Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I'm fairly certain that most people play games with points limits most of the time (this is the case for me). However, this got me thinking, what is the cheapest troop in the game for power level compared to points cost (e.g. swarmlord 300 points / 15 powerlevel = 20 points per power level) Just curious, I look forward to seeing all the cheapest troops!

I think the general agreement is what you described 1 PP = 20 pts.

This formula used to work out almost perfectly before the Codices were released:

Minimum points for the unit (basic wargear, no upgrades) + Most expensive points loadout without adding models, average and divided by 20 = Power level

So 5 bolter Marines cost 65pts and I think the most expensive 5 Marine loadout was with Mult-melta and a Sgt with Power fist and combi-melta ~130pts (don't quite remember from the Index)
65 + 130 = 195 / 2 = 97.5 / 20 = 4.875. Rounds to 5. Therefore 5 Marines are Power level 5.

The "rebalancing" of points in the Codices has thrown this off a bit in some cases, but in general, 20pts = 1PL

-

So, I did all the Points to PL comparisons for Custodes, and found some interesting things.

For Custodian Guard, larger squads get you MORE points per PL. But for Wardens and Allarus, you actually get LESS points per PL as you scale up squad size. Vertus Praetors do not change in Points to PL comparison at any squad size.

In addition, best Points to PL was max-sized Guard squads, with their unique character in second place.

It's important to remember that back in the Developer FAQ they stated that Power Level was an approximation of all weapon layouts for a squad. This is especially evident in Heavy Weapon teams like Devastators. They're PL is 1 or 2 points higher than a basic Tac squad, implying that they're equipped with heavy bolters or something, making them overcosted if you don't take them with any special/heavy weapons and undercosted if you take max Lascannons.

Personally I think it makes sense to make larger units slightly cheaper. They don't fit into transports as well, you only get a single "Sarge" in comparison to multiple units, you don't get wound overflow as easily and larger units are more susceptible to leadership checks. Causing 10 wounds to 5 guardsmen, is incredibly inefficient, especially when compared to causing 10 wounds to 20 guardsmen, Not only do you not have wound "overflow" but there's also a good chance that some models in the larger unit will break because of morale.

Also, Shameless plug, I've been working on a side project with some friends on "changing" power levels slightly, mostly just for our own homebrew games. I play Dark Eldar so naturally I started with them first. Would love to know what y'all think!

Google Spreadsheet

Better Forum Format

I've read the Warhammer Community post from GW on power levels, but as a newcomer to WH40K 8th edition (having come from 1st edition after a looooong break), are people using the new power levels for non-tournament matched play or are points still king?

It's still points of gtfo, as it ever should be.

Ignore Hobo. Some people are angry because other people play games differently than them (hence the obnoxious response, etc.)

The "Matched Play" realm, i.e. most tournaments, etc. are definitely still points. I see about a 70%/30% with points being more prevalent. The main difference is that with the release of Chapter Approved, a heap of units (mainly Forge World, etc.) were nerfed to pieces with points, while their Power Level stayed the same.

This means you could much more easily take gigantic, game-altering units in a power level or "casual" game, but they're prohibitively expensive in Matched Play games/tournaments which are using points. In effect GW limited these units so they'll only ever show in Apocalypse style games etc. (another place where people are using Power Level predominantly).

If you're trying to plan an army, I'd suggest points as it's more common.

I don't like to use PL. Here is one reason why...

A five man squad of Intercessors is 5 PL; now take a squad of six and the PL doubles. That makes absolutely no sense at all and there are people who will game it as much as they can.

I only use PL for narrative campaigns. I don't care about points. In tournament or casual power gaming environments, points make more sense.

I play both power level and points. It works fine either way. You will encounter "never power level guys" and they can be a bit tiresome.

Try them both and see which works for you and your group.

PL forces you to design your lists a very specific way.

 Primark G wrote:
PL forces you to design your lists a very specific way.

load up with all the expensive options and assume the other guy did the same?

Yes, because God forbid the other guy might have an advantage. Losing a game of 40k might make you look weak.

 Primark G wrote:
I don't like to use PL. Here is one reason why...

A five man squad of Intercessors is 5 PL; now take a squad of six and the PL doubles. That makes absolutely no sense at all and there are people who will game it as much as they can.

So.. take a full unit of 10 then for the same PL as 6?

Power Level assumes you max out the unit with all gear and possible upgrades.

I play a mix of both depending upon the situation and the type of game being played.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
PL forces you to design your lists a very specific way.

load up with all the expensive options and assume the other guy did the same?

That's part of the problem, but the other is that there is little room for partial squads, generally staying at full min or full max unit size is better.

 Elbows wrote:
The "Matched Play" realm, i.e. most tournaments, etc. are definitely still points. I see about a 70%/30% with points being more prevalent. The main difference is that with the release of Chapter Approved, a heap of units (mainly Forge World, etc.) were nerfed to pieces with points, while their Power Level stayed the same.

This means you could much more easily take gigantic, game-altering units in a power level or "casual" game, but they're prohibitively expensive in Matched Play games/tournaments which are using points. In effect GW limited these units so they'll only ever show in Apocalypse style games etc. (another place where people are using Power Level predominantly).

If you're trying to plan an army, I'd suggest points as it's more common.

Thanks - I thought that would be the case. Interesting that Chapter Approved changed the points but not the power levels, although looking back at the Warhammer Community post from GW they did say:

"It also means that, in the future, points for units could change without invalidating existing books – so if one unit or weapon starts to dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their weight in competitive games, we can address the balance."

Primark G wrote:PL forces you to design your lists a very specific way.

Right - and I think I'd rather have the flexibility to take a smaller squad without incurring a disadvantage.

Power Level is also more for narrative style gaming, which most of the people I encounter on the internet are not suited for. Narrative gaming is vastly different from tournament or "matched play" gaming.

Narrative gaming is often not about "being fair" but rather about fighting battles as they'd occur in the fictiion, or retelling stories where things arent usually ever perfectly matched and fair.

 auticus wrote:
Power Level is also more for narrative style gaming, which most of the people I encounter on the internet are not suited for.

No it isn't. Power level offers nothing over the more detailed point system in narrative gaming. Making your point system less accurate and calling it "power" doesn't make it better for anything. Well, I suppose it's better for virtue signalling about how "casual" you are because you refuse to allow balance into your game, but I don't see any value in that.

(General "you", not you personally.)

If the game is not supposed to be balanced in the first place, you might as well use PL for easier access.

 Jidmah wrote:
If the game is not supposed to be balanced in the first place, you might as well use PL for easier access.

Saving a minimal amount of time, zero time if you use an army builder program to generate your list. Plus, isn't that a pretty pathetic concession? "Our game is a dumpster fire and we put no effort into balancing it, so you might as well just use the fastest point system to roughly throw some meaningless numbers together".

So, what point levels would you suggest for an endless assault of tyranids where every unit that gets wiped out respawns at the edge of the battlefield to fight against a smaller imperial force in the middle of the board?

1000 vs 1500? 1000 vs 1750? 1250 vs 2000? 1432 vs 1804?

Correct answer is: It doesn't matter, the imperials are going to die.
So don't bother counting your sergeant's storm bolters and power swords.

 Jidmah wrote:
Correct answer is: It doesn't matter, the imperials are going to die.
So don't bother counting your sergeant's storm bolters and power swords.

Then why bother counting the cost of your tactical squad and HQ? Just throw some models on the table and roll dice until the space marines are dead.

How do you know that the marines aren't more powerful than the nids?

 Jidmah wrote:
How do you know that the marines aren't more powerful than the nids?

Why do you care? You have infinite respawning units, eventually they're going to win. Remember, that inevitability is why you think it isn't worth adding up point costs for upgrades, you can't turn around and say that you now need to know the exact strengths of each force instead of assuming that the endless horde will eventually win because it is endless.

You are the one that added the word "exact".

Power level is for when you don't care about exact numbers.

 Jidmah wrote:
You are the one that added the word "exact".

Power level is for when you don't care about exact numbers.

But why do you need to know the relative power at all? The Nids have infinitely respawning units, they're gonna win.

 Jidmah wrote:
Power level is for when you don't care about exact numbers.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Power level is for when you don't care about exact numbers.

But then why do you care about numbers at all? Using power levels only makes sense if you don't care about balance at all (such as in the scenario with the predetermined winner), at which point why bother using any kind of point system? And if you care about balance at all using the full point system is only a small amount of extra work to improve balance.

Because 1000 PL of imperials are not going to lose to 50 PL of nids, unless you brought nothing but manticores.

There are colors besides black and white.

 Jidmah wrote:
Because 1000 PL of imperials are not going to lose to 50 PL of nids, unless you brought nothing but manticores.

You don't need power levels to figure that out. Even dumping an equal amount of models on the table is sufficient. "Well, the IG side has four 'big models' and ~50 infantry, let's give the Tyranids four big ones and ~50 little ones and call it a day". Why do you need the extra detail of adding up power levels?