As I am currently in the process of starting again with 40k, this is something that I have been wondering about. I still know the whole points thing, but have been wondering, do many people use the power levels? Or do people generally prefer to use points? And why?
I can't stand the vagueness of power level. It seems that war gear and options are fading out, so it may eventually not matter, but I still prefer the granularity of points.
I've done a few tests and discovered that lists built on points and lists built on power level tend to come within 5% of each other when not deliberately built to break the system (converting 1PL = 20pts), and GW's costing margin for error is way more than 5%. It doesn't seem to matter for casual usage.
(Granted, this was done before either Chapter Approved, so if I did the same thing today I may find a different result.)
Points. If everyone starts using Power Levels instead, what's the point of having wargear options like Sponsons on Baneblades? Just make them mandatory.
I use both. Generally points, but sometimes I prefer the simplicity of power level especially for non-Matched Play scenarios. However, using PL requires a specific mindset which not everyone has.
I like list construction in itself so much that I want as much nuance and complexity to it as possible. Using power level glossed over that, and removes something I really enjoy about the game.
As such I'd always want to use points even in the most casual games. I'm fast enough in Battlescribe that it's not faster to use PL in any meaningful way.
Eihnlazer wrote: Power level is pretty balanced if you use the Index's from when 8th first came out.
Now there have been so many points changes that PL is no longer very accurate of a representation of the units.
If you stick to lower amounts (i.e. 50pl) then it still works fine for casual play.
Only for certain armies. I found that necrons are extremely strong in lower point games due to certain armies being unable to reach critical mass at lower point games.
Power Level is okay just to test something out. Overall, though- every FLGS has 'that guy' that wants to play to Power Level and you'll quickly find out that he's padded his army in such a way that there's no way you're both on equal footing. At all.
Just go by points, it's not that hard. Just be chill enough like my friends are- anything like 3 points over is forgivable.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Power Level is okay just to test something out. Overall, though- every FLGS has 'that guy' that wants to play to Power Level and you'll quickly find out that he's padded his army in such a way that there's no way you're both on equal footing. At all.
Just go by points, it's not that hard. Just be chill enough like my friends are- anything like 3 points over is forgivable.
Oh man, you must have missed the whole "Christmas thread of four points over" to say this kind of heresy
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Power Level is okay just to test something out. Overall, though- every FLGS has 'that guy' that wants to play to Power Level and you'll quickly find out that he's padded his army in such a way that there's no way you're both on equal footing. At all.
Just go by points, it's not that hard. Just be chill enough like my friends are- anything like 3 points over is forgivable.
Oh man, you must have missed the whole "Christmas thread of four points over" to say this kind of heresy
I'm not competitive enough to be bothered by things like that, man. I'm just a fun chill player.
We literally allow 'Solo Elite' units that are made-up points.
Without getting too much into the arguments that stirred up that last massive thread... the counter argument is that 99% of the time you can easily just remove a single model from a unit, or a single piece of wargear, or not take an upgrade, to make the points limit. So why not do it? Maybe your sergeant' power sword is on the frtiz, so it's just a regular chainsword for the game because it broke. That's fine, you just say that and boom, you're at or under the limit. Taking extra pieces of war gear and asking your opponent if he's OK with it is effectively the same thing as saying, "Let me do this extra thing beyond the agreed limit or I'll think your a WAAC jerk".
The other side of the argument is that I modeled my guys a specific way, and I want to play them WYSIWYG. I'm only 5 points over, it shouldn't matter. It probably won't impact the game anyway. Maybe I marked my squads with specific squad insignia, and I really want to keep them together. I don't have replacement squad members that can fill in and keep the same theme going.
Most of us had opinions ranging from one extreme to the other, but in my opinion, unless your guys are perfectly modeled on a squad by squad basis with squad markings, or are beautifully painted and a great looking army, you should just do a counts-as to be under the limit. It's a perk of having a great looking army that I'll be OK with you playing fast and loose with the points limit a little to maintain a theme. If your army is entirely gray plastic.... yea you're doing a counts-as to be under the limit or I'm not playing you.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Power Level is okay just to test something out. Overall, though- every FLGS has 'that guy' that wants to play to Power Level and you'll quickly find out that he's padded his army in such a way that there's no way you're both on equal footing. At all.
Just go by points, it's not that hard. Just be chill enough like my friends are- anything like 3 points over is forgivable.
Oh man, you must have missed the whole "Christmas thread of four points over" to say this kind of heresy
I'm not competitive enough to be bothered by things like that, man. I'm just a fun chill player.
We literally allow 'Solo Elite' units that are made-up points.
I understand you perfectly and I'm 100% on your side, but as Crimson said - this thread is likely doomed to repeat the 20+ pages of ugliness about 4 points over being a crime against humanity argued by self proclaimed defender of narrative gaming
And now back to thread - PL would be a perfectly good reference system (with some refinement) if the only mode of play was narrative and points never existed throughout 30 years of history of Warhammer. As it is not the case and Matched is the law in a whole lot of places, online PL vs points debates are pretty pointless - they are only significant in a local, direct gaming context of what your regular opponents prefer.
I prefer Points by a wide margin, but I *do* think that Power Level has certain very valuable uses:
When playing Narrative games that are actually Narrative. If you and a buddy actually want to play a game that's deliberately imbalanced and you're not concerned about fighting a losing battle or going for non-standard objectives ("I'm outnumbered two to one but just have to survive", for example,) Power Level is a lot of fun.
Basic reference for which abilities can be used on what units, killpoint variants, etc. When determining things like which units can be put in a Teleportarium, whether a unit qualifies as a Big Game target, Summoning, etc, Power Level can function as a good, quick reference system without taking a lot of time in-game to calculate exact points or without relying on unreliable systems like model count or wound count.
And, lastly, as a variant style of listbuilding for competitive games... Sort of. I wouldn't want to see tournaments all switch over to Power Level, but as someone who enjoys list optimization, it's interesting to see units and weapon choices that are generally considered to be "Sub-optimal" or just flat out "Bad" become viable choices. Some armies come out much further ahead in this system (Deathwatch come to mind as an army that can get MASSIVE return on investment if they aren't paying for wargear,) but it's occasionally fun.
Points. There is no plausible situation, outside of maybe a newbie's first learning games with very stripped down lists, where power level is a better point system than the normal point system. It's just a less-accurate evaluation of a unit's strength, making it worse at doing the job of a point system. In any situation where power level "works" the normal point system will work, but the reverse is not at all true. So why use a worse system? The only answer is "casual" players using it as a way to demonstrate that competitive players aren't welcome.
Battlescribe makes Power level just not that necessary imo.
And Powerlevels aren't updated in the way points are. Which means on the other hand for some Forgeworld models playing power level could be a way to make them useful or even playable within smaller games than apocalypse.
My gaming group sticks to points but I wouldn't mind power level as long as it's true wysiwyg. Points system can also be abused to play 40K in a way I don't like as seen in most tournament lists, but with power level it's a bit more obvious.
AnomanderRake wrote: I've done a few tests and discovered that lists built on points and lists built on power level tend to come within 5% of each other when not deliberately built to break the system (converting 1PL = 20pts), and GW's costing margin for error is way more than 5%. It doesn't seem to matter for casual usage.
(Granted, this was done before either Chapter Approved, so if I did the same thing today I may find a different result.)
When you have any measurement sytem that both players agree to there is an implied balance. Power levels vary too much for that balance to be maintained. If you want a chill game with firneds then its fine but for Power level to work you need to play true WYSIWYG which doesn't always apply in casual games so you'll end up with players just tricking out their units with every upgrade available because it costs nothing to do it.
40k isn't balanced even with points but it will get you closer to balance than PL will.
Points also let you chop and change unit size without penalty. If you run a squad of 10 but actually find that 8 is what you need to squeeze a couple of buff characters into that rhino you can't do it with PL.
If you experiement with Battlescribe and build a few lists you can see the variance in power level compared to points.
Points is the prefferred option almost everywhere so unless you're playing with a select few buddies that all play power level I would start as you mean to go on and just get used to points.
Power levels are necessary for the game, since they are not updated in CA.
You use those for those games where you just want to be able to play with your models just the way you built them, and with only your index or codex in hand without checking 40 FAQs or CA.
Sure it can be gamed, but if you do that then you weren't going to use PL the right way in any case.
A key point of PL is that you can only use it with people you trust won't abuse it and immediately try to take every upgrade possible just because it's free. Those are the types of people that you don't play PL with since they miss the point.
To put it another way it looks like GW themselves use mostly PL (very few battle reports in White Dwarf have used points; the vast majority have been rough power level) and seem to get along fine, so it's certainly viable if a subpar choice to points. It just requires a very different approach to the game than most people seem to have.
For me, it's power level. If 40k points were an accurate statement on 'value', then that would be fair enough. For me, power level being 'more broken than 40k' quickly becomes nothing more than academic as points based 40k is already one of the most broken and easily abused systems out there. '
Funnily enough, my preference for power level stems almost entirely from my experience playing warmachine/hordes. I simply prefer a less granular accounting system. More granularity doesn't necessarily make things 'more accurate' or 'better' in my experience, especially as table top wargames are very limited systems to begin with. For me, 40k requires a collaborative approach to ensure both people are getting what they want out of it (I put a lot of importance on the social contract aspect) anyway, so I would be doing this for points or power level regardless, so then it becomes simply a matter of preference, and as stated, I prefer a less granular system.
Arcanis161 wrote: Points for pickup games and anything remotely serious
Power level for non-serious stuff like Apocalypse, Narrative games, etc.
Hmm, with respect, calling narrative games 'non-serious' is a bit cheeky if you ask me. Internet and tone, hopefully? If by 'serious' you mean 'tournament', that's fair enough and I'll more of less agree, but for what it's worth, narrative games are anything but 'casual' in my experience - they take a lot of work and can be quite involved, quite serious affairs.
I prefer Power Levels but I do admit that the current rules have poor support for it.
As I can see, the point of Power Levels is to do away with min-maxing and offer a much bigger degree of freedom for army building while retaining a fair performance-cost ratio. So for example, a 10-strong Tactical Squad is worth 10 Power and it has the same 10-Power-worth performance regardless of the upgrades it has, it will just manifest differently: a Tactical Squad with a flamer and a heavy bolter is 10 Power worth of anti-infantry, while a Tactical Squad with a meltagun and a lascannon is 10 Power worth of anti-vehicle. The question should be not "what is the most point efficient for your list" but "what do you want in your army" - within the Power Rating of the unit, every option should be equal and meaningful.
The way Power Level army building is sonicfast and super-flexible also hits close to my heart.
Hmm, with respect, calling narrative games 'non-serious' is a bit cheeky if you ask me. Internet and tone, hopefully? If by 'serious' you mean 'tournament', that's fair enough and I'll more of less agree, but for what it's worth, narrative games are anything but 'casual' in my experience - they take a lot of work and can be quite involved, quite serious affairs.
Haven't you heard, that (in the eyes of some extremely prejudiced folks out there) narrative is equal to pushing your minis making pew pew noises because you don't care about anything and could as well throw all of the rules out the window?
Hmm, with respect, calling narrative games 'non-serious' is a bit cheeky if you ask me. Internet and tone, hopefully? If by 'serious' you mean 'tournament', that's fair enough and I'll more of less agree, but for what it's worth, narrative games are anything but 'casual' in my experience - they take a lot of work and can be quite involved, quite serious affairs.
Haven't you heard, that (in the eyes of some extremely prejudiced folks out there) narrative is equal to pushing your minis making pew pew noises because you don't care about anything and could as well throw all of the rules out the window?
Hmm, with respect, calling narrative games 'non-serious' is a bit cheeky if you ask me. Internet and tone, hopefully? If by 'serious' you mean 'tournament', that's fair enough and I'll more of less agree, but for what it's worth, narrative games are anything but 'casual' in my experience - they take a lot of work and can be quite involved, quite serious affairs.
Haven't you heard, that (in the eyes of some extremely prejudiced folks out there) narrative is equal to pushing your minis making pew pew noises because you don't care about anything and could as well throw all of the rules out the window?
Haha, Don't forget the virtue-signalling Nou.
How could I, I proudly wield the banner of being one of the original CAACs.
I prefer power levels. I don't see Warhammer 40k being anywhere close to balanced enough to bother with the granularity of points often. Especially since I tend to run a lot of different wargear options, not necessarily good, where it would be easier to just grab groups 5 or 10 marines/terminators and just play. Even with Battlescribe, Chosen and especially Fallen are a bit of a nightmare to point out.
I don't enjoy building army lists anymore. So when it comes to points games my armies are less dynamic than anything I would run via Power Levels. I basically just pointed out blocks of units (example: Terminator Squad 1: 241 points, Terminator Squad 2: 231 points) and add them in to a legal Battalion plus maybe a patrol if I want to run Cypher+Fallen. Any left over points get turned into Icons. So my points lists are far more static than my Power Level ones.
PLs have one inherent advantage over points in a suboptimal setting. Neither points or PLs can be used as a sole balancing factor to ensure close matches - neither of which is bulletproof and internal and external imbalance of codices allows for totally skewed matches as often at 2000pts as at 100PLs. With Matched Play and min-maxed goals of list building, this flaw of point system is somehow countered by "as optimized as humanly possible" goal. But in suboptimal world of narrative or casual gaming no such additional passive balancing mechanism exist, and this is where the intended roughness of PLs becomes crucial - when using PLs people are usually aware that they are roughly measuring game size, not "exact and fair" side vs side balance, and don't rely on PLs to do all the necessary balancing work for them. Cross tailoring, asymmetrical mission goals and terrain layout are all important balancing factors in narrative/open/casual and it is better done when people do not treat point systems as holy grail of game balance.
One of the reasons I enjoy PL is the way it changes your list building. When you really stop to think it over, it really changes how you see your models and lists.
I also really enjoy the PL based missions in the BRB.
How those the thinking over does not happen? The units have the same weapons and stats, only the difference in efficiency between different armies and the point costs used to build the army are bigger then with power levels then it is with points.
A GK player will not want to take upgrades, specially as he won't have all them in the box of models, but he will know that the opposing army now got cheaper and more efficient.
So a GK player would have to think even more about the validity of his list durning the list building part.
Karol wrote: How those the thinking over does not happen?
With Power Level, everything you want to really think over is already included o you don't have to feel extensive angst over how Plasma Guns are really cheap but you want the Meltaguns. It literally doesn't matter, you slap whatever you want onto the unit, all cost-efficiency troubles are (supposedly) already accounted for your convenience.
The problem is more around that 'supposedly' that in turn roots in unbalanced units and options (something that persists even in the points system) rather than Power Levels being bad.
Karol wrote: How those the thinking over does not happen?
With Power Level, everything you want to really think over is already included o you don't have to feel extensive angst over how Plasma Guns are really cheap but you want the Meltaguns. It literally doesn't matter, you slap whatever you want onto the unit, all cost-efficiency troubles are (supposedly) already accounted for your convenience.
The problem is more around that 'supposedly' that in turn roots in unbalanced units and options (something that persists even in the points system) rather than Power Levels being bad.
I think it's more a lot of people can't seem to fathom that you WOULDN'T just take the best/all options just because nothing stops you from doing it. As I said, using power level requires a certain mindset that it's clear a lot of people posting here don't have It's no less balanced than points, it just requires you to not treat everything as "X versus Y" comparisons for choices.
Karol wrote: How those the thinking over does not happen?
With Power Level, everything you want to really think over is already included o you don't have to feel extensive angst over how Plasma Guns are really cheap but you want the Meltaguns. It literally doesn't matter, you slap whatever you want onto the unit, all cost-efficiency troubles are (supposedly) already accounted for your convenience.
The problem is more around that 'supposedly' that in turn roots in unbalanced units and options (something that persists even in the points system) rather than Power Levels being bad.
I think it's more a lot of people can't seem to fathom that you WOULDN'T just take the best/all options just because nothing stops you from doing it.
Power Level assumes that there no "best options" and taking "all" options is really just giving the unit its full potential.
Preference is all it comes down to. Neither is objectively better than another. It all comes down to what you value, and what you want to get from the game.
Nithaniel wrote:When you have any measurement sytem that both players agree to there is an implied balance. Power levels vary too much for that balance to be maintained. If you want a chill game with firneds then its fine but for Power level to work you need to play true WYSIWYG which doesn't always apply in casual games so you'll end up with players just tricking out their units with every upgrade available because it costs nothing to do it.
40k isn't balanced even with points but it will get you closer to balance than PL will.
Points also let you chop and change unit size without penalty. If you run a squad of 10 but actually find that 8 is what you need to squeeze a couple of buff characters into that rhino you can't do it with PL.
If you experiement with Battlescribe and build a few lists you can see the variance in power level compared to points.
Points is the prefferred option almost everywhere so unless you're playing with a select few buddies that all play power level I would start as you mean to go on and just get used to points.
Spoletta wrote:Power levels are necessary for the game, since they are not updated in CA.
You use those for those games where you just want to be able to play with your models just the way you built them, and with only your index or codex in hand without checking 40 FAQs or CA.
Sure it can be gamed, but if you do that then you weren't going to use PL the right way in any case.
nou wrote:Now to be constructive for a change:
PLs have one inherent advantage over points in a suboptimal setting. Neither points or PLs can be used as a sole balancing factor to ensure close matches - neither of which is bulletproof and internal and external imbalance of codices allows for totally skewed matches as often at 2000pts as at 100PLs. With Matched Play and min-maxed goals of list building, this flaw of point system is somehow countered by "as optimized as humanly possible" goal. But in suboptimal world of narrative or casual gaming no such additional passive balancing mechanism exist, and this is where the intended roughness of PLs becomes crucial - when using PLs people are usually aware that they are roughly measuring game size, not "exact and fair" side vs side balance, and don't rely on PLs to do all the necessary balancing work for them. Cross tailoring, asymmetrical mission goals and terrain layout are all important balancing factors in narrative/open/casual and it is better done when people do not treat point systems as holy grail of game balance.
Mindset is key, war is not balanced/fair/equal. I rather enjoy Alamo type scenarios either defender or attacker, Stalingrad, DDay, Hastings, etc same thing. just take any famous real life battle & 40k it up.
I play 100% Fully painted wysiwyg, so maybe if you proxy everything, have same model representing diff units, only care about winning, minmax, then PL might not be for you . Luckily there is a system of "balancing" just for you !
I have no problem playing points lists against everyone(non wysiwyg, painted, etc) but always prefer PL with like minded people.
Points always. Power level is just too open to abuse. Every explanation I've seen for its use can be countered quite easily.
"It's for making army lists on the fly"- what are you doing showing up at your store without an army list?
"It's easier"- and simple maths isn't?
"You don't need to worry about minute upgrades"- I don't. Because I make multiple army lists in advance of the most common sized games I expect to play.
Wayniac wrote: A key point of PL is that you can only use it with people you trust won't abuse it and immediately try to take every upgrade possible just because it's free.
And this is why PL is a trash system. If you have to refrain from abusing the broken things then why not just use a system that isn't broken in that way?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AtoMaki wrote: As I can see, the point of Power Levels is to do away with min-maxing and offer a much bigger degree of freedom for army building while retaining a fair performance-cost ratio.
PL doesn't do this at all, it just changes what the best min-maxed configuration for a unit is. There are still better and worse options for the point cost and taking the less-efficient choice will still make your unit weaker. The only difference is that normally this will be the most expensive (in the normal points system) upgrades in every possible slot, while in the normal point system it tends to be a bit more complicated than "take lascannons and plasma and power fists everywhere you can".
(It does also enable the virtue signalling aspect, where saying "PL game" can translate to "I am sacrificing balance in my game to prove how little I care about it and how unwelcome min-maxing players are", but that's a social thing not a part of the written rules.)
So for example, a 10-strong Tactical Squad is worth 10 Power and it has the same 10-Power-worth performance regardless of the upgrades it has, it will just manifest differently: a Tactical Squad with a flamer and a heavy bolter is 10 Power worth of anti-infantry, while a Tactical Squad with a meltagun and a lascannon is 10 Power worth of anti-vehicle. The question should be not "what is the most point efficient for your list" but "what do you want in your army" - within the Power Rating of the unit, every option should be equal and meaningful.
Too bad it doesn't work this way, and you don't get the same 10-point performance out of all of those units. The 10-point squad with a lascannon, power fist, and plasma gun will be better against the majority of targets and has way better point efficiency. By taking anything else you're making your army weaker.
Now, it technically could work this way, and in that case PL would in fact be a good system, but 40k has too many upgrade options where there's a wide range of power. A plasma gun is a way more powerful weapon than a flamer, which is fine as long as the flamer is cheaper. But if they cost the same zero points then the plasma gun is always the correct choice. To change this you'd have to give up on the idea of weapons of varying strength and either massively buff the flamer (with a corresponding point increase in the normal point system) or massively nerf the plasma gun to the level of a flamer. And you'd have to commit to doing this everywhere, removing all cases of "weak but cheap" and "expensive but you get what you pay for".
I prefer points, IMO it's much more balanced. For example:
My 2000pt Deathwatch army is 154 Power.
My 2000pt Aeldari lists range from 93 to 98 Power.
And they are currently both pretty close to even when it comes to competitiveness on the tabletop.
If my two armies were to play against each other right now, using only Power levels, then I'd be taking over 50% more Aeldari than would be allowed using points (meaning I'd have to add 50PL more units to my Aeldari list to get up to the 150ish level). Can you imagine playing against Eldar now, except they get 50% more than they already do?
Get ready for the entire thread to be Peregrine’s opinions on PL, because that’s how these always go (until thread lock).
FWIW I prefer points but PL is awesome for a casual pickup game or certain scenarios. It’s 100% incompatible with a unit optimising mindset... it’s just for relaxed games where you don’t care about balancing too much.
Grimtuff wrote: "It's for making army lists on the fly"- what are you doing showing up at your store without an army list?
Because I play Power Level, and I don't need to have an army list written days in advance. I like to plan my collections around preplanned lists, but my games? Not so.
"It's easier"- and simple maths isn't?
Exactly, simple maths. 6+5 is fundamentally easier than 154+289. Sure, it's basic addition, but one is far faster to do.
"You don't need to worry about minute upgrades"- I don't. Because I make multiple army lists in advance of the most common sized games I expect to play.
And other people don't do that.
This brings me back to the real determining factor is how You (the general You, not Grimtuff specifically) play the game, and what you want to get out of it.
Happy with both, but for different things, have started locally to play APOC scale games where each player brings a points based army, and then has as a team a power level budget to bring in lords of war.
reasonably happy with power level as long as WYSIWYG is in effect and for other scenarios, but in general use points.
given the two are basically the same except PL is less granular PL is better for larger games - the only reason we don't use it more for the army is the lack of WYSIWYG among a few armies
Peregrine wrote: Now, it technically could work this way, and in that case PL would in fact be a good system, but 40k has too many upgrade options where there's a wide range of power.
Yes, as I said, this is kinda like the pooper of the whole idea. The lasca+plasma Tactical Squad should be equal in power to the hb+flamer one, but as of now, it isn't.
There is little point in comparing points to PL, they are two different games. Like apples and pears. Points is out and out restricive power gaming, trying to get the smallest advantage from each point paid for a weapon It is also the system most are familiar with.
PL is a totally different system with different style. It's also newer, which is peoples main issue. They don't want to change how they play.. You pay for the figures in your force, not the weapon it carries, which means a better a mix and balance.
Agree with your opponent(s) on a system, and get some plastic on the table.
PL is a dumpster fire of a system IMO. It is way to easy to abuse and offers nothing in return. Perigin is right about it the only thing it is good for is saying "I want to play a poorly made army and don't want to play with people who can make a decent list."
Or it's good for those times where you want to just toss some plastic on the table real quick and have a couple armies bash their head real quick.
Honestly, when everyone ignores upgrade pricing, and the point costs of everything are as (if not more) arbitrary as PL, I don't see the big stink so long as your opponent is agreeable.
Points and Power levels... they're the exact same thing with different names... they're numbers you add up to make an equal game balanced game vs your opponent.
Charistoph wrote: Or it's good for those times where you want to just toss some plastic on the table real quick and have a couple armies bash their head real quick.
Honestly, when everyone ignores upgrade pricing, and the point costs of everything are as (if not more) arbitrary as PL, I don't see the big stink so long as your opponent is agreeable.
The issue is points is still better for that, at the cost of maybe 1 min every 500 points you can have alot better unit variety, EG Do you want sponsons on your predator, do you want a heavy on your terminators, with power levels the answer is always yes and if your models are not set up that way your just crippling your list.
Charistoph wrote: Or it's good for those times where you want to just toss some plastic on the table real quick and have a couple armies bash their head real quick.
Honestly, when everyone ignores upgrade pricing, and the point costs of everything are as (if not more) arbitrary as PL, I don't see the big stink so long as your opponent is agreeable.
The issue is points is still better for that, at the cost of maybe 1 min every 500 points you can have alot better unit variety, EG Do you want sponsons on your predator, do you want a heavy on your terminators, with power levels the answer is always yes and if your models are not set up that way your just crippling your list.
Really?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:... simple maths. 6+5 is fundamentally easier than 154+289. Sure, it's basic addition, but one is far faster to do.
Add on that I was visiting my LGS and they took time to look up the new pricing with the CA (which literally reduced someone's pre-made list by 1/4 in point value, so he bought and built a Primarch to pad his points), instead of just getting in to the game with PL, and we start seeing an economy of time.
There is little point in comparing points to PL, they are two different games. Like apples and pears. Points is out and out restricive power gaming, trying to get the smallest advantage from each point paid for a weapon It is also the system most are familiar with.
PL is a totally different system with different style. It's also newer, which is peoples main issue. They don't want to change how they play.. You pay for the figures in your force, not the weapon it carries, which means a better a mix and balance.
Agree with your opponent(s) on a system, and get some plastic on the table.
My issue isn't that it's newer. It's that PL rates a baneblade with an extra 4 lascannons and 12 heavy bolters the same as a baneblade without any of them. One of those is obviously got a TON more firepower than the other... so any system that doesn't recognize that IMO is inherently flawed. The game is most fun when both teams stand a chance of winning. If one team takes all the extras that PL allow and the other doesn't it becomes more imbalanced than normal, and it becomes a lot less fun. So I'll stick with points. Now that you can have Battlescribe as an app on your phone, there is no reason to not use points.
Charistoph wrote: Add on that I was visiting my LGS and they took time to look up the new pricing with the CA (which literally reduced someone's pre-made list by 1/4 in point value, so he bought and built a Primarch to pad his points), instead of just getting in to the game with PL, and we start seeing an economy of time.
Why are you acting like "ignore balance updates" is a good thing?
Wayniac wrote: A key point of PL is that you can only use it with people you trust won't abuse it and immediately try to take every upgrade possible just because it's free.
And this is why PL is a trash system. If you have to refrain from abusing the broken things then why not just use a system that isn't broken in that way?
Do you have one? Because the points system in Warhammer 40K sure isn't it. And never has been.
Your argument only holds any water when the points system is actually balanced.
If you're working from the realisation that the points system is full of flaws anyway and also requires players to not abuse it in order to avoid issues, Power Level suddenly becomes a lot less ridiculous.
Charistoph wrote: Add on that I was visiting my LGS and they took time to look up the new pricing with the CA (which literally reduced someone's pre-made list by 1/4 in point value, so he bought and built a Primarch to pad his points), instead of just getting in to the game with PL, and we start seeing an economy of time.
Why are you acting like "ignore balance updates" is a good thing?
There was a balance update? When? Where? There was a point change, but with GW, that rarely equals a balanced update.
Wayniac wrote: A key point of PL is that you can only use it with people you trust won't abuse it and immediately try to take every upgrade possible just because it's free.
And this is why PL is a trash system. If you have to refrain from abusing the broken things then why not just use a system that isn't broken in that way?
Do you have one? Because the points system in Warhammer 40K sure isn't it. And never has been.
Your argument only holds any water when the points system is actually balanced.
If you're working from the realisation that the points system is full of flaws anyway and also requires players to not abuse it in order to avoid issues, Power Level suddenly becomes a lot less ridiculous.
It is like getting a boat with a hole in it only one lets in a cup of water every hour and the other one lets in 10 gallons every hour. Sure they are both flawed but you might as well minimize the issue.
Charistoph wrote: Add on that I was visiting my LGS and they took time to look up the new pricing with the CA (which literally reduced someone's pre-made list by 1/4 in point value, so he bought and built a Primarch to pad his points), instead of just getting in to the game with PL, and we start seeing an economy of time.
Why are you acting like "ignore balance updates" is a good thing?
There was a balance update? When? Where? There was a point change, but with GW, that rarely equals a balanced update.
It's generally agreed that the points updates are a step in the right direction. Even if a couple of the point tweaks aren't great, most of them are a move towards better balance rather than away from it.
Meanwhile, Power Level-based units are stuck with costs that are sometimes years old.
The balance of Power Level is also hugely army dependent. Sisters of Battle, for example, are an army where a five-sister squad can generally cost anywhere from 50ish to 100+ points, with both ends of the spectrum being viable. Five Dominions with five Storm Bolters is great, cheap anti-infantry chaff that costs 60pts. Five Dominions with Meltaguns is great, expensive anti-tank firepower that costs 121+ points. Both regularly end up in my lists, and both cost 5 PL.
In fact, Sisters of Battle in general are regularly screwed by Power Level because our best asset is high-volume access to Storm Bolters, which are only good because they're so incredibly cheap. In Power Level, our best asset becomes a weakness and an already-struggling army also suddenly is putting way fewer bodies on the field than an equivalent similar force from another codex.
I personally have never understood the premise of power levels. It's essentially the same thing as points but vaguer allowing for there to be a larger power gap between armies. Especially with apps like Battle Scribe you don't even save any meaningful amount of time making a list and in a game that takes 2-3 hours whats the big deal spending an extra 5min writing your list. If a game of 40k took 20 minutes per round and you changed around your army after each game maybe I could see the appeal but right now I just don't.
I vastly prefer points. I like the granularity but more importantly the balance is better*.
*Relatively
malcontent999 wrote: I can't stand the vagueness of power level. It seems that war gear and options are fading out, so it may eventually not matter, but I still prefer the granularity of points.
It is like getting a boat with a hole in it only one lets in a cup of water every hour and the other one lets in 10 gallons every hour. Sure they are both flawed but you might as well minimize the issue.
Unless, of course, you don't care if you get wet, in which case you might as well use the boat that is easier to handle.
This is the stumbling block that we keep running into in these discussions. We have the one side insisting that we should all use points because power levels are less balanced, and the other side insisting that they couldn't care less about balance and using power levels is preferable because it is easier.
It's well and truly obvious by this point that neither is going side is going to convince the other that their way is 'right', because both are approaching the game from very different viewpoints. Well, that and the fact that one side isn't trying to claim their way is 'the right one', just that it's not a wrong one...
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: I personally have never understood the premise of power levels. It's essentially the same thing as points but vaguer allowing for there to be a larger power gap between armies. Especially with apps like Battle Scribe you don't even save any meaningful amount of time making a list and in a game that takes 2-3 hours whats the big deal spending an extra 5min writing your list. If a game of 40k took 20 minutes per round and you changed around your army after each game maybe I could see the appeal but right now I just don't.
It will make more sense once they've finished stripping most of the unit options out of the game.
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
That's... Not exactly true. Games Workshop is hardly as pragmatic as they could be, and if they think they can get away with removing a system because it's not popular enough to justify supporting it, they will.
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
That's... Not exactly true. Games Workshop is hardly as pragmatic as they could be, and if they think they can get away with removing a system because it's not popular enough to justify supporting it, they will.
They're already not supporting Power Levels. Otherwise Chapter Approved would mention their new values when they change points values.
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
That's... Not exactly true. Games Workshop is hardly as pragmatic as they could be, and if they think they can get away with removing a system because it's not popular enough to justify supporting it, they will.
They're already not supporting Power Levels. Otherwise Chapter Approved would mention their new values when they change points values.
Exactly. Speaking as someone who thinks Power Level has its uses but prefers points, I am very frustrated that:
1, Games Workshop isn't updating Power Level
2, Games Workshop isn't giving any sort of points value for Narrative-only units
My LGS won't use Power Level because of the balance issues, even when running friendly narrative campaigns. (Even in a friendly game, it's frustrating to show up with a poorly matched premade list and get stomped.) Because of this, custom Land Raiders and Looted Wagons are effectively off-limits.
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
That's... Not exactly true. Games Workshop is hardly as pragmatic as they could be, and if they think they can get away with removing a system because it's not popular enough to justify supporting it, they will.
A few people insisting on message boards that people are having fun the wrong way won't change that.
Regardless of how many people prefer points, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them gone next edition, or at least removed from the core rules and included in a supplement as an optional way to play. And even that will only last until they get the options all stripped down to the point where it no longer makes a difference. So certainly by the edition after next, I would expect that it will be power levels or nothing, because options by them will be minimal or non-existent, so balance between different builds simply won't be an issue.
It is like getting a boat with a hole in it only one lets in a cup of water every hour and the other one lets in 10 gallons every hour. Sure they are both flawed but you might as well minimize the issue.
Unless, of course, you don't care if you get wet, in which case you might as well use the boat that is easier to handle.
This is the stumbling block that we keep running into in these discussions. We have the one side insisting that we should all use points because power levels are less balanced, and the other side insisting that they couldn't care less about balance and using power levels is preferable because it is easier.
It's well and truly obvious by this point that neither is going side is going to convince the other that their way is 'right', because both are approaching the game from very different viewpoints. Well, that and the fact that one side isn't trying to claim their way is 'the right one', just that it's not a wrong one...
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
The thing is your not getting an easier time handling the boat you gotta make a list anyways that fits with in the point/PL limit of the game I can make a 2k point list in 4:41min if I did it in PL I might have saved 1 min at pretty great sacrifice to balance and unit variety.
The thing is your not getting an easier time handling the boat you gotta make a list anyways that fits with in the point/PL limit of the game I can make a 2k point list in 4:41min if I did it in PL I might have saved 1 min at pretty great sacrifice to balance and unit variety.
I'm not really sure what you're expecting to achieve with this line of argument, to be honest. The people using power levels say they're quicker and easier to use than points. If you disagree, that's fine... but that doesn't make their experience somehow invalid. If they find it quicker and easier, then for those people it is quicker and easier.
Continuing the boat analogy, it's like me saying 'I like boats' and having some random person on the internet say 'No, you don't, because boats are inherently inferior to jetskis!'
It may or may not be true, but it doesn't change my preference.
There is no balance in 40k. Points or Power Level you're left with the same false choices and the same traps.
"points = more balance" is still lol. GW Points or Power Level is both abysmal in "balance". You don't get balance in 40k. Or AOS. You get listbuilding exercises.
You can't have real balance in a game that emphasizes List Building as its primary skill because the entire point of List Building is to imbalance the game in your favor.
Charistoph wrote: Add on that I was visiting my LGS and they took time to look up the new pricing with the CA (which literally reduced someone's pre-made list by 1/4 in point value, so he bought and built a Primarch to pad his points), instead of just getting in to the game with PL, and we start seeing an economy of time.
Why are you acting like "ignore balance updates" is a good thing?
There was a balance update? When? Where? There was a point change, but with GW, that rarely equals a balanced update.
It's generally agreed that the points updates are a step in the right direction. Even if a couple of the point tweaks aren't great, most of them are a move towards better balance rather than away from it.
Who agrees to that? Those whose unit efficiency increases with the update. You just WANT it to be a step in the right direction, so you think it is in the right direction. Yet, they don't all balance to the same degree.
Waaaghpower wrote:Meanwhile, Power Level-based units are stuck with costs that are sometimes years old.
Like that hasn't happened with the point-system before and there is no guarantee it won't happen again. How long did the Dark Eldar and Necron codex get any kind of update that didn't involve making their rules compatible with the current edition? No Index army has even come close to that, yet.
Waaaghpower wrote:The balance of Power Level is also hugely army dependent. Sisters of Battle, for example, are an army where a five-sister squad can generally cost anywhere from 50ish to 100+ points, with both ends of the spectrum being viable. Five Dominions with five Storm Bolters is great, cheap anti-infantry chaff that costs 60pts. Five Dominions with Meltaguns is great, expensive anti-tank firepower that costs 121+ points. Both regularly end up in my lists, and both cost 5 PL.
In fact, Sisters of Battle in general are regularly screwed by Power Level because our best asset is high-volume access to Storm Bolters, which are only good because they're so incredibly cheap. In Power Level, our best asset becomes a weakness and an already-struggling army also suddenly is putting way fewer bodies on the field than an equivalent similar force from another codex.
The balance of point level is even more extreme and has been. With Power Level, you take what you need to face what you're facing instead of trying to fit certain expensive weapons in to the list that may work better against certain targets, but minimize your model count. And aside from Necrons, whose majority of units do not have any upgrades whatsoever, everyone has access to that same scheme of working their upgrades to address the army that is there as opposed to the point value that is there. So, there is as much balance there as there is with points. It's not like GW unit purchasing has ever been truly balanced.
auticus wrote:Points = balance is lol.
There is no balance in 40k. Points or Power Level you're left with the same false choices and the same traps.
"points = more balance" is still lol. GW Points or Power Level is both abysmal in "balance". You don't get balance in 40k. Or AOS. You get listbuilding exercises.
You can't have real balance in a game that emphasizes List Building as its primary skill because the entire point of List Building is to imbalance the game in your favor.
You can, but it is very hard to do, and GW developers do not feel any importance on having strong balance in their games.
They're already not supporting Power Levels. Otherwise Chapter Approved would mention their new values when they change points values.
Have you read white dwarf lately? Have a look at the battle reports.... How many use points? If GW are not supporting PL, someone should be telling WD that. Why would CA change Power Levels when points change, it's 2 different mechenisms that do not have to be connected beyond using the same figures and core rules.
Asmodios wrote:I personally have never understood the premise of power levels. It's essentially the same thing as points but vaguer allowing for there to be a larger power gap between armies. Especially with apps like Battle Scribe you don't even save any meaningful amount of time making a list and in a game that takes 2-3 hours whats the big deal spending an extra 5min writing your list. If a game of 40k took 20 minutes per round and you changed around your army after each game maybe I could see the appeal but right now I just don't.
There is no power gap, if both have the same PL where is the gap? You are comparing points to PL, not PL to PL. Write a list once, change the load out of individual figures for each game. The PL stays the same as long as the figure count is the same.
You can not seriously compare points and PL. It's like comparing water colour and oil paint, they both give a pleasing result, but mix them together.......... It's a mess
Asmodios wrote:I personally have never understood the premise of power levels. It's essentially the same thing as points but vaguer allowing for there to be a larger power gap between armies. Especially with apps like Battle Scribe you don't even save any meaningful amount of time making a list and in a game that takes 2-3 hours whats the big deal spending an extra 5min writing your list. If a game of 40k took 20 minutes per round and you changed around your army after each game maybe I could see the appeal but right now I just don't.
There is no power gap, if both have the same PL where is the gap? You are comparing points to PL, not PL to PL. Write a list once, change the load out of individual figures for each game. The PL stays the same as long as the figure count is the same.
You can not seriously compare points and PL. It's like comparing water colour and oil paint, they both give a pleasing result, but mix them together.......... It's a mess
The gap is in the actual strength of the unit. Like my example with the baneblade... a Baneblade with 12 more heavy bolters and 4 more lascannons is obviously more powerful than one without. Yet the both have the same power level value.
A Command Squad with 4 plasma guns is inherently more powerful than one without... but costs the same power level.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
(sarcasm mode engaged)No you just proxy them and dont care about how it looks.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
I guess most of the people around where I play then just consider list building a part of the game, I don't think I've encountered someone who doesn't consider the effectiveness of a model before buying or painting it.
PL and Points are two different ways to measure the same thing. Like measuring in Centimetres or Inches.
Except, the people using the measuring devices are unskilled. So a board that is actually 30.0 cm long is measured at 25 cm and then measured at 13 inches. Neither measurement is right. But one is measured with a smaller unit, so it must be better!
If the measurers were skilled, one method might be better than the other. But that's not the case.
I've never had the pleasure of playing a PL game. I've built a few lists and compared the points vs PL and find it's typically within 10% of each other. Often less.
To me, PL lets people play with suboptimal upgrades. Like, Vox casters on Guardsmen. I would never pay points for it, but if it was folded into the cost of the unit? I'd be all over it. Just to put them on the table again. One of my favourite models is a Master-Vox that I converted many moons ago. It has a large comm-set built on the base, with the Vox carrier. It's a fun, characterful model (Very well composed, if I say so myself!) but it sits in the bin because It's not worth 5 points. Bummer.
Same thing with sub-optimal units load-outs like Death Company, all with Thunder Hammers. Most of those Hammerers are going to die before they make it to combat. That's why in points you only take one or two per X number of squaddies. But with PL, you can gear them out however and aren't penalized for it. You're still only going to make contact with two guys... but you got to put the other dudes down with cool gear, and that was fun. The game still played out the same.
I used to be quite competitive about 40k. These days, it's a fun night out. I take my collection, build a list from it, occasionally buy something new but mostly it's a fun night out. PL would be more liberating for me, to just throw down minis without having to worry about the minutiae. While I still play to win, I have much less ego invested, and PL kind of caters to that.
For me, when I grab out the lads with Lasguns, I have to NOT grab the guys with Voxes. Whereas with PL I could use them again, and not worry about it. I dunno, just seems like it would be nice to do that and not be "over points".
I prefer points, but power level isn't the worst thing in the world. They share the same problem, 40k doesn't work unless all the players in the game have the same expectations and general agreement about how hard your going to go into list building. Either system doesn't really fix that core problem.
If one player has a different idea of what they want the game to be or how close to the background they want to keep it, neither system is really gives a good fix. Points might get a little closer, but if you want to break 40k wide open, not that hard to either way
And feel free to playtest this, I'd love the feedback.
Playing a narrative mission, and using one type of guy from the squad. Like "Movie Marines" games. We used this method to determine 'challenge rating' of enemy groups we encountered and it was quite fun.
Would actually like to hear anyone else's thougths on this.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
I guess most of the people around where I play then just consider list building a part of the game, I don't think I've encountered someone who doesn't consider the effectiveness of a model before buying or painting it.
I think we can chalk that up to you having an experience of the game different to other people. And that's fine, as long as understand that other people have had very different ones to you.
In my experience, the people I play care about what looks good and fits the theme they want to reflect in their collection. Gaming effectiveness is less important to them.
Just because you've never met anyone who plays like that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I once spent ages going back and forth checking default gear, options and so on, totting up the points to try work out a 2k list using my models as I had assembled them.
Out of curiosity I quicklyadded up my PL and it came to exactly 100.
It was at this moment I discovered I don't like tweaking and fine tuning lists to fit in a limit anymore, and rather pay lump sums for groups of troops as is.
greatbigtree wrote: PL and Points are two different ways to measure the same thing. Like measuring in Centimetres or Inches.
Except, the people using the measuring devices are unskilled. So a board that is actually 30.0 cm long is measured at 25 cm and then measured at 13 inches. Neither measurement is right. But one is measured with a smaller unit, so it must be better!
If the measurers were skilled, one method might be better than the other. But that's not the case.
That's a bad comparison because even an unskilled user is not going to be measuring completely at random. And even GW's rule authors, as incompetent as they are, are not so utterly hopeless that they're just throwing out random numbers for everything. A more correct statement would be that if we have two people with equal skill in measuring stuff measure 100 of those 30.0cm tables the one using a ruler marked in 1mm increments will have a lower average error than the one using a ruler marked in 1" increments. Same thing with normal points vs. less accurate points, the same GW authors are assigning both point costs so we can assume that the average point cost error will be smaller when using the more accurate system. Except two factors make it even more in favor of the normal point system:
1) The two systems are not used with equal skill. PL points are assigned once at publication and never updated. Normal points are assigned at publication and then updated regularly so any balance issues that appear can be fixed. It's like if your example people measured that 30.0cm table, but the one who measured 25cm sees that the 30cm thing they want to put on it doesn't fit and revises their obviously incorrect measurement, while the one who measured 13" ignores the mistake.
2) PL vs. normal points isn't just about measuring a single static item, it's about being able to cope with changes. PL assigns a fixed cost to a unit regardless of how it is equipped, which means that (in a game where competing upgrades are more or less powerful) at least some of its configurations will have an incorrect point cost. Normal points account for variation in upgrades, making it more likely that all of the possible configurations will have an accurate point cost. It's like if the 30cm table had an optional extension section to make it 45cm, and the person measuring in cm revised their measurement to 47cm when they added the extension while the one measuring in inches stubbornly insists that the table is still 13".
In short: both PL and normal points can have individual errors in assigning costs, but PL will also have systemic errors that normal points do not suffer from. PL is a worse system, period.
To me, PL lets people play with suboptimal upgrades. Like, Vox casters on Guardsmen. I would never pay points for it, but if it was folded into the cost of the unit? I'd be all over it. Just to put them on the table again. One of my favourite models is a Master-Vox that I converted many moons ago. It has a large comm-set built on the base, with the Vox carrier. It's a fun, characterful model (Very well composed, if I say so myself!) but it sits in the bin because It's not worth 5 points. Bummer.
Same thing with sub-optimal units load-outs like Death Company, all with Thunder Hammers. Most of those Hammerers are going to die before they make it to combat. That's why in points you only take one or two per X number of squaddies. But with PL, you can gear them out however and aren't penalized for it. You're still only going to make contact with two guys... but you got to put the other dudes down with cool gear, and that was fun. The game still played out the same.
IOW, "I want to make my units more powerful but I don't want to have to pay for it". You're introducing a measurement error that favors you over your opponent, and you're doing it deliberately! Under PL if I decide that my units shouldn't have that vox (radios are expensive, guardsmen are expendable) I'm punished for not taking one. You get to take your vox without feeling bad about it, but I don't get to take my no-vox squad without feeling bad about it. The only fair solution is to use the system that evaluates the units more accurately and doesn't favor either of us: the normal point system.
nareik wrote: I once spent ages going back and forth checking default gear, options and so on, totting up the points to try work out a 2k list using my models as I had assembled them.
Out of curiosity I quicklyadded up my PL and it came to exactly 100.
It was at this moment I discovered I don't like tweaking and fine tuning lists to fit in a limit anymore, and rather pay lump sums for groups of troops as is.
I think this works a bit better if you're playing armies with limited loadouts.
Two dudes throwing down Primaris Marines could easily do this pretty fairly.
Peregrine wrote: PL points are assigned once at publication and never updated. Normal points are assigned at publication and then updated regularly so any balance issues that appear can be fixed.
Crikey... It's almost like one system is intended to provide balanced army lists while the other is intended as a quick and easy way for people to put together roughly equivalent forces where ease of play is more of concern than game balance.
It's astonishing that nobody has ever noticed that before.
insaniak wrote: Crikey... It's almost like one system is intended to provide balanced army lists while the other is intended as a quick and easy way for people to put together roughly equivalent forces where ease of play is more of concern than game balance.
It's astonishing that nobody has ever noticed that before.
It's almost like the "easier" system is not meaningfully easier in 2019, where everyone has smartphones with calculators, list building software, etc, and is just less balanced for negligible return. You'd have a point if PL was actually easier to use in any meaningful way, but it isn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, nice dishonesty in taking that quote out of its context, which was a reply to someone who claimed that both systems are equivalent from a balance point of view.
insaniak wrote: Crikey... It's almost like one system is intended to provide balanced army lists while the other is intended as a quick and easy way for people to put together roughly equivalent forces where ease of play is more of concern than game balance.
On Warhammer nights at our local FLGS, we often use power level with new players that have just bought a battle box or Start Collecting box. It's pretty good as a tool in that respect.
I would never use it in a real matched game, but I'd throw down a few squads of generic marine squads or guard squads to teach a new player with it, or to test out a theory and see how something works.
insaniak wrote: The people using it say it is. It's kind of hard to argue with that without just looking silly.
It's hard to take that claim seriously when it involves "doing basic addition is difficult". Yeah, technically adding up PL points might take a few seconds longer, but is a 10 second difference really significant in a 3 hour game?
It's hard to take that claim seriously when it involves "doing basic addition is difficult". Yeah, technically adding up PL points might take a few seconds longer, but is a 10 second difference really significant in a 3 hour game?
Yes, it's much easier, when we see someone doing something we don't understand, to assume they are too stupid to know any better, than to accept that they like something that we don't.
I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by going over the same old arguments with you again on this. If you don't like power levels, don't use them, and let the people who are happy using the system carry on doing so. If you find that too nauseating, don't look.
Problem solved. By the time Power Levels become mandatory for everyone, I very much suspect that the difference between the two systems will be largely nonexistent due to the removal of unit options, so you should survive the transition.
insaniak wrote: Yes, it's much easier, when we see someone doing something we don't understand, to assume they are too stupid to know any better, than to accept that they like something that we don't.
I considered the possibility that there might be a better explanation, that they might have a valid point. And I found that theory to be utterly without merit.
I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by going over the same old arguments with you again on this.
Shrug. You're the one who started the argument with me, I won't hold it against you if you choose to stop disagreeing.
If you don't like power levels, don't use them, and let the people who are happy using the system carry on doing so.
This is a discussion forum, and a thread specifically about PL vs. normal points. The entire purpose is to discuss the merits of each system, "just let people do whatever and stop talking about it" might be a valid point of view on how to run a game club but it sure isn't adding anything to the discussion here.
Honestly, Peregrine, you’d be happier if you ignored PL threads instead of jumping in again to tell people how they’re allowed to have fun.
Honestly JohnnyHell, you'd be happier if you ignored Peregrine posts instead of jumping in again to tell people how expressing opinions is only valid if you agree with them. I'll stop telling people that they're wrong about PL when people stop posting incorrect positive statements about PL.
The removal of unit options sound like the toyfication of 40k though. I don't know if I can survive the transiction I'm already quite pissed that the recent ork codex has limited the options to many units so much.
The problem with PL is its application at competitive levels. Players would use only one single loadout for each unit, the most expensive/competitive one. Each nobz with kombi skorcha and killsaw for example, which is a 32 pts upgrade on a 14ppm model by using points, and such a huge investment should involve some logic/tactics behind that, but a free upgrade by using PL which means autotake, killing all the other options.
Wha't's the point in giving power fists to SM specialists/characters when they can have thunder hammers for the same cost, which is a zero points cost?
At that point the PL system could only work if each unit in the game has a single fixed loadout. But then we will have the complete toyfication of 40k, IMHO the ultimate death of the hobby.
I often wonder what would happen if GW stopped messing around with points and put all that effort into making units and options... y'know... equally good. So there would be no easy escape option like "Oh, is it crap? Let's make it cheap!" but the game designers actually have to put some real thought into how a unit and its options function. Like, geez, it is almost like we would have a better, more balanced game!
So in summary Peregrine you are telling people how they’re allowed to have fun (“wrong positive statements about PL... utterly without merit...” etc.), so there was nothing for you to disagree with in my post.
I just find it tedious how most forum sections seem to have one poster who will play the contrarian and berate others until the thread gets locked. That isn’t discussion, and doesn’t add any value to a forum. Let people discuss PL, if you hate it say your piece and move on instead of trying to shout last, shout loudest. Or discuss with an open mind and learn what others appreciate about something, whilst politely disagreeing. This combative, you’re-all-stupid-and-wrong stance is fairly silly.
The problem with PL is its application at competitive levels. Players would use only one single loadout for each unit, the most expensive/competitive one. Each nobz with kombi skorcha and killsaw for example, which is a 32 pts upgrade on a 14ppm model by using points, and such a huge investment should involve some logic/tactics behind that, but a free upgrade by using PL which means autotake, killing all the other options.
Wha't's the point in giving power fists to SM specialists/characters when they can have thunder hammers for the same cost, which is a zero points cost?
At that point the PL system could only work if each unit in the game has a single fixed loadout. But then we will have the complete toyfication of 40k, IMHO the ultimate death of the hobby.
By the time PL is the standard for competitive play, that's likely to be exactly what we have. Although I'm not sure how that ties into 'toyification'... plenty of games out there already have fixed units without options. They simply replace having options within the units with having different loadouts that are selected as different units. See Warmachine, with various different warjacks all based on the same chassis, selected under different names and different costs.
AtoMaki wrote: I often wonder what would happen if GW stopped messing around with points and put all that effort into making units and options... y'know... equally good. So there would be no easy escape option like "Oh, is it crap? Let's make it cheap!" but the game designers actually have to put some real thought into how a unit and its options function. Like, geez, it is almost like we would have a better, more balanced game!
Just a random train of thought .
I don't see any plausible scenario where throwing away a useful game design tool improves the game.
AtoMaki wrote: I often wonder what would happen if GW stopped messing around with points and put all that effort into making units and options... y'know... equally good. So there would be no easy escape option like "Oh, is it crap? Let's make it cheap!" but the game designers actually have to put some real thought into how a unit and its options function. Like, geez, it is almost like we would have a better, more balanced game!
Just a random train of thought .
I don't see any plausible scenario where throwing away a useful game design tool improves the game.
I would say - as of now - points are only useful for the lazy game designer.
AtoMaki wrote: I often wonder what would happen if GW stopped messing around with points and put all that effort into making units and options... y'know... equally good. So there would be no easy escape option like "Oh, is it crap? Let's make it cheap!" but the game designers actually have to put some real thought into how a unit and its options function. Like, geez, it is almost like we would have a better, more balanced game! .
The problem they face is that there are just too many variables, and not all of them are known at the time you write your army list.
Take, for example, the difference between a low-strength, high rate of fire weapon (lets call it a 'sprayer'), and a high strength, low rate of fire weapon (let's call it a 'zapper'). The zapper is more likely to kill anything it hits, but is theoretically balanced out by having fewer shots. That's pretty straightforward - on paper, the two options are equally good.
Except... when you find yourself up against an army full of difficult to kill models, suddenly the balance skews towards the zapper, because the sprayer has so much less of a chance of actually doing any damage. Then you find yourself facing a horde of easy to kill models, who regenerate after you kill them... Suddenly, the zapper is next to useless, because although it is guaranteed to kill whatever it hits, you just can't kill enough of the enemy with it to make a difference. And suddenly the sprayer is the far more valuable weapon.
It's really easy to sit here behind the comfort of the computer screen and make snide remarks about how useless games developers are at their job... but the simple fact is that balance in a game with this many variables is next to impossible without putting a hell of a lot more limitations on the game than are currently there. Or have ever been there.
AtoMaki wrote: I would say - as of now - points are only useful for the lazy game designer.
Then why do you support the use of PL, which is a point system? Is it lazy game design to acknowledge that a terminator and a guardsman are not equal in power and therefore have different point costs? Is the designer obligated, in your opinion, to find a way to make the guardsman and terminator equal in power so that they don't need to have a point system?
If a points system is a 'lazy' system for a game developer- what is the alternative?
The 'honor system' where players 'determine between themselves if the game is balanced'? Obviously you've never encountered 'that guy': He will leverage every possible advantage to an overwhelming degree, claim what he has is fair and friendly and balanced, tell you that you're just 'using your guys wrong'... and to make matters worse, "That Guy" is a disease that spreads and can completely ruin a gaming community.
The only other option I can think of is "Make everything work the same", which seems about as fun as handcuffing yourself to someone and playing 'tag'.
insaniak wrote: Take, for example, the difference between a low-strength, high rate of fire weapon (lets call it a 'sprayer'), and a high strength, low rate of fire weapon (let's call it a 'zapper'). The zapper is more likely to kill anything it hits, but is theoretically balanced out by having fewer shots. That's pretty straightforward - on paper, the two options are equally good.
Yes, and it is now up to the player to make the ultimate decision: do they want their unit to deal with hordes or tackle hard-to-kill models? What should be the ratio across multiple units? Should one arm for mostly hordes or mostly big targets? The tools are given and come at the exact same cost, so the ball is bouncing on the player's half: they can go exclusively sprayers or zappers, or mix them up for some TAC sweetness. It is not like taking a zapper or two will reduce their ability to take sprayers for every other unit, after all.
I expect the game designers to put a lot of thought into balancing units and options, but I also expect the players to put equivalent effort into making up their army composition.
AtoMaki wrote: I would say - as of now - points are only useful for the lazy game designer.
Then why do you support the use of PL, which is a point system? Is it lazy game design to acknowledge that a terminator and a guardsman are not equal in power and therefore have different point costs? Is the designer obligated, in your opinion, to find a way to make the guardsman and terminator equal in power so that they don't need to have a point system?
I was referring to the Points point system with per-model and per-upgrade costs. It is easy to hide imperfections in graduality and just kinda get away with it, or swing around costs randomly and call it "balance" (this is essentially what happens right now in the game, by the way). Now try this with the Power Level system...
AtoMaki wrote: Yes, and it is now up to the player to make the ultimate decision: do they want their unit to deal with hordes or tackle hard-to-kill models? What should be the ratio across multiple units? Should one arm for mostly hordes or mostly big targets? The tools are given and come at the exact same cost, so the ball is bouncing on the player's half: they can go exclusively sprayers or zappers, or mix them up for some TAC sweetness. It is not like taking a zapper or two will reduce their ability to take sprayers for every other unit, after all.
Too bad that, in your version of the game where points do not exist and the concept of "cheap and weak vs. expensive and powerful" is rejected, there is no concept of hordes or big targets. Every model is exactly identical, and because of this every weapon is also identical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AtoMaki wrote: I was referring to the Points point system with per-model and per-upgrade costs. It is easy to hide imperfections in graduality and just kinda get away with it, or swing around costs randomly and call it "balance" (this is essentially what happens right now in the game, by the way). Now try this with the Power Level system...
Oh, I see. So you actually understand the merits of the point system and "cheap and weak vs. expensive and powerful" as a design concept, you just reject it at some arbitrary line between units and upgrades.
AtoMaki wrote: I was referring to the Points point system with per-model and per-upgrade costs. It is easy to hide imperfections in graduality and just kinda get away with it, or swing around costs randomly and call it "balance" (this is essentially what happens right now in the game, by the way). Now try this with the Power Level system...
Oh, I see. So you actually understand the merits of the point system and "cheap and weak vs. expensive and powerful" as a design concept, you just reject it at some arbitrary line between units and upgrades.
Yes, by playing Power Levels, I came to the realization that "encompassing unit cost" should be the thing rather than have the current "models and options make a unit cost" kind of deal. I'm not even against the occasional 'Power Rating +1' for straight upgrades and deliberately "oomphy" options like LR and Baneblade sponsons or Jump Packs and Thunder Hammers for Captains.
At the moment, I’m working to Points. That’s because I’m making a concerted effort to get ‘match fit’ this year, and even attend a tournament or two, maybe even three.
And going into the organised event arena, points are the order of the day.
That being said, I’m also open to attending Narrative Events. And if they call for Power Level, that’s fine and dandy with me. But for getting up to speed, it’s strictly points.
I’ve also discovered BattleScribe. Which is a lot easier than pen and paper!
I always wonder what 40k players expect when they complain about or criticize balance. Even the best competitive videogames/esports in the world see tiers of units/characters/heroes with the playerbase finding out what works the best and shunning other things and never using them. Even a game like Starcraft Brood War, which is probably considered the finest competitive game ever made, had nearly a dozen units that never saw play and required the professional Korean map-maker scene to create new maps when imbalances were slowly discovered in the ones being played. Even Dota 2, for all it's vaunted variety and high pick-rates for many of its 100+ characters has tiers and at top levels of play anywhere from 20-50 of those might never be picked, with a select dozen being picked or banned 100% of the time.
Do 40k players really think Triarch Praetorians should be as common as Guardsmen? I'm not trying to be facetious, this is an honest question because I used to work in Videogames and wrote my University Dissertation on Competitive game balance and it just seems that people see the existence of "good" and "bad" factions/units and instantly think something is unbalanced trash with no competitive merit whatsoever.
I always fear the issue is partly an over reliance on the meta.
When your focus becomes overcoming the last winning list, that naturally colours your view of what you might want to take. This leads to number crunching and analysis the game wasn’t exactly designed for.
Now of course, there very much are awful units in the game. Stuff which just doesn’t do its job, or has a competing choice which just does the job better.
For clarity, I’m not knocking anyone that plays to the meta. If that’s your thing, that’s your thing and good on you. This is just an observation.
Yes, and it is now up to the player to make the ultimate decision: do they want their unit to deal with hordes or tackle hard-to-kill models? What should be the ratio across multiple units? Should one arm for mostly hordes or mostly big targets? The tools are given and come at the exact same cost, so the ball is bouncing on the player's half: they can go exclusively sprayers or zappers, or mix them up for some TAC sweetness. It is not like taking a zapper or two will reduce their ability to take sprayers for every other unit, after all.
Sure... but that's still not giving you balance, unless army composition is strictly limited to the same quantities of the different types of units for each army. You can't set an accurate value on a weapon without knowing how useful it is actually going to be on the table.
When a weapon is worth more or less not because of the chosen target, but because of the army that you might wind up facing, you're never going to achieve anything resembling perfect balance.
For everyone saying that Battlescribe justifies points, and that anyone using PL should use Battlescribe instead (so, not you, Grotsnik!), I can personally say that, at least for me, this is not good advice.
Firstly, if you have to rely on a third party resource to play the game easily, then that should certainly speak as to the complexity of points. Power level needs nothing of the sort.
Secondly, Battlescribe cannot be relied on to be accurate - bugs, incorrect data files, and wrong point values are all there on Battlescribe. You should still check the codex, and that's more time.
Thirdly, and this is the most personal reason - I used to have Battlescribe when I played points. It really didn't work with my phone. It was slow, buggy, and ate up battery and storage. I wouldn't download it again if someone paid me. But that's my personal experience.
Bosskelot wrote: Do 40k players really think Triarch Praetorians should be as common as Guardsmen?
It is a lot more complicated than that, obviously. Unit power and cost are just a part of the deal, you have to consider unit role, faction scheme, skill floor/ceiling, etc. For example, Infantry Squads should be common because it is pretty much their role, it fits the faction, they have an okayish power-for-cost ratio, and they are low floor/high ceiling - so in general, people will consider them good; however, Triarch Praetorians are quite the opposite because their role and their place in the faction are a bit complicated, their power-for-cost ratio is somewhat unclear, and they have a high skill floor - most people will likely consider them subpar but the players with the right playstyle and mindset might disagree and say that Triarch Praetorians are actually good.
When a weapon is worth more or less not because of the chosen target, but because of the army that you might wind up facing, you're never going to achieve anything resembling perfect balance.
I'm not really aiming for perfect balance here just for a more reasonable level where you can equip your unit with a missile launcher and not feel bad about it. The problems you are mentioning are well in with the Points system too, maybe even better because taking the "wrong" weapon would have an actual, tangible cost.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
I guess most of the people around where I play then just consider list building a part of the game, I don't think I've encountered someone who doesn't consider the effectiveness of a model before buying or painting it.
Hi Horst,
I have played competitive wargames for a long time, and for the past five years, have been heavily involved in playing narrative games. I tend to see myself as more narrative player these days than 'competitive/tournament' but really, I have no bone to pick with either style, and frankly, see both as bringing something's necessary to the greater hobby.
From a narrative players point of view, in some ways, we are no different to 'competitive' players (and when I use that term. I tend to think of more or less the game you play, and how you probably see it - i.e. maxed-out lists, independent list-building, tournaments and pink-up-game culture). The thing is, similarly to you, us narrative players also would like to win. We also want a good game. Nor do we play to lose. Funnily enough, I would also argue that from a narrative players point of view, list-building is also a crucial aspect of the game. That said, it differs from competitive play, which focuses on list-building-for-advantage.
You are obviously approaching this game from somewhere on the competitive spectrum. For me, this spectrum ranges from 'not-competitive' all the way out to 'competitive-at-all-costs'. You are approaching this with the mindset that your listbuilding is a function of your strategic/tactical play. In the same way that 'no race begins on the starting line', you approach this with the POV that building the best list possible (like training to be the best athlete possible) is an important, if not crucial component of playing the game. This is often also tied up with independent-list-building as an aspect of playing a game - i.e. You build a list independent of your opponent, he builds a list independent of you, you select a scenario, deploy and GO! You are not wrong in doing this. Let's be clear. This is fine.
From a narrative players point of view however, things differ here. As I said earlier though, list-building is also crucial. The difference though is that list-building is generally not seen as a function of strategic/tactical play, but rather as a function of the scenario (and for a narrative game scenario, I personally define 'scenario' as a combination the mission(s) in play, the terrain/board set-up and the opposing forces). Similarly, you don't tend to play narrative with 'independent-list-building' as you do in competitive, it tends to be a mutual, collaborative approach (I personally dislike the use of the term 'co-operative' here, that's for a different type/genre of games) with a focus on what fits the 'theme' of the scenario and building forces that 'match' each other, rather than building a 'gotcha!' army. If that means points values/power levels get thrown out the window to put down two 'matching' armies, then there's what happens. Generally speaking, the social contract and your mutual enjoyment of the game tends to take precedence over 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Considering this, to use your words, while 'taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no-brainier' in tournament circles, it gets much less traction in narrative circles. Because it's not the point of the game. Once you have the scenario set, then you have a go and then play the best game you can and play your hardest for the win. That's a given.
Regarding your second comment, I tend to agree with you when you say 'I guess most of the people around where I play then just consider list building a part of the game', it's just that amongst narrative players, list-building manifests differently and it occupies a different space in game-building than in competitive/tournament play.
An for what it's worth as well, narrative players do tend to consider the effectiveness of models before buying/painting them as well. It's just we tend to have different conversations with ourselves as we do this. Rather than thinking 'it's not point-optimised or overpowered, and can't one-shot a knight on turn 1 while generating 800 CPs, so therefore it's useless and not worth buying/painting in the first place, the thought process tends to be along the lines of 'ok, what kind of scenarios could I build, and fit this into, and what would be good match ups and scenarios for it'. For us, scenario-building (and please see above for how I view 'scenario' In the context of narrative games) and game-buildings is the prime-motivator, rather than competitive at all costs 'going-for-the-win'.
Anyway, I'm not having a go at you. Your post seemed to be a good point to try to explain the perspective of a narrative player. Hope you don't mind.
Oh I can do a list with pen and paper. BattleScribe is just more convenient.
And for those attending an organised event, you can always use BattleScribe first, then ratify its points costs the old fashioned way.
I literally started using it yesterday (in app demo would’ve been nice!), and have used it to create a list, then rework it. It definitely has its place
Bosskelot wrote: I always wonder what 40k players expect when they complain about or criticize balance. Even the best competitive videogames/esports in the world see tiers of units/characters/heroes with the playerbase finding out what works the best and shunning other things and never using them. Even a game like Starcraft Brood War, which is probably considered the finest competitive game ever made, had nearly a dozen units that never saw play and required the professional Korean map-maker scene to create new maps when imbalances were slowly discovered in the ones being played. Even Dota 2, for all it's vaunted variety and high pick-rates for many of its 100+ characters has tiers and at top levels of play anywhere from 20-50 of those might never be picked, with a select dozen being picked or banned 100% of the time.
Do 40k players really think Triarch Praetorians should be as common as Guardsmen? I'm not trying to be facetious, this is an honest question because I used to work in Videogames and wrote my University Dissertation on Competitive game balance and it just seems that people see the existence of "good" and "bad" factions/units and instantly think something is unbalanced trash with no competitive merit whatsoever.
That is the result of time and money investment typical for 40K and resulting lack of flexibility in choice. Only dedicated competitive players in 40K treat armies as disposable and switch them on the fly as is true in e-sports you have listed. Add to that, that even if you do research effectiveness before buying a unit, people play this game over years and relative power value changes with every new release, new point update or edition change. On top of that, majority of players do like competition but also have faction preferences and aesthetic preferences and no money or will or time to "chase the meta" and because those are players of all factions and all possible playstyles all you see is desire to make power value throughout the game perfectly flat. But at the same time majority of people also want list building to be a dominant skill, so not perfectly flat, just flat enough so that you can feel smart for dismissing bad codex choices but still take what you like from a faction you like and stay with the same list for a year or two at least, expecting it to perform well enough that your win ratio is not less than 50/50, regardless of your actual tactical prowess...
Yes, I'm perfectly aware, that from game design perspective those are obviously contradictory expectations, but that is the reality of 40K balance discussions since ancient times.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
I guess most of the people around where I play then just consider list building a part of the game, I don't think I've encountered someone who doesn't consider the effectiveness of a model before buying or painting it.
Hi Horst,
From a narrative players point of view, in some ways, we are no different. We also would like to win. We also want a good game. Nor do we play to lose. Funnily enough, I would also argue that from a narrative players point of view, list-building is also a crucial aspect of the game. That said, it differs from competitive play, which focuses on list-building-for-advantage.
You are obviously approaching this game from somewhere on the competitive spectrum. For me, this spectrum ranges from 'not-competitive' all the way out to 'competitive-at-all-costs'. You are approaching this with the mindset that your listbuilding is a function of your strategic/tactical play. In the same way that 'no race begins on the starting line', you approach this with the POV that building the best list possible (like training to be the best athlete possible) is an important, if not crucial component of playing the game. This is often also tied up with independent-list-building as an aspect of playing a game - i.e. You build a list independent of your opponent, he builds a list independent of you, you select a scenario, deploy and GO! You are not wrong in doing this.
From a narrative players point of view however, things differ here. As I said earlier though, list-building is also crucial. The difference though is that list-building is generally not seen as a function of strategic/tactical play, but rather as a function of the scenario (and for a narrative game scenario, I personally define 'scenario' as a combination the mission(s) in play, the terrain/board set-up and the opposing forces). Similarly, you don't tend to play narrative with 'independent-list-building' as you do in competitive, it tends to be a mutual, collaborative approach (I personally dislike the use of the term 'co-operative' here, that's for a different type/genre of games) with a focus on what fits the 'theme' of the scenario and building forces that 'match' each other, rather than building a 'gotcha!' army. Generally speaking, the social contract and your mutual enjoyment of the game tends to take precedence over 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Considering this, to use your words, while 'taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no-brainier' in tournament circles, it gets much less traction in narrative circles. Once you have the scenario set, then you have a go and then play your hardest for the win.
Regarding your second comment, I tend to agree with you when you say 'I guess most of the people around where I play then just consider list building a part of the game', it's just that list-building manifests differently and it occupies a different space in game-building than in tournament play.
An for what it's worth as well, narrative players do tend to consider the effectiveness of models before buying/painting them as well. It's just we tend to have different conversations with ourselves. Rather than thinking 'it's not point-optimised or overpowered, so therefore useless and not worth buying/painting in the first place, the thought process tends to be along the lines of 'ok, what kind of scenarios could I fit this into, and what would be good match ups and scenarios for it'. For us, scenario-building (and please see above for how I view 'scenario' In the context of narrative games) and game-buildings is the prime-motivator, rather than competitive at allcosts.
Hopefully this explains the narrative position a bit better, not that there is anything wrong with competitive.
All good points all around. The only point I would add to this is that in the realities of high involvement narrative circles people actually have to know their balance inside out, because one simple mistake at scenario preparation stage can cost you (plural you as in all participants) an entire game that go sideways because you screwed the preparation stage and nobody has a good time.
I wrote earlier, that competitive mindset can utilize points with some success as a sole balance tool because of natural goal of maximizing wining power of both lists involved. In more abstract terms you basically contemplate only an outer surface (the furthest you can get from the neutral center of mass) of an entire volume of hyperspace of possible unit parameters and army lists choices and measure only such a linear distance and desire it to be the greatest, with mission goals like ITC pointing you in a specific direction of such "optimal solution". But narrative players deliberately seek to explore the entire volume of said hyperspace and there are no easy ways to reduce the complexity of said hyperspace and rely solely on a linear metrics and blind luck of separate listbuilding. In other words - linear point systems of any kind are only a rough measure of game size - they may tell you how far from the neutral center of mass of this space are you in, but they do not inform you of anything else without direct consideration of units specific abilities, strengths, weaknesses and possible performance considering all other existing parameters of the game like terrain, mission goals, both armies composition and models availability.
To stress this beyond any doubt: I'm not saying that competitive mindset is wrong and narrative is king. I'm merely stating that you cannot judge one through the prism of the other and call the other "wrong" or "without merit", "could as well make pew pew noises and throw out any rules because you are not serious about the game" or that there are obvious power choices that will always be used regardless of wider context.
greatbigtree wrote: PL and Points are two different ways to measure the same thing. Like measuring in Centimetres or Inches.
Except, the people using the measuring devices are unskilled. So a board that is actually 30.0 cm long is measured at 25 cm and then measured at 13 inches. Neither measurement is right. But one is measured with a smaller unit, so it must be better!
If the measurers were skilled, one method might be better than the other. But that's not the case.
That's a bad comparison because even an unskilled user is not going to be measuring completely at random. And even GW's rule authors, as incompetent as they are, are not so utterly hopeless that they're just throwing out random numbers for everything. A more correct statement would be that if we have two people with equal skill in measuring stuff measure 100 of those 30.0cm tables the one using a ruler marked in 1mm increments will have a lower average error than the one using a ruler marked in 1" increments. Same thing with normal points vs. less accurate points, the same GW authors are assigning both point costs so we can assume that the average point cost error will be smaller when using the more accurate system. Except two factors make it even more in favor of the normal point system:
1) The two systems are not used with equal skill. PL points are assigned once at publication and never updated. Normal points are assigned at publication and then updated regularly so any balance issues that appear can be fixed. It's like if your example people measured that 30.0cm table, but the one who measured 25cm sees that the 30cm thing they want to put on it doesn't fit and revises their obviously incorrect measurement, while the one who measured 13" ignores the mistake.
2) PL vs. normal points isn't just about measuring a single static item, it's about being able to cope with changes. PL assigns a fixed cost to a unit regardless of how it is equipped, which means that (in a game where competing upgrades are more or less powerful) at least some of its configurations will have an incorrect point cost. Normal points account for variation in upgrades, making it more likely that all of the possible configurations will have an accurate point cost. It's like if the 30cm table had an optional extension section to make it 45cm, and the person measuring in cm revised their measurement to 47cm when they added the extension while the one measuring in inches stubbornly insists that the table is still 13".
In short: both PL and normal points can have individual errors in assigning costs, but PL will also have systemic errors that normal points do not suffer from. PL is a worse system, period.
To me, PL lets people play with suboptimal upgrades. Like, Vox casters on Guardsmen. I would never pay points for it, but if it was folded into the cost of the unit? I'd be all over it. Just to put them on the table again. One of my favourite models is a Master-Vox that I converted many moons ago. It has a large comm-set built on the base, with the Vox carrier. It's a fun, characterful model (Very well composed, if I say so myself!) but it sits in the bin because It's not worth 5 points. Bummer.
Same thing with sub-optimal units load-outs like Death Company, all with Thunder Hammers. Most of those Hammerers are going to die before they make it to combat. That's why in points you only take one or two per X number of squaddies. But with PL, you can gear them out however and aren't penalized for it. You're still only going to make contact with two guys... but you got to put the other dudes down with cool gear, and that was fun. The game still played out the same.
IOW, "I want to make my units more powerful but I don't want to have to pay for it". You're introducing a measurement error that favors you over your opponent, and you're doing it deliberately! Under PL if I decide that my units shouldn't have that vox (radios are expensive, guardsmen are expendable) I'm punished for not taking one. You get to take your vox without feeling bad about it, but I don't get to take my no-vox squad without feeling bad about it. The only fair solution is to use the system that evaluates the units more accurately and doesn't favor either of us: the normal point system.
Points measures a 30cm table, PL measures 1 table
By next edition GW will have dropped points, they have already pushed them to the back of the codex, they are no longer included in unit profiles or in the sheets in boxes. Your 'normal point system' will become abnormal with publications giving 'normal power level sytem', WD are already doing so for battle reports....grabbing the two nearest copies ( May & Nov) PL 154 V PL 152 in May's edition and PL 145 V PL 143 in November's. Not a single mention of points.
I predict that points will stop being published in codex soon, and either be published in a separate book, or dropped altogether, leaving tournaments to publish their own or use PL
The argument that points are only trivially more difficult to use than PL us utter bollocks. In earlier threads people used to argue that it only takes couple of minutes more to make point list, in this thread that dropped to one minute and then to ten seconds. This is obviously a blatant lie. How points are scattered among several publications definitely make them considerably harder to use, and of course making many calculations with larger numbers always takes more time than fewer calculations on smaller numbers. And Battlescrible helps, but it it is still annoying to use and has clunky UI and ugly layout. And of course if we are using apps, there is the official PL calculator one can use to make PL even easier.
On the other side the argument that because the points are not perfect they're no better than PL is utter bogus too. Point system allows differentiating between various loadouts; it should be blindingly obvious that a system where four guys with plasma guns cost more than four guys with lasguns is doing better job with balance. And of course the point system is constantly tested and updated in an attempt to improve the balance.
So as I always say in these threads: points are more balanced, PL are easier to use; whether you feel that sacrificing some balance for the ease of use is worth it is matter of personal preference.
Crimson wrote: Point system allows differentiating between various loadouts; it should be blindingly obvious that a system where four guys with plasma guns cost more than four guys with lasguns is doing better job with balance.
That's a pretty controverted way to miss the point of Power Levels. The example here only applies to Power Levels if those four guys are the entire unit, in which case the apparent difference in cost efficiency is, in fact, the rules telling you that you should really take those plasma guns because that's how the unit works - them having the option to run around with lasguns is more about convenience in case you don't have four plasma gun models laying around. Power Levels assume that all available options are equally worth it for one reason or another and all relevant costs are already included in the unit's Power Rating. It is kinda like the 5th edition Tactical Squads with their free special/heavy weapons.
Crimson wrote: Point system allows differentiating between various loadouts; it should be blindingly obvious that a system where four guys with plasma guns cost more than four guys with lasguns is doing better job with balance.
That's a pretty controverted way to miss the point of Power Levels. The example here only applies to Power Levels if those four guys are the entire unit, in which case the apparent difference in cost efficiency is, in fact, the rules telling you that you should really take those plasma guns because that's how the unit works - them having the option to run around with lasguns is more about convenience in case you don't have four plasma gun models laying around. Power Levels assume that all available options are equally worth it for one reason or another and all relevant costs are already included in the unit's Power Rating. It is kinda like the 5th edition Tactical Squads with their free special/heavy weapons.
But all options are definitely not worth it. And my IG command squads do not have plasma guns. Pretending that a system where all options (including not taking the options at all) are priced the same is just as well balanced than a system where those options have individual costs is just lunacy. As I said, I have no problem with people using the PL, the ease of use is a perfectly valid justification. I however have a problem when people make completely misguided claims.
Crimson wrote: Point system allows differentiating between various loadouts; it should be blindingly obvious that a system where four guys with plasma guns cost more than four guys with lasguns is doing better job with balance.
That's a pretty controverted way to miss the point of Power Levels. The example here only applies to Power Levels if those four guys are the entire unit, in which case the apparent difference in cost efficiency is, in fact, the rules telling you that you should really take those plasma guns because that's how the unit works - them having the option to run around with lasguns is more about convenience in case you don't have four plasma gun models laying around. Power Levels assume that all available options are equally worth it for one reason or another and all relevant costs are already included in the unit's Power Rating. It is kinda like the 5th edition Tactical Squads with their free special/heavy weapons.
But all options are definitely not worth it.
That's more of a problem with the option balancing rather than the concept of Power Levels.
And my IG command squads do not have plasma guns.
That shouldn't be a problem. As per the assumption behind Power Levels, your Command Squad should be just as good with four flamers (death to hordes) as with four plasma guns (death to heavy infantry) or with four sniper rifles (death to characters), or with any kind of combination of any option available to them but not taking these options is considered unreasonable and thus not encouraged.
That's more of a problem with the option balancing rather than the concept of Power Levels.
So you're saying that you need to completely redesign the game and then PL would be balanced? That if every possible option would be of equal value they would work? Certainly true, but also doesn't matter as we are playing the game as it is. Furthermore, if we look at situations where the designer tried to balance several options to be equally good (warlord traits, subfaction traits, relics) it is obvious that some of these options are just blatantly better than others. The designers are just not capable of making a large selection of things equally good (and I don't blame them, it is much harder than making bunch of options and just assigning higher point costs to the better ones.) Repeating the similar imbalance in options of every unit in the game would not make the game better.
That shouldn't be a problem. As per the assumption behind Power Levels, your Command Squad should be just as good with four flamers (death to hordes) as with four plasma guns (death to heavy infantry) or with four sniper rifles (death to characters), or with any kind of combination of any option available to them but not taking these options is considered unreasonable and thus not encouraged.
But all these options are not equally good. And my command squad has lasguns.
That's more of a problem with the option balancing rather than the concept of Power Levels.
So you're saying that you need to completely redesign the game and then PL would be balanced?
I'm saying that we need to completely redesign the game and then it would be balanced.
But all these options are not equally good. And my command squad has lasguns.
They should be. And even if you have zero special weapons at your disposal, you can have a combat medic and a vox caster and have a nice support unit. You have to be, like, 200% adamant on taking only lasgun dudes for whatever reason at which point you are not really using the unit as you are supposed to so don't be surprised when it stops working correctly.
greatbigtree wrote:Except, the people using the measuring devices are unskilled. So a board that is actually 30.0 cm long is measured at 25 cm and then measured at 13 inches. Neither measurement is right. But one is measured with a smaller unit, so it must be better!
One nagging point about this. The people using the measuring device are not unskilled, it was unskilled people who made the measuring devices in the first place. And it would be closer to stating that one is using a meter stick versus another using a yard stick. Both can measure fine for certain distances, but one is finely gradated and the other one is not as fine. For those who are used to using a meter stick, a yard stick seems confusing with its sub-demarcations in 3, then 12, then 4 rather than consistent 10s.
Even worse is that people are trying to justify using these sticks when they haven't ever been properly calibrated. It would be like having a first grader set the length of the sticks and set the demarkations, and then when a new codex comes out they create another pair of sticks.
Points have never been balanced in Warhammer. So saying they are more balanced than the less gradated Power Level is preposterous. That it has the capacity to be more balanced isn't really in question, but the facts simply are that GW has never been bothered with creating proper balance in army building, and I doubt they ever will.
On the other side the argument that because the points are not perfect they're no better than PL is utter bogus too. Point system allows differentiating between various loadouts; it should be blindingly obvious that a system where four guys with plasma guns cost more than four guys with lasguns is doing better job with balance.
I understand your point Crimson. I have my preferences, but also acknowledge your points here.
Regarding what you say -The question needs to be asked then: is the 40k point system differentiating between various load outs good enough and accurate enough to be worth it? I'm not entirely convinced though. Plasmas versus lasguns - fair enough. Other options though become far more nebulous. And points costs are not always accurate either, especially when we consider we are trying to do is hammer a flat, 'universal' value onto something whose real value is in reality, almost entirely context-dependent rather than 'universal'.
I've said previously that I like a less granular system. That comes primarily from my experience with warmachine/hordes. I think less granular accounting works better for table top games as they are generally 'rough' systems anyway. That said, It could be argued that it works better in WMH as an iron fang is always an iron fang, for example. There are no loadout swaps. In the last thread on this, there was an idea floated for 'specialists' (i.e. guys with a heavy/special weapon type thing) to have a PL cost on top of the squad PL cost (though this 'specialist' could be any of the heavy/special weapon things). I considered it to be a decent middle ground. And it's generally how PP 'integrate' special weapons into. WMH squads (e.g. Winter guard rocketeer is 'attached' to winter guard infantry squads.)
And of course the point system is constantly tested and updated in an attempt to change the balance.
Fixed that for you. these things are often sold about 'improving' things, but the reality is that it's less about 'improving' and more about 'changing' things. That's Not necessarily for the better.
Considering the bloody battles fought over whether guardsmen should cost four or five points, which is a difference of half a PL for the whole squad, I really don't think less granular point system is a good idea. I understand the appeal on the idea level, but I am afraid that in practice it would not work so well. I actually like how GW has been using the granularity of the points in this edition; in previous editions most point costs used to be divisible by five, but not any more.
Regarding the granularity of points vs power level.
If we were to take a (currently) 40 point Infantry squad, and give the Sergeant a bolt pistol, instead of the default las pistol, is the unit actually worth 2.5 % more?
Please consider, that as a tar pit unit, the value has decreased by 2.5 %. The unit still dies as quickly.
The unit is 2.5% less effective as an objective holder.
That extra 2.5% points investment is only valuable while a target is within 12”. Vs another Guardsman, the laspistol has a 1/6 chance to inflict a casualty. The bolt pistol has a 2/9 chance to inflict a casualty. A 1/18 improvement one that attack, or 0.06 more casualties.
Hold with me.
19 las attacks inflict an average of 3.17 casualties. 18 las attacks plus a bolt shot inflict 3.23 casualties. The offensive output vs other Guardsmen increases by less than 2%. (0.06 / 3.17) which indicates circumstantially that not only is that 1 point an inaccurate account of its worth, but doesn’t factor the decreased value the unit now possesses in its other battlefield functions.
A plasma gun is widely considered superior to a melta gun. Why? Because a melta gun is incorrectly costed, or is it the plasma gun? Which measurement is incorrect? Are they both wrong?
The points system is an inaccurate. It is more precisely inaccurate, but still inaccurate. Sometimes points are less inaccurate, sometimes PL is less inaccurate. I find that over the spread of a 1500 / 75 PL the difference is negligible, to the point I’m not convinced that either system is more accurate.
I would prefer, for the sake of balance, that units were priced as a whole, rather than per model. It is much easier to balance a unit’s performance in a relatively defined role, rather than being as open as they are, which is one reason I like PL. It (should) assumes you’re using the maximum load out and options for a unit. If you take an upgrade that has a more specialized role, like a Flamer, it will be less valuable in general than a Plasmagun but maybe you’re planning to put the unit in harms way where the melee deterrent is more valuable to the role you have in mind... or they could buff the Flamer rules to a fixed 5 hits instead of d6... I’d say that’s a better idea.
For example, Upgradeless Guardsmen are a fantastic value at 40 points / 2 PL. But if they were required to take the available upgrades (with costs) they become 81 points / 4 PL.
For balance’s sake, I’d prefer to see Guardsmen as a more expensive base cost unit. It would halve their board control value / screening value. It would ensure they can participate at the scale 40k has focussed to (Knights and Tanks). So I’d rather see Infantry Squads as a 4 PL unit that’s overcosted without upgrades, rather than a 40 pt unit that’s undercosted that you can add good-value upgrades to. I think that would be best for 40k’s balance, and could be likewise extended to other armies.
A 10 man Tactical squad with full gear at 140 points is about right. Maybe 150, I don’t care enough to worry about it. That would include Sarge with CCW, Combi, a special weapon and heavy. At that point, if a Tactical squad was 7 PL, I’d call that pretty balanced, might need tweaking.
greatbigtree wrote: The points system is an inaccurate. It is more precisely inaccurate, but still inaccurate. Sometimes points are less inaccurate, sometimes PL is less inaccurate. I find that over the spread of a 1500 / 75 PL the difference is negligible, to the point I’m not convinced that either system is more accurate.
Only because you're making a biased comparison. You're making a list with normal points (or at least one like it) and then asking how well PL evaluates it, not making an optimized PL list. IOW, you're deliberately avoiding the flaws of PL so of course it looks ok. Build a list designed to optimize PL options and then compare to normal points. You'll find that PL has huge accuracy issues.
greatbigtree wrote: The points system is an inaccurate. It is more precisely inaccurate, but still inaccurate. Sometimes points are less inaccurate, sometimes PL is less inaccurate. I find that over the spread of a 1500 / 75 PL the difference is negligible, to the point I’m not convinced that either system is more accurate.
Only because you're making a biased comparison. You're making a list with normal points (or at least one like it) and then asking how well PL evaluates it, not making an optimized PL list. IOW, you're deliberately avoiding the flaws of PL so of course it looks ok. Build a list designed to optimize PL options and then compare to normal points. You'll find that PL has huge accuracy issues.
You consistently seem to miss the point of power levels and non cut throat play in general. Yes power level is easier to break, but really it's not hard to break 40k in general. You seem incapable of separating to points. There is a difference between trying to win once the game has started and only taking the most bleeding edge competitive list and only caring about smashing face.
Power level was good to start with because it let you just slap some models down and go for it. Thing is after say 3-4 games youve got a good enough grasp of the rules to realize it's not very balanced as older armies with tons of options just take their best gear while newer armies with few options are stuck locked into only a couple options. Essentially it allows one player to get "free" points over the other
Also, as GW has updated points and done balance tweaks, PL was never touched, which means if you've got an older codex like admech you're going to be playing at a major disadvantage to a newer codex.
greatbigtree wrote: The points system is an inaccurate. It is more precisely inaccurate, but still inaccurate. Sometimes points are less inaccurate, sometimes PL is less inaccurate. I find that over the spread of a 1500 / 75 PL the difference is negligible, to the point I’m not convinced that either system is more accurate.
Only because you're making a biased comparison. You're making a list with normal points (or at least one like it) and then asking how well PL evaluates it, not making an optimized PL list. IOW, you're deliberately avoiding the flaws of PL so of course it looks ok. Build a list designed to optimize PL options and then compare to normal points. You'll find that PL has huge accuracy issues.
You consistently seem to miss the point of power levels and non cut throat play in general. Yes power level is easier to break, but really it's not hard to break 40k in general. You seem incapable of separating to points. There is a difference between trying to win once the game has started and only taking the most bleeding edge competitive list and only caring about smashing face.
This. Yes OF COURSE if you optimize then PL falls flat compared to points. But people using PL usually aren't doing that. Someone who wants to use PL is not usually going to look at it and think "Gee, all these options are free I'll just take the best/all of them". The fact that some people do just means that those people should stick to points because they can't be trusted to use PL.
greatbigtree wrote: The points system is an inaccurate. It is more precisely inaccurate, but still inaccurate. Sometimes points are less inaccurate, sometimes PL is less inaccurate. I find that over the spread of a 1500 / 75 PL the difference is negligible, to the point I’m not convinced that either system is more accurate.
Only because you're making a biased comparison. You're making a list with normal points (or at least one like it) and then asking how well PL evaluates it, not making an optimized PL list. IOW, you're deliberately avoiding the flaws of PL so of course it looks ok. Build a list designed to optimize PL options and then compare to normal points. You'll find that PL has huge accuracy issues.
Were I to build an optimized PL list, and compare it to points, I’d find the points-cost version to be uncompetitive. In the PL list I would take Voxes because they’re included in the cost of the unit. I would upgrade my Sargeants with PW’s because, why not? Adding those upgrades doesn’t actually add 9 points of value to a unit. Maybe 3 points. Vox rules are virtually worthless. A power sword is worth 2 in optimal situations and less vs most situations.
You believe that the “points” method is more accurate because it accounts (incorrectly) for the minutiae. I believe unit pricing based on the unit’s expected loadout / capability is more accurate. While a unit can be overvalued if it does not use upgrades, it is hard to undervalue it. Consider a Terminator unit where the owner chose to remove models that rolled 2 on their saves. Weird, possibly cheating, but let’s say they chose to do that. They’d be failing to take advantage of the full capability of their unit. That is their (unusual) decision. Same deal when building a unit in PL.
I’m not attempting to justify PL as a simpler list building thing. I just don’t see a measurable difference at the “point level” between a 10 man Tactical squad with all the goodies (with Lascannon) and the same squad with all the goodies and a Missile Launcher instead. Does the unit’s performance change by 2 to 3%? Does anyone take the ML, even if it’s 5 points cheaper?
So, in our subjective perspectives, I feel that the sum of the whole unit is what matters. Units should be priced based on their optimal potential, as that rewards the skill of extracting maximum value in-game. Making the best tactical decisions. Your perspective seems to value maximizing the minutiae of list building, which is a strategic element before the game. The better list builder gets an in-game advantage by “trimming the fat” from their list. I used to feel similarly, but no longer find that as important to my enjoyment of the game.
Continuing my analogy, there’s flavour in the fat. 40k is truly insane from a modern military perspective. Chainswords? Power fists? Ridiculous. And in-game, low value to the overall function of most units. But they’re cool looking and fun to build. Why not bridge the gap between fluff and crunch, and factor those upgrades into an overall cost?
Modifying the upgrade profiles to be closer to universal is easy. More shots to the Heavy Bolter. Make the frag profile more useful on the ML to make the versatility attractive. Same gig for flamers and grenade launchers. I genuinely don’t believe unit variety will degrade.
This still rewards, to a lesser degree, list building strategy. You can still make bad armies from good unit choices. I don’t see a move towards PL as bad for the game. I would enjoy making lists that can interchange upgrades. This could even allow undervalued upgrades to be chosen as “better value” vs certain opponents. An auto cannon is mathematically better in select situations when compared to a Lascannon... but those situations are few, hence the lower point cost. But in a PL balance model, the specific upgrade could be chosen at the table, tailoring to that opponent. So the typically inferior AC might see play against Orks and Dark Eldar (?) instead of sitting the edition out.
If you have to resort to "but people won't break it" or "it isn't for you" when flaws are pointed out then it's a concession that the system is trash. Good point systems don't break just because you try to build a good list.
Peregrine wrote: If you have to resort to "but people won't break it" or "it isn't for you" when flaws are pointed out then it's a concession that the system is trash. Good point systems don't break just because you try to build a good list.
...Exactly. It isn't a good points system. It isn't a suitable replacement for real points. It's a convenient shorthand for if you showed up at the game store for a casual pick-up game and forgot to build a list ahead of time.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For everyone saying that Battlescribe justifies points, and that anyone using PL should use Battlescribe instead (so, not you, Grotsnik!), I can personally say that, at least for me, this is not good advice.
Firstly, if you have to rely on a third party resource to play the game easily, then that should certainly speak as to the complexity of points. Power level needs nothing of the sort.
Secondly, Battlescribe cannot be relied on to be accurate - bugs, incorrect data files, and wrong point values are all there on Battlescribe. You should still check the codex, and that's more time.
Thirdly, and this is the most personal reason - I used to have Battlescribe when I played points. It really didn't work with my phone. It was slow, buggy, and ate up battery and storage. I wouldn't download it again if someone paid me. But that's my personal experience.
I was writing army lists back when I was a teenager with a piece of paper and a calculator. It's really not very difficult. Battlescribe just takes out that extra medium and most people I see who play PL still use Battlescribe anyway
Peregrine wrote: Good point systems don't break just because you try to build a good list.
Welp. Are we opening the angle that neither Points nor Power Levels are good?
Of course both are flawed. But PL has systemic flaws in addition to the same individual cost mistakes that the normal system has, and breaks more often. It's a clearly worse system.
Peregrine wrote: If you have to resort to "but people won't break it" or "it isn't for you" when flaws are pointed out then it's a concession that the system is trash. Good point systems don't break just because you try to build a good list.
...Exactly. It isn't a good points system. It isn't a suitable replacement for real points. It's a convenient shorthand for if you showed up at the game store for a casual pick-up game and forgot to build a list ahead of time.
The sad part is that both of you are trying to support a bad point implementation with these comments.
Keep in mind the only thing that makes PL a bad system is the internal options of Wargear. Oddly enough, you wouldn't notice that much of a difference between most Necron units in this case because of that, and it is only those units without internal Wargear options which loose out since they can't pad their system like a Tactical or Infantry Squad. Warmachine also operates on the equiavlent of a PL system since they just don't have the internal options like Warhammer has.
Peregrine wrote: If you have to resort to "but people won't break it" or "it isn't for you" when flaws are pointed out then it's a concession that the system is trash. Good point systems don't break just because you try to build a good list.
...Exactly. It isn't a good points system. It isn't a suitable replacement for real points. It's a convenient shorthand for if you showed up at the game store for a casual pick-up game and forgot to build a list ahead of time.
The sad part is that both of you are trying to support a bad point implementation with these comments.
Keep in mind the only thing that makes PL a bad system is the internal options of Wargear. Oddly enough, you wouldn't notice that much of a difference between most Necron units in this case because of that, and it is only those units without internal Wargear options which loose out since they can't pad their system like a Tactical or Infantry Squad. Warmachine also operates on the equiavlent of a PL system since they just don't have the internal options like Warhammer has.
Well yes, if you remove all options having a fixed cost does work. But most units have options.
Again, factoring that upgrade option into the base cost so it is no longer really an “option” is easy. By allowing tailoring at the table, you can ensure the upgrade is optimal to the situation, rather than cheaper due to fewer ideal situations.
Vs Knights? Lascannons, thanks, and Meltas. Vs Marines? Plasma and more Plasma. Vs Guard? Missile Launchers and flamers. Unless the unit sits back then... Grav Gun? Higher ROF? I don’t remember.
PL can be balanced more easily than points. Because it’s a holistic view of the unit, rather than per model. I’ll point out that the current flaw with PL is that it was built around an “average” rather than “potential”. Were the system based on *potential* of the unit, it is less prone to errors of minutiae.
So, here's an idea, how about we all take some of our recent lists and convert them from points to PL (or vice versa).
Let's assume that 20pts = 1PL. So a 1500pt list would be the equivalent of 75PL, 2000pts would be 100PL etc.
- If you convert your lists directly (not changing any gear), do they end up more or less expensive with the alternate system?
- If you're converting from PL to points, is there a lot of gear you'd choose to remove? Do you think it will make much difference?
- If you're converting from points to PL, is there a lot of gear you'd choose to add? Do you think it will make much difference, or is mostly just stuff you'd add for the sake of it?
vipoid wrote: So, here's an idea, how about we all take some of our recent lists and convert them from points to PL (or vice versa).
Let's assume that 20pts = 1PL. So a 1500pt list would be the equivalent of 75PL, 2000pts would be 100PL etc.
- If you convert your lists directly (not changing any gear), do they end up more or less expensive with the alternate system?
- If you're converting from PL to points, is there a lot of gear you'd choose to remove? Do you think it will make much difference?
- If you're converting from points to PL, is there a lot of gear you'd choose to add? Do you think it will make much difference, or is mostly just stuff you'd add for the sake of it?
I did this in another thread. My 2000 pt Astra MIlitarum list is 128 points. Many of my squads take little or no wargear, or cheap options. For example, I have a Shadowsword with no sponsons, infantry with no weapons, mortar heavy weapons squads instead of Lascannon squads, commanders with bare bones wargear, etc.
Something I've enjoyed recently with PL is taking a fixed army in terms of units/sizes but being able to plug in different special or heavy weapons and different squad leader/character load outs on the fly without having to balance a change in points values.
It does miss the opposite attraction of points though; treating list building as a resource management mini game trying to build a 'good list'. I.e a weapon option costs the same no matter what model you put it on, so you need to work out which model gets the best value out of that weapon. Likewise, there is the element of working out how many casualties a squad might take before it shoots/fights and using that estimate to guide how many models should bother to take paid upgrades.
I see how people who pride themselves on writing 'good lists' might be disappointed with PL removing these aspects and as such view PL as eroding their 'good list building' advantage.
nareik wrote: Something I've enjoyed recently with PL is taking a fixed army in terms of units/sizes but being able to plug in different special or heavy weapons and different squad leader/character load outs on the fly without having to balance a change in points values.
It does miss the opposite attraction of points though; treating list building as a resource management mini game trying to build a 'good list'. I.e a weapon option costs the same no matter what model you put it on, so you need to work out which model gets the best value out of that weapon. Likewise, there is the element of working out how many casualties a squad might take before it shoots/fights and using that estimate to guide how many models should bother to take paid upgrades.
I see how people who pride themselves on writing 'good lists' might be disappointed with PL removing these aspects and as such view PL as eroding their 'good list building' advantage.
This is exactly why GW introduced PL, you shouldnt be able to win the game in the list building stage. The dice rolling (i.e. RANDOM)should always have more impact on the game than efficiency in lists.
nareik wrote: Something I've enjoyed recently with PL is taking a fixed army in terms of units/sizes but being able to plug in different special or heavy weapons and different squad leader/character load outs on the fly without having to balance a change in points values.
It does miss the opposite attraction of points though; treating list building as a resource management mini game trying to build a 'good list'. I.e a weapon option costs the same no matter what model you put it on, so you need to work out which model gets the best value out of that weapon. Likewise, there is the element of working out how many casualties a squad might take before it shoots/fights and using that estimate to guide how many models should bother to take paid upgrades.
I see how people who pride themselves on writing 'good lists' might be disappointed with PL removing these aspects and as such view PL as eroding their 'good list building' advantage.
This is exactly why GW introduced PL, you shouldnt be able to win the game in the list building stage. The dice rolling (i.e. RANDOM)should always have more impact on the game than efficiency in lists.
PL DOES NOT DO THIS.
PL changes what list is the best, usually to one with all of the most expensive upgrades, but list building and point efficiency still decide games.
nareik wrote: Something I've enjoyed recently with PL is taking a fixed army in terms of units/sizes but being able to plug in different special or heavy weapons and different squad leader/character load outs on the fly without having to balance a change in points values.
It does miss the opposite attraction of points though; treating list building as a resource management mini game trying to build a 'good list'. I.e a weapon option costs the same no matter what model you put it on, so you need to work out which model gets the best value out of that weapon. Likewise, there is the element of working out how many casualties a squad might take before it shoots/fights and using that estimate to guide how many models should bother to take paid upgrades.
I see how people who pride themselves on writing 'good lists' might be disappointed with PL removing these aspects and as such view PL as eroding their 'good list building' advantage.
This is exactly why GW introduced PL, you shouldnt be able to win the game in the list building stage. The dice rolling (i.e. RANDOM)should always have more impact on the game than efficiency in lists.
PL DOES NOT DO THIS.
PL changes what list is the best, usually to one with all of the most expensive upgrades, but list building and point efficiency still decide games.
Maybe so. But the critical thing you're missing is that some people don't care about deciding games. That's the crux of it.
Maybe 40k games will always be decided on what units and equipment you took, regardless if those things were paid for in points or power level. That's absolutely superfluous to someone who just plays for the sake of playing, and not to try and win/optimize their lists for the best chances of winning. For them, the fun comes from simply playing with models and units they like, regardless of the granularity of points and the better potential of balance that could provide.
nareik wrote: Something I've enjoyed recently with PL is taking a fixed army in terms of units/sizes but being able to plug in different special or heavy weapons and different squad leader/character load outs on the fly without having to balance a change in points values.
It does miss the opposite attraction of points though; treating list building as a resource management mini game trying to build a 'good list'. I.e a weapon option costs the same no matter what model you put it on, so you need to work out which model gets the best value out of that weapon. Likewise, there is the element of working out how many casualties a squad might take before it shoots/fights and using that estimate to guide how many models should bother to take paid upgrades.
I see how people who pride themselves on writing 'good lists' might be disappointed with PL removing these aspects and as such view PL as eroding their 'good list building' advantage.
This is exactly why GW introduced PL, you shouldnt be able to win the game in the list building stage. The dice rolling (i.e. RANDOM)should always have more impact on the game than efficiency in lists.
PL DOES NOT DO THIS.
PL changes what list is the best, usually to one with all of the most expensive upgrades, but list building and point efficiency still decide games.
Maybe so. But the critical thing you're missing is that some people don't care about deciding games. That's the crux of it.
Maybe 40k games will always be decided on what units and equipment you took, regardless if those things were paid for in points or power level. That's absolutely superfluous to someone who just plays for the sake of playing, and not to try and win/optimize their lists for the best chances of winning. For them, the fun comes from simply playing with models and units they like, regardless of the granularity of points and the better potential of balance that could provide.
nareik wrote: Something I've enjoyed recently with PL is taking a fixed army in terms of units/sizes but being able to plug in different special or heavy weapons and different squad leader/character load outs on the fly without having to balance a change in points values.
It does miss the opposite attraction of points though; treating list building as a resource management mini game trying to build a 'good list'. I.e a weapon option costs the same no matter what model you put it on, so you need to work out which model gets the best value out of that weapon. Likewise, there is the element of working out how many casualties a squad might take before it shoots/fights and using that estimate to guide how many models should bother to take paid upgrades.
I see how people who pride themselves on writing 'good lists' might be disappointed with PL removing these aspects and as such view PL as eroding their 'good list building' advantage.
This is exactly why GW introduced PL, you shouldnt be able to win the game in the list building stage. The dice rolling (i.e. RANDOM)should always have more impact on the game than efficiency in lists.
PL DOES NOT DO THIS.
PL changes what list is the best, usually to one with all of the most expensive upgrades, but list building and point efficiency still decide games.
No. PL allows you to tailor an army to an opponent while still keeping to the published list. As all load outs are 'free' and included in the PL price, there is no need to state what weapons are used. If I say I'm using a tactical squad of 10 marines (9 PL), that's all you need to know until we get to the table. If you're bringing a Baneblade, I don't need to know the weapons, just that I have 30 PL points to spare finding a way to bring it down.
Racerguy180 wrote: This is exactly why GW introduced PL, you shouldnt be able to win the game in the list building stage. The dice rolling (i.e. RANDOM)should always have more impact on the game than efficiency in lists.
I gotta disagree with you. There's a lot of importance on knowing what to tools to bring to the job. I get that dice rolls and randomness are important to some degree, but relying too much on that means that there's no strategy at all and you might as well just be out playing craps.
Having never played with PL at all I think it's best when used as described by some people here. To make plug and play lists if you didn't bring any real lists. The system itself is hot garbage in my opinion but if you use it to make a list out of squads build with points in mind, so no freebie upgrades, it can work.
I personally greatly enjoy list building so I will always favour points over PL, with points there's actual trade offs to be made with PL it is just slap on whatever's best because why wouldn't you.
nareik wrote: Something I've enjoyed recently with PL is taking a fixed army in terms of units/sizes but being able to plug in different special or heavy weapons and different squad leader/character load outs on the fly without having to balance a change in points values.
It does miss the opposite attraction of points though; treating list building as a resource management mini game trying to build a 'good list'. I.e a weapon option costs the same no matter what model you put it on, so you need to work out which model gets the best value out of that weapon. Likewise, there is the element of working out how many casualties a squad might take before it shoots/fights and using that estimate to guide how many models should bother to take paid upgrades.
I see how people who pride themselves on writing 'good lists' might be disappointed with PL removing these aspects and as such view PL as eroding their 'good list building' advantage.
This is exactly why GW introduced PL, you shouldnt be able to win the game in the list building stage. The dice rolling (i.e. RANDOM)should always have more impact on the game than efficiency in lists.
PL DOES NOT DO THIS.
PL changes what list is the best, usually to one with all of the most expensive upgrades, but list building and point efficiency still decide games.
Not necessarily. What it does is is ignore the point of trade-offs for an all-comers list. More expensive weapons are not always better. If I'm facing off against Infantry spam, the more expensive Lascannons would actually be of a detriment against the much cheaper Heavy Bolters and Mortars.
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote: This is exactly why GW introduced PL, you shouldnt be able to win the game in the list building stage. The dice rolling (i.e. RANDOM)should always have more impact on the game than efficiency in lists.
I gotta disagree with you. There's a lot of importance on knowing what to tools to bring to the job. I get that dice rolls and randomness are important to some degree, but relying too much on that means that there's no strategy at all and you might as well just be out playing craps.
PL does that just fine, in fact, it allows you to concentrate on the tools to bring to the job instead of having to worry about trade offs in order to reach an all comers balance.
Castozor wrote: with PL it is just slap on whatever's best because why wouldn't you.
Not entirely true; I suggest consideration still needs to be paid to how a unit will be used on the table, i.e whether it is worth swapping out a melee guy for a heavy in a close combat orientated squad. To make objective grabbers area denial, but not to over project their destructive threat as to make them priority targets by equipping them with overly powerful very long ranged weapons. Sure, there is less fine tuning than points, but things are still a little more complicated than just giving everybody a lascannon.
Charistoph wrote: PL does that just fine, in fact, it allows you to concentrate on the tools to bring to the job instead of having to worry about trade offs in order to reach an all comers balance.
Sorry, man- I've never seen any real 'fair and balanced' games using Power Levels. For example, a Deathwatch squad's power level can be very, very misleading- especially with some of the loadouts you can put on there.
Yeah, you can bring 'the right tools for the job'... without worrying about restrictions. That's kind of defeating the purpose of having a balanced game.
In terms of proper balance, points do better than PL.
With the exception of demonstration games, and testing a few things- the only people I've ever seen using PL are maxing out everything to take on some new player and get an insta-win. It's a good learning tool for newbies that's easily exploited by the absolute scum of wargaming.
In the end, just look at the results of the poll. Unless your specific group does power levels, if you want to go and just play a random game with someone new, your gonna use points, so just have some lists ready to go at common points values.
If you want to use power level, do what you want, but the majority do not agree, and we prefer points as the measure of army strength.
So after playing a lot of AoS, im liking not caring about adding points for wargear, they still use points per unit and model (not PL) if you take a unit of 10, each model is 10 points so the unit is 100pts, but you must upgrade by 10 instead of by 1 model. You get all wargear for 0 points (it has restrictions still, like 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 for a Banner, Horn, Weapon, etc..)
I dont like PL b.c numbers are to low to actually balance the game, if a unit is 4PL its very hard to balance, making it 3PL or 5PL (1 less for a buff, or more for a nerf) could make it either unbalance or unplayable. But when its 100pts, making it 90 or 95 could be just enough to balance it better.
Charistoph wrote: PL does that just fine, in fact, it allows you to concentrate on the tools to bring to the job instead of having to worry about trade offs in order to reach an all comers balance.
Sorry, man- I've never seen any real 'fair and balanced' games using Power Levels. For example, a Deathwatch squad's power level can be very, very misleading- especially with some of the loadouts you can put on there.
Yeah, you can bring 'the right tools for the job'... without worrying about restrictions. That's kind of defeating the purpose of having a balanced game.
In terms of proper balance, points do better than PL.
With the exception of demonstration games, and testing a few things- the only people I've ever seen using PL are maxing out everything to take on some new player and get an insta-win. It's a good learning tool for newbies that's easily exploited by the absolute scum of wargaming.
Um, I don't think you understood what I meant about an "all comers balance". It was not about balanced games, and if you've been reading my posts you would know that I don't see any balance in any of GW's point balance, nor have I in a long time.
An "all comers balance" is a balance of equipment, the balancing of anti-vehicle/monster with anti-infantry in your army to face whatever you come across instead of focusing completely on one or the other. It has zero relationship with creating a balanced game, just an approach to army building.
With points, previously someone may choose to take a Missile Launcher instead of a Lascannon because the price points involved. Oddly enough, the Missile Launcher also tended to be the most flexible Heavy Weapon available to an Infantry model, though less effective in damaging Vehicles and Monster than the Missile Launcher.
Charistoph wrote: Um, I don't think you understood what I meant about an "all comers balance". It was not about balanced games, and if you've been reading my posts you would know that I don't see any balance in any of GW's point balance, nor have I in a long time.
An "all comers balance" is a balance of equipment, the balancing of anti-vehicle/monster with anti-infantry in your army to face whatever you come across instead of focusing completely on one or the other. It has zero relationship with creating a balanced game, just an approach to army building.
With points, previously someone may choose to take a Missile Launcher instead of a Lascannon because the price points involved. Oddly enough, the Missile Launcher also tended to be the most flexible Heavy Weapon available to an Infantry model, though less effective in damaging Vehicles and Monster than the Missile Launcher.
So you're saying that PL games are the option for tailoring lists to a specific opponent, and points are for 'all comers'...?
I'm not sure this makes any sense at all. I can use points to make a list for an 'all comers' tournament list, or for a specific scenario. I don't see how PL makes that any different at all.
PL doesnt make you TAC list instantly, many units are built for role, if you make a unit with 1 anti-horde, 1 anti-air, 1 anti-tank, its going to be a mediocre unit, sure you can shoot each 1 weapon at each 1 type of unit, but thats 1 weapon with maybe the wrong buffs, in the wrong spot, might have to preposition into a wrong spot just to get 1 extra shot off, etc..
PL can be just as balanced if the game is design around them, look at AoS, works just fine. But for 40k its not balanced b.c the game isnt balance and they didnt take a good 2nd look at them.
Yes PL doesn't make a lot of sense when you have units with lots of varying upgrades. It would make sense for say Boyz if all you could choose were slugga/choppa or shoota. But with PL, why not throw a rokkit launcha or 2 in there, melee efficiency hardly matters and you might as well try for a few lucky pot shots.
PL makes sense if you assume maximum "abuse" in your pricing. Price units with options under the assumption those options will be taken.
Things like Devestators with a Cherub. Why would you not take the Cherub? So bake it into the price. No abuse of the PL system, just the assumption you'd take one. And Voxes. And Plasma Pistols. And Power Weapons. And Hookers. And Blackjack. Take it all, and have the PL reflect that.
PL does that just fine, in fact, it allows you to concentrate on the tools to bring to the job instead of having to worry about trade offs in order to reach an all comers balance.
but for how many armies is this true? plasma does not suddenly stop being the dominant weapon of choice for imperials, castellans are just the same good. All power points do, is to help people with bigger collections or armies with upgrades that don't require actual models, to get one over people who have a normal army and claim moral superiority by claims of Power Levels being more casual and for fun.
And for weaker armies you would worry even more, then what you do under normal points. under normal points the armies and set ups are fixed. If someone was buying a 2000pts army, you know what is in that army. With power points someone with a bigger collection could have an anti orc list one game and an anti meq army in another. It is tailoring taken to the extrem, which punish armies that can't tailor even further. how does it help balance? It only makes the gap wider, because suddenly one army can tailor vs meq or vs horde, depending on the opponent. While the person with the army that can do it is punished at least twice. First by his squads going up in cost by virtue of upgrades being build in to unit costs, then by not being able to tailor and their opponents getting even better at killing them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
greatbigtree wrote: PL makes sense if you assume maximum "abuse" in your pricing. Price units with options under the assumption those options will be taken.
Things like Devestators with a Cherub. Why would you not take the Cherub? So bake it into the price. No abuse of the PL system, just the assumption you'd take one. And Voxes. And Plasma Pistols. And Power Weapons. And Hookers. And Blackjack. Take it all, and have the PL reflect that.
Ok and how about armies that don't want to take upgrades, because their upgrades are bad. You don't want to run GK heavy weapons in your strike squads, they make your units worse. Same with termintors or paladins. yet Power level take in to account the fact that you do take those options, just because they are there.
Castozor wrote: Oki but what if I want to run a horde style list were I purposely don't want upgrades so I can have more bodies? Points allow for this, PL does not.
What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?
Charistoph wrote: Um, I don't think you understood what I meant about an "all comers balance". It was not about balanced games, and if you've been reading my posts you would know that I don't see any balance in any of GW's point balance, nor have I in a long time.
An "all comers balance" is a balance of equipment, the balancing of anti-vehicle/monster with anti-infantry in your army to face whatever you come across instead of focusing completely on one or the other. It has zero relationship with creating a balanced game, just an approach to army building.
With points, previously someone may choose to take a Missile Launcher instead of a Lascannon because the price points involved. Oddly enough, the Missile Launcher also tended to be the most flexible Heavy Weapon available to an Infantry model, though less effective in damaging Vehicles and Monster than the Missile Launcher.
So you're saying that PL games are the option for tailoring lists to a specific opponent, and points are for 'all comers'...?
I'm not sure this makes any sense at all. I can use points to make a list for an 'all comers' tournament list, or for a specific scenario. I don't see how PL makes that any different at all.
Of course you're not sure this makes any sense because you're not considering what I'm actually saying in the language I'm presenting it, but filtering it through the hyper-competitive thought process.
Le's say I had 3 Crusader Squads and one Devastator Squad. I can set up two of those Crusader Squads to focus on close range assault with the other focused on fire support, and then have the Devastator Squad focusing on Lascannons. With PL, there is no difficulty with it, but with points, the numbers I put in to the assault Crusader squads would have to be trimmed down on an otherwise random model number (meaning their price point is random and not properly balanced) to compensate for allowing the Lascannons in the group as opposed to fitting them all with Missile Launchers.
I'm not bringing the consideration of a "gotcha" army-building balance, but being able to bring the balance in the army itself so that it is capable of handling all comer without worrying about a very randomly minute point scale. Think outside the tunnel-vision of tournament thought.
PL does that just fine, in fact, it allows you to concentrate on the tools to bring to the job instead of having to worry about trade offs in order to reach an all comers balance.
but for how many armies is this true? plasma does not suddenly stop being the dominant weapon of choice for imperials, castellans are just the same good. All power points do, is to help people with bigger collections or armies with upgrades that don't require actual models, to get one over people who have a normal army and claim moral superiority by claims of Power Levels being more casual and for fun.
And for weaker armies you would worry even more, then what you do under normal points. under normal points the armies and set ups are fixed. If someone was buying a 2000pts army, you know what is in that army. With power points someone with a bigger collection could have an anti orc list one game and an anti meq army in another. It is tailoring taken to the extrem, which punish armies that can't tailor even further. how does it help balance? It only makes the gap wider, because suddenly one army can tailor vs meq or vs horde, depending on the opponent. While the person with the army that can do it is punished at least twice. First by his squads going up in cost by virtue of upgrades being build in to unit costs, then by not being able to tailor and their opponents getting even better at killing them.
Conversely, you could look at it as those armies with a lot of customization are punished for it. Take a squad of Immortals versus a Tactical Squad. The Tacticals are more flexible in build, but not quite as resilient. What is their PL difference?
Castozor wrote:Oki but what if I want to run a horde style list were I purposely don't want upgrades so I can have more bodies? Points allow for this, PL does not.
What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?
Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.
What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?
Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.
That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).
What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?
Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.
That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).
It's pretty easy to prove they are not fair just compare a traitor knight to a knight crusader
What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?
Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.
That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).
It's pretty easy to prove they are not fair just compare a traitor knight to a knight crusader
Which one isn't fair? Points or PL? Like I said, you can do that with either system.
What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?
Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.
That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).
It's pretty easy to prove they are not fair just compare a traitor knight to a knight crusader
Which one isn't fair? Points or PL? Like I said, you can do that with either system.
PL if you make a knight with guns the traitor is way cheaper vs CC the traitor cost way more then an errant. At least 2 of these power levels are incorrect to a large degree because of the lack account of wargear.
Charistoph wrote: Of course you're not sure this makes any sense because you're not considering what I'm actually saying in the language I'm presenting it, but filtering it through the hyper-competitive thought process.
Me. Hyper-competitive. OK, that's a laugh.
The moment someone tells me I'm hyper-competitive to justify PL is the moment I'm assuming they're squeezing some BS into lists and trying to get over on people with that system.
PL assumes people will upgrade certain units to maximum efficiency.
But that would assume that every unit in the game can be upgraded.
Charistoph wrote: Of course you're not sure this makes any sense because you're not considering what I'm actually saying in the language I'm presenting it, but filtering it through the hyper-competitive thought process.
Me. Hyper-competitive. OK, that's a laugh.
The moment someone tells me I'm hyper-competitive to justify PL is the moment I'm assuming they're squeezing some BS into lists and trying to get over on people with that system.
How competitive you actually are has no bearing on it, it is rather how competitive you've been trained to deal with the game. If I asked a new player at my old LGS if they would want to get in to a WMH game with them, they'd probably respond that they don't have a full Steamroller list, yet, to which I'd respond, why would that matter? This is the hyper-competitive thought process of which I speak, that you are filtering through this same thought process no matter your preferred inclination.
Case in point.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: PL assumes people will upgrade certain units to maximum efficiency.
PL doesn't necessarily assume such, largely because there is no such thing in every case. If you were going to go against a Tyranid army, but you don't know if you're facing the Zerg, the Monster Mash, or a mix, then efficiency could largely go either way unless you were taking an All-Comers list. All-Comers lists with points are ham-stringed by the minutiae of all the plasma gun here or the power fist there, where as with PL lists, you just focus on what you'll be facing, not how you're going to fit one more mcguffin on to Trooper Doe because of a few point descrepancy.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: But that would assume that every unit in the game can be upgraded.
It can't.
Yes, and no. It can go by a process that you will have a Heavy or Special Weapon and a Power Weapon in a minimal Tactical Squad, and all three in a full-sized Tactical Squad. Whereas, the base equipment of a Necron Warrior Squad won't have to factor such things at all. These things CAN be taken in to account, they are just not done properly because GW developers won't do such in-depth maths.
And it seems like you and others are assuming that PL is not designed with that in mind. It is, it is just as piss poor, random drunken monkey dart throwing that is applied to the point values that is used for all the equipment a Tactical Squad can be upgraded to.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: PL assumes people will upgrade certain units to maximum efficiency.
PL doesn't necessarily assume such, largely because there is no such thing in every case. If you were going to go against a Tyranid army, but you don't know if you're facing the Zerg, the Monster Mash, or a mix, then efficiency could largely go either way unless you were taking an All-Comers list. All-Comers lists with points are ham-stringed by the minutiae of all the plasma gun here or the power fist there, where as with PL lists, you just focus on what you'll be facing, not how you're going to fit one more mcguffin on to Trooper Doe because of a few point descrepancy.
My issue with this is that you should always bring a take all comers list... list tailoring based on your opponent just inbalances the game further. If your opponent brings a mass infantry list, and you bring 9 Hellhounds... I guarantee he isn't going to have fun. You need to make your list capable of dealing with everything. I don't see how an all-comers list is hamstrung by the points costs of weapons, that doesn't really make sense. You make a list that can take on anything, build it, and then play it vs people. You don't just "build new lists" whenever you get an opponent, that wouldn't make any sense. How big is your collection of models that you can just decide to massively change everything based on who you're playing against?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: PL assumes people will upgrade certain units to maximum efficiency.
PL doesn't necessarily assume such, largely because there is no such thing in every case. If you were going to go against a Tyranid army, but you don't know if you're facing the Zerg, the Monster Mash, or a mix, then efficiency could largely go either way unless you were taking an All-Comers list. All-Comers lists with points are ham-stringed by the minutiae of all the plasma gun here or the power fist there, where as with PL lists, you just focus on what you'll be facing, not how you're going to fit one more mcguffin on to Trooper Doe because of a few point descrepancy.
My issue with this is that you should always bring a take all comers list... list tailoring based on your opponent just inbalances the game further. If your opponent brings a mass infantry list, and you bring 9 Hellhounds... I guarantee he isn't going to have fun. You need to make your list capable of dealing with everything. I don't see how an all-comers list is hamstrung by the points costs of weapons, that doesn't really make sense. You make a list that can take on anything, build it, and then play it vs people. You don't just "build new lists" whenever you get an opponent, that wouldn't make any sense. How big is your collection of models that you can just decide to massively change everything based on who you're playing against?
The list stays the same, the heavy and special weapons can change to suit an opponent, as can other weapon options. The issue can be having enough models, but magnets are your friend, as are bitz sellers..
In your example, 9 Hellhound 45PL (5PL each), you can get a small hoard infantry for that. 3x50 conscript (18PL), Creed & Kell (7PL), Commissar (2PL), 2x veteran squad (12PL) Chimera (5PL), then there is the rest of each army... It's not the best list, but 150 conscripts will take 9 Inferno cannon a while to take down
Adeptus Doritos wrote: PL assumes people will upgrade certain units to maximum efficiency.
PL doesn't necessarily assume such, largely because there is no such thing in every case. If you were going to go against a Tyranid army, but you don't know if you're facing the Zerg, the Monster Mash, or a mix, then efficiency could largely go either way unless you were taking an All-Comers list. All-Comers lists with points are ham-stringed by the minutiae of all the plasma gun here or the power fist there, where as with PL lists, you just focus on what you'll be facing, not how you're going to fit one more mcguffin on to Trooper Doe because of a few point descrepancy.
My issue with this is that you should always bring a take all comers list... list tailoring based on your opponent just inbalances the game further. If your opponent brings a mass infantry list, and you bring 9 Hellhounds... I guarantee he isn't going to have fun. You need to make your list capable of dealing with everything. I don't see how an all-comers list is hamstrung by the points costs of weapons, that doesn't really make sense. You make a list that can take on anything, build it, and then play it vs people. You don't just "build new lists" whenever you get an opponent, that wouldn't make any sense. How big is your collection of models that you can just decide to massively change everything based on who you're playing against?
Then you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say. It is EASIER to properly set up an All-Comers list (for most armies, here Necrons tend to be screwed outside of Characters) with PL because you don't have to worry about fitting X Lascannons in to your army because of their pricing while with Points those very price points force a decision making process that isn't necessarily about providing an internal balance, but about trimming your pole to fit a somewhat arbitrary slot because it was off by a micrometer here or there.
What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?
Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.
That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).
It's pretty easy to prove they are not fair just compare a traitor knight to a knight crusader
Which one isn't fair? Points or PL? Like I said, you can do that with either system.
A Traitor Knight is 25 PL, for a Knight with two Avenger Gatling Cannons and a Stormspear Rocket Pod.
A Knight Crusader is 25 PL, for a knight with an Avenger Gatling Cannon, a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon, and a Stormspear Rocket Pod.
Seems fair, though I'd prefer the Traitor Knight.
A Traitor Knight is 25 PL, for a Knight with a Reaper Chainsword, a Thunderstrike Gauntlet, one extra attack and a one point better WS.
A Knight Gallant is 20 PL, for a Knight with a Reaper Chainsword, a Thunderstrike Gauntlet, one extra attack and a one point better WS.
Does that seem fair?
Or, in other words, if you're playing a 100 PL game and you both go all-melee Knights, the Renegade player gets four melee Knights with no traits, one (mostly useless) relic and only two stratagems. The Imperium player gets five Knights, with traits, relics, and plenty of strats.
What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?
Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.
That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).
It's pretty easy to prove they are not fair just compare a traitor knight to a knight crusader
Which one isn't fair? Points or PL? Like I said, you can do that with either system.
A Traitor Knight is 25 PL, for a Knight with two Avenger Gatling Cannons and a Stormspear Rocket Pod.
A Knight Crusader is 25 PL, for a knight with an Avenger Gatling Cannon, a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon, and a Stormspear Rocket Pod.
Seems fair, though I'd prefer the Traitor Knight.
A Traitor Knight is 25 PL, for a Knight with a Reaper Chainsword, a Thunderstrike Gauntlet, one extra attack and a one point better WS.
A Knight Gallant is 20 PL, for a Knight with a Reaper Chainsword, a Thunderstrike Gauntlet, one extra attack and a one point better WS.
Does that seem fair?
Or, in other words, if you're playing a 100 PL game and you both go all-melee Knights, the Renegade player gets four melee Knights with no traits, one (mostly useless) relic and only two stratagems. The Imperium player gets five Knights, with traits, relics, and plenty of strats.
that seems like a knight issue, not a PL issue.
Tell me, are Knights hugely over represented in points limit games?
I use points for planning out my lists because it's more granular and takes in to account different levels of customizatoin on units. I use power levels for quick pick-up games with people who aren't really dedicated hobbyists.
Power level is far superior a system, it’s simple quick and a lot easier to reference and compare. It takes away the need to add up and account for small insignificant additions to units. Stops people worrying about if one army has 15 points more or less than the other. 40k isn’t so balanced that a few points make any difference. And it’s all the better for it. Points create a system where people get picky over a close combat weapon on a Sergeant. In competetive gaming it might be more relevant to use points but I think that it should be a separate game system entirely.
Age of Sigmar basically uses power levels as you don’t pay for upgrades or anything, just blocks of troops. If it made people happier you could call power levels points and times them all by ten.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I don’t think using points makes you a more dedicated “hobbyist” or visa versa. Some of the most dedicated hobbyists I know don’t even play, just collect, model and paint. I don’t play as often as I’d like but if anyone looked at my house they couldn’t question my dedication to the hobby. Maybe my sanity or maturity but not my dedication.
Melissia wrote: I use points for planning out my lists because it's more granular and takes in to account different levels of customizatoin on units. I use power levels for quick pick-up games with people who aren't really dedicated hobbyists.
Why do you believe power level users are not dedicated hobbyists?
Marmatag wrote: Call me when Imperium can put their Mortarian and Magnus equivalents on the table, and also have baked in VoTLW in almost all their armies.
Only then can we say Knights are an apples to apples comparison.
PS - bring the double avenger knight.
So, because other Chaos stuff has cool bonuses (though I have no idea where you're getting +1 to-wound as baked into most Chaos armies-it's a start for CSM) it's fine to have two IDENTICAL UNITS, outside of support, cost differing amounts?
Marmatag wrote: Call me when Imperium can put their Mortarian and Magnus equivalents on the table, and also have baked in VoTLW in almost all their armies.
Only then can we say Knights are an apples to apples comparison.
PS - bring the double avenger knight.
So, because other Chaos stuff has cool bonuses (though I have no idea where you're getting +1 to-wound as baked into most Chaos armies-it's a start for CSM) it's fine to have two IDENTICAL UNITS, outside of support, cost differing amounts?
And again-the one with MORE SUPPORT costs less.
This is the system failing, and failing hard.
a bit over the top, it’s a system that is imperfect but is trying to balance and please millions of people, a great many of whome are very happy to abuse any loophole they find. In the grand scheme of things these differences matter little really. It’s not failing hard at all. It’s just imperfect but works very well if both player aren’t trying to abuse the hell of it.
If the system only "works" because the players don't try to build optimized lists and avoid taking "too much" of the best stuff then it doesn't work. Stop excusing GW's failures.
Peregrine wrote: If the system only "works" because the players don't try to build optimized lists and avoid taking "too much" of the best stuff then it doesn't work. Stop excusing GW's failures.
Which many players do. It's the same outcome if I take upgrades that are not the best in a point system because they are cool or fluffy. Many of us play to win once the game starts but don't look to squeeze every advantage we can get out of list building. PL is perfectly fine and balanced in such an environment and makes list building quicker and easier. I don't get why you seem to have a mental block up to the idea of casual 40k.
Peregrine wrote: If the system only "works" because the players don't try to build optimized lists and avoid taking "too much" of the best stuff then it doesn't work. Stop excusing GW's failures.
It's only a failure if it doesn't do what it was intended to do. By which metric, the points system, which is actually intended to provide balanced forces without the need for players to self-police their choices, is a far bigger failure.
Yes, the power level system works best when players don't try to abuse it. That works because the vast majority of people using it aren't interested in abusing it. If the system works, and the people using it are happy with the way it functions, further checks and balances only become necessary when abuse of the system actually starts creating an issue.
It’s 25. Which seems fine being as how it can a gun wagon or close combat monster and everything in between. Covers all the bases.
And have to agree with insaniak on this one. Most the problems raised about 8th aren’t issues if play like you want to have fun and not like you want to destroy your mates at toy soldie#.
Peregrine wrote: If the system only "works" because the players don't try to build optimized lists and avoid taking "too much" of the best stuff then it doesn't work. Stop excusing GW's failures.
It's only a failure if it doesn't do what it was intended to do. By which metric, the points system, which is actually intended to provide balanced forces without the need for players to self-police their choices, is a far bigger failure.
Yes, the power level system works best when players don't try to abuse it. That works because the vast majority of people using it aren't interested in abusing it. If the system works, and the people using it are happy with the way it functions, further checks and balances only become necessary when abuse of the system actually starts creating an issue.
It doesn't work as intended, because you're required to police not only yourself but your opponent. With points you're simply getting what you pay for. 4 Company Vets with Storm Bolters and Chainswords is 64 points, whereas with Plasma Guns they would be 100 points. That's because one is clearly more valuable than the other in terms of the tools it provides.
They're considered the same amount in the PL system. That isn't a matter of "trying to break the system". Those are legit loadouts you might use in the first place, and they're CLEARLY of different value. If you added one more Vet with nothing but a Bolter (not even a Storm Bolter), in PL it costs the same as adding the last Plasma dude.
The goal of a point system is the same whether you price upgrades separately or as part of a fixed point cost for the unit. The only difference between PL and normal points is that PL does a worse job of it.
Andykp wrote: It’s 25. Which seems fine being as how it can a gun wagon or close combat monster and everything in between. Covers all the bases.
And have to agree with insaniak on this one. Most the problems raised about 8th aren’t issues if play like you want to have fun and not like you want to destroy your mates at toy soldie#.
So every unit should be costed as if you take its most expensive variant? To cover all the bases.
It doesn't work as intended, because you're required to police not only yourself but your opponent.
No matter how watertight you try to make a set of rules, some people will try to game the system. People have been abusing the rules of 40K to gain an in-game advantage for a hell of a lot longer than Power Levels have been a thing. The key to making the game work is to have both players looking for a similar experience from the game... as it is with any game ever created. So, yes, you need to 'police' yourself and your opponent. You need to do the same thing if you're playing by points, because the points system has all sorts of exploitable flaws. You need to do the same thing if you are playing Monopoly, because different people approach that game in different ways as well.
Ensuring that you and your opponent are both approaching the game with the same mindset is not something that will ever be dealt with in any set of rules.
Peregrine wrote: The goal of a point system is the same whether you price upgrades separately or as part of a fixed point cost for the unit. The only difference between PL and normal points is that PL does a worse job of it.
Every game needs policing whether that's done by the players as a collective or by a third party. Players ahead of time should be in basic agreement of what kind of game they expect. If most of the people on the field think they are have agreed to playing flag football, the first person to get randomly tackled and driven into the ground have a right to be upset.
If I am expecting a casual game or a hardcore game, what system doesn't matter if players have radically different expectations.
It doesn't work as intended, because you're required to police not only yourself but your opponent.
No matter how watertight you try to make a set of rules, some people will try to game the system. People have been abusing the rules of 40K to gain an in-game advantage for a hell of a lot longer than Power Levels have been a thing. The key to making the game work is to have both players looking for a similar experience from the game... as it is with any game ever created. So, yes, you need to 'police' yourself and your opponent. You need to do the same thing if you're playing by points, because the points system has all sorts of exploitable flaws. You need to do the same thing if you are playing Monopoly, because different people approach that game in different ways as well.
Ensuring that you and your opponent are both approaching the game with the same mindset is not something that will ever be dealt with in any set of rules.
I don't need to police my opponents in Monopoly as that has a strict set of rules.
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
Peregrine wrote: The goal of a point system is the same whether you price upgrades separately or as part of a fixed point cost for the unit. The only difference between PL and normal points is that PL does a worse job of it.
Every game needs policing whether that's done by the players as a collective or by a third party. Players ahead of time should be in basic agreement of what kind of game they expect. If most of the people on the field think they are have agreed to playing flag football, the first person to get randomly tackled and driven into the ground have a right to be upset.
If I am expecting a casual game or a hardcore game, what system doesn't matter if players have radically different expectations.
The only agreement in place should be the point limit and the mission (assuming you didn't randomly choose that). At least points will give more balance via being granular, which therefore requires less policing. PL throws everything out the window and assumes all upgrades are worth the same when they CLEARLY are not.
It doesn't work as intended, because you're required to police not only yourself but your opponent.
No matter how watertight you try to make a set of rules, some people will try to game the system. People have been abusing the rules of 40K to gain an in-game advantage for a hell of a lot longer than Power Levels have been a thing. The key to making the game work is to have both players looking for a similar experience from the game... as it is with any game ever created. So, yes, you need to 'police' yourself and your opponent. You need to do the same thing if you're playing by points, because the points system has all sorts of exploitable flaws. You need to do the same thing if you are playing Monopoly, because different people approach that game in different ways as well.
Ensuring that you and your opponent are both approaching the game with the same mindset is not something that will ever be dealt with in any set of rules.
So, which is better:
-Making two different points systems, one of which is incapable of being as accurate as the other
-Focus on making one system perform better and be more balanced
Allow me to put it another way:
What do you have against the game being balanced? What would it make you lose, or why would it decrease your enjoyment?
Because that's the thing. You can take a balanced game and make it imbalanced-if you want a desperate, impossible last stand from Ultramarines against Tyranids, you can do that! Just give the UM 1,000 points and the Nids 3,000 with respawning models.
But it's much, MUCH harder to take an imbalanced game and make it balanced.
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
This argument would count for a lot more if it weren't for the countless discussions over the years, since long before Power Levels were a thing, about all of the things that are priced incorrectly.
If I throw together a list using whatever models I happen to have laying around, and you throw together a list with the same number of points, but optimised... what happens? Are the lists of equal strength?
Hence the need for 'policing'... If I show up to a game with a fluffy list expecting to just throw some dice and shoot some gak, and you show up with a hardcore tournament list and a burning need to win the game, it's unlikely that we're going to have fun. Using points or PL makes no difference to that very simple fact.
I think we need a balanced game and all this but I don’t. What would it make you lose using power levels? A slight perceived edge and a feeling of superiority for squeezing the most out of list. To me all that is a waste of time. It doesn’t make the game more fun or engaging for me. Power level lets you quickly get two forces of strengths that U can compare (not even evenly matched but comparable) with minimal fuss and bother. No need to worry about a point here or there. Just fun. Having points break down into thousands implies that a thousandth (1 point) makes a meaningful difference. I argue it doesn’t. Not until you are getting to hundreds of points then maybe. So one load out might be more optimal than another it depends on deployment and what happens to that unit and then the dude as well. That 100 point unit gets killed as quick as the 64 point one.
The quest for balance can ruin the narrative and feel of the game. There are three ways to play. Your way isn’t the only one and isn’t the “right” one. It’s just a way. My way is more appealing to me. U don’t have to play it. If you had it your way and went all balance you would just be playing a cross between top trumps and chess.
No one has to police anything, just don’t be a dick and try and win so hard you stop being nice.
-Making two different points systems, one of which is incapable of being as accurate as the other
-Focus on making one system perform better and be more balanced
That really depends on your goal.
If the goal was solely to create a balanced game, then yes, having a single, balanced system would be better.
If the goal is to give players a granular system intended for creating more-or-less balanced list, and a separate system that allows players to quickly throw lists together using whatever models they have in their collection, then having one system that is balanced and as accurate as possible and another system that is less granular, quicker and easier to use would seem like a better option.
Allow me to put it another way:
What do you have against the game being balanced? What would it make you lose, or why would it decrease your enjoyment?
Because that's the thing. You can take a balanced game and make it imbalanced-if you want a desperate, impossible last stand from Ultramarines against Tyranids, you can do that! Just give the UM 1,000 points and the Nids 3,000 with respawning models.
But it's much, MUCH harder to take an imbalanced game and make it balanced.
It seems like you're still missing the point here.
I can paint a miniature with 17 colours in three and a half hours. Or, if I'm more interested in speed than in quality, I can paint the same miniature with three colours in 10 minutes. Opting for the second doesn't mean that I specifically wanted a miniature that looks like gak, it just means that having the mini painted quickly was more important than having it look good. Which is fine, if I don't care what the miniature looks like, and just want to get it on the table quickly.
Same thing here. Power levels aren't for people who want an imbalanced game. They're for people who don't care if the game is perfectly balanced, they just want a rough, ball-park figure that is easier to calculate than adding points costs for every single piece of wargear.
It doesn't work as intended, because you're required to police not only yourself but your opponent.
No matter how watertight you try to make a set of rules, some people will try to game the system. People have been abusing the rules of 40K to gain an in-game advantage for a hell of a lot longer than Power Levels have been a thing. The key to making the game work is to have both players looking for a similar experience from the game... as it is with any game ever created. So, yes, you need to 'police' yourself and your opponent. You need to do the same thing if you're playing by points, because the points system has all sorts of exploitable flaws. You need to do the same thing if you are playing Monopoly, because different people approach that game in different ways as well.
Ensuring that you and your opponent are both approaching the game with the same mindset is not something that will ever be dealt with in any set of rules.
So, which is better:
-Making two different points systems, one of which is incapable of being as accurate as the other
-Focus on making one system perform better and be more balanced
Allow me to put it another way:
What do you have against the game being balanced? What would it make you lose, or why would it decrease your enjoyment?
Because that's the thing. You can take a balanced game and make it imbalanced-if you want a desperate, impossible last stand from Ultramarines against Tyranids, you can do that! Just give the UM 1,000 points and the Nids 3,000 with respawning models.
But it's much, MUCH harder to take an imbalanced game and make it balanced.
This seems to be the fundamental disconnect we all want the game to be balanced. But it isn't and GW either can't or won't put the effort in to do so to the tightness of say chess or monopoly. Truthfully given the wide range of choices and factions such a thing might not be possible. If I want a casual game and my opponent doesn't or vis versa, either system produces the same results. Neither one of us probably had fun because we wanted different things out of the game. PL at least lets me take less optimal options with out truly sandbagging myself.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I don't need to police my opponents in Monopoly as that has a strict set of rules.
Then you must really trust them when they're running the bank. It requires more policing, after all. Beyond that, Monopoly has more house rules to it than almost any other game that exists, and most people honestly don't know they are using house rules.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
Wait, weren't you one of the people accusing another of just asking to change the point tally a little for cheating? If it is worth the accusation of cheating, it is worth policing, and that applies to points as well as other factors.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The only agreement in place should be the point limit and the mission (assuming you didn't randomly choose that). At least points will give more balance via being granular, which therefore requires less policing. PL throws everything out the window and assumes all upgrades are worth the same when they CLEARLY are not.
You mean you don't need an agreement to use the same rules system, or are you just assuming that you will be? I state this in a day when you can bring Warhammer Fantasy models to play Age of Sigmar, 9th Age, and Kings of War with almost the same set of models in the same day. If you bring in a person who played several generations of 40K, but is new to 8th, then they will need to update their brain and that requires policing the system they are using, if only to make sure they don't make a mistake with the new system.
And, that's not quite the right analogy. PL assumes that people will take the upgrades that they want to take for the unit, not that they are all worth the same. As it is, some weapons may be pointed less, but are worth more in certain situations. A Lascannon isn't worth much against an Infantry Squad, but pretty decent when you're targeting a Chimera. Conversely, a Heavy Bolter is worth more when dealing with that Infantry Squad, and worth less against that Chimera.
Oddly enough, PL requires LESS policing because it doesn't matter if they didn't calculate in expensive options that a lot of people, either deliberately or unconciously.
JNAProductions wrote:So, which is better:
-Making two different points systems, one of which is incapable of being as accurate as the other
-Focus on making one system perform better and be more balanced
Allow me to put it another way:
What do you have against the game being balanced? What would it make you lose, or why would it decrease your enjoyment?
Because that's the thing. You can take a balanced game and make it imbalanced-if you want a desperate, impossible last stand from Ultramarines against Tyranids, you can do that! Just give the UM 1,000 points and the Nids 3,000 with respawning models.
But it's much, MUCH harder to take an imbalanced game and make it balanced.
If points were balanced to begin with, I could see the merit of the argument. But Warhammer is as balanced as a 3-sheets drunk clutz on a unicycle, and always has been, with only newbies and masochists believing otherwise.
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
This argument would count for a lot more if it weren't for the countless discussions over the years, since long before Power Levels were a thing, about all of the things that are priced incorrectly.
If I throw together a list using whatever models I happen to have laying around, and you throw together a list with the same number of points, but optimised... what happens? Are the lists of equal strength?
Hence the need for 'policing'... If I show up to a game with a fluffy list expecting to just throw some dice and shoot some gak, and you show up with a hardcore tournament list and a burning need to win the game, it's unlikely that we're going to have fun. Using points or PL makes no difference to that very simple fact.
I don't think anyone believes that points as they are, are the ideal and perfect balance. TBH, unless every army has the same rules and options, no wargame is going to have perfect balance- regardless of the system it uses.
Points are a more 'refined' balance than Power Level, if they are a bit imperfect.
PL and Points are both different tools that can be used for different types of games. While I rarely use PL, I'm glad it's an option.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I don't think anyone believes that points as they are, are the ideal and perfect balance. TBH, unless every army has the same rules and options, no wargame is going to have perfect balance- regardless of the system it uses.
Points are a more 'refined' balance than Power Level, if they are a bit imperfect.
It's more that some keep pushing that GW points are balanced in the first place, and don't consider that there are other factors than price point.
Oddly enough, even though points can provide a more refined balance, it can actually also set up significantly more imbalance than PL, and I think Warhammer's history adequately demonstrates that as a significant factor.
That would be the thing I disagree strongly with too.
The chiming in that points bring balance and PL do not.
Neither bring balance. They bring structure. Points do it in a more granular fashion which is fine. But you get the same type of game with either in the end.
Charistoph wrote: It's more that some keep pushing that GW points are balanced in the first place, and don't consider that there are other factors than price point.
I think points are a more -specific- balance than PL.
In a PL game, you're going to optimize everything you can for a game. With points, you're going to squeeze things into a list around restrictions.
Charistoph wrote: It's more that some keep pushing that GW points are balanced in the first place, and don't consider that there are other factors than price point.
I think points are a more -specific- balance than PL.
In a PL game, you're going to optimize everything you can for a game. With points, you're going to squeeze things into a list around restrictions.
Kinda depends on what you want, I suppose.
Want or have, at any rate. Value is based on what you can take versus what you will be facing. Going against Conscript Spam with a focus on Lascannons and Meltaguns will not be very well balanced, even if the points cost more than with Heavy Bolters and Flamers. Conversely, facing off against an Armoured Company withe the reverse would also be unbalanced, even though running with the same number of models would be cheaper.
And this is where having an easier time at building an all-comers balance is usually achieved with PL than with Points, since Points will limit your options in building that All-Comers list.
Charistoph wrote: It's more that some keep pushing that GW points are balanced in the first place, and don't consider that there are other factors than price point.
I think points are a more -specific- balance than PL.
In a PL game, you're going to optimize everything you can for a game. With points, you're going to squeeze things into a list around restrictions.
Kinda depends on what you want, I suppose.
Want or have, at any rate. Value is based on what you can take versus what you will be facing. Going against Conscript Spam with a focus on Lascannons and Meltaguns will not be very well balanced, even if the points cost more than with Heavy Bolters and Flamers. Conversely, facing off against an Armoured Company withe the reverse would also be unbalanced, even though running with the same number of models would be cheaper.
And this is where having an easier time at building an all-comers balance is usually achieved with PL than with Points, since Points will limit your options in building that All-Comers list.
This sounds a lot like list tailoring.
And what if you don't have options? Like Necrons or Daemons.
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
This argument would count for a lot more if it weren't for the countless discussions over the years, since long before Power Levels were a thing, about all of the things that are priced incorrectly.
If I throw together a list using whatever models I happen to have laying around, and you throw together a list with the same number of points, but optimised... what happens? Are the lists of equal strength?
Hence the need for 'policing'... If I show up to a game with a fluffy list expecting to just throw some dice and shoot some gak, and you show up with a hardcore tournament list and a burning need to win the game, it's unlikely that we're going to have fun. Using points or PL makes no difference to that very simple fact.
You deciding to bring no ounce of structure or effort into your list is not my concern, and it isn't something I'm going to think about when I bring in a list (because I go into a store prepared unlike you, apparently). Why should I have to accommodate your poor list building skills when I decided I wanted to put some effort into it?
Things being priced slightly incorrect with regular, granular points > Prices all over the place with PL that take no consideration the actual value of items
You deciding to bring no ounce of structure or effort into your list is not my concern, and it isn't something I'm going to think about when I bring in a list (because I go into a store prepared unlike you, apparently). Why should I have to accommodate your poor list building skills when I decided I wanted to put some effort into it?
SO, to recap for those who just joined us:
Power Levels are bad, because it is possible for a player to create an optimised list with them. This leaves those players who don't optimise their lists at a disadvantage, and is thus proof that the system is completely broken.
Points, by contrast, are good, because it is possible for a player to create an optimised list with them. This leaves those players who don't optimise their lists at a disadvantage, which is entirely their own fault.
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
This argument would count for a lot more if it weren't for the countless discussions over the years, since long before Power Levels were a thing, about all of the things that are priced incorrectly.
If I throw together a list using whatever models I happen to have laying around, and you throw together a list with the same number of points, but optimised... what happens? Are the lists of equal strength?
Hence the need for 'policing'... If I show up to a game with a fluffy list expecting to just throw some dice and shoot some gak, and you show up with a hardcore tournament list and a burning need to win the game, it's unlikely that we're going to have fun. Using points or PL makes no difference to that very simple fact.
You deciding to bring no ounce of structure or effort into your list is not my concern, and it isn't something I'm going to think about when I bring in a list (because I go into a store prepared unlike you, apparently). Why should I have to accommodate your poor list building skills when I decided I wanted to put some effort into it?
Things being priced slightly incorrect with regular, granular points > Prices all over the place with PL that take no consideration the actual value of items
something tells me that you 2 wouldn't have a fun game together, and that's ok. 2 different types of players and 2 different types of game. oops forgot about the damn dirty open players.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I don't need to police my opponents in Monopoly as that has a strict set of rules.
Then you must really trust them when they're running the bank. It requires more policing, after all. Beyond that, Monopoly has more house rules to it than almost any other game that exists, and most people honestly don't know they are using house rules.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
Wait, weren't you one of the people accusing another of just asking to change the point tally a little for cheating? If it is worth the accusation of cheating, it is worth policing, and that applies to points as well as other factors.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The only agreement in place should be the point limit and the mission (assuming you didn't randomly choose that). At least points will give more balance via being granular, which therefore requires less policing. PL throws everything out the window and assumes all upgrades are worth the same when they CLEARLY are not.
You mean you don't need an agreement to use the same rules system, or are you just assuming that you will be? I state this in a day when you can bring Warhammer Fantasy models to play Age of Sigmar, 9th Age, and Kings of War with almost the same set of models in the same day. If you bring in a person who played several generations of 40K, but is new to 8th, then they will need to update their brain and that requires policing the system they are using, if only to make sure they don't make a mistake with the new system.
And, that's not quite the right analogy. PL assumes that people will take the upgrades that they want to take for the unit, not that they are all worth the same. As it is, some weapons may be pointed less, but are worth more in certain situations. A Lascannon isn't worth much against an Infantry Squad, but pretty decent when you're targeting a Chimera. Conversely, a Heavy Bolter is worth more when dealing with that Infantry Squad, and worth less against that Chimera.
Oddly enough, PL requires LESS policing because it doesn't matter if they didn't calculate in expensive options that a lot of people, either deliberately or unconciously.
JNAProductions wrote:So, which is better:
-Making two different points systems, one of which is incapable of being as accurate as the other
-Focus on making one system perform better and be more balanced
Allow me to put it another way:
What do you have against the game being balanced? What would it make you lose, or why would it decrease your enjoyment?
Because that's the thing. You can take a balanced game and make it imbalanced-if you want a desperate, impossible last stand from Ultramarines against Tyranids, you can do that! Just give the UM 1,000 points and the Nids 3,000 with respawning models.
But it's much, MUCH harder to take an imbalanced game and make it balanced.
If points were balanced to begin with, I could see the merit of the argument. But Warhammer is as balanced as a 3-sheets drunk clutz on a unicycle, and always has been, with only newbies and masochists believing otherwise.
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
This argument would count for a lot more if it weren't for the countless discussions over the years, since long before Power Levels were a thing, about all of the things that are priced incorrectly.
If I throw together a list using whatever models I happen to have laying around, and you throw together a list with the same number of points, but optimised... what happens? Are the lists of equal strength?
Hence the need for 'policing'... If I show up to a game with a fluffy list expecting to just throw some dice and shoot some gak, and you show up with a hardcore tournament list and a burning need to win the game, it's unlikely that we're going to have fun. Using points or PL makes no difference to that very simple fact.
Pretty much.
1. The basic concept of "don't cheat" is not something I should police, as most people will simply . If my opponent is caught cheating, then the game simply ends and they're disqualified. So there's no need for me to police the main banker for Monopoly.
I do agree there are people probably using house rules for Monopoly, as that sometimes happens with family board games. Did you know some people play Sorry! where you have a hand of 5 cards and you play individual cards in a more strategic fashion to the regular "randumb"? Think it's actually included with the rules in the game though.
I have only played by the rules in the box though. When my friends needed clarifications I pointed where in the rulebook the stuff is. Simple as that.
2. Changing the point values because you lack the ability to create the list is cheating, yes. If they're caught, they're no longer playing legally and the game is now pointless. I triple check my lists to make sure I am playing an honest game.
3. You're not serious with this argument are you? The game does not equal the models, and that's why you get a lot of conversions happening in the first place.
Also the singular Heavy Bolter is actually not a lot better than a singular Lascannon against an Infantry Squad or a Tau Fire Warrior. A Heavy Bolter kills one Guardsman and a Lascannon kills over half of one. Meanwhile each one kills less than 1 Fire Warrior. Then the Lascannon ends up excelling vs a lot of big targets significantly compared these numbers against chaff.
See where the point values kinda come in there? Take two Heavy Bolters per Lascannon and now we're talking.
4. Once again, one is CLEARLY more balanced due to granularity. What you propose is what happens when you might as well toss ANY point system out the window. You don't need points OR PL to just go "pewpew" like you want.
And what if you don't have options? Like Necrons or Daemons.
I don't get this, either. Like I said before, there's a time and a place for PL, and it's certainly not what I'd ask for in a considerably balanced game. Looking over at what someone else is bringing and 'maximizing your list to deal with it' sounds a lot like 'list tailoring'. At some point, someone's looking at a guy's list and building his list specifically to squash the other guy. I doubt it's working both ways, because I've never seen a decent player tailor lists- unless asked specifically to do so for narrative or testing reasons. There's a reason that even our casual and friendly game rules are 'show your lists when you both get to the table', and we're far from 'competitive'.
And yes, about Necrons and Daemons...
Let's put it this way, let me put down a Deathwatch list using Power Levels, and I assure you that unless you're playing a few specific options, you'll be singing a different tune- some OBSCENE loadouts can come out of that, with little to no reaction to the PL of the unit... compared to, say... most other armies out there.
The more and more I hear this argument in favor of power levels, the more I am assured it's just a cheap way for someone to exploit a system developed for a very different style of playing the game for a very different reason.
Because I guess folks forget that not every army is built to be as 'modular' as others, and that points tend to make that versatile unit balanced somewhat against that single-purpose squad.
I don't get this, either. Like I said before, there's a time and a place for PL, and it's certainly not what I'd ask for in a considerably balanced game. Looking over at what someone else is bringing and 'maximizing your list to deal with it' sounds a lot like 'list tailoring'. At some point, someone's looking at a guy's list and building his list specifically to squash the other guy. I doubt it's working both ways, because I've never seen a decent player tailor lists- unless asked specifically to do so for narrative or testing reasons. There's a reason that even our casual and friendly game rules are 'show your lists when you both get to the table', and we're far from 'competitive'.
Meh, the groups I've gamed with over the years have gone both ways on this. Sometimes we've kept the lists for the table, sometimes we've discussed what we we bringing. Sometimes that was so that we could match up stuff for a scenario, and sometimes it was specifically so that we could tailor our lists in an effort to outdo each other.
Which all comes right back full circle to the idea of making sure that both players are expecting the same thing, regardless of what system you're using.
The more and more I hear this argument in favor of power levels, the more I am assured it's just a cheap way for someone to exploit a system developed for a very different style of playing the game for a very different reason.
That would be an odd conclusion, given that most of the arguments about how broken it is are coming from people who refuse to use it, with those on the other side of the fence pointing out that the perceived problems don't exist if you don't choose to abuse the system.
So, what would you call building a 75 PL list with mostly Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons (you know you're facing Orks) but, when faced with Mekspam, you swap it all for Lascannons and other heavier weapons?
insaniak wrote: That would be an odd conclusion, given that most of the arguments about how broken it is are coming from people who refuse to use it, with those on the other side of the fence pointing out that the perceived problems don't exist if you don't choose to abuse the system.
In two of the biggest gaming tournaments for Warhammer 40k, where the players are supposed to be the best of the best, people are getting busted cheating. You'll have to pardon me of I'm not particularly a fan of 'the honor system' with a random game against someone I don't know, and just hoping they're an upstanding sport and won't exploit the hell out of this glaringly unbalanced system. You may as well be telling me that I can leave my truck unlocked in the worst neighborhood in town with my wallet on the dashboard, "Because it's not a problem until a scumbag comes along". And let's face it, you can't walk into the average FLGS and throw a D6 without hitting one or two scumbags.
FFS, this same "It's not a problem if you don't abuse it" is basically saying, "It works between friends as long as you agree to it", which is fine. But 'works between friends' is also how you do homebrew codexes, custom characters, and Reivers with dual grenade launchers and jump packs. Don't expect it to fly with anyone else outside your group of pals. And I honestly get behind the "fast and loose" style of gaming with friends, but I know I need to be playing to a normal standard with actual points to go out and play with new people and potentially make new friends.
JNAProductions wrote: So, what would you call building a 75 PL list with mostly Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons (you know you're facing Orks) but, when faced with Mekspam, you swap it all for Lascannons and other heavier weapons?
That's why if you want a game that's actually somewhat more fair, you don't discuss your lists' contents until you've both made one and gotten to the table. I booted a guy from my gaming group for this exact thing, and we're more a fluff/narrative/casual group. He'd show up with every model in his army in his car, look at what everyone brought, and THEN sit down on Battlescribe and start making his list.
Whether you want to believe it or not, 40k (and many other games) are full of people pretending to be in it 'just for fun', but they're not having fun unless they're winning and they will exploit your good sportsmanship, kindness, and tolerance to 'have fun' and do everything short of cheating (and will often cheat when they're certain they can get away with it).
insaniak wrote: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, here. List tailoring happens with points as well.
To offer a counterpoint, the argument in favor of PL here seems to be that it is flat out depending entirely on List Tailoring.
Just because burglaries happen even when people lock their doors, doesn't mean it's okay for me to walk up in your house and steal stuff because you didn't lock it.
Whether or not that's a bad thing, though, depends entirely on what you and your opponent are expecting.
A random pick up game.
Since that's what PL is supposed to be good at, right? It's fast and easy.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, here. List tailoring happens with points as well.
If I write a list at 1,500 Points, I have already chosen my upgrades. To list tailor, I'd have literally rewrite my list.
If I write a list at 75 PL, I have not chosen my upgrades. If I'm playing Marines or some other faction with a lot of options, I can now pick EXACTLY what upgrades will do best without altering my list in the slightest.
To offer a counterpoint, the argument in favor of PL here seems to be that it is flat out depending entirely on List Tailoring.
Sounds like you've misunderstood, then. There was an argument made that it can make list tailoring easier, which it can by simple virtue of being quicker and easier to make lists. The argument wasn't that it only works if you list tailor.
insaniak wrote: Sounds like you've misunderstood, then. There was an argument made that it can make list tailoring easier, which it can by simple virtue of being quicker and easier to make lists. The argument wasn't that it only works if you list tailor.
No, I fully understand.
"It makes list tailoring easier"- yeah, that's not really a selling point. List tailoring is deliberately giving one person an advantage over the other.
"It works if people don't exploit it"- yeah, well not locking your doors works if people don't go into your house and steal your stuff.
"It's more suitable between friends"- yeah, I'm not arguing this at all. This is exactly where it has its purpose- for narrative, goofy, fun little games between pals that don't really care about balance or even winning, just to see what happens.
List tailoring and minmaxing mindsets are incompatible with PL. PL falls apart without a big old gentleperson’s agreement not to be a douchebag.
- PL is a (probably) quicker army building system.
- Points is (probably) more balanced.
- There’s nothing more to it than that.
Everything else is personal preference. State your preference for sure, that’s the point of the thread, but the amount of time some folk spend ragging on PL and telling people they’re wrong/stupid/lazy/smell funny (last one may not have been said) for using PL is just strange. It’s possible to prefer one thing without a polarised internet rage hatred for another thing.
Indeed. If this thread has done anything, it's served to show that some people seem to be so set in their way of playing the game that they simply can't see that there are other valid ways to play.
The fact that you (generic you, not directed at anyone specifically) don't like something doesn't make it wrong, or inherently bad. Others may like it just fine.
JohnnyHell wrote: List tailoring and minmaxing mindsets are incompatible with PL. PL falls apart without a big old gentleperson’s agreement not to be a douchebag.
But this thread has PL advocates arguing that PL is a good thing because it makes list tailoring easier. It can't be that incompatible with PL if it's the PL side talking about it.
Everything else is personal preference. State your preference for sure, that’s the point of the thread, but the amount of time some folk spend ragging on PL and telling people they’re wrong/stupid/lazy/smell funny (last one may not have been said) for using PL is just strange. It’s possible to prefer one thing without a polarised internet rage hatred for another thing.
PL advocates get criticism because they go beyond "I enjoy this bad thing" and defend PL as a good system. That means it's no longer just a preference, it's a claim about the merits of a rules system in some objective sense. It's like fast food. Once in a while I get a nostalgia craving for the Taco Bell at my former university and I eat an awful burrito. It would be a TFG move to walk in and start badgering me about how awful Taco Bell is if I'm just eating my "food", but it would be entirely fair to argue the point if I tried to claim that Taco Bell is actually good food. At that point I'd be taking a side in an argument, not merely saying "I know it's garbage but I'm going to eat it anyway".
PL advocates get criticism because they go beyond "I enjoy this bad thing" and defend PL as a good system.
If it does what they want it to do, it is a good system, for them.
It may not be a good system for you, because you want something different from the game.
It's like fast food. Once in a while I get a nostalgia craving for the Taco Bell at my former university and I eat an awful burrito. It would be a TFG move to walk in and start badgering me about how awful Taco Bell is if I'm just eating my "food", but it would be entirely fair to argue the point if I tried to claim that Taco Bell is actually good food. At that point I'd be taking a side in an argument, not merely saying "I know it's garbage but I'm going to eat it anyway".
So... this entire time you've been badgering proponents of power levels solely because you prefer to adhere to a specific, narrow definition of the word 'good'...?
If you like it, it's good. It may not be nutritious. It may not be properly cooked. It may look like something that's already been eaten at least once and then put into a new tortilla. But if it achieves your goal (in this case, satisfying your craving for dodgy junk food) then it's good for that purpose.
I very much doubt anyone is going to try to claim that the Power Level setup is a perfect system. It's quite clearly not. But it fills a purpose, and for those who like using it, it does so better than points. The fact that you don't agree with the reasons for that doesn't make it any less the case, and so doesn't make the system any less 'good' for the purpose for which it is intended, and for which those people use it.
By that standard nothing can be good or bad and the terms lose all meaning. If you want to abandon the entire concept of good or bad things, well, that's your call to make but I think you're going to be alone in that position.
Peregrine wrote: By that standard nothing can be good or bad and the terms lose all meaning.
No, by that standard 'good' or 'bad' depends entirely on your frame of reference.
Which is kind of how those words work. No physicist is ever going to look up from his electron microscope and exclaim 'By jove! I've found the perfect system for building force lists for 28mm miniature gaming! It was encoded into the atomic structure of this grain of sand, all along!' 'Good' and 'Bad' are not fundamental absolutes, hard-coded into the bedrock of the universe. They're entirely subjective.
And again another Pl vs points discussion and it boils down to slayer fan and peregrine not accepting that doing something differently than how they like is ok. Their way isn’t “good” to me. It sounds horrendous. I can’t imagine a worse game to play. But that’s fine because the game is trying to cater for both types.
I only played point-based lists, until the last weekend, when we started to play PL based campagne...
And although my harlequin list contained 1,2k points and the other players had lists around 900 - 1k points, all the games felt pretty balanced (and I won not a single one of them... )
We also used the custom character rules, which worked really nice and gave a bit of extra flavour.
I think it depends heavily on the players intention while building his list. In my gaming environment everybody is pretty chilled and plays stylie oriented lists, which seems to work out pretty well.
Indeed. There’s being a contrarian for kicks and there’s being utter forum poison. Dragging every PL thread toward lock because you personally don’t like that others like PL is the latter.
JohnnyHell wrote:List tailoring and minmaxing mindsets are incompatible with PL. PL falls apart without a big old gentleperson’s agreement not to be a douchebag.
- PL is a (probably) quicker army building system.
- Points is (probably) more balanced.
- There’s nothing more to it than that.
Everything else is personal preference. State your preference for sure, that’s the point of the thread, but the amount of time some folk spend ragging on PL and telling people they’re wrong/stupid/lazy/smell funny (last one may not have been said) for using PL is just strange. It’s possible to prefer one thing without a polarised internet rage hatred for another thing.
insaniak wrote:
Peregrine wrote: By that standard nothing can be good or bad and the terms lose all meaning.
No, by that standard 'good' or 'bad' depends entirely on your frame of reference.
Which is kind of how those words work. No physicist is ever going to look up from his electron microscope and exclaim 'By jove! I've found the perfect system for building force lists for 28mm miniature gaming! It was encoded into the atomic structure of this grain of sand, all along!' 'Good' and 'Bad' are not fundamental absolutes, hard-coded into the bedrock of the universe. They're entirely subjective.
Andykp wrote:And again another Pl vs points discussion and it boils down to slayer fan and peregrine not accepting that doing something differently than how they like is ok. Their way isn’t “good” to me. It sounds horrendous. I can’t imagine a worse game to play. But that’s fine because the game is trying to cater for both types.
Agreed with all three. The sooner people stop making assumptions about what is good and bad for other people, and respect that both their own and other people's opinions are subjective, the better.
There is no universal good and bad. This whole discussion is a matter of opinion. If your opinion is "I don't like this", that's fine. If your view is "this is good as a fact", you are making incorrect claims.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There is no universal good and bad. This whole discussion is a matter of opinion. If your opinion is "I don't like this", that's fine. If your view is "this is good as a fact", you are making incorrect claim.
Alternatively, you're just plain wrong, PL is a trash system, and "that's just your opinion, man" is the weakest defense you can make.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Which is kind of how those words work. No physicist is ever going to look up from his electron microscope and exclaim 'By jove! I've found the perfect system for building force lists for 28mm miniature gaming! It was encoded into the atomic structure of this grain of sand, all along!' 'Good' and 'Bad' are not fundamental absolutes, hard-coded into the bedrock of the universe. They're entirely subjective.
But wait, I thought it's all subjective and there is no right answer? How can you say that using an electron microscope to read the encoded messages in the sand is not a good way of building lists for 40k, and with such certainty that you can state that it is never going to happen? It's almost like there are good and bad ways of doing things, and you just don't accept that PL is one of the bad ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: And again another Pl vs points discussion and it boils down to slayer fan and peregrine not accepting that doing something differently than how they like is ok. Their way isn’t “good” to me. It sounds horrendous. I can’t imagine a worse game to play. But that’s fine because the game is trying to cater for both types.
Again it all boils down to critics of PL posting reasons why PL is a trash system, and advocates of PL posting little more than "I enjoy it and I have an opinion". The closest thing to a reason for why PL is good they can come up with is saving a minimal amount of time in adding up the numbers, other than that it's all the very weak defense of insisting that they enjoy it therefore it must be good. Meanwhile you're claiming that the normal point system is "horrendous" and you "can't imagine a worse game to play", at least as harsh criticism as anything the anti-PL side is saying, but apparently this is ok and not a case of refusing to accept that someone is doing something differently because reasons.
Also, if you can't imagine a worse game to play than adding up your points more accurately then you really have very little imagination.
The point here is the critics of PL can't seem to understand why anyone would use it. So you two are literally going and saying "Your way is wrong" while claiming that it's fine, but if your preference is said to be wrong it's all defensive.
PL is not for people like you or Slayer-Fan. It's not for people who want to min/max every little detail and emphasize listbuilding. What's so hard to understand about that? PL is for the person who buys a box and assembles them as they are shown, or does 1 flamer and 1 missile launcher because that's what they think the squad should have, rather than the person who number crunches that plasma is better than every other weapon, so why would you ever not take plasma.
PL is for the person who has a collection of models and wants to throw something together for a game, without focusing on eking out every little bit of optimization in the list or fine-tuning it to be as efficient as possible.
We get it. You and Slayer like points. You think PL has no place. That's fine; you are technically correct in that points are *more* balanced (yet not balanced) than PL because of being more granular. What's not okay though is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how anyone who thinks PL is fine is somehow wrong and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people enjoy what they want. Nobody is saying "Peregrine, you are forced to use Power Level" but you seem to be saying "Anyone who doesn't think power level is useless is wrong"
PL doesn't actually help any of those people. Remember, "its flaws aren't as bad for certain people" is not the same as "it is better for certain people". So far PL defenders have done a lot of arguing about how they have a right to express an opinion, or how some people use PL and don't immediately commit suicide over how miserable the experience has made them, but have provided very little to establish that PL is better for anyone. The closest anyone has come is the idea that PL is maybe a minute or two faster in a 2-3 hour game, which is about as negligible a benefit as you can get. Other than that it's all nonsense about "PL doesn't involve list optimization" or "PL lets me take lots of free stuff on my units".
Also, we get it, you like PL. That's fine, you're allowed to use PL. But what's not ok is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how PL has any merit whatsoever and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people hate what they want.
Also, we get it, you don't like PL. That's fine, you're allowed to not use PL. But what's not ok is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how PL don't have any merit whatsoever and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people like what they want.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There is no universal good and bad. This whole discussion is a matter of opinion. If your opinion is "I don't like this", that's fine. If your view is "this is good as a fact", you are making incorrect claim.
Alternatively, you're just plain wrong, PL is a trash system, and "that's just your opinion, man" is the weakest defense you can make.
You are just impervious to reason aren't you? Your opinion is not objective fact, Peregrine, no matter how much you post opinions as fact. You've posted on the internet enough to know this.
Wayniac wrote: PL is not for people like you or Slayer-Fan. It's not for people who want to min/max every little detail and emphasize listbuilding. What's so hard to understand about that? PL is for the person who buys a box and assembles them as they are shown, or does 1 flamer and 1 missile launcher because that's what they think the squad should have, rather than the person who number crunches that plasma is better than every other weapon, so why would you ever not take plasma.
PL is for the person who has a collection of models and wants to throw something together for a game, without focusing on eking out every little bit of optimization in the list or fine-tuning it to be as efficient as possible.
Other times PL comes in handy:
-We run a 'Rambo Marine' game from time to time, where a few players get to control one individual Astartes (loyalist or heretic depending on our mood). We use "Power Level as a very rough balancing tool, and our Marines have loadouts that aren't usually Codex Compliant (Marines with Astartes shotguns, Dual Bolters, Rotor Cannons, dual power axes, etc.) But usually our enemy mob loadouts are somewhat randomized. (We have a chart for to roll on). I might even write our rules up on here for everyone to play with.
-It's great to just test a few things out and to use as a learning tool. On Warhammer nights locally, we get a LOT of players that come in and build what they see on the Space Marine box, or what they think is cool. So usually to teach them the fundamentals- we don't worry about points, we use PL and the teacher throws down a pretty basic loadout to just show him how certain things work and how to maximize what he has and use it more effectively.
There's a time where I want a chilled out, simple basic game of just basic troops. And there's narrative games, where I've taken members of one of my Kill-Teams and merged them together in a squad. Power Level would work just fine for this.
Then there's actually wanting to play a more serious game, and get a real challenge and I want it to be as balanced as possible. Power Level does NOT do this very well at all. Yes, you can say 'points are flawed and not balanced', but they're a lot more reliable than Power Level. At the end of the day, I'll take an imperfect tool over the wrong tool.
And yes, I know that it's easy to say "Both players will take optimized squads in their lists". Okay, that's... not really something that every squad can do. Or even every army.
And saying "Both players will just make their lists maximized to get the most out of them". Okay, fine. Let's pretend that's possible. I'm going to play Chaos Space Marines. Now, optimize your list for me. Am I playing a massive horde of cultists or a large war machine army? Am I going shooty or smashy? You wouldn't know unless you were deliberately tailoring the list to what I have. And when it comes to list tailoring, one person is getting an advantage and the other guy is the hapless lackwit that's about to get his army wiped out. That's what list tailoring is. That's why it's not considered fair gaming- what happens when you tailor your list to mine, and then I realize it and start making changes? Do we go back and forth? No. This is why at the most, "I am bringing Imperial Guard" or "I am bringing Eldar" is all you need to know to build your list toward.
My GF and I hold a weekly game. For the first few months we built based on PL. Needless to say I was getting ruined every game until we switched to a points basis.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There is no universal good and bad. This whole discussion is a matter of opinion. If your opinion is "I don't like this", that's fine. If your view is "this is good as a fact", you are making incorrect claim.
Alternatively, you're just plain wrong, PL is a trash system, and "that's just your opinion, man" is the weakest defense you can make.
You are just impervious to reason aren't you? Your opinion is not objective fact, Peregrine, no matter how much you post opinions as fact. You've posted on the internet enough to know this.
His modus operandi is pretty constant - dismiss anything which is not his initial POV as invalid way of thinking and then conclude that other people are idiots and their views have no merits whatsoever. Funnily enough, if you follow his viewpoints for long enough you will eventually find him debating as fiercely as ever his own viewpoint from a while ago (actually point balance is one of those areas in which he contradicts himself).
The fact that Peregrine copied my argument despite nobody saying points were wrong or bad (unlike his arguments against PL) kinda shows that they have no interest in an actual debate, just wanting to show that they're right.
Wayniac wrote: The point here is the critics of PL can't seem to understand why anyone would use it. So you two are literally going and saying "Your way is wrong" while claiming that it's fine, but if your preference is said to be wrong it's all defensive.
PL is not for people like you or Slayer-Fan. It's not for people who want to min/max every little detail and emphasize listbuilding. What's so hard to understand about that? PL is for the person who buys a box and assembles them as they are shown, or does 1 flamer and 1 missile launcher because that's what they think the squad should have, rather than the person who number crunches that plasma is better than every other weapon, so why would you ever not take plasma.
PL is for the person who has a collection of models and wants to throw something together for a game, without focusing on eking out every little bit of optimization in the list or fine-tuning it to be as efficient as possible.
We get it. You and Slayer like points. You think PL has no place. That's fine; you are technically correct in that points are *more* balanced (yet not balanced) than PL because of being more granular. What's not okay though is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how anyone who thinks PL is fine is somehow wrong and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people enjoy what they want. Nobody is saying "Peregrine, you are forced to use Power Level" but you seem to be saying "Anyone who doesn't think power level is useless is wrong"
PL has no place for what you want because you might as well throw any point system out the window to throw a bunch of models on the table and go 1st iteration of Age Of Sigmar (and look how well THAT was received). The points currently aren't perfect, but they're a closer estimation for worth compared to PL.
You don't NEED PL to do that particular scenario of "fun". Why defend it like it's necessary? Either use a system to create that greater fairness or don't bother.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, list tailoring is cheating, full stop.
Wayniac wrote: The point here is the critics of PL can't seem to understand why anyone would use it. So you two are literally going and saying "Your way is wrong" while claiming that it's fine, but if your preference is said to be wrong it's all defensive.
PL is not for people like you or Slayer-Fan. It's not for people who want to min/max every little detail and emphasize listbuilding. What's so hard to understand about that? PL is for the person who buys a box and assembles them as they are shown, or does 1 flamer and 1 missile launcher because that's what they think the squad should have, rather than the person who number crunches that plasma is better than every other weapon, so why would you ever not take plasma.
PL is for the person who has a collection of models and wants to throw something together for a game, without focusing on eking out every little bit of optimization in the list or fine-tuning it to be as efficient as possible.
We get it. You and Slayer like points. You think PL has no place. That's fine; you are technically correct in that points are *more* balanced (yet not balanced) than PL because of being more granular. What's not okay though is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how anyone who thinks PL is fine is somehow wrong and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people enjoy what they want. Nobody is saying "Peregrine, you are forced to use Power Level" but you seem to be saying "Anyone who doesn't think power level is useless is wrong"
PL has no place for what you want because you might as well throw any point system out the window to throw a bunch of models on the table and go 1st iteration of Age Of Sigmar (and look how well THAT was received). The points currently aren't perfect, but they're a closer estimation for worth compared to PL.
You don't NEED PL to do that particular scenario of "fun". Why defend it like it's necessary? Either use a system to create that greater fairness or don't bother.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, list tailoring is cheating, full stop.
Honestly, I defend PL because I think it's a cool idea and one that has more merit for pickup games than points (because you don't have to fiddle with stuff working out a list). Points are better, but I don't think PL is terrible. And also I really liked 1st iteration AOS because it was trying to put an end to min/maxing (it didn't do this of course, but the idea was there). Concept-wise I love anything that isn't competitive style min/maxing and listbuilding exercises, even if they never turn out that way since people will always try to make things "the best"
Again, the core difference seems to come down to a hand full of players saying, well I can break the game easier with PL than points so points are better. The rest of us are basically stating regardless of system, don't try to break the game unless that is also what your opponent is interested in game wise. Regardless of system used, 40k is an inherently imbalanced game, and sadly requires players to be liked minded to have a good game.
Charistoph wrote: It's more that some keep pushing that GW points are balanced in the first place, and don't consider that there are other factors than price point.
I think points are a more -specific- balance than PL.
In a PL game, you're going to optimize everything you can for a game. With points, you're going to squeeze things into a list around restrictions.
Kinda depends on what you want, I suppose.
Want or have, at any rate. Value is based on what you can take versus what you will be facing. Going against Conscript Spam with a focus on Lascannons and Meltaguns will not be very well balanced, even if the points cost more than with Heavy Bolters and Flamers. Conversely, facing off against an Armoured Company withe the reverse would also be unbalanced, even though running with the same number of models would be cheaper.
And this is where having an easier time at building an all-comers balance is usually achieved with PL than with Points, since Points will limit your options in building that All-Comers list.
This sounds a lot like list tailoring.
And what if you don't have options? Like Necrons or Daemons.
Way to miss the point of what you quoted. Balance is not always set up so cut and dry. A balanced all-comers list would have a mix of anti-infantry and anti-vehicle.
From there, is it list tailoring to set up a list to face any type of list, even though it may not be strong against a dedicated list? From what I understand, this is always the objective of any list building exercise.
Daemons, Craftworlders, and Necrons have options, unfortunately they require swapping whole units out instead of changing a Devastators/Heavy Weapon Squads loadout. They generally have other advantages outside of those without requiring additional units to compensate for them.
You deciding to bring no ounce of structure or effort into your list is not my concern, and it isn't something I'm going to think about when I bring in a list (because I go into a store prepared unlike you, apparently). Why should I have to accommodate your poor list building skills when I decided I wanted to put some effort into it?
SO, to recap for those who just joined us:
Power Levels are bad, because it is possible for a player to create an optimised list with them. This leaves those players who don't optimise their lists at a disadvantage, and is thus proof that the system is completely broken.
Points, by contrast, are good, because it is possible for a player to create an optimised list with them. This leaves those players who don't optimise their lists at a disadvantage, which is entirely their own fault.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I don't need to police my opponents in Monopoly as that has a strict set of rules.
Then you must really trust them when they're running the bank. It requires more policing, after all. Beyond that, Monopoly has more house rules to it than almost any other game that exists, and most people honestly don't know they are using house rules.
1. The basic concept of "don't cheat" is not something I should police, as most people will simply . If my opponent is caught cheating, then the game simply ends and they're disqualified. So there's no need for me to police the main banker for Monopoly.
I do agree there are people probably using house rules for Monopoly, as that sometimes happens with family board games. Did you know some people play Sorry! where you have a hand of 5 cards and you play individual cards in a more strategic fashion to the regular "randumb"? Think it's actually included with the rules in the game though.
I have only played by the rules in the box though. When my friends needed clarifications I pointed where in the rulebook the stuff is. Simple as that.
Yet, that was the very exact point that is being addressed in the line quoted. You are calling someone who brings a list that isn't granular as someone needing to be policed, which means they are cheating. And your last paragraph here indicates that you ARE policing people in Monopoly, despite your very assertion in the spoilered quote that you don't NEED to.
And PL is in the rules, so you really don't have a leg to stand on here with this approach.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
Wait, weren't you one of the people accusing another of just asking to change the point tally a little for cheating? If it is worth the accusation of cheating, it is worth policing, and that applies to points as well as other factors.
2. Changing the point values because you lack the ability to create the list is cheating, yes. If they're caught, they're no longer playing legally and the game is now pointless. I triple check my lists to make sure I am playing an honest game.
Again missing the point. Asking for an adjustment isn't cheating, because that means they recognized an issue instead of hiding it (which a cheater would do). And calling someone cheating for doing so IS policing someone on points, which means that you sir, are calling yourself silly in this very statement.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The only agreement in place should be the point limit and the mission (assuming you didn't randomly choose that). At least points will give more balance via being granular, which therefore requires less policing. PL throws everything out the window and assumes all upgrades are worth the same when they CLEARLY are not.
You mean you don't need an agreement to use the same rules system, or are you just assuming that you will be? I state this in a day when you can bring Warhammer Fantasy models to play Age of Sigmar, 9th Age, and Kings of War with almost the same set of models in the same day. If you bring in a person who played several generations of 40K, but is new to 8th, then they will need to update their brain and that requires policing the system they are using, if only to make sure they don't make a mistake with the new system.
And, that's not quite the right analogy. PL assumes that people will take the upgrades that they want to take for the unit, not that they are all worth the same. As it is, some weapons may be pointed less, but are worth more in certain situations. A Lascannon isn't worth much against an Infantry Squad, but pretty decent when you're targeting a Chimera. Conversely, a Heavy Bolter is worth more when dealing with that Infantry Squad, and worth less against that Chimera.
Oddly enough, PL requires LESS policing because it doesn't matter if they didn't calculate in expensive options that a lot of people, either deliberately or unconciously.
3. You're not serious with this argument are you? The game does not equal the models, and that's why you get a lot of conversions happening in the first place.
Also the singular Heavy Bolter is actually not a lot better than a singular Lascannon against an Infantry Squad or a Tau Fire Warrior. A Heavy Bolter kills one Guardsman and a Lascannon kills over half of one. Meanwhile each one kills less than 1 Fire Warrior. Then the Lascannon ends up excelling vs a lot of big targets significantly compared these numbers against chaff.
See where the point values kinda come in there? Take two Heavy Bolters per Lascannon and now we're talking.
I am serious about the argument because that is how list building in 40K has been forever. The game is based around the models, and always has been. Models usually can only take a Heavy Bolter or a Lascannon in a position, be they a Devastator, Heavy Weapon Team or a tank sponson. You can't take two Heavy Bolters per Lascannon because the models don't support the situation. Points might be able to provide for that option across several positions, but they might not.
And you changed the goal posts in the example. It was an example of how the value of a weapon changes depending on what you will be facing. But guess what, a Heavy Bolter can potentially (though not probably) kill 3 Fire Warriors while the Lascannon can only every kill one. Statistics often go out the window once the game begins as the dice don't care about your math.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:4. Once again, one is CLEARLY more balanced due to granularity. What you propose is what happens when you might as well toss ANY point system out the window. You don't need points OR PL to just go "pewpew" like you want.
No, it isn't in Warhammer. Quite often it is unbalanced because of that granularity. When one army has different price points for the same weapon, that's a different level of balance. Heck, having Guardsmen pay the same as Astartes for the same Weapon is unbalanced! Heavy Weapon Squads in 7th had to pay the full price of Lascannons after paying the price for their Heavy Bolters, while Devastators and Infantry Squads didn't (apologies for the example, but it is one I am familiar with), and that demonstrates how such granularities are as unbalanced, or more than, Power Level.
I agree that points have the CAPACITY to be better balanced when dealing with a plethora of internal options (and have said so), but with GW that has never been utilized, and unlikely will never be in the foreseeable future.
JNAProductions wrote:So, what would you call building a 75 PL list with mostly Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons (you know you're facing Orks) but, when faced with Mekspam, you swap it all for Lascannons and other heavier weapons?
Sounds like both groups are list tailoring, as the Ork player was building their list based on what the other player will be expecting to face. What's the problem?
HoundsofDemos wrote: Again, the core difference seems to come down to a hand full of players saying, well I can break the game easier with PL than points so points are better. The rest of us are basically stating regardless of system, don't try to break the game unless that is also what your opponent is interested in game wise. Regardless of system used, 40k is an inherently imbalanced game, and sadly requires players to be liked minded to have a good game.
One system is inherently easier to break though is the difference.
Someone earlier in the thread posted two different 2000 points lists for Eldar and Deathwatch. The Deathwatch one was 156 PL compared to the Eldar one being way below that.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Again, the core difference seems to come down to a hand full of players saying, well I can break the game easier with PL than points so points are better. The rest of us are basically stating regardless of system, don't try to break the game unless that is also what your opponent is interested in game wise. Regardless of system used, 40k is an inherently imbalanced game, and sadly requires players to be liked minded to have a good game.
One system is inherently easier to break though is the difference.
Someone earlier in the thread posted two different 2000 points lists for Eldar and Deathwatch. The Deathwatch one was 156 PL compared to the Eldar one being way below that.
Like, you don't see an issue there whatsoever?
I do, but not the same one you do. GW sucks at pricing. And wouldn't the reduction in points in CA indicate that the codice's initial pricing was broken to begin with? Especially when you can bring one list pre-CA and then post-CA bring in your Daemon Primarch with a little more wiggle room (true story), despite no other changes in model power.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Again, the core difference seems to come down to a hand full of players saying, well I can break the game easier with PL than points so points are better. The rest of us are basically stating regardless of system, don't try to break the game unless that is also what your opponent is interested in game wise. Regardless of system used, 40k is an inherently imbalanced game, and sadly requires players to be liked minded to have a good game.
One system is inherently easier to break though is the difference.
Someone earlier in the thread posted two different 2000 points lists for Eldar and Deathwatch. The Deathwatch one was 156 PL compared to the Eldar one being way below that.
Like, you don't see an issue there whatsoever?
Your essentially making my point for me. The issue isn't inherently the system, it's expectations of what the game should be and making lists according to that expectation. You seem incapable of understanding that a player would play a less competitive list for fluff, unit variety and fun. Your acting like every player should be taking the most bleeding edge choice and crush their opponents and only points hold you back from doing so.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Again, the core difference seems to come down to a hand full of players saying, well I can break the game easier with PL than points so points are better. The rest of us are basically stating regardless of system, don't try to break the game unless that is also what your opponent is interested in game wise. Regardless of system used, 40k is an inherently imbalanced game, and sadly requires players to be liked minded to have a good game.
One system is inherently easier to break though is the difference.
Someone earlier in the thread posted two different 2000 points lists for Eldar and Deathwatch. The Deathwatch one was 156 PL compared to the Eldar one being way below that.
Like, you don't see an issue there whatsoever?
I do, but not the same one you do. GW sucks at pricing. And wouldn't the reduction in points in CA indicate that the codice's initial pricing was broken to begin with? Especially when you can bring one list pre-CA and then post-CA bring in your Daemon Primarch with a little more wiggle room (true story), despite no other changes in model power.
That's assuming PL is more correct to begin with, which I demonstrated it cannot be with the simple example of how Company Veterans work.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Again, the core difference seems to come down to a hand full of players saying, well I can break the game easier with PL than points so points are better. The rest of us are basically stating regardless of system, don't try to break the game unless that is also what your opponent is interested in game wise. Regardless of system used, 40k is an inherently imbalanced game, and sadly requires players to be liked minded to have a good game.
One system is inherently easier to break though is the difference.
Someone earlier in the thread posted two different 2000 points lists for Eldar and Deathwatch. The Deathwatch one was 156 PL compared to the Eldar one being way below that.
Like, you don't see an issue there whatsoever?
Your essentially making my point for me. The issue isn't inherently the system, it's expectations of what the game should be and making lists according to that expectation. You seem incapable of understanding that a player would play a less competitive list for fluff, unit variety and fun. Your acting like every player should be taking the most bleeding edge choice and crush their opponents and only points hold you back from doing so.
I didn't defend your point at all. Two equal pointed lists have almost a 33% difference when calculated at PL because of Deathwatch Vets all being able to take Combi weapons and Heavy Thunder Hammers. That's not something you ordinarily do as that's a lot of eggs in one basket. Spend the points necessary. PL can NEVER take that into account.
and again you seem incapable of understanding that just because you can do something, two players might agree to not do that. Besides not owning the models, even in a power level game I wouldn't spam the strongest options unless my opponent explicitly asked for a hardcore game. Maybe it's just my local gaming scene but that seems like one common sense and two not being a dick.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Again, the core difference seems to come down to a hand full of players saying, well I can break the game easier with PL than points so points are better. The rest of us are basically stating regardless of system, don't try to break the game unless that is also what your opponent is interested in game wise. Regardless of system used, 40k is an inherently imbalanced game, and sadly requires players to be liked minded to have a good game.
One system is inherently easier to break though is the difference.
Someone earlier in the thread posted two different 2000 points lists for Eldar and Deathwatch. The Deathwatch one was 156 PL compared to the Eldar one being way below that.
Like, you don't see an issue there whatsoever?
I do, but not the same one you do. GW sucks at pricing. And wouldn't the reduction in points in CA indicate that the codice's initial pricing was broken to begin with? Especially when you can bring one list pre-CA and then post-CA bring in your Daemon Primarch with a little more wiggle room (true story), despite no other changes in model power.
That's assuming PL is more correct to begin with, which I demonstrated it cannot be with the simple example of how Company Veterans work.
No, it is not assuming that PL is more correct to being with. Neither I, nor anyone else here, has once advocated about the ACCURACY of the PL system. That is an assumption that you are putting in to your equation to bring your scarecrow arguments in.
In point of fact, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I do not place any more level of accuracy on either method than I would an Ork Stormtrooper shooting away from Leia on the Death Star.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Again, the core difference seems to come down to a hand full of players saying, well I can break the game easier with PL than points so points are better. The rest of us are basically stating regardless of system, don't try to break the game unless that is also what your opponent is interested in game wise. Regardless of system used, 40k is an inherently imbalanced game, and sadly requires players to be liked minded to have a good game.
One system is inherently easier to break though is the difference.
Someone earlier in the thread posted two different 2000 points lists for Eldar and Deathwatch. The Deathwatch one was 156 PL compared to the Eldar one being way below that.
Like, you don't see an issue there whatsoever?
I do, but not the same one you do. GW sucks at pricing. And wouldn't the reduction in points in CA indicate that the codice's initial pricing was broken to begin with? Especially when you can bring one list pre-CA and then post-CA bring in your Daemon Primarch with a little more wiggle room (true story), despite no other changes in model power.
That's assuming PL is more correct to begin with, which I demonstrated it cannot be with the simple example of how Company Veterans work.
No, it is not assuming that PL is more correct to being with. Neither I, nor anyone else here, has once advocated about the ACCURACY of the PL system. That is an assumption that you are putting in to your equation to bring your scarecrow arguments in.
In point of fact, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I do not place any more level of accuracy on either method than I would an Ork Stormtrooper shooting away from Leia on the Death Star.
Actually no, because it leads to the next point I'm going to make.
If you know PL isnt accurate, then what's the point of defending it and using it in the first place instead of going 1st Iteration of AoS?
No, it is not assuming that PL is more correct to being with. Neither I, nor anyone else here, has once advocated about the ACCURACY of the PL system. That is an assumption that you are putting in to your equation to bring your scarecrow arguments in.
In point of fact, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I do not place any more level of accuracy on either method than I would an Ork Stormtrooper shooting away from Leia on the Death Star.
Actually no, because it leads to the next point I'm going to make.
If you know PL isnt accurate, then what's the point of defending it and using it in the first place instead of going 1st Iteration of AoS?
Because you're not listening the the other half of the statement.
BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.
BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.
Points aren't balanced perfectly, but they allow more balance than Power Level. This is objective fact.
Real quick, tell me where points aren't balanced.
Because while I'm sure there are some very valid discrepancies, most of the time it boils down to "what I want to use is overcosted" and "what my opponent beat me with is undercosted".
BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.
Points aren't balanced perfectly, but they allow more balance than Power Level. This is objective fact.
Real quick, tell me where points aren't balanced.
Because while I'm sure there are some very valid discrepancies, most of the time it boils down to "what I want to use is overcosted" and "what my opponent beat me with is undercosted".
Lets go by the fact that if I am looking to make a list designed solely to win, the game has entire factions that don't even need to be looked at. 40k isn't and never has been balanced. Have a Grey Knights player take 2000 points of stuff vs AM or Eldar and see how it goes.
No, it is not assuming that PL is more correct to being with. Neither I, nor anyone else here, has once advocated about the ACCURACY of the PL system. That is an assumption that you are putting in to your equation to bring your scarecrow arguments in.
In point of fact, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I do not place any more level of accuracy on either method than I would an Ork Stormtrooper shooting away from Leia on the Death Star.
Actually no, because it leads to the next point I'm going to make.
If you know PL isnt accurate, then what's the point of defending it and using it in the first place instead of going 1st Iteration of AoS?
Because you're not listening the the other half of the statement.
BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.
So why not go for better structure than a system that has little of it, if at all?
You'd literally be better off just playing without any system and making pewpew noises.
BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.
Points aren't balanced perfectly, but they allow more balance than Power Level. This is objective fact.
Real quick, tell me where points aren't balanced.
Because while I'm sure there are some very valid discrepancies, most of the time it boils down to "what I want to use is overcosted" and "what my opponent beat me with is undercosted".
Lets go by the fact that if I am looking to make a list designed solely to win, the game has entire factions that don't even need to be looked at. 40k isn't and never has been balanced. Have a Grey Knights player take 2000 points of stuff vs AM or Eldar and see how it goes.
Look at a 100 PL list doing the same thing and watch Grey Knights suffer even worse? What's the point you're making?
Lets go by the fact that if I am looking to make a list designed solely to win, the game has entire factions that don't even need to be looked at. 40k isn't and never has been balanced. Have a Grey Knights player take 2000 points of stuff vs AM or Eldar and see how it goes.
And let me guess, using power level just completely erases the problem?
LOL no.
At a certain point your argument is just "it is all imperfect, so why bother?"
Imperfect balance is better than imbalance.
Beyond that you may as well be determining the winner by setting up your models and determining the winner by fart noises.
That neither system is balanced and if a player is intent on breaking it, you'll get a similar result.
Yes PL makes it easier but it's the players intent that matters more than the structure of the system. You seem to like to play very competitive games and only want to take the most optimized lists. With that mindset, PL is a worse system. If your goal is to just take some cool models with less optimized options and have a friendly game, PL saves some time and still gives some structure.
I'm not arguing PL is better, rather that it works fine for what it is intended. To be a quicker way to play a friendly non competitive game.
How is it any quicker though? Why aren't you going into a shop with some prepared lists for the common point values instead of walking in with every model you own and making the list there?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: And for friendly chill games it works fine. So does going one for one unit without even using them. It's slightly less lazy 1st Edition AoS.
But when you want actual balance, points are the least broken measure of balance.
And then it begs the question: what do any of you lose from a more balanced point system?
And then it begs the question: what do any of you lose from a more balanced point system?
Are you proposing one? If so, a more balanced point system would be fine, if it were playtested and continuously re-evaluated based on additions to the game.
But I would lose nothing. Because it's 40k- you could put considerable effort into balancing the game and every Codex could include a hot naked chick and $500.00, and players would still whinge.
Peregrine wrote:Alternatively, you're just plain wrong, PL is a trash system, and "that's just your opinion, man" is the weakest defense you can make.
And at that point, any rational person immediately laughs at your inability to see your own opinions, biases, and personal preferences as anything but Absolute Fact, and anything that isn't your opinion is Wrong.
Peregrine, you are, without a doubt, the single most closed minded person anyone could hope to debate things with. Not because you don't like PL: that's absolutely fine, and your personal preference. Not that you disagree with me about it: that's healthy for a fanbase. It's because anything that you value must be factually "good", and if someone points out that "hey, THAT is your opinion, and not a fact", you say that they're wrong.
"That's just your opinion" may be the only defence against you saying "I think PL is trash", but it's the perfect defence against it.
Peregrine wrote:PL doesn't actually help any of those people.
Is this the Almighty Truth speaking?
What right do you have to presume to tell me what helps me?
So far PL defenders have done a lot of arguing about how they have a right to express an opinion
Which we do. We have as much right as you do to express yours - and we're fine with you expressing your OPINION. What seems to be the problems are the PL advocates are calling you out on your opinions being declared by you as facts, and your inability to recognise the opinions of others.
or how some people use PL and don't immediately commit suicide over how miserable the experience has made them, but have provided very little to establish that PL is better for anyone.
If anyone says that they subjectively think it is better, it factually IS better for them. Because being good or bad in this particular situation is a matter of opinion.
The closest anyone has come is the idea that PL is maybe a minute or two faster in a 2-3 hour game, which is about as negligible a benefit as you can get. Other than that it's all nonsense about "PL doesn't involve list optimization" or "PL lets me take lots of free stuff on my units".
So you admit there IS a benefit?
Baby steps.
Also, we get it, you like PL. That's fine, you're allowed to use PL. But what's not ok is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how PL has any merit whatsoever and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people hate what they want.
Alternatively
"Also, we get it, you hate PL. That's fine, you're allowed to refuse PL. But what's not ok is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements on how PL has no merit whatsover and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people like what they want."
It practically writes itself!
JNAProductions wrote:But how does PL stop people from min-maxing?
Likewise, how do points?
In any case, the issue isn't with the system, but rather with the people who go in to those systems looking to minmax.
And then it begs the question: what do any of you lose from a more balanced point system?
Are you proposing one? If so, a more balanced point system would be fine, if it were playtested and continuously re-evaluated based on additions to the game.
But I would lose nothing. Because it's 40k- you could put considerable effort into balancing the game and every Codex could include a hot naked chick and $500.00, and players would still whinge.
Fair enough. I know I try and put effort into my homebrew rules, with me having created several threads during 7th.
The core GW has is overall fine, but some tweaks would just make it SO much better.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How is it any quicker though? Why aren't you going into a shop with some prepared lists for the common point values instead of walking in with every model you own and making the list there?
That's just...that's just silly.
Cause my area is chill and fluid? Yea I would have a few lists at various point levels but I might want a quick second game or maybe I'm at home and me and some friends just want to make a new list in a few minutes to try something new with out adding it up in excel or spending time mashing away on my phone with battlescribe.
I don't play in a very competitive meta outside the occasional tournament and I do personally prefer points. 9/10 that's what I use for a game.
My main point is that for a fun balanced game, players need to come to an agreement about what kind of game they are playing. The idea that two complete strangers could meet up to 40k with no prior conversation about how the game should be played and both walking away with an enjoyable experience is not something I have experienced and not something 40k is well structured for.
Peregrine wrote:Alternatively, you're just plain wrong, PL is a trash system, and "that's just your opinion, man" is the weakest defense you can make.
And at that point, any rational person immediately laughs at your inability to see your own opinions, biases, and personal preferences as anything but Absolute Fact, and anything that isn't your opinion is Wrong.
Peregrine, you are, without a doubt, the single most closed minded person anyone could hope to debate things with. Not because you don't like PL: that's absolutely fine, and your personal preference. Not that you disagree with me about it: that's healthy for a fanbase. It's because anything that you value must be factually "good", and if someone points out that "hey, THAT is your opinion, and not a fact", you say that they're wrong.
"That's just your opinion" may be the only defence against you saying "I think PL is trash", but it's the perfect defence against it.
Peregrine wrote:PL doesn't actually help any of those people.
Is this the Almighty Truth speaking?
What right do you have to presume to tell me what helps me?
So far PL defenders have done a lot of arguing about how they have a right to express an opinion
Which we do. We have as much right as you do to express yours - and we're fine with you expressing your OPINION. What seems to be the problems are the PL advocates are calling you out on your opinions being declared by you as facts, and your inability to recognise the opinions of others.
or how some people use PL and don't immediately commit suicide over how miserable the experience has made them, but have provided very little to establish that PL is better for anyone.
If anyone says that they subjectively think it is better, it factually IS better for them. Because being good or bad in this particular situation is a matter of opinion.
The closest anyone has come is the idea that PL is maybe a minute or two faster in a 2-3 hour game, which is about as negligible a benefit as you can get. Other than that it's all nonsense about "PL doesn't involve list optimization" or "PL lets me take lots of free stuff on my units".
So you admit there IS a benefit?
Baby steps.
Also, we get it, you like PL. That's fine, you're allowed to use PL. But what's not ok is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how PL has any merit whatsoever and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people hate what they want.
Alternatively
"Also, we get it, you hate PL. That's fine, you're allowed to refuse PL. But what's not ok is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements on how PL has no merit whatsover and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people like what they want."
It practically writes itself!
JNAProductions wrote:But how does PL stop people from min-maxing?
Likewise, how do points?
In any case, the issue isn't with the system, but rather with the people who go in to those systems looking to minmax.
With points, you price the individual upgrades.
PL cannot do that whatsoever. A single Heavy Bolter is not worth the same as a single Grav Cannon. Ordinarily you pay a lot more for the Grav Cannon. Bam, that's how points does it. Another alternative is to look at Blood Angels Tactical Squads. Their Heavy Flamer is the same cost as a regular one in a minimum sized squad, yet the two weapons are clearly of different value (and I will laugh the moment you try to list the Assault profile for the Flamer a benefit to pick it over additional Strength and AP).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:How is it any quicker though? Why aren't you going into a shop with some prepared lists for the common point values instead of walking in with every model you own and making the list there?
Because I have better things to do with my time than make lists? What, are you going to write my itinerary for me?
I am, and my opponents, are fine with grabbing some boxes of models from our collections, and quickly making lists.
For example, we might find ourselves with a few hours free time, so will pop down to Warhammer World, I might grab my 2nd Company box and my vehicles box, and they might grab their Chaos box. Then, we decide the kind of game we want to play from the boards available, a rough size depending on how long we have, etc etc, and Power Level a list.
Simple.
That's just...that's just silly.
In your opinion. Some people think that it's perfectly reasonable.
Fair enough. I know I try and put effort into my homebrew rules, with me having created several threads during 7th.
Cool. Wanna help me playtest something or propose a few suggestions to a project of mine?
I'd actually love to see what you have going. I know I'm STILL finalizing my CSM, Loyalist Scum, and Necrons to post in my general 8th thread, and I like seeing new ideas people have for themselves all the time.
PL cannot do that whatsoever. A single Heavy Bolter is not worth the same as a single Grav Cannon. Ordinarily you pay a lot more for the Grav Cannon. Bam, that's how points does it. Another alternative is to look at Blood Angels Tactical Squads. Their Heavy Flamer is the same cost as a regular one in a minimum sized squad, yet the two weapons are clearly of different value (and I will laugh the moment you try to list the Assault profile for the Flamer a benefit to pick it over additional Strength and AP).
I know how points work. However, it is slower to calculate, and encourages you to prioritize in-game effects over aesthetic or flavour.
I'm not saying points don't have a purpose. They do. I'm saying that some people don't find the purpose of points to be that valuable.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:How is it any quicker though? Why aren't you going into a shop with some prepared lists for the common point values instead of walking in with every model you own and making the list there?
Because I have better things to do with my time than make lists? What, are you going to write my itinerary for me?
I am, and my opponents, are fine with grabbing some boxes of models from our collections, and quickly making lists.
For example, we might find ourselves with a few hours free time, so will pop down to Warhammer World, I might grab my 2nd Company box and my vehicles box, and they might grab their Chaos box. Then, we decide the kind of game we want to play from the boards available, a rough size depending on how long we have, etc etc, and Power Level a list.
Simple.
That's just...that's just silly.
In your opinion. Some people think that it's perfectly reasonable.
...preparing your lists is literally part of the game. That's like the same as people saying they have better things to do than to build their models or paint them or actually play the game.
It's kinda all connected. I don't know how you create that disconnect, but I'll spend two weeks to even a month perfecting a list because it's something to take pride in like the models themselves.
PL cannot do that whatsoever. A single Heavy Bolter is not worth the same as a single Grav Cannon. Ordinarily you pay a lot more for the Grav Cannon. Bam, that's how points does it. Another alternative is to look at Blood Angels Tactical Squads. Their Heavy Flamer is the same cost as a regular one in a minimum sized squad, yet the two weapons are clearly of different value (and I will laugh the moment you try to list the Assault profile for the Flamer a benefit to pick it over additional Strength and AP).
I know how points work. However, it is slower to calculate, and encourages you to prioritize in-game effects over aesthetic or flavour.
I'm not saying points don't have a purpose. They do. I'm saying that some people don't find the purpose of points to be that valuable.
Which once again creates the problem that, with an in game effect, you'd have reason to take 2.8 Heavy Bolters over a Grav Cannon. When everything is priced the same, you can't make that decision. So that leads to the principle you might as well throw each system in the trash and go pewpew.
Also, harder to calculate? Did you somehow not be able to do this for several editions and had someone else do the math for you? I know you said you've played for a while. Simple addition is simple addition. You aren't doing trigonometry or anything.
It also helps that you simply bring lists for common point values ready to go. Sorry, but bringing your whole collection and making a list is irresponsible.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...preparing your lists is literally part of the game. That's like the same as people saying they have better things to do than to build their models or paint them or actually play the game.
Err, sorry, no?
Show me where it says I need to have my list prepared. It only says I need one at the start of the game, but that could be a list I've only just made. I don't need to make a list weeks in advance. I don't even need it hours in advance. Stop imposing your personal way to play as fact and a necessity for others. It's not true.
It's kinda all connected. I don't know how you create that disconnect, but I'll spend two weeks to even a month perfecting a list because it's something to take pride in like the models themselves.
And I'll take pride in my models by playing them how I want to, painting them how I want to, and taking the models I want to. You have your way, I'll have mine. Savvy?
Which once again creates the problem that, with an in game effect, you'd have reason to take 2.8 Heavy Bolters over a Grav Cannon. When everything is priced the same, you can't make that decision. So that leads to the principle you might as well throw each system in the trash and go pewpew.
You can make that decision. You just don't base it off of the effectiveness. You base it off which gun you like the look of, the fluff of, the flavour of.
Also, harder to calculate? Did you somehow not be able to do this for several editions and had someone else do the math for you? I know you said you've played for a while. Simple addition is simple addition. You aren't doing trigonometry or anything.
Simple addition can be made simpler. Or can you not understand how 217+48 is more complex than 3+4?
It's not about the calculation. It's about the amount of calculation, and the length of the sums. 1+1 is easier than 100+100.
And again - I have played 40k for several editions. I have played with points. I deal with standard three/four digit sums as part of my daily life. Just because I *can* do it doesn't mean I want to do it as part of my leisure time.
Sorry if I don't have fun the way you do, but my way is just as valid as yours. Will you concede that at least?
It also helps that you simply bring lists for common point values ready to go. Sorry, but bringing your whole collection and making a list is irresponsible.
And you became the arbiter of what is and is not responsible when, exactly?
You have no authority to claim what is, and is not, good, wrong, right, responsible, or necessary, Slayerfan. Will you stop being so arrogant?
Nowhere does it say you must prepare your list before you go to play.
Never once has he said "you must do that". He simply stated what is, in fact, demonstrably the norm.
No one cares how you personally choose to play. For all I care you can stuff your models in a sock and beat Magic players and determine winners by the density of your stool.
But most people would probably want you doing exactly that. Dragging all your models to the FLGS, asking for a game, and then making your list after you see what your opponent has just comes off as scummy.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Nowhere does it say you must prepare your list before you go to play.
Never once has he said "you must do that". He simply stated what is, in fact, demonstrably the norm.
No one cares how you personally choose to play. For all I care you can stuff your models in a sock and beat Magic players and determine winners by the density of your stool.
But most people would probably want you doing exactly that. Dragging all your models to the FLGS, asking for a game, and then making your list after you see what your opponent has just comes off as scummy.
Or it might help both players have a better game. If I roll up and my opponent wants to play pure grey knights or a fluffy inquisition list, then I would make a list that is a lot more toned down than if my opponent tells me they want to try out their latest tournament list.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Nowhere does it say you must prepare your list before you go to play.
Never once has he said "you must do that". He simply stated what is, in fact, demonstrably the norm.
No, he didn't. He said:
"preparing your lists is literally part of the game" (and for context, "preparing your list" meant doing it long in advance, not on the spot) - this is a falsehood, and not a universal part of the game. "I'll spend two weeks to even a month perfecting a list because it's something to take pride in like the models themselves" - this is a personal slight, worded to imply that because I don't play the same way as Slayerfan, I apparently have no pride in my hobby. "bringing your whole collection and making a list is irresponsible" This is literally Slayer saying 'if you don't prewrite your list, you're a bad person - you SHOULD/MUST prepare your list if you're a good person'
Again, I know that Slayer is no authority figure. I know that Slayer cannot actually say what MUST be. However, everything they've said quoted above is them attempting to enforce that there is a certain DEFINITE way to play that involves pre-writing lists, or else you are a lesser person.
This is what I am highlighting here - the aspect of "play this way or else you are inferior".
The norm is only the norm in their community. My norm is very different to theirs.
No one cares how you personally choose to play. For all I care you can stuff your models in a sock and beat Magic players and determine winners by the density of your stool.
You might not care. Some people in this thread, however, do seem to care, and seem to think it an absolute fact that myself, and people like myself, are wrong.
But most people would probably want you doing exactly that. Dragging all your models to the FLGS, asking for a game, and then making your list after you see what your opponent has just comes off as scummy.
When did I say I did it after I see what my opponent has? Or is this you making assumptions? That would be list tailoring, and I don't do that.
Allow me to explain, in further detail, how I play. My opponent and I agree we will play a game. We pick up the armies we want to play, already stored in boxes that organise them into groupings (for example, all my Ultramarines 1st Company units are in the 1st Company box, all my main vehicles have a box, all my transports have a box, and the 2nd Company units are also in a box). We take a number of these boxes, and when we're at the venue and table, decide what kind of game we want to play (custom scenario, Open War cards, pre-gen mission, Kill Team etc etc) and the size of it. Then, we take a few minutes after deciding everything to write up our lists, independently, and then before deployment, we reveal our lists.
Charistoph wrote: BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.
Points aren't balanced perfectly, but they allow more balance than Power Level. This is objective fact.
Real quick, tell me where points aren't balanced.
Because while I'm sure there are some very valid discrepancies, most of the time it boils down to "what I want to use is overcosted" and "what my opponent beat me with is undercosted".
And if you've been paying attention, I have stated that Points have the capacity to be more finely balanced (nor has anyone ever stated that PL was superior in fine balance), but GW simply won't do it. Not to mention if really improperly handled, it can actually be even more unbalancing than a PL.
I've already given a couple examples to Slayer, and they don't just lie in, "it beat me, therefore it is too powerful". For example, as 6th and 7th Edition progressed, all the Imperium Weapon upgrades were given the same price for all Infantry. That means that the Lascannon cost the same for both a Devastator, Long Fang, and Heavy Weapon Team. Now, the first two were BS: 4, and the HWT were BS: 3, to say nothing about their survivability. Long Fangs, in addition, could separate at least one shot to a different target, which provides more value for those Weapons.
FROM THERE, there were two different types of Heavy Weapon Teams in the very same Imperial Guard codex, one being part of Infantry and Command Squads, and the other in the Heavy Weapon Squad. Their cost to upgrade to a Lascannon was the same as for Devastators and between both Squads, however, the Heavy Weapon Squad cost much more per model (45 for 3 2W models vs 50 for 10 1W models, almost like having a built-in Heavy Bolter), making a Lascannon cost a lot more to field in Heavy Weapon Squads than in an Infantry Squad, even though the Lascannon has less value in an Infantry Squad due to everyone having to shoot the same thing.
No, it is not assuming that PL is more correct to being with. Neither I, nor anyone else here, has once advocated about the ACCURACY of the PL system. That is an assumption that you are putting in to your equation to bring your scarecrow arguments in.
In point of fact, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I do not place any more level of accuracy on either method than I would an Ork Stormtrooper shooting away from Leia on the Death Star.
Actually no, because it leads to the next point I'm going to make.
If you know PL isnt accurate, then what's the point of defending it and using it in the first place instead of going 1st Iteration of AoS?
Because you're not listening the the other half of the statement.
BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.
So why not go for better structure than a system that has little of it, if at all?
You'd literally be better off just playing without any system and making pewpew noises.
No, you wouldn't. The reaction to Age of Sigmar's launch without anything to provide structure with demonstrates how effective the minimal structure of PL provides to the game.
And because they are both inaccurate, neither one is really a better structure. Just because it has a better potential, doesn't mean it's better overall. I can take the best designs and best materials and have my 6-year-old son build a shed. I can then take a minimal design and minimal materials and give it to a decent contractor and come out with a better shed than what my son would provide. In the case of 40K, we have a minimal design and an effective design, but we're still dealing with a builder who cannot hammer or screw straight while confusing tabs and slots to make a total botch of it, no matter what design their using.
PL cannot do that whatsoever. A single Heavy Bolter is not worth the same as a single Grav Cannon. Ordinarily you pay a lot more for the Grav Cannon. Bam, that's how points does it. Another alternative is to look at Blood Angels Tactical Squads. Their Heavy Flamer is the same cost as a regular one in a minimum sized squad, yet the two weapons are clearly of different value (and I will laugh the moment you try to list the Assault profile for the Flamer a benefit to pick it over additional Strength and AP).
I know how points work. However, it is slower to calculate, and encourages you to prioritize in-game effects over aesthetic or flavour.
Not really. What it does it require sacrifices in building units in order to give priority to desired in-game affects.
Adeptus Doritos wrote:Nowhere does it say you must prepare your list before you go to play.
Never once has he said "you must do that". He simply stated what is, in fact, demonstrably the norm.
No one cares how you personally choose to play. For all I care you can stuff your models in a sock and beat Magic players and determine winners by the density of your stool.
But most people would probably want you doing exactly that. Dragging all your models to the FLGS, asking for a game, and then making your list after you see what your opponent has just comes off as scummy.
Slayer is of the camp that if you haven't prepared your list and properly boxed it up for carriage before coming to the game table, then you are obviously cheating.
Andykp wrote:And again another Pl vs points discussion and it boils down to slayer fan and peregrine not accepting that doing something differently than how they like is ok. Their way isn’t “good” to me. It sounds horrendous. I can’t imagine a worse game to play. But that’s fine because the game is trying to cater for both types.
explicitly this!
Wayniac wrote:The fact that Peregrine copied my argument despite nobody saying points were wrong or bad (unlike his arguments against PL) kinda shows that they have no interest in an actual debate, just wanting to show that they're right.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Nowhere does it say you must prepare your list before you go to play.
Never once has he said "you must do that". He simply stated what is, in fact, demonstrably the norm.
No, he didn't. He said:
"preparing your lists is literally part of the game" (and for context, "preparing your list" meant doing it long in advance, not on the spot) - this is a falsehood, and not a universal part of the game.
"I'll spend two weeks to even a month perfecting a list because it's something to take pride in like the models themselves" - this is a personal slight, worded to imply that because I don't play the same way as Slayerfan, I apparently have no pride in my hobby.
"bringing your whole collection and making a list is irresponsible" This is literally Slayer saying 'if you don't prewrite your list, you're a bad person - you SHOULD/MUST prepare your list if you're a good person'
Again, I know that Slayer is no authority figure. I know that Slayer cannot actually say what MUST be. However, everything they've said quoted above is them attempting to enforce that there is a certain DEFINITE way to play that involves pre-writing lists, or else you are a lesser person.
This is what I am highlighting here - the aspect of "play this way or else you are inferior".
The norm is only the norm in their community. My norm is very different to theirs.
No one cares how you personally choose to play. For all I care you can stuff your models in a sock and beat Magic players and determine winners by the density of your stool.
You might not care. Some people in this thread, however, do seem to care, and seem to think it an absolute fact that myself, and people like myself, are wrong.
But most people would probably want you doing exactly that. Dragging all your models to the FLGS, asking for a game, and then making your list after you see what your opponent has just comes off as scummy.
When did I say I did it after I see what my opponent has? Or is this you making assumptions? That would be list tailoring, and I don't do that.
Allow me to explain, in further detail, how I play.
My opponent and I agree we will play a game. We pick up the armies we want to play, already stored in boxes that organise them into groupings (for example, all my Ultramarines 1st Company units are in the 1st Company box, all my main vehicles have a box, all my transports have a box, and the 2nd Company units are also in a box). We take a number of these boxes, and when we're at the venue and table, decide what kind of game we want to play (custom scenario, Open War cards, pre-gen mission, Kill Team etc etc) and the size of it. Then, we take a few minutes after deciding everything to write up our lists, independently, and then before deployment, we reveal our lists.
. Luckily there is a system of "balancing" just for you 
!
