to remove unit after unit), even the most casual of fluffy bunnies is on some level "competitive" Just because we use the term "competitive" to describe a specific level, does not mean that competition is entire removed in games that are "for fun".
It would be the rare person indeed that had "fun" playing a game of chess in which they are constantly put in check-mate in the first few moves of the game.
And again, I am very "pro" Power levels, but it just seems the situations in which they are even remotely preferable over Points are few and far between....for most players.
If equal points means things are balanced against all armies, why are 2000 points of Primaris White Scars built from the starter box so much worse than the Catachan/Castellan/BA Captains combo of 2000 points?
If these or other mathematically conceivable examples aren't balanced, points cannot claim that advantage over PL.
That is a complete fallacy. That one system is not perfectly balance doesn't mean it cannot be better balanced than another system. Points are better balanced than PL, that is undeniable. Whether that extra sliver of balance (considering it still far from perfect) is worth the hassle for you is a personal choice.
No one claims points achieve perfect balance. The argument is Points are mathematically more precise than PL and get us closer to balance.
If that was the argument then I wouldnt' say anything. Thats not what I read though.
I read "points are way more balanced" or "granular points are balanced, PL is not" when the game at either mechanism is very far from balanced.
I don't really care either way what people prefer. I only use PL simply because I get tired of min/maxing on a spreadsheet and my interests in 40k have come at the realization that you can never have a balanced game of 40k and that the list will dominate the game more than playing the game will by GW game design and the community's love of that style of game.
If someone says" yeah but granular points are more precise and therefore closer to balance" then I would 100% agree.
But to illustrate visually, this is why I see both as flaming garbage right now:
Power Level balance (left being the most imbalanced, right being totally balanced)
<* * * PL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >
To me it makes such a minuscule difference in the overall feel of the game that its not even worth the time to debate other than as a personal preference thing.
Either system you use, your army list will largely dictate the outcome of the game before the opening bell.
Perhaps I didn't convey the idea clearly. No two groups of gamers will play the same version of 40K. Between differing metas, interpretations of rules, house rules (even official ones like ITC), terrain usage, armies in use etc... and that's before considering personal playstyles. The only person that I know of actually playing 40k by the rules is BaconCatBug. Even GW isn't playing the 40k they wrote. A such, it is pretty arrogant to presume to know how and why people play the game.
Huh. I played 40K in Western MA in multiple stores, even dipping down into Northern Connecticut. I've played in California. Now I'm playing in Japan. I'm literally playing the same game in all three areas. So, yeah. Don't give me that dung.
OK, do you play any of the narrative games like Cities of Death or Planetstrike? If not the you are playing a significantly different game than those that do. My point about my games being different had a bit of hyperbole to try and drive the point but instead you've gotten hung up on that rather than the main point: which is that you don't know how people are playing the game so why do you get to decide what's fun for them or not?
Then don't be upset when I call out your accusation.
And I don't really know what I'd get out of you knowing I play PL sometimes. I mean, as far as I know you're just a bird and as far as you know I'm just a flower. It's an anonymous site. Were I to quit dakka in the next 5 minutes, your opinion of me would have 0 effect on my life.
There's that passive aggressive again. Seriously. If you don't care, why are you still replying?
How is that passive aggressive? I'm just arguing against his central premise that I only play PL so people know about. Seriously though, why does me playing PL make you upset? Since you entered the thread you've been pretty aggressive and have attacked me personally instead of my points. How else should I take that?
The goal of the game is to win, but the point of the game is to have fun.
Agreed. But that means making conscious choices during your list building step (i.e. your are moderately "serious" about the list) and giving that you wish to actually play (rather than have your opponent just tell you to remove unit after unit), even the most casual of fluffy bunnies is on some level "competitive"
Just because we use the term "competitive" to describe a specific level, does not mean that competition is entire removed in games that are "for fun".
It would be the rare person indeed that had "fun" playing a game of chess in which they are constantly put in check-mate in the first few moves of the game.
And again, I am very "pro" Power levels, but it just seems the situations in which they are even remotely preferable over Points are few and far between....for most players.
-
Okay, this feels to me like your argument consists of "99% of players are competitive, if you define competitive in such a way that it covers 99% of people".
Sometimes, the level of "conscious choice" in list building is "I want to use my special character, and this new tank I just finished painting, my super-tough terminators, and a couple of other squads. You want to take your big monster, that burrowing guy, and a horde of gribblies? Okay, I'm at 48 power, you're at 41, so you're a bit under. If you take those elite guys of yours, you're up to 46. Sound good?"
Points are a budget that allow you to squeeze out every bit of value. Power levels are a way of approximating balance to ensure it's not a total curbstomp without having to worry too hard about optimization.
Aelyn wrote: Points are a budget that allow you to squeeze out every bit of value. Power levels are a way of approximating balance to ensure it's not a total curbstomp without having to worry too hard about optimization.
That's probably the best description of either that I have seen, honestly. At least of the intent of either. Have an exalt!
Sometimes, the level of "conscious choice" in list building is "I want to use my special character, and this new tank I just finished painting, my super-tough terminators, and a couple of other squads. You want to take your big monster, that burrowing guy, and a horde of gribblies? Okay, I'm at 48 power, you're at 41, so you're a bit under. If you take those elite guys of yours, you're up to 46. Sound good?"
Points are a budget that allow you to squeeze out every bit of value. Power levels are a way of approximating balance to ensure it's not a total curbstomp without having to worry too hard about optimization.
Well said!
And the rule book even covers what to do if there's a disparity in PL!
Crimson Devil wrote: No one is arguing that points are not more precise in theory. Our argument is that kind of precision isn't required to have fun.
So why are you playing points? Why did you go past your section?
Page 212, first paragraph. "Matched play games give you the option to fight battles with armies that are intentionally balanced against one another"
Unless your looking for that specific option, don't go this many pages into the rule book. You need to start playing the game as GW intended for you to play it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And you do the same with yours - you choose points because it "optimises" your list because you didn't take every upgrade. You don't want to be charged for equipment you didn't take, which is fair enough for you. Still optimising in that sense.
So let me get this straight: "a unit's point cost should reflect its actual strength, including purchased upgrades, as closely as possible" is optimizing just like "I don't want this particular upgrade I like to cost me points, so I want to use the point system where I get it for free"? Are you serious?
But I'm not getting the upgrade for free. I'm paying for that upgrade as part of the flat cost of the unit. I pay, as part of the flat cost of the PL unit, to take anything.
You ARE still optimising, under the same way you phrased your initial point to me. If what I'm doing is optimising, then so is yours.
Have you considered that I really don't care that much what the unit is armed with so much that I get to field the unit in the first place? It might just be a case of perception, but having the unit prices be flat costs doesn't make me think "oh, I really wish I could shave a few points off this unit so I could fit another one in". It's probably a perception thing, but that's what I see.
IOW, you want to get all of your upgrades for free so you don't have to consider whether or not they are worth points compared to having additional units. I get that you want free stuff for yourself, but that doesn't make it good game design.
I'm not after free stuff. I just don't want the macro-construction of my army affected by trivial micro-constructions. If I truly was as selfish and greedy for free stuff, don't you think I'd never miss a chance to slap an upgrade on something? As it stands, half of my Tactical Sergeants have nothing more than a bolter and chainsword. The other half are kitted out with combis, pistols, melee weapons and suchlike. If I was solely in this for the free stuff, don't you think I'd have put it on the other half of my list?
During 7th, I paid points for my transports when using a Gladius, because I didn't take it for free stuff. I took the Gladius because it was the style of army building I preferred. But I guess me saying "I built my army to be fluff-accurate" is virtue signalling.
Keep on reeling off those buzzwords
And this is why people don't play you.
Plenty of people play me. But if people whose idea of playing a game is to mindlessly roll dice at each other without even being aware of what their units are equipped with want to refuse to play me then no, I don't think I'm missing anything.
I wouldn't play you. And I think quite a few people on this forum wouldn't play you.
And agreed. I don't think I'm missing anything from anyone who feels the need to say that people are having fun in the wrong way and should stop playing the game because they're too casual.
You're genuinely telling me that I shouldn't play 40k because I don't do it the way you do?
I'm questioning why you bother to play 40k at all when you reject the entire concept of a game. If you aren't even bothering to look at what weapons a unit has until after you've already rolled to hit then you aren't playing a game anymore, you're rolling dice mindlessly and counting who gets more 4+ results. Maybe this is the sort of "beer and pretzels" game where you have to get black-out drunk to find it appealing?
You think the ONLY concept of 40k is to play competitively and with your strategic thinkin' cap on all the time?
Yeah, I really dodged a bullet not ever having to interact with you.
People can enjoy their games however they want to. Just because I wouldn't play a game the way you do doesn't mean I get some kind of free reign to morally lord it over people who do.
Actually, if my opponent was in that 12" range, I'd probably be charging them. Not to mention the Sergeant would probably be dead by this point.
You do realize that you can shoot AND charge, right? And you didn't answer my question. If you had a plasma pistol shot would you decline to fire because the pistol is "just aesthetic" or would you insist that the plasma pistol on your model exists rules-wise and take the shot?
Odds are, I'd probably throw a grenade at this point. Sounds cooler in my head.
I'm not saying points are hard, but I am saying that 1+1 is easier than 1+1+1+1+1+1. There are literally less numbers involved, and less variables.
Both are so trivially easy that I find it unbelievable that anyone, other than small children, could complain that either is meaningfully harder than the other. Or that, in the age of universal smartphones, anyone could care whether they're putting 1+1+1+1 or 112+33+55+80 into their calculator to add up the point costs.
Implying that I A, have my phone on me at all times, and B, still want to spend that time flipping through more pages, putting in more numbers, and counting just how many power swords are in my list?
However, you spin it, power level IS faster. Is it fast enough that it makes it worth it over points? That's up to your personal preference. Subjectivity, yo.
Dandelion wrote: They're nice and useful don't get me wrong, but fun games can be played without them.
However, it is much more likely that a game that is better balanced via using the superior point system will be more fun. The fact that you can, by blind luck, have a balanced game using a less-accurate point system does not make the alternative better.
In your opinion, it's superior, and more fun. It is more likely FOR YOU it will be more fun.
It's more likely for me PL will be more fun. We all have opinions, dude. Some of us actually let other people have theirs.
You missed the point. It was a more general commentary on accepting differing preferences even if you yourself don't subscribe to them.
Why should I accept your ridiculous preferences in the context of a discussion of those preferences? If you want to have your preferences without criticism then leave this thread, go play silently, and don't present them for discussion. If you want to say "I like X" in a discussion forum then you should be prepared for someone else to say "no, X sucks".
You're right. We shouldn't have expected common respect or acceptance for people liking different thing from Peregrine.
After all, if you don't want your personal preferences attacked because people can't handle the idea of different kinds of fun, you just shouldn't ever voice those preferences.
I've personally got nothing wrong with you, or anyone, saying "PL sucks for me", or even "PL sucks". Saying "if you play PL, you suck" goes beyond voicing your opinion, and into pushing your opinion on other people. That's what the issue is.
Peregrine wrote:If people don't want to be asked why they are posting here or told to leave then they shouldn't make elaborate declarations of how they don't care about the subject (but stubbornly insist on posting about it anyway) or try to pretend that criticizing their posts in a discussion forum is equivalent to coming to their house unprovoked and lecturing them about how they need to stop having fun the wrong way.
At the same time, one should reasonably expect to be able to voice their preferences and not be attacked and told that their idea of fun is wrong, and they are somehow less of a person for thinking that.
Voice your opinion on how it affects you, by all means. Voice your opinion on how you'd never play it. But berating other people for having the audacity to voice their own is what I'd call bullying.
mew28 wrote:I gota go with Peregrine PL has no real use in the end unless you don't play to win and basic addition is hard for you. The simple fact that it is so easy to game PL compared to points kinda ruins it for me at least.
It's trivially easy to game points too.
Step 1: Take Guard
Step 2: Take Slamguinius
Step 3: Take at least a Castellan
Step 4: ???
Step 5: PROFIT!!
All of 40k can be broken if you try. If you don't try to break it, then you're probably going to have a better time. I don't know about you, but I don't go out with the aim to break the game, or to leverage an overwhelming advantage over my opponent. My idea of fun is different from that.
Reanimation_Protocol wrote:same here, PL is a great thing for 2 folks who have never played and want to throw down with the easy build zero option models that came in Dark Imperium or forgebane.
but once you have a collection, and 'Choices' of models ..
Playing PL can end up like playing chess where the White player is missing a queen and 7 pawns.
40K is at its core a tactical strategy game and it feels bad to hand out a beating with a superior force, (Regardless of skill)
it feels worse to be on the other end of that repeatedly and then later find out that in points you were always going to lose, the balance swings too far.
I've got plenty large collections of armies. I actually find that PL works better for me than points does, largely because of that. If I'm putting down a full Battle Company supported by a Tank Company and Infantry Companies respectively, I really don't want to comb through each unit and calculate each unique one. When I come to shooting or fighting with that unit, I'll see what they have, but beyond that, they're just another Tactical Squad, another Leman Russ, another Infantry Squad.
Again, regarding the whole Chess analogy, you can have the same scenario occur in points games. Or is 2000 points of Grey Knights really equal to 2000 point of Imperium soup?
Galef wrote:Uses I have found for PLs:
--Great for throwing together a Force quickly from an army you don't normally play and aren't that serious about (but somehow have the models anyway)
--Great for lists in which you are putting together for BOTH players that will be playing several games against and tweaking wargear options to make them feel on-par with each other. I, for example, have a small collection for Marines, CSm and Necrons that I exclusively play against each other with my sons at home. PLs mean I can start with medium wargear options and if one list is consistently better, I can tone it down or buff up the other lists without changing the level of the game, just swap out for other choices.
--Great when you do not have the Codex or CA or BattleScribe, but can remember each unit's PL
What PLs are not great at is:
Putting together a serious list mean for competitive play
Since 99% of player tend to do the later and probably less than 1% do the former, Points are objectively the better choice. But that in no way makes PLs "useless"
If 1 person finds it useful, by definition, it's useful.
Agreed and slightly disagreed. Points are only objectively the better choice for the 99%. For the 1%, they're objectively better, if they prefer that.
1 thing I actually don't like about PL is that you often cannot just add 1 additional model without paying the PL for several additional models. Sometimes, I just want to make a 3-man unit into a 4-man unit, NOT a 6 man, but the PL increase is the same for either
Nah, I agree on this one. My GK Paladins are terrible for this, because I do have 6 Paladins, but they come in blocks of 3, 5, and 10. However, if it's a sufficiently small game, I'll just play them as two separate units of 3.
CrownAxe wrote:So because you have fun with power levels means we can’t have a discussion on a forum about which point system is better?
Better is subjective. Which is EXACTLY my point.
We can absolutely discuss why we might think it is better for ourselves, but a lot of people seem to be incapable of understanding that other people's ideas of "better" isn't the same as their own.
Because I have fun with PL means it is better for me. If you want to discuss why you prefer yours without insulting my enjoyment, I'm all ears.
First and foremost, I don't care if people use PL. Enjoy. Have fun. Just don't tell me that it's more balanced than Points. Better is not subjective when you refer to math. Your Fiat might be a better fit for you and you have more fun driving it, but don't try and argue that it'll outpace a Lambo. PL is the less balanced point system.
I haven't said it's objectively better or more balanced than points. I've said it's subjectively better to me.
Objectively, that Fiat IS slower. That doesn't make it objectively WORSE. It could be subjectively worse to someone who values speed, but it's subjectively better for someone who prefers the fit of it.
Crimson Devil wrote: No one is arguing that points are not more precise in theory. Our argument is that kind of precision isn't required to have fun.
So why are you playing points? Why did you go past your section?
Page 212, first paragraph. "Matched play games give you the option to fight battles with armies that are intentionally balanced against one another"
Unless your looking for that specific option, don't go this many pages into the rule book. You need to start playing the game as GW intended for you to play it.
That section also states that you don't have to use points for matched play, you can use Power Levels, or even counting wounds (their own example, I'd never even thought if it).
Power levels are really problematic for many armies which have lots of options which have high cost variables. I played two games using power, (back to back against the same opponent) and after the games I mathed it out he had like 500 more points then I did the first game, and like 200 more the second after I changed my list. There is just to much room for this kind of lopsidedness with power. If I was playing someone new, or teaching someone how to play I would probably use power levels to throw together a quick army for that purpose, but outside of that, I don't like power
When someone powerlists with points, they are making their 2000 points operate like 3000 points.
Which is why a 2000 pt game of Grey Knights or whatever weak army you want to use feels like you're facing against 3000 points of the latest soup of the day.
Aelyn wrote: One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.
This is said over and over again in defense of PL, but it's absolutely false. Of course optimization is relevant in PL. When all upgrades cost zero points then anything but the most powerful one is sabotaging your own unit. For example, if a power fist is zero points then modeling your sergeant with a knife because you don't like the look of power fists is sacrificing optimization for aesthetics, just like in the conventional point system. If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same.
The only way that PL "improves" the situation is the virtue signalling aspect: by saying "I USE PL" you're announcing to the world that you're a particular sort of player and list optimization is not welcome in your games.
Crimson Devil wrote: No one is arguing that points are not more precise in theory. Our argument is that kind of precision isn't required to have fun.
So why are you playing points? Why did you go past your section?
Page 212, first paragraph. "Matched play games give you the option to fight battles with armies that are intentionally balanced against one another"
Unless your looking for that specific option, don't go this many pages into the rule book. You need to start playing the game as GW intended for you to play it.
Blndmage wrote:
That section also states that you don't have to use points for matched play, you can use Power Levels, or even counting wounds (their own example, I'd never even thought if it).
Aelyn wrote: One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.
This is said over and over again in defense of PL, but it's absolutely false. Of course optimization is relevant in PL. When all upgrades cost zero points then anything but the most powerful one is sabotaging your own unit. For example, if a power fist is zero points then modeling your sergeant with a knife because you don't like the look of power fists is sacrificing optimization for aesthetics, just like in the conventional point system. If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same.
The only way that PL "improves" the situation is the virtue signalling aspect: by saying "I USE PL" you're announcing to the world that you're a particular sort of player and list optimization is not welcome in your games.
Oh for feths sake! What is broken in your brain that says everytime someone does something you don't like, it means they think they are superior to you?
Aelyn wrote: One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.
This is said over and over again in defense of PL, but it's absolutely false. Of course optimization is relevant in PL. When all upgrades cost zero points then anything but the most powerful one is sabotaging your own unit. For example, if a power fist is zero points then modeling your sergeant with a knife because you don't like the look of power fists is sacrificing optimization for aesthetics, just like in the conventional point system. If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same.
The only way that PL "improves" the situation is the virtue signalling aspect: by saying "I USE PL" you're announcing to the world that you're a particular sort of player and list optimization is not welcome in your games.
You really don't seem to understand the idea that someone might take an option other than trying to win do you? Over the years I've stayed away from options or builds because they didn't sit well with the background of my space marines or I otherwise felt it just didn't seem right fluff wise. Did I take into account how good an upgrade or unit was, yes of course. But it doesn't at to my gaming experience to only ever take the best option, and it certainly wouldn't make my opponents much better either. My game group and I have found 40k regardless of edition is more fun when you take things cause there cool or they help tell a neat story, not just to smash face.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You ARE still optimising, under the same way you phrased your initial point to me. If what I'm doing is optimising, then so is yours.
You are advocating a point system that favors your particular upgrade preferences at the expense of balance, and openly doing so because it favors your preferences. IOW, you are deliberately creating an imbalance in your favor. I am advocating a point system that more accurately evaluates everyone's upgrade choices, improving balance for everyone. Nobody gets an imbalance in their favor. The idea that the two are equivalent is absurd "MOMMY HE DID IT TOO" nonsense.
I'm not after free stuff. I just don't want the macro-construction of my army affected by trivial micro-constructions.
IOW, you want free stuff. You want to have upgrades on your models, but you don't want those upgrades to take points out of your budget for buying units. That's the very definition of getting stuff for free.
You think the ONLY concept of 40k is to play competitively and with your strategic thinkin' cap on all the time?
There is a difference between playing competitively and literally being so oblivious to what is going on that you roll dice to hit before being aware of what weapons you're shooting. That isn't playing a game, it's mindlessly rolling D6s and seeing what happens.
However, you spin it, power level IS faster.
Yes, PL is faster, but not in any meaningful way. Spending 3 minutes instead of 2 minutes adding up a list for a 3 hour game is irrelevant.
You're right. We shouldn't have expected common respect or acceptance for people liking different thing from Peregrine.
I've personally got nothing wrong with you, or anyone, saying "PL sucks for me", or even "PL sucks". Saying "if you play PL, you suck" goes beyond voicing your opinion, and into pushing your opinion on other people. That's what the issue is.
It's a discussion forum. The whole point is to push your opinion on other people. Nobody is showing up uninvited at your house to tell you how you're wrong, you voluntarily placed yourself into the discussion. If you don't like it then feel free to leave, but don't complain about how you didn't get nothing but praise for your ideas.
It can be a competitive game, it can be a narrative game, it can be anything two or more people want it to be. I find it more enjoyable to go a bit easier because that allows for far more armies and builds to be viable. Otherwise entire armies might as well not even bother showing up and I find it boring to play the same optimized lists over and over.
Crimson Devil wrote: Oh for feths sake! What is broken in your brain that says everytime someone does something you don't like, it means they think they are superior to you?
I don't. But in the case of PL the entire purpose is virtue signalling and superiority. If it's genuinely about "casual" play then they'd just use the conventional point system and take less-optimized lists. The only reason to use a less-accurate point system and deliberately reduce the balance of the game, aside from figuring out a particular list/upgrade strategy that wins more with PL and trying to rig the game in their favor, is that by using PL they get to announce to the world that they are superior "casual" players and not those WAACTFGs.
Peregrine wrote: If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same...
If you're building a model in a specific way to optimise your list, you're probably not playing in the sort of atmosphere where PL shines.
Or to put it another way, you're still working on the assumption that people are powergaming.
Peregrine wrote: It's a discussion forum. The whole point is to push your opinion on other people.
Aelyn wrote: If you're building a model in a specific way to optimise your list, you're probably not playing in the sort of atmosphere where PL shines.
Or to put it another way, you're still working on the assumption that people are powergaming.
Thank you for very nicely proving my point about PL and virtue signalling.
Aelyn wrote: If you're building a model in a specific way to optimise your list, you're probably not playing in the sort of atmosphere where PL shines.
Or to put it another way, you're still working on the assumption that people are powergaming.
Thank you for very nicely proving my point about PL and virtue signalling.
You're aware that I play points games, right? Why would I be virtue signalling with PL when I don't actually use it?
Saying things are different does not imply one is better than the other.
Aelyn wrote: If you're building a model in a specific way to optimise your list, you're probably not playing in the sort of atmosphere where PL shines.
Or to put it another way, you're still working on the assumption that people are powergaming.
Thank you for very nicely proving my point about PL and virtue signalling.
You're aware that I play points games, right? Why would I be virtue signalling with PL when I don't actually use it?
Saying things are different does not imply one is better than the other.
It is important that people play with their toy soldiers in the correct adult way. We dont want to be seen playing in the less serious way.
Sarcasm aside, PL is perfect when i play a game with my son and the whole concept makes building his space marines a lot more fun.
Aelyn wrote: One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.
This is said over and over again in defense of PL, but it's absolutely false. Of course optimization is relevant in PL. When all upgrades cost zero points then anything but the most powerful one is sabotaging your own unit. For example, if a power fist is zero points then modeling your sergeant with a knife because you don't like the look of power fists is sacrificing optimization for aesthetics, just like in the conventional point system. If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same.
This is perfectly valid observation. PL literally doesn't do what Aelyn thinks it does. Points are better if you want to just equip your guys with with suboptimal weapons for looks. My marine captain has a powersword and bolt pistol, lieutenant has a power mace and a bolt pistol. I like how they look. Sure, they don't achieve much with their weapons, but then again, under points I'm not paying much for those weapons either. Under PL system my guys would cost the same than opponents similar characters that are armed to the teeth with the best gear they can find from the marine armoury.
The only way that PL "improves" the situation is the virtue signalling aspect: by saying "I USE PL" you're announcing to the world that you're a particular sort of player and list optimization is not welcome in your games.
Then again, I really don't think this sort of commentary is helpful; you're not a mind reader, you don't know other people's motivations. Some people can prefer PL system for its ease of use, and I don't think that with points being scattered across several publications now, that is an irrational stance at all, albeit not one I personally hold.
Allegedly some people play games to Power Level limits rather than points, but I've never met any of them.
EDIT - Well, not alongside, no. Points are listed in the back, Power Level on the datasheet of the unit.
Power level is the only way to play apoc. After building a 10k list, then doing the same with power level, there is no competition on which is easier. Besides, if you care about balance in apoc, you are doing it wrong. Also great for narrative games, as it removes the points on wargear, letting players create narrative units filled with flavor. Also excellent for teaching. It's just bad at tournament level.
I've met a lot of people who cannot understand this concept, and that is fine. It's just like how I cannot understand the concept of TCG games being enjoyable and interesting. Most of the time though, the people who don't grasp why PL can be useful, just get really defensive and end up insulting me or tryp up long reasons why they don't like it, which I don't care about lol. I love forging a narrative, and usually I have to do it within the constraints of points, but from time to time I get a game with power level against a like minded individual and have the best of times. There is nothing wrong with not liking power levels, but there is no reason to condemn them and be negative about people who enjoy them.
gwarsh41 wrote: Power level is the only way to play apoc. After building a 10k list, then doing the same with power level, there is no competition on which is easier. Besides, if you care about balance in apoc, you are doing it wrong. Also great for narrative games, as it removes the points on wargear, letting players create narrative units filled with flavor. Also excellent for teaching. It's just bad at tournament level.
TBHPL is overkill for Apocalypse balancing anyway. Apocalypse isn't a game, it's an exercise in taking models out of the box and then putting them back in. You can precisely duplicate the experience by arranging everyone's entire collection on a table, rolling D6s for 18 hours (not doing anything with the results, just rolling the dice) and then putting all of the models away. There's really no point in even adding up PL to figure out which models to put on the table.
For narrative games where you want to be able to determine upgrades based on fluff PL is worse than the conventional point system. If all options cost zero points then anything but the one with the best stat line is sabotaging your own list. In a conventional points game you have a lot more freedom to pick less-powerful upgrades because they also cost less.
gwarsh41 wrote: Power level is the only way to play apoc. After building a 10k list, then doing the same with power level, there is no competition on which is easier. Besides, if you care about balance in apoc, you are doing it wrong. Also great for narrative games, as it removes the points on wargear, letting players create narrative units filled with flavor. Also excellent for teaching. It's just bad at tournament level.
TBHPL is overkill for Apocalypse balancing anyway. Apocalypse isn't a game, it's an exercise in taking models out of the box and then putting them back in. You can precisely duplicate the experience by arranging everyone's entire collection on a table, rolling D6s for 18 hours (not doing anything with the results, just rolling the dice) and then putting all of the models away. There's really no point in even adding up PL to figure out which models to put on the table.
For narrative games where you want to be able to determine upgrades based on fluff PL is worse than the conventional point system. If all options cost zero points then anything but the one with the best stat line is sabotaging your own list. In a conventional points game you have a lot more freedom to pick less-powerful upgrades because they also cost less.
Is it so hard to believe people might get enjoyment from this game outside of crushing your opponent with the best thing you can bring? Apocalyspe is a really fun variant because, yea I can bring my whole collection vs another whole collection and have a ton of great in game moments. Titans taking down Titan, entire tank groups having at it, until your down to a few models fighting over that last scrap or objective. A lot of use get more out of cool moments and models rather than the final score tally at the end. It's the in game moments that do it for me, not the end result.
gwarsh41 wrote: Power level is the only way to play apoc. After building a 10k list, then doing the same with power level, there is no competition on which is easier. Besides, if you care about balance in apoc, you are doing it wrong. Also great for narrative games, as it removes the points on wargear, letting players create narrative units filled with flavor. Also excellent for teaching. It's just bad at tournament level.
TBHPL is overkill for Apocalypse balancing anyway. Apocalypse isn't a game, it's an exercise in taking models out of the box and then putting them back in. You can precisely duplicate the experience by arranging everyone's entire collection on a table, rolling D6s for 18 hours (not doing anything with the results, just rolling the dice) and then putting all of the models away. There's really no point in even adding up PL to figure out which models to put on the table.
For narrative games where you want to be able to determine upgrades based on fluff PL is worse than the conventional point system. If all options cost zero points then anything but the one with the best stat line is sabotaging your own list. In a conventional points game you have a lot more freedom to pick less-powerful upgrades because they also cost less.
I've met a lot of people who cannot understand this concept, and that is fine. It's just like how I cannot understand the concept of TCG games being enjoyable and interesting. Most of the time though, the people who don't grasp why PL can be useful, just get really defensive and end up insulting me or type up long reasons why they don't like it, which I don't care about lol. I love forging a narrative, and usually I have to do it within the constraints of points, but from time to time I get a game with power level against a like minded individual and have the best of times. There is nothing wrong with not liking power levels, but there is no reason to condemn them and be negative about people who enjoy them.
I'm sorry, I can't get over the logic you have here:
For narrative games where you want to be able to determine upgrades based on fluff PL is worse than the conventional point system. If all options cost zero points then anything but the one with the best stat line is sabotaging your own list.
So you want to pick an upgrade based on fluff, but you are afraid that if you choose the fluffy upgrade it will nerf you because you could have had a non fluffy, stronger upgrade?
Peregrine wrote: Thank you for very nicely proving my point about PL and virtue signalling.
You're aware that I play points games, right? Why would I be virtue signalling with PL when I don't actually use it?
Saying things are different does not imply one is better than the other.
Whether or not you personally use it you just defended PL by describing virtue signalling.
Virtue signalling is using a statement to indicate (assumed) moral superiority. Nothing that I have said about PL implies any sort of morality.
If you want to say that talking about PL says something about the atmosphere in which you play, well... yeah, obviously, different ways to play happen in different playgroups. But without using this to imply a moral superiority, it can't be virtue signalling.
Please don't strawman me. If you want to debate, that's fine, but don't deliberately mischaracterise my statements in an effort to undermine me.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Is it so hard to believe people might get enjoyment from this game outside of crushing your opponent with the best thing you can bring? Apocalyspe is a really fun variant because, yea I can bring my whole collection vs another whole collection and have a ton of great in game moments. Titans taking down Titan, entire tank groups having at it, until your down to a few models fighting over that last scrap or objective. A lot of use get more out of cool moments and models rather than the final score tally at the end. It's the in game moments that do it for me, not the end result.
Apocalypse sucks for reasons entirely unrelated to balance. It sucks because 40k does not scale up well enough to handle it, and the game gets bogged down in a tedious mess. The table is too crowded to have any meaningful movement, objectives are almost always forgotten because who gives a after 12 hours of slogging through multi-hour turns, 90% of the models on the table are just there to be removed by titans, and IGOUGO means that one side can literally go off for dinner and come back before the active players have finished their turn. At no point in an Apocalypse game have I ever seen any meaningful strategy, and the rare cool moments are tiny outliers in a vast sea of boring.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gwarsh41 wrote: So you want to pick an upgrade based on fluff, but you are afraid that if you choose the fluffy upgrade it will nerf you because you could have had a non fluffy, stronger upgrade?
Exactly. PL forces you into a choice between taking fluffy upgrades or improving your ability to win games. The conventional point system doesn't force this choice, because less powerful upgrades have cheaper point costs. PL penalizes the fluffy choice, the conventional point system supports it. So if you want to have an environment where fluff-driven choices are encouraged then you should avoid PL at all costs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aelyn wrote: Nothing that I have said about PL implies any sort of morality.
You are, however, referencing the PL-advocate assumption that "casual" games/players are superior to competitive ones. Therefore you are quoting a virtue signalling argument, even if you aren't signalling yourself.
Aelyn wrote: Nothing that I have said about PL implies any sort of morality.
You are, however, referencing the PL-advocate assumption that "casual" games/players are superior to competitive ones. Therefore you are quoting a virtue signalling argument, even if you aren't signalling yourself.
Really? Where did I say anything about superiority, or compare casual players to competitive ones, other than saying that they ply different types of games?
Aelyn wrote: If you're building a model in a specific way to optimise your list, you're probably not playing in the sort of atmosphere where PL shines.
Or to put it another way, you're still working on the assumption that people are powergaming.
Thank you for very nicely proving my point about PL and virtue signalling.
You're aware that I play points games, right? Why would I be virtue signalling with PL when I don't actually use it?
Saying things are different does not imply one is better than the other.
Exactly. PL forces you into a choice between taking fluffy upgrades or improving your ability to win games. The conventional point system doesn't force this choice, because less powerful upgrades have cheaper point costs. PL penalizes the fluffy choice, the conventional point system supports it. So if you want to have an environment where fluff-driven choices are encouraged then you should avoid PL at all costs.
Do you even know what fluff is? If you have a unit that is famed for their swordsmanship and you've arranged narrative match where you will have an HQ with two power swords and a unit of elites with power swords. Then, the organizer says "hey, we use power level, not points", do you:
A: stick to your fluff for the narrative game, building a true narrative experience.
B: Change your lore so you can have a unit famed for their hammers because you want to win.
C: Become so torn on the decision between narrative driven games and winning that you refuse to play because power level gives you more options with no penalties.
D: Freak out at the idea that other players will bring power lists, so you exploit power level to the max and not bring lore at all.
You are saying you don't like the option that lets you choose because you can't handle the choice. It's like saying you would rather have to choose between a 99 cent cheeseburger and $20 fancy burger, than just be given the option to eat whichever you want because the choice is too hard. You truly do not seem to comprehend that fluff/narrative games are not about winning and are not competitions. They are about playing and telling a story. It's like going for a walk to enjoy the outdoors, instead of going for a walk to lose weight, its about the experience, not the result.
auticus wrote:When someone powerlists with points, they are making their 2000 points operate like 3000 points.
Which is why a 2000 pt game of Grey Knights or whatever weak army you want to use feels like you're facing against 3000 points of the latest soup of the day.
Exactly - so why are points treated like this pinnacle of balance, and Power Level is slammed because someone could have more "points" than another, even when using the same limitations?
Peregrine wrote:This is said over and over again in defense of PL, but it's absolutely false. Of course optimization is relevant in PL. When all upgrades cost zero points then anything but the most powerful one is sabotaging your own unit. For example, if a power fist is zero points then modeling your sergeant with a knife because you don't like the look of power fists is sacrificing optimization for aesthetics, just like in the conventional point system. If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same.
The fact you're saying that "not minmaxing my unit is sabotaging myself" is exactly WHY Power Level isn't for you. It works just fine for people who don't minmax their lists, who don't play the game to soundly and strategically pound your opponent into the dust, but rather people who simply don't care about that.
Funnily enough, don't the majority of Warhammer TV games on their official Twitch channel use Power Level?
You can't say they're enjoying the game wrong.
The only way that PL "improves" the situation is the virtue signalling aspect: by saying "I USE PL" you're announcing to the world that you're a particular sort of player and list optimization is not welcome in your games.
And by saying "you shouldn't play 40k because your idea of fun isn't the same as mine", you announce to the world you have a singular lack of respect.
JNAProductions wrote:It's a competitive game. While I do understand not always playing super hardball, I'd honestly feel a little cheated if someone "played down" to me.
Is it a competitive game by default?
People can play it competitively, but it doesn't mean that it IS a competitive game. Football can be played competitively, but it can also be played for fun, just for the fun of kicking a ball around. Why is 40k not able to be played for non-competitive reasons?
Peregrine wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You ARE still optimising, under the same way you phrased your initial point to me. If what I'm doing is optimising, then so is yours.
You are advocating a point system that favors your particular upgrade preferences at the expense of balance, and openly doing so because it favors your preferences. IOW, you are deliberately creating an imbalance in your favor. I am advocating a point system that more accurately evaluates everyone's upgrade choices, improving balance for everyone. Nobody gets an imbalance in their favor. The idea that the two are equivalent is absurd "MOMMY HE DID IT TOO" nonsense.
And you favour points because you don't want to be "sabotaged" by static points.
That's optimising your own game style, which is that of selective and combat-effective list building. You're welcome to that style of gameplay. I wouldn't play it myself, but I won't knock what you prefer. I ask that you respect the same of me.
I'm not after free stuff. I just don't want the macro-construction of my army affected by trivial micro-constructions.
IOW, you want free stuff. You want to have upgrades on your models, but you don't want those upgrades to take points out of your budget for buying units. That's the very definition of getting stuff for free.
Only because you look at the game and think "what can I take that will maximise my combat effectiveness?". I look at it and think "what looks cool?". You're welcome to your view, but don't try and assume I'm using the same logic as you are. My outlook on the game is far different to yours.
You think the ONLY concept of 40k is to play competitively and with your strategic thinkin' cap on all the time?
There is a difference between playing competitively and literally being so oblivious to what is going on that you roll dice to hit before being aware of what weapons you're shooting. That isn't playing a game, it's mindlessly rolling D6s and seeing what happens.
That's the game to me. The "game" is making good stories, fun encounters, and generally enjoying what happens on the tabletop. That's still the game, unless you want to find a quote from GW about 40k and how it's "supposed" to be played as a game.
You're welcome to your pleasures. Let other people have theirs.
However, you spin it, power level IS faster.
Yes, PL is faster, but not in any meaningful way. Spending 3 minutes instead of 2 minutes adding up a list for a 3 hour game is irrelevant.
Irrevelant to you. Not to other people. Or does that not compute for the Almight Lord Peregrine, Who's opinion is fact, and cannot be disputed?
I've personally got nothing wrong with you, or anyone, saying "PL sucks for me", or even "PL sucks". Saying "if you play PL, you suck" goes beyond voicing your opinion, and into pushing your opinion on other people. That's what the issue is.
It's a discussion forum. The whole point is to push your opinion on other people. Nobody is showing up uninvited at your house to tell you how you're wrong, you voluntarily placed yourself into the discussion. If you don't like it then feel free to leave, but don't complain about how you didn't get nothing but praise for your ideas.
I'm not asking for praise. I'm asking for common respect from a fellow human, who just might recognize that people have their own personal likes and dislikes, which are inherently subjective.
Oh wait. "The whole point is to push your opinion on other people."
That explains a lot. Poor etiquette, if you ask me.
Peregrine wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote: Oh for feths sake! What is broken in your brain that says everytime someone does something you don't like, it means they think they are superior to you?
I don't. But in the case of PL the entire purpose is virtue signalling and superiority.
Is that so?
So, if I claim that "the entire purpose of points is to be a WAACTFG", that's just as truthful as yours? I mean, they're both horrifically insensitive, not to mention presumptuous... oh, it's Peregrine. Of course.
If it's genuinely about "casual" play then they'd just use the conventional point system and take less-optimized lists.
Why would I use the points system? What benefit does it give?
Bear in mind that I don't care about "balance", that I want the freedom to take aesthetic upgrades without being penalised in what other units I can take, and that I value faster and less micro-detailed list construction. Why would I pick points?
The only reason to use a less-accurate point system and deliberately reduce the balance of the game, aside from figuring out a particular list/upgrade strategy that wins more with PL and trying to rig the game in their favor, is that by using PL they get to announce to the world that they are superior "casual" players and not those WAACTFGs.
Wow!! It's like he's right in my head!! He knows what I'm thinking better than I do!! Oh Lord Peregrine, praise to Him!! /sarcasm
Yeah, I don't need to explain why thinking you know my thoughts better than I do is a bad argument.
gwarsh41 wrote: You truly do not seem to comprehend that fluff/narrative games are not about winning and are not competition
It is precisely this, the inability to separate his subjective desires from other people's subjective desires. The flaw in the argument that points are better for fluff because PL penalizes you assumes that people who play games for narrative/fluff purposes see such a thing as a "penalty". Such a thing is only a penalty if at least one of your desired outcomes for a game is a test of skill, often, of course, this is not part of the desired outcomes of players who simply want to play a game narratively. Generally, the most important outcome for that milieu is how the story plays out.
To give a personal example, I play both Warmachine and 40k. When I make a list for 40k I think to myself what makes the most narrative sense here in this battle. I use PL to help me organize my thoughts and because it also allows me to play battle forged armies and get CP without having to come up with house rules on strategems. I like strategems. I could use points for this, but I don't want that much granularity tbh, and quite frankly I just enjoy adding up to the small numbers more. Contrast this with how I build a Warmachine list, I look at what is going to be the most optimal force that fits my playstyle and will give me an increased chance of having dice rolls go my way. I do not care about the story when I play Warmachine. I have fun with both games in completely different ways. I will do test runs with that list and tweak it and tweak (well, in theory, I hardly have time to play, unfortunately).
Many people, however, can not separate their personal enjoyment from how other people personally enjoy something. As someone once told me, there is no right way to play a game only infinite wrong ways.
I'd also like to stop seeing the argument that a PL list with full wargear is leaps and bounds more Points than a PL list without.
Because the opposite is also true. A Points list with minimum upgrades to squeezed in more models has a way higher PL than a Points list that takes some upgrades.
Reemule wrote: A big part of the problem is casual players using Match Points.
They would have a happier game if they stuck with PL.
But by using points they fool themselves into thinking they can and should have an opinion in balance and competitive play and they get angry when they don't comprehend they are using something not intended for them in the wrong way.
Perhaps I didn't convey the idea clearly. No two groups of gamers will play the same version of 40K. Between differing metas, interpretations of rules, house rules (even official ones like ITC), terrain usage, armies in use etc... and that's before considering personal playstyles. The only person that I know of actually playing 40k by the rules is BaconCatBug. Even GW isn't playing the 40k they wrote. A such, it is pretty arrogant to presume to know how and why people play the game.
Huh. I played 40K in Western MA in multiple stores, even dipping down into Northern Connecticut. I've played in California. Now I'm playing in Japan. I'm literally playing the same game in all three areas. So, yeah. Don't give me that dung.
OK, do you play any of the narrative games like Cities of Death or Planetstrike? If not the you are playing a significantly different game than those that do. My point about my games being different had a bit of hyperbole to try and drive the point but instead you've gotten hung up on that rather than the main point: which is that you don't know how people are playing the game so why do you get to decide what's fun for them or not?
[
Turn that question around. Why do you decided what is fun over me? Why do you get to decide what is 'casual'?
My umbrage wasn't at the fact that you play differently. It was at the idea that you think I can't understand your house rules.
Aelyn wrote: Points are a budget that allow you to squeeze out every bit of value. Power levels are a way of approximating balance to ensure it's not a total curbstomp without having to worry too hard about optimization.
That's probably the best description of either that I have seen, honestly. At least of the intent of either. Have an exalt!
-
I have yet to see a PL game that didn't result in a curb stomping, even between extremely casual players. Anecdotal I know, but it's what I have to work with.
Oh for feths sake! What is broken in your brain that says everytime someone does something you don't like, it means they think they are superior to you?
Turn that question around. Why do you decided what is fun over me? Why do you get to decide what is 'casual'?
I didn't?
My umbrage wasn't at the fact that you play differently. It was at the idea that you think I can't understand your house rules.
Clearly we aren't on the same page here because I don't know how you came to that conclusion. That comment wasn't even directed at you. It has nothing to do with my personal house rules and everything to do with how Peregrine thinks he knows how I play, or rather how I should play. Point being that he can't possibly know since he's never seen me play.
Mmmpi wrote:Nope. But while you said it in reply to Peregrine, it was common to several comments you've made towards others in this thread, myself included.
do you mind dropping the pseudo-outrage at the fact that some people prefer to play casually, as though it's personally aimed at attacking your character for preferring competitive? I play literally nothing but competitive, my signature on the forum is aimed at deflecting the stupid insults that some rabid casual players love to send at us, and as I said early I actually agree with the criticism of PL as a system, and I had an extended argument with Sgt Smudge the page before. Yet nowhere that I've seen yet in this thread is there any justification for behaving like this. At no point did anyone say you don't get to decide what you're allowed to consider fun or have fun doing. Coming in here shouting down measured conversation with accusations of virtue signalling and superiority complex's for just wanting to play a game, and then act outraged when people disagree is just incredibly toxic behavior. And consider that this is someone who agrees with the criticism of PL and is actually on your side of this debate, should be a wake up call mate.
Mmmpi wrote:Nope. But while you said it in reply to Peregrine, it was common to several comments you've made towards others in this thread, myself included.
do you mind dropping the pseudo-outrage at the fact that some people prefer to play casually, as though it's personally aimed at attacking your character for preferring competitive? I play literally nothing but competitive, my signature on the forum is aimed at deflecting the stupid insults that some rabid casual players love to send at us, and as I said early I actually agree with the criticism of PL as a system, and I had an extended argument with Sgt Smudge the page before. Yet nowhere that I've seen yet in this thread is there any justification for behaving like this. At no point did anyone say you don't get to decide what you're allowed to consider fun or have fun doing. Coming in here shouting down measured conversation with accusations of virtue signalling and superiority complex's for just wanting to play a game, and then act outraged when people disagree is just incredibly toxic behavior. And consider that this is someone who agrees with the criticism of PL and is actually on your side of this debate, should be a wake up call mate.
I play casually. I'm frustrated that I'm told I'm not a casual player because I use points and try to make decent lists. So, yeah. Keep calling it pseudo-outrage. Really productive.
Yet nowhere that I've seen yet in this thread is there any justification for behaving like this.
Then you might want to re-read this thread because it's full of it.
At no point did anyone say you don't get to decide what you're allowed to consider fun or have fun doing.
It's been flying back and forth in both directions for what? 8 pages now?
Coming in here shouting down measured conversation with accusations of virtue signalling and superiority complex's for just wanting to play a game, and then act outraged when people disagree is just incredibly toxic behavior.
If what I said doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. There are people doing exactly what I have said they're doing. Calling people on toxic behavior isn't toxic in it's own right.
And consider that this is someone who agrees with the criticism of PL and is actually on your side of this debate, should be a wake up call mate.
The moment I saw this thread I knew Peregrine was going to jump in here and start swinging. Which is what he does. He is not reasonable or rationale, he is just a bully. This situation has been going on for several threads and I don't see it stopping anytime soon.
I'm a causally competitive player. I use both systems to make armies and I play in tournaments on occasion. I make the army I want to put on the table and then play it as hard as I can. And I do this for me. Not for some publicly recognized virtue or pat on the back. I'm doing it for me, because it is the way I have fun. So, You have fun doing your thing and leave us alone so we can too.
Peregrine isn't a bully. He just doesn't take any gak, which is exactly what the concept of power levels is. The mental gymnastics to defend it are insane.
The moment I saw this thread I knew Peregrine was going to jump in here and start swinging. Which is what he does. He is not reasonable or rationale, he is just a bully. This situation has been going on for several threads and I don't see it stopping anytime soon.
I'm a causally competitive player. I use both systems to make armies and I play in tournaments on occasion. I make the army I want to put on the table and then play it as hard as I can. And I do this for me. Not for some publicly recognized virtue or pat on the back. I'm doing it for me, because it is the way I have fun. So, You have fun doing your thing and leave us alone so we can too.
At this point he and a couple of other are clearly violating the first rule of this forum. I suppose if one can express the nastiness semi articulately it's all good?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Peregrine isn't a bully. He just doesn't take any gak, which is exactly what the concept of power levels is. The mental gymnastics to defend it are insane.
Ah yes "I know how game should be played so if you dare to play in way that doesn't fit my view of game is played you are wrong".
Mental hoops some people have to take to attack how other people want to play is insane. Especially when they then try to use word "balance" and "point levels" together when points aren't even meant to provide balanced game is just lol laughable. People are soooooooo misusing points if they are using those to provide "balance". Right tool for the right job and point cost is not right tool for balanced game.,
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Peregrine isn't a bully. He just doesn't take any gak, which is exactly what the concept of power levels is. The mental gymnastics to defend it are insane.
"Not taking any gak" can be done without verbally clobbering other people by assuming you are somehow in the absolute right a priori, mostly because you just chose so, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Peregrine does that, berates others and otherwise behaves in an abrasive manner that isn't so much an attempt at a discussion as it is a declaration of "my opinion is a fact of nature and everything else is duuuuumb." Combine this with the previous statements that basically reduce to "can't handle my FACTS, huh? Get out." and it's very much getting in the bullying territory, where shouting and opinion pushing dominate over opinion presentation and constructive discourse. It just hides under sometimes acute observations and buzzwords.
And no, even if you claim "the concept of power levels being gak", that does not make it a fact. There are people who use them and like them, which alone means they are a net positive for some. It is frankly amazing, in the field of mental gymnastics, how hard can it be for some to realize that it's entirely okay that others do as they like and no, they are not better off with using a system that has more fiddly bits than they need. Like Crimson (I think) said earlier, if one is fine with the tradeoff of doing the counting faster and looser, it's just another way of doing it.
I'm fully willing to admit that I may have missed some posts or their implication, so can someone please source where all these intellectually superior posts degrading us competitive players for not being as virtuous as they? Because if not, I'm going to go ahead and say that it isn't "not taking gak" at all, rather, it's you guys just needlessly giving it.
Reemule wrote: A big part of the problem is casual players using Match Points.
They would have a happier game if they stuck with PL.
But by using points they fool themselves into thinking they can and should have an opinion in balance and competitive play and they get angry when they don't comprehend they are using something not intended for them in the wrong way.
Going to sound like a snarky response, but the bigger part of the problem is IMO hyper-competitive players using points.
As they by definition aren't aiming to create balanced games but seek to find the most recent loop-hole / most undercosted combination, using PL for things like LVO, etc.. would make mathhammering more difficult and create greater diversity of lists as players find less-often seen combinations or combos using "free" gear, which just never appears with point values in a hyper competitive setting.
Not to mention that free lascannons and plasmacannons, assaultcannons, stormshields, etc.. would go some way to counter the systemic flaw of 40K towards the extremes of hordes or unkillable stuff (deathstars, knights, etc..).
Again, if players aren't trying to get on an even keel with their opponent but are actively trying to gain an edge, using points becomes a moot point and counter-productive to the aim of the entire points system.
Mmmpi wrote:I'm a casual player. Tried PL. Didn't like it.
That's cool. Each to their own. It doesn't mean that other casual players don't like it too.
I have yet to see a PL game that didn't result in a curb stomping, even between extremely casual players. Anecdotal I know, but it's what I have to work with.
It's good that you recognise it's anecdotal. Plenty of people in this thread would try and pass that on as a fact that all PL games end in curb stompings.
For what it's worth, I've only had three curbstompings since using PL, two which I handed out, and the worse one which I was dealt. Funnily enough, all of them would have been curb stompings even if we'd been using points too. First one was taking a Knight to a 50 PLAM vs Necrons game (which I'd cleared with my opponent beforehand - we both enjoyed the game though) Second was AM vs Necrons, but this time, I took fewer units, didn't upgrade what units I had beyond basic weapons, but castled up. Won the game all the same, despite the Necrons probably having more points. Third was Scions+Imperial Soup (doubles list) vs Eldar, which the Eldar smashed. Still a fun game, but even with the Eldar using baseline units, they still pulled out the win (so, they were probably underpointed too)
Oh for feths sake! What is broken in your brain that says everytime someone does something you don't like, it means they think they are superior to you?
Posts like this one.
I genuinely have no idea how this justifies Peregrine's speech.
I believe it's saying "I'm not directing this at you, I'm not calling you out, so don't take it as a comment about yourself. If you want to call me out as being inflammatory to you, please use a quote where I directed it at you."
Mmmpi wrote:I play casually. I'm frustrated that I'm told I'm not a casual player because I use points and try to make decent lists. So, yeah. Keep calling it pseudo-outrage. Really productive.
I don't believe I've ever called you that. All I've asked for is people not to insult me or say my idea of fun is wrong, because I choose to use PL. As a matter of interest, can you find a quote where someone has said that to you in this thread? I don't believe I've seen it.
If you're casual and prefer points, more power to you.
Yet nowhere that I've seen yet in this thread is there any justification for behaving like this.
Then you might want to re-read this thread because it's full of it.
I'm not seeing any of it. I'm seeing people attacking PL players because they aren't having fun in the right way, and that their personal preference is "objectively worse", but I've seen no justification for it.
At no point did anyone say you don't get to decide what you're allowed to consider fun or have fun doing.
It's been flying back and forth in both directions for what? 8 pages now?
No, the only people who've said that have been people like Peregrine. The people supporting PL, from what I've seen, have been saying "I find this fun, but you don't have to. Just don't attack me for it".
Wanting to have your own beliefs is not imposing it on other people. Belittling others for their beliefs is imposing it.
Coming in here shouting down measured conversation with accusations of virtue signalling and superiority complex's for just wanting to play a game, and then act outraged when people disagree is just incredibly toxic behavior.
If what I said doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. There are people doing exactly what I have said they're doing. Calling people on toxic behavior isn't toxic in it's own right.
Can you quote those examples please?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Peregrine isn't a bully. He just doesn't take any gak, which is exactly what the concept of power levels is. The mental gymnastics to defend it are insane.
So, you're implying that the preference of liking PL is gak?
That's EXACTLY what I mean about Peregrine (and others) pretending like their personal opinions are factual! We shouldn't have to defend our opinions when we're not forcing them on other people! We're simply saying to the OP "This is what I like about this". That shouldn't have to be defending by people who pretend like their opinions are some kind of immutable fact!
If you like PL is gak, that's good for you. I'm not going to try and convince you that it's perfect for you and that you should change what you do to play it. I understand that you don't like it. At the same time, why should I not expect you to respect my opinions that it's fine for me? Why should I have to lower my expectations of a respectful discussion because people can't accept that opinions aren't facts?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote:I'm fully willing to admit that I may have missed some posts or their implication, so can someone please source where all these intellectually superior posts degrading us competitive players for not being as virtuous as they? Because if not, I'm going to go ahead and say that it isn't "not taking gak" at all, rather, it's you guys just needlessly giving it.
While we did argue about PL/points earlier in this thread, I enjoyed that discussion, because at least you didn't try and personally attack me, or attempt to belittle me for liking PL. Thank you for that.
I guess I must have expected too much of other people to be like you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: Again, if players aren't trying to get on an even keel with their opponent but are actively trying to gain an edge, using points becomes a moot point and counter-productive to the aim of the entire points system.
Not sure how far I agree with this whole statement, but I've quoted the last bit because I do agree with that.
The point of competitive play is to maximise your effective power relative to your points. Points are supposed to be balanced, in that theoretically 2000 points of anything should be able to, with maybe some slight margins of error, have a 50/50 win/loss rate against another 2000 points. However, that's not true, especially not in competitive 40k.
auticus said something along the lines of "competitive players try and make your 2000 points like act like a 3000 points". At the same time, Peregrine calls PL bad because it allows for someone to make a 100 PL list (roughly 2000 points) act like a 3000 point list. If you can't see, viewers at home, they have the exact same kind of outcome, getting more bang for their buck - in the hands of a competitive player.
Maybe it speaks more about the competitive mindset* that competitive players would try and maximise their lists in both PL and in points, and less about those systems themselves.
*Note that I'm only taking what Peregrine and auticus have said about competitive players, and using that as my basis for this argument. I'm not suggesting myself that competitive players minmax, but only reappropriating what has been said. I am also not implying that to be a competitive player, or even to minmax, is inherently bad, and if that's what you enjoy, more power to you.
I'd also like to point out that peregrine has confirmed that he is not playing 8th at all, so he isn't really qualified to pass judgement on anything related to that edition.
He is also one of three people on my ignore list right now. Literally nothing he writes is worth reading.
Jidmah wrote: I'd also like to point out that peregrine has confirmed that he is not playing 8th at all, so he isn't really qualified to pass judgement on anything related to that edition.
That's like saying that because I'm not a doctor I can't comment on the merits of using trepanning to cure toothache.
Or I'm not a rocket scientist so I'm not qualified to state that the Challenger launch wasn't an unqualified success.
Or I've never played Big Rigs Over The Road Racing so I can't say that it's a terrible game.
Reemule wrote: A big part of the problem is casual players using Match Points.
They would have a happier game if they stuck with PL.
But by using points they fool themselves into thinking they can and should have an opinion in balance and competitive play and they get angry when they don't comprehend they are using something not intended for them in the wrong way.
Going to sound like a snarky response, but the bigger part of the problem is IMO hyper-competitive players using points.
As they by definition aren't aiming to create balanced games but seek to find the most recent loop-hole / most undercosted combination, using PL for things like LVO, etc.. would make mathhammering more difficult and create greater diversity of lists as players find less-often seen combinations or combos using "free" gear, which just never appears with point values in a hyper competitive setting.
Not to mention that free lascannons and plasmacannons, assaultcannons, stormshields, etc.. would go some way to counter the systemic flaw of 40K towards the extremes of hordes or unkillable stuff (deathstars, knights, etc..).
Again, if players aren't trying to get on an even keel with their opponent but are actively trying to gain an edge, using points becomes a moot point and counter-productive to the aim of the entire points system.
So, I owe several people an apology. I went back through the thread to find what had gotten me to respond they way I did.
Crimson Devil: If you guys can stop being condescending, you'll get a conversation. But since Peregrine & Slayer-fan continue to act like we're a bunch of moronic donkey-caves, then no you won't.
This is an example of one of the posts I misread. Got the tone completely wrong, both for him and a couple other people, and dove right in.
Sorry for my share of the trouble. (Would have done this sooner, but I didn't have time to go back through the thread until now.)
Mmmpi wrote: So, I owe several people an apology. I went back through the thread to find what had gotten me to respond they way I did.
Crimson Devil: If you guys can stop being condescending, you'll get a conversation. But since Peregrine & Slayer-fan continue to act like we're a bunch of moronic donkey-caves, then no you won't.
This is an example of one of the posts I misread. Got the tone completely wrong, both for him and a couple other people, and dove right in.
Sorry for my share of the trouble. (Would have done this sooner, but I didn't have time to go back through the thread until now.)
It did look strange it seemed almost entirely unprovoked, I figured something must have gotten confused because I genuinely couldn't see the posts that had anyone feeling targeted. I myself can't stand when casuals throw darts at anyone who enjoys playing the game different to them, so I'd be the first to support you if I had seen it too. I have respect for you being my willing to admit a mistake, many people just charged forward anyway out of pride. Looks like this was simply another thread trashed by Peregrine's needless hostility and toxic attitude
For all you guys complaining about Peregrine, use the ignore feature. If nobody ever replies because everyone is fed up by the toxicity from this account, it’ll go away. I have Peregrine on ignore, and my Dakka experience is way better for it. Peregrine’s opinion gets forced and treated like fact against all of us. Use ignore, and have a better day. I did! :Thumbsup:
Mmmpi wrote: So, I owe several people an apology. I went back through the thread to find what had gotten me to respond they way I did.
Crimson Devil: If you guys can stop being condescending, you'll get a conversation. But since Peregrine & Slayer-fan continue to act like we're a bunch of moronic donkey-caves, then no you won't.
This is an example of one of the posts I misread. Got the tone completely wrong, both for him and a couple other people, and dove right in.
Sorry for my share of the trouble. (Would have done this sooner, but I didn't have time to go back through the thread until now.)
Don't worry about it. Mistakes happen whether you use points or power level.
I am casual (semi comp at moments) and I love points. I like building lists. For me, and I am only speaking for me, power levels take a lot of the fun out of the game. I am sure I am not alone, but it is not the only way to play. And I probably could be asked to play with power levels as long as the next game is points. On a rules level, and perhaps I am ignorant here, but it seems that weapon and unit upgrades are not taken in to account. I do not think this is a good way to go about things. I could be very very wrong. But seeing as I have never even seen people use power levels (my area) my knowledge is cursory at best and probably wrong at worst.
I think people swing hard on power levels is because they do not want them to take hold as a "legit" thing. Like it or not, overall ideas are used for pug games. List points may change from shop to garage but on average you can expect PuG's at 1850-2000. It is nice to have a overall standard. Maybe ill give PL's a try at my next games if I can find like minded people.
Also I find I agree with Pere more often than not. And I am very sure I am not a "WAAC" power gamer. Hell, I even hate to use soup unless its very very fluffy (which it always almost is not.....marines do not fight like IG nor would they be deployed as such). I don't see why he should be blocked by anyone. But to each his own.
People are mad that he's telling them the PL system is bad. Because it IS bad. Granularity creates more balance than relying on players to make balance. The latter can still be done with points anyway.
Plus it isn't hard to make a list for a pickup game on the fly.
Mmmpi wrote:So, I owe several people an apology. I went back through the thread to find what had gotten me to respond they way I did.
Crimson Devil: If you guys can stop being condescending, you'll get a conversation. But since Peregrine & Slayer-fan continue to act like we're a bunch of moronic donkey-caves, then no you won't.
This is an example of one of the posts I misread. Got the tone completely wrong, both for him and a couple other people, and dove right in.
Sorry for my share of the trouble. (Would have done this sooner, but I didn't have time to go back through the thread until now.)
We all make mistakes, thank you for coming back and admitting that. It is much appreciated and respected.
timetowaste85 wrote:For all you guys complaining about Peregrine, use the ignore feature. If nobody ever replies because everyone is fed up by the toxicity from this account, it’ll go away. I have Peregrine on ignore, and my Dakka experience is way better for it. Peregrine’s opinion gets forced and treated like fact against all of us. Use ignore, and have a better day. I did! :Thumbsup:
Whilst ignoring is an option, that's essentially letting Peregrine get away with bullying people into silence.
Toxicity shouldn't be essentially excused and allowed because "if you don't like it, don't try and show that toxicity isn't okay".
I appreciate the feature of the ignore button, but that doesn't change the toxicity in this thread.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People are mad that he's telling them the PL system is bad. Because it IS bad. Granularity creates more balance than relying on players to make balance. The latter can still be done with points anyway.
No, bad is subjective, unless you're calling it objectively bad at something empirical. "PL is bad (subjective) because it has less granularity (objective) than points" is the fixed version of what you're saying. That would be fine to say. The problem is, you treat the subjective as an objective instead.
Alternatively, you could say "PL has the potential to be less balanced, and is bad at balance" would be objective.
Saying "PL is bad" is your opinion. In my opinion, it is good. Is that just as truthful as yours? Technically yes, because neither are truthful at all. They're opinions, and subjective.
I'm also less mad about the fact he's calling PL bad like it's a fact, and not an opinion, and more about the fact that he, and yourself, are calling the people who use it bad. You're not attacking the PL system. You're insulting the people who use it.
Plus it isn't hard to make a list for a pickup game on the fly.
It might not be hard, but it's even easier with Power Level. It might not be by a considerable amount, but you can't deny that calculating 1+1 is easier than 1+1+1+1+1+1+1
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm not insulting the people using it. I'm insulting the people defending it as a legit system to create armies with.
And why isn't it legit? Is legit objective, or subjective?
Because objectively, it IS legit. It's support by GW officially. Therefore, it's legitimate.
Ohhh, you don't mean legitimate objectively, do you? You mean "I think it's worthless, therefore, it's illegitimate", don't you? Which is subjective.
So, your subjective thought that PL is illegitimate means it's okay to insult people? As in, you're admitting to insulting people on a site which asks for you NOT to do that?
Jidmah wrote: I'd also like to point out that peregrine has confirmed that he is not playing 8th at all, so he isn't really qualified to pass judgement on anything related to that edition.
This is a lie. I have played 8th edition. Not much, because the games I played confirmed all of my initial impressions that 8th edition sucks, but I have played it. And it's not like PL depends on some complex or subtle detail about 8th, it's a terrible system no matter what game it is applied to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And why isn't it legit? Is legit objective, or subjective?
Because it fails to do the job of a point system, and is worse than the alternative point system that GW provides. Unless you have the math skills of a small child and can't add up conventional points there is no reason to ever use PL.
Because objectively, it IS legit. It's support by GW officially. Therefore, it's legitimate.
Open play is also officially supported by GW, but that doesn't mean that open play should be acknowledged as a legitimate game format. Or, really, anything other than the delusional ravings of someone who should be fired from GW for incompetence.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm not insulting the people using it. I'm insulting the people defending it as a legit system to create armies with.
And why isn't it legit? Is legit objective, or subjective?
Because objectively, it IS legit. It's support by GW officially. Therefore, it's legitimate.
Ohhh, you don't mean legitimate objectively, do you? You mean "I think it's worthless, therefore, it's illegitimate", don't you? Which is subjective.
So, your subjective thought that PL is illegitimate means it's okay to insult people? As in, you're admitting to insulting people on a site which asks for you NOT to do that?
Good to know.
Technicly you can drink gasolin, it does not make gasolin a drink in the slightest.
And GW does many things. They think open is a thing, games are social contracts and the GK codex is an actuall real GW product they expect people to use in their games.
Jidmah wrote: I'd also like to point out that peregrine has confirmed that he is not playing 8th at all, so he isn't really qualified to pass judgement on anything related to that edition.
This is a lie. I have played 8th edition. Not much, because the games I played confirmed all of my initial impressions that 8th edition sucks, but I have played it. And it's not like PL depends on some complex or subtle detail about 8th, it's a terrible system no matter what game it is applied to.
So why are you so dead set on points being the One True Way to play 40k when you admit that they're broken too?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And why isn't it legit? Is legit objective, or subjective?
Because it fails to do the job of a point system, and is worse than the alternative point system that GW provides. Unless you have the math skills of a small child and can't add up conventional points there is no reason to ever use PL.
How is it worse? What is the role of a points system, essentially?
As I see it, the role of it is to create a framework for two armies, of varying strengths and sizes, to fight against eachother as part of the game. Points systems don't REQUIRE them to be balanced. A lot of people expect them to be, but that is a personal preference. It is a way of giving an estimation of the power of a unit in 40k, but that estimation could be more or less granular.
You think the only points systems worth having are the most refined and balanced? That's fair for you. I'm not going to say you're wrong.
At the same time, I really don't ask for a points system to be as balanced as you call for, and I don't require that in what I want in a points system.
It fails as a points system for you. It succeeds for me. So, we come back to you asserting your opinion as the One True Fact, which it's not.
And again, insulting people, not the issue. Reporting.
Because objectively, it IS legit. It's support by GW officially. Therefore, it's legitimate.
Open play is also officially supported by GW, but that doesn't mean that open play should be acknowledged as a legitimate game format. Or, really, anything other than the delusional ravings of someone who should be fired from GW for incompetence.
Sorry pal, but like it or lump it, GW wrote that, and they've stuck with it so far.
GW say it's legit. They own the IP and the game. It's legit. This is a situation where subjectivity really doesn't get to play a part. You can say it's invalid all you like, but the official rules will still be there to prove that wrong. Objectively, PL and Open Play are just as valid as Matched Play and points.
Don't care if you hate it, or think it's bonkers - it's valid as per the game itself. Sorry bud.
.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm not insulting the people using it. I'm insulting the people defending it as a legit system to create armies with.
And why isn't it legit? Is legit objective, or subjective?
Because objectively, it IS legit. It's support by GW officially. Therefore, it's legitimate.
Ohhh, you don't mean legitimate objectively, do you? You mean "I think it's worthless, therefore, it's illegitimate", don't you? Which is subjective.
So, your subjective thought that PL is illegitimate means it's okay to insult people? As in, you're admitting to insulting people on a site which asks for you NOT to do that?
Good to know.
Technicly you can drink gasolin, it does not make gasolin a drink in the slightest.
Agreed. A drink is defined as a liquid intended for human (or other animal respectively) consumption.
Points and Power Level are both game systems intended for the game of 40k.
GW wrote the game. I think they have more authority on the issue than all of us combined.
And GW does many things. They think open is a thing, games are social contracts and the GK codex is an actuall real GW product they expect people to use in their games.
What they intend to be part of the game is part of the game, like it or not. Sorry, but that's not subjective. They wrote the game, they own the IP, they made the rules. If they advertise something as being for or part of that game, it is for that game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People are mad that he's telling them the PL system is bad. Because it IS bad. Granularity creates more balance than relying on players to make balance. The latter can still be done with points anyway.
Plus it isn't hard to make a list for a pickup game on the fly.
Nobody is mad about that, they don't like the toxic interactions, hence why the criticism is almost entirely directed towards the guy who came in declaring that everyone who likes PL, is actually just virtue signalling and has a superiority complex over everyone else.
You know this as well as everybody else does, you're just playing dumb because he's supporting your perspective this time. Trying to make this strawman that people are just mad about him saying PL is bad, is not going to work - again I'm one of the people agreeing with that statement so why would I be mad about it? What people don't like is quite clearly that he laces his pseudo-intellectual rants with as much needless hostility and insults as he can squeeze into a post while still treading the line.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People are mad that he's telling them the PL system is bad. Because it IS bad. Granularity creates more balance than relying on players to make balance. The latter can still be done with points anyway.
Plus it isn't hard to make a list for a pickup game on the fly.
Nobody is mad about that, they don't like the toxic interactions, hence why the criticism is almost entirely directed towards the guy who came in declaring that everyone who likes PL, is actually just virtue signalling and has a superiority complex over everyone else.
You know this as well as everybody else does, you're just playing dumb because he's supporting your perspective this time. Trying to make this strawman that people are just mad about him saying PL is bad, is not going to work - again I'm one of the people agreeing with that statement so why would I be mad about it? What people don't like is quite clearly that he laces his pseudo-intellectual rants with as much needless hostility and insults as he can squeeze into a post while still treading the line.
I actually agree with Peregrine on a few of the issues, and I like the blunt nature of the posts even when I fully disagree with him. So yeah I support him posting.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I actually agree with Peregrine on a few of the issues, and I like the blunt nature of the posts even when I fully disagree with him. So yeah I support him posting.
You support him bullying people because you like with how blunt it is?
If someone has a bad belief or problem, they are to be notified that they do and why. Simple as that.
And what says it's bad beyond your opinion?! It's an opinion dude, it's not BAD because you don't agree with it, it's just different.
If you were "notifying" someone because they had a belief or problem that actively affected you or someone else, and that belief or problem was in active detriment to them, I could understand. But when the person's belief or "problem" has literally NO impact on you at all, how on sweet earth is that BAD objectively?!
Reported for Rule 1. I can't believe it has to be asked that you should respect other people's personal feelings on a subject that literally affects no-one else.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People are mad that he's telling them the PL system is bad. Because it IS bad. Granularity creates more balance than relying on players to make balance. The latter can still be done with points anyway.
Plus it isn't hard to make a list for a pickup game on the fly.
Nobody is mad about that, they don't like the toxic interactions, hence why the criticism is almost entirely directed towards the guy who came in declaring that everyone who likes PL, is actually just virtue signalling and has a superiority complex over everyone else.
You know this as well as everybody else does, you're just playing dumb because he's supporting your perspective this time. Trying to make this strawman that people are just mad about him saying PL is bad, is not going to work - again I'm one of the people agreeing with that statement so why would I be mad about it? What people don't like is quite clearly that he laces his pseudo-intellectual rants with as much needless hostility and insults as he can squeeze into a post while still treading the line.
I actually agree with Peregrine on a few of the issues, and I like the blunt nature of the posts even when I fully disagree with him. So yeah I support him posting.
If someone has a bad belief or problem, they are to be notified that they do and why. Simple as that.
So you support his toxic attitude it when it agrees with you, that's it's own set of problems, but fine, just don't try to act as though everyone else is just mad that he disagrees with them lol. You're being beyond disingenuous, but being that you are doing the same thing he does except on a lesser scale it shouldn't surprise anybody. Reported for rule 1. Come back with a better attitude please.
not scanner. Minor correction
We've come full circle.
right? "How dare you have fun differently, how dare you not take all this 100% seriously?"
after 12 hours of slogging through multi-hour turns, 90% of the models on the table are just there to be removed by titans, and 