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.

Conversely, could we not design a list that is focused to tackle Sternguard/Devs/Razorbacks?

Is there not a player-side solution? Meta is not a one-sided equation where the opponent adapts and you sit there and cry.

Meanwhile, wouldn't having the option to swap a few meltas for more flamers help tackle some of the hordes some people are struggling with?

hobojebus wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

We are in this situation anyway 30 boyz and 30 stormboyz are the same pl but ones clearly the better choice.

That's never going to be true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Boyz and Stormboyz have different upgrade options.

Except I've said it exactly once....

And 30 of either unit does in fact have the same power level.

Sure, and they aren't the same. 30 Boyz have 27 shootas and 4 Rokkit launchas. 30 Stormboyz have sticks.

 jamopower wrote:
I would assume that it's taken into account in the power level

It's not.

Once you start falling back on having to macguyver a hodge-podge of house rules together every time you play, you can no longer claim that power levels are better.

And let's be clear, that line about "players may agree on additional restrictions" only translates to "you can use house rules".

After all, if "we have house rules so it's okay" is your trump card, then that means every single rule in the rulebook is invalid anyway. After all, house rules can replace, tweak, or supplement any of them. However, a ruleset that plays well without house rules is better than one that absolutely requires them to function because the former allows you to play the game without having to write the whole rulebook yourself first.

Power levels have limited applications. They can speed up pick-up games and work well with on-the-spot WYSIWYG play. They are not fit for a competitive setting.

In many cases the "well taking a lascannon means you can't take a heavy bolter" argument doesn't even apply. What about missile launchers, which can fight both infantry and vehicles? What about slots where one of the options is "nothing", such as sponson weapons?

There's also upgrades that have their own dedicated slot, you just take it or you don't and it doesn't replace anything. Vox casters in infantry squads, the heavy flamer in veteran squads, hunter-killer missiles, pintle stubbers, valkyrie/vendetta door guns, camo netting, camo cloaks, carapace armor (even if some of those have vanished for now and we're hoping they come back with the codex), gear that is just "take it or leave it" is remarkably common. While this might be a big reason why Boyz can't take 'Eavy Armor in 8th, might even be why camo cloaks/nets and carapace are gone, there's still plenty of those kinds of upgrades floating around. And if filling a slot like that is free, why would you ever leave it empty?

 Melissia wrote:

 jamopower wrote:
I would assume that it's taken into account in the power level

It's not.

How can you be so sure? For example 5 immortals for 4 PL seem to be quite good value, even if they don't get any upgrades. Compare that to chaos space marines, that cost 3 PL barebones and 5 PL with upgrades for five marines. The costs seem to be as they should. Sure, there might be some unit that would be much better for the same cost, but that's how it usually goes.

Immortals can actually swap out their Gauss weapons for Tesla, or vice versa. So it's a sidegrade, but it's not completely accurate that Necron troops lack flexibility.

ITC has always been a hodgepodge of house rules, they had a 20+ page FAQ for 7th as well as custom missions. Points won't avoid this if that's what you imagine.

And of course, units will always take all the upgrades they paid for. That's one of the interesting features of playing with PLs. When's the last time you saw everyone in a comp fielding upgraded squad leaders with Pistols and Power Weapons?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

We are in this situation anyway 30 boyz and 30 stormboyz are the same pl but ones clearly the better choice.

That's never going to be true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Boyz and Stormboyz have different upgrade options.

Except I've said it exactly once....

And 30 of either unit does in fact have the same power level.

Sure, and they aren't the same. 30 Boyz have 27 shootas and 4 Rokkit launchas. 30 Stormboyz have sticks.

And that's my point from the start they are vastly different units but cost the same PL which they shouldn't.

So far all you've done is prove my point I'm not sure what your objections actually are.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

We are in this situation anyway 30 boyz and 30 stormboyz are the same pl but ones clearly the better choice.

That's never going to be true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Boyz and Stormboyz have different upgrade options.

Except I've said it exactly once....

And 30 of either unit does in fact have the same power level.

Sure, and they aren't the same. 30 Boyz have 27 shootas and 4 Rokkit launchas. 30 Stormboyz have sticks.

Stormboyz are simply boyz with jump-packs. Neither unit has much upgradability of importance outside of the boss nob. And their points cost reflect this but the powerlevels does not. It is simply poor design.

There is nothing fundamentally unsound with the powerlevel-system, but the hap-hazard and inconsistent way that actual powerlevels has been assigned to the various units defeats the purpose of a simpler and more casual system. Certainly, the only use of powerlevels in the ork index seems to make overpowered and broken troll-lists, not exactly something that is helpful to beginners and casual gamers. And a tournament using powerlevels would with certainty be dominated by ridiculous spam-lists.

Balance is a total red herring, it can always be addressed by changing points or PLs.

The only real question is if a sideboard and dynamic/mandatory upgrades are more fun that metagaming before the comp and min-maxing your units in stereotypical OCD gamer fashion.

I think that will mostly boil down to personal preference.

hobojebus wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

We are in this situation anyway 30 boyz and 30 stormboyz are the same pl but ones clearly the better choice.

That's never going to be true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Boyz and Stormboyz have different upgrade options.

Except I've said it exactly once....

And 30 of either unit does in fact have the same power level.

Sure, and they aren't the same. 30 Boyz have 27 shootas and 4 Rokkit launchas. 30 Stormboyz have sticks.

And that's my point from the start they are vastly different units but cost the same PL which they shouldn't.

So far all you've done is prove my point I'm not sure what your objections actually are.

Actually, to be quite honest, those 4 rokkit launchas won't make much difference by themselves. They could be rokkit launchas, they could be big shootas, they could simply be more vanilla sluggas and choppas. The models that carry them are going to do different amounts of work in different situations, and while not all that work will be of equal value, the idea behind power points is that in the grand scheme of things it probably won't matter all that much.

I mean, do some math here. How long would it take those four rokkit launchas to take down a rhino on average? I mean really.

In older editions, sure. One rokkit could pop a rhino in a single shot if you got somewhat lucky with your rolls back before hull points. Just score a penetrating hit and roll high. Vehicles were nearly worthless back then unless they were land-raiders or heavy tanks in the front arc. I didn't play much 7th, but HP made those rokkits a bit less valuable. They could still get the job done, but not in one hit.

Today your average transport has ~10 wounds. Hit 5-6, wound 3+, 4-5+ armor after mods, then deal 3 damage. Repeat.

Those rokkits are so valuable they might be able to kill a basic transport after 4-5 turns of shooting.

Doesn't sound that valuable to me. You'd be better served by picking up an actual anti-vehical/monster squad and counting the rokkits in the boyz squad as simple flexibility.

I've been observing that in-squad flexability through special and heavy weapons isn't as core to an army as it used to be. The value of that individual lascannon isn't as high as it used to be so, literally, those points matter a lot less than they used to.

In most cases, PL seems to be pretty accurate in the grand scheme of things. With or without options. Most of them don't seem to matter. There are exceptions, to be sure, but I'm hoping that player feedback from the games we're playing now will allow GW to add those kind of accuracy modifiers to the codexes.

Take Termagants for example. A gaunt squad with adrenaline glands and toxin sacs is obviously much more powerful than one without, especially if you buy 10-20 extra models for the squad. However, I don't see either option making much of a difference at the 10-model level except in very specific circumstances (charging a small unit of 3-wound models, for example, that not every army can or will have). However, at 20 or 30 models, adrenaline glands are probably worth +1 PL easy. Same with Toxin sacs. So @10 the +1 might get you both options, while at 20 and above each one might cost +1 each. Not per 10 models, just +1 each for the entire squad simply because the difference between 20 and 30 gaunts is primarily staying power. Not hitting power unless you get a perfect charge, at which point it's more your skill as a player that made the difference. Not the options you took.

hobojebus wrote:

Sure, and they aren't the same. 30 Boyz have 27 shootas and 4 Rokkit launchas. 30 Stormboyz have sticks.

And that's my point from the start they are vastly different units but cost the same PL which they shouldn't.

So far all you've done is prove my point I'm not sure what your objections actually are.

You compared an unupgraded squad to one with six upgrades. Stop being disingenuous.

Random thoughts (since we are on page 5):

Are you a new player reading this? Try your first game with PL and limit upgrades to the basics then play a real game with points.

Duplo or Lego?

It strikes me as odd that 40K players can spend 1,000's of hours painting miniatures but would not want to spend 30 minutes making a fully fleshed out list...

Did someone use the argument, "math is hard?" What are you, a Barbie doll?

Locally, it is the SM players who are trying to convince everyone that PL is a good thing, with those who would abuse it leading the charge. While we are at it we should introduce sideboards. Who would not like free upgrade meta?

Battlescribe, free version, go!

One really interesting case is Conscripts. They start out at 3PL for 20 Conscripts, 60 points. Okay, fine.

But then each 10 models after that is only 1PL, so 50 Conscripts is 6PL, you get 150 points of Conscripts for 120 points for no apparent reason.

Now, granted 50 Conscripts can never be entirely represented by PL because it can only be 140 or 160 (7 or 8). But they're 120 if you blob them up, no idea why.

That's also a good example of why PL is inherently not a good balancing system: you can only swing things in increments of 20 points. Think something is undercosted at 2PL? You can raise it by 50% or not at all. While this situation can technically crop up in the GEQ tier (see: conscripts vs gaunts vs guardsmen vs cultists), it's still less pronounced at 4-6 points and there's a lot more stuff in the 2-3PL range than in the 4-6 point range.

Plus, with points, if one particular gun is OP you can adjust just that one gun. With PL, you have to nerf the whole unit even if they don't take the OP gun, as well as every other unit that has that gun as an option.

Honestly, from a purely self-interest perspective it probably would be good for me to argue for PLs. I play Imperial Guard. I'd be able to take advantage of conscripts for an effective 2.4ppm. My infantry squads have tons of loadout options, I'd be able to exploit sideboarding ruthlessly. Almost all of my units can be built ~30%-40% above their nominal PL value, so I could probably bring nearly 1400 points to a 1000 point game. I have tons of options that don't replace anything, they're pure bonus with no drawback, and that can add hundreds of points to my list. Sure, my mortar teams would be relegated to collecting dust because they're never going to be remotely worth it, but over all I arguably play one of the best factions to abuse this system.

But that's exactly why I don't think it's fit for a competitive environment. If I can take advantage of it that easily, then it just wouldn't be fair to hang a tournament on it. Close enough is good enough for a beer and pretzels game, but in a tournament, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

The Stormboyz/Ork Boyz example. If they both go into a 2000pt list about 8.3x times, you would lose about 32pts (1.6%).

So yes there's a small penalty for the lack of granularity. What's more meaningful is the 448pts Boyz have to take in upgrades (22.4%).

Not sure why people think that upgrades are free. Clearly this is not the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
Sure, my mortar teams would be relegated to collecting dust because they're never going to be remotely worth it, but over all I arguably play one of the best factions to abuse this system.

Then it's definitely worth looking at Guard to see just how badly we can break it.

 Tokhuah wrote:
Random thoughts (since we are on page 5):

Are you a new player reading this? Try your first game with PL and limit upgrades to the basics then play a real game with points.

Duplo or Lego?

It strikes me as odd that 40K players can spend 1,000's of hours painting miniatures but would not want to spend 30 minutes making a fully fleshed out list...

Did someone use the argument, "math is hard?" What are you, a Barbie doll?

Locally, it is the SM players who are trying to convince everyone that PL is a good thing, with those who would abuse it leading the charge. While we are at it we should introduce sideboards. Who would not like free upgrade meta?

Battlescribe, free version, go!

Its people who are militant casuals pushing pl hard as if everyone using would create some gaming nirvana, and woe betide you should you disagree because you'll be labeled WAAC or a power gamer.

Thing is just like antifa they have to be vocally opposed lest they get their way and ruin it for everyone.

Gw can't get the impression the loose balance of pl is the norm or we'll be right where we were with 7th, a balanced game benefits every single gamer out there no matter their play style.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Well then you have to reduce PL for units like Necrons Warriors don't you? It's why they exist as a balance mechanism. Format will always have an effect on how useful a unit is.

And Necrons most assuredly have some customization, maybe you've never seen a Wraith without Whip Coils in a 7th Ed tournament but they do have some options available.

If we're to start messing about with PL values why not go the whole hog and do the same with points values? As a nice bonus, you get better granularity. Your argument basically amounts to "if things were more balanced balance would be improved".

If you can't see the tactical difference between being able to swap out an entire squad's worth of heavy weapons or combi-weapons and choosing between no upgrade and Whip Coils I'm not really sure you're grasping the point of the argument.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Conversely, could we not design a list that is focused to tackle Sternguard/Devs/Razorbacks?

Is there not a player-side solution? Meta is not a one-sided equation where the opponent adapts and you sit there and cry.

Meanwhile, wouldn't having the option to swap a few meltas for more flamers help tackle some of the hordes some people are struggling with?

Yes you can design a list to try to counter that (it is very hard for many armies though), but then that list may struggle against something else because it lacks the option to adjust to face other armies (because it uses specialized units). The point is the PL as a side board is exactly one side adapts and the other might just have to sit there and cry. So either, all lists basically end up the same because there is one good list in each faction (if that, it might be that many factions lack even that in a PL as sideboard meta).

As for swapping meltas for flamers help against hordes sure, but most hordes are incapable of similarly adjusting to deal with things that are the largest threats to them. So again it is one sided. It is why I said the only way to handle a side board meta is to allow sideboarding only prior to seeing lists, and basically allow people to write their list on the spot knowing their opponents faction. Otherwise you just pick units/factions that allow you to list tailor and the game becomes, who gets the first shot at the opponent, because their list will be so tuned to killing them the game will be over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Well then you have to reduce PL for units like Necrons Warriors don't you? It's why they exist as a balance mechanism. Format will always have an effect on how useful a unit is.

And Necrons most assuredly have some customization, maybe you've never seen a Wraith without Whip Coils in a 7th Ed tournament but they do have some options available.

If we're to start messing about with PL values why not go the whole hog and do the same with points values? As a nice bonus, you get better granularity. Your argument basically amounts to "if things were more balanced balance would be improved".

If you can't see the tactical difference between being able to swap out an entire squad's worth of heavy weapons or combi-weapons and choosing between no upgrade and Whip Coils I'm not really sure you're grasping the point of the argument.

Absolutely what I have been saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The problem with the Ork Boyz vs Stormboys comparison is it assumes the upgrades on boyz are worth taking over just having more boyz.

For the cost of those 3 Rokkits and a Kombi- Rokkit you can have almost 10 more boyz, so if you take 3 units of 30 with those upgrades, is it better to have 12 Rokkits, or 28 additional boyz?

The boyz being 13 power, means that if we are doing 100 power games they are 13% of your list. IF we translate that to a 2k game, that would be 260 points per squad. So essentially Nob with Power klaw and Komb-rokkit, and 3 Rokkits are paid for in this scenario. No option to just take the Power klaw and no special weapons and be at 205. No option To take say 25 boyz etc.

So if that is all you want in your squad you will always take storm boyz in a PL game.

This is the problem with PL in general it assumes taking the upgrades is desirable in all units, vs having cheaper units.

PL is not a balancing system; it's a means to determine who should be the Underdog and how many extra command points he should get in casual games with WYSIWYG models, which is why it is based on average upgrades and not maximum, because it is assumed that these WYSIWYG models will not have every available upgrade.

Alcibiades wrote:
PL is not a balancing system; it's a means to determine who should be the Underdog and how many extra command points he should get in casual games with WYSIWYG models, which is why it is based on average upgrades and not maximum, because it is assumed that these WYSIWYG models will not have every available upgrade.

It is a rough balance system, if people are not min-maxing similar power level armies should be ball park. It just runs into problems if people start building to break it.

Breng77 wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
PL is not a balancing system; it's a means to determine who should be the Underdog and how many extra command points he should get in casual games with WYSIWYG models, which is why it is based on average upgrades and not maximum, because it is assumed that these WYSIWYG models will not have every available upgrade.

It is a rough balance system, if people are not min-maxing similar power level armies should be ball park. It just runs into problems if people start building to break it.

Well, it's a rough way to determine which of two armies is more powerful and by how much, but it's not really an attempt to make "armies of equal power" -- in the scenarios in the book, it seems to be used mostly to determine who is the Underdog and should take the defender's position and so on, and in those scenarios being of equal power defeats the purpose.

Alcibiades wrote:
which is why it is based on average upgrades and not maximum, because it is assumed that these WYSIWYG models will not have every available upgrade.

Then it's a broken system and should not be used. People can play 100% WYSIWYG armies with the most overpowered units/upgrades, and any assumption that WYSIWYG models will not be equipped properly is not justifiable.

 Peregrine wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
which is why it is based on average upgrades and not maximum, because it is assumed that these WYSIWYG models will not have every available upgrade.

Then it's a broken system and should not be used. People can play 100% WYSIWYG armies with the most overpowered units/upgrades, and any assumption that WYSIWYG models will not be equipped properly is not justifiable.

It is in my group, because we play both power and points, which means that we don't buy every upgrade available.

Now, I fully agree that using this system in any kind of competitive or power-gaming environment would be raving madness. It's perfectly fine for Bob, Bob's wife, and Bob's buddies, though.

Have played about a dozen games now with power level and close to that with points.

In a non waac environment.

The two sets of games were very close in their results.

I will still continue to use power level for most everything that does not include WAAC play.

If my opponent is the type of person to utter "but why would I never take all the free upgrades everytime" then we aren't playing 40k in campaigns anyway... he's a tournament player likely and I'll only ever see him in the waac environment.

Have played both in a waac environment as well. They were predictably one sided games whether you used power level or points.

Alcibiades wrote:
casual games with WYSIWYG models

You keep using the term WYSIWYG as if it has any relation to balance.

I don't think you actually know what WYSIWYG means.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
which is why it is based on average upgrades and not maximum, because it is assumed that these WYSIWYG models will not have every available upgrade.

Then it's a broken system and should not be used. People can play 100% WYSIWYG armies with the most overpowered units/upgrades, and any assumption that WYSIWYG models will not be equipped properly is not justifiable.

It is in my group, because we play both power and points, which means that we don't buy every upgrade available.

Now, I fully agree that using this system in any kind of competitive or power-gaming environment would be raving madness. It's perfectly fine for Bob, Bob's wife, and Bob's buddies, though.

Yup, it is great for quick pick-ups that are casual, playing with kids, playing huge apocalypse level games. It gives rough balance if power is equal, at least enough for these purposes. Anything competitive it starts to fall down.

Slipspace wrote:
If you can't see the tactical difference between being able to swap out an entire squad's worth of heavy weapons or combi-weapons and choosing between no upgrade and Whip Coils I'm not really sure you're grasping the point of the argument.

Cantopek Wraiths have 4 upgrade choices in 8th. Transdimensional Beamer, Particle Casters, Whip Coils and Claws. Not sure where you got Whip Coils or nothing from.

Is a unit that can swap out it's loadout more flexible? Yes, but remember we also had units with multiple primary weapon profiles in 7th (like a Thunderfire or a Whirlwind). Is a flexible unit better? Depends entirely on costing.

Breng77 wrote:
Yes you can design a list to try to counter that (it is very hard for many armies though), but then that list may struggle against something else because it lacks the option to adjust to face other armies (because it uses specialized units).

Exact same issue exists in points, they can't adjust to everything. This is why skew lists were so effective and so common in the 7th tournament scene. This criticism is 100% valid but it's not unique to PLs.

Breng77 wrote:
The problem with the Ork Boyz vs Stormboys comparison is it assumes the upgrades on boyz are worth taking over just having more boyz.

The effect of being forced to max out on upgrades is it will detune certain units like Boyz. Powergamers will simply adjust by using more optimal units, including skimping in their troops slot if it's not optimal. So again, this is exactly like points in 7th. Where certain units were also never taken because min squads without upgrades were the most efficienct. You are again making valid points but they apply to both systems!

--------------

I think we can all agree competitive players will act exactly the same under PLs as under points, they will look for advantages and exploit them. Whether a list has flexible or inflexible upgrades, smart players build towards what the format favours. Either choosing flexible units that can tailor their upgrades to opponents, or building min-maxed skew lists that punish generalist TAC armies.

So the real question -- do transparent draft-style formats encourage balance, player interaction and player agency? I think so, which is why they exist in a lot of competitive online games. Players get another opportunity to adjust to the opponent's choices. And this might be more effective as a balance mechanism than granularity, because players will attempt to auto-balance their upgrades towards target types. Look outside 40k. It can work.

Points and static lists are far from a perfect model, we are glossing over a LOT of issues from 7th. Once again, balance is about costing. If you don't adjust it, any system will fall down. Could you make a balanced list in a 7th casual environment? Sure. But competitive gamers try to break balance in order to win. They aren't going to be any more altruistic under a points model. Mismatches don't happen just because of "granularity" error. If you look at 7th the costing of superstar and dud units was wildly imbalanced to the point of laughable. Granularity was the least of your worries.

 Melissia wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
casual games with WYSIWYG models

You keep using the term WYSIWYG as if it has any relation to balance.

I don't think you actually know what WYSIWYG means.

The main reason I've been using it as a qualifier for casual games (and probably the same reason she is) is that WYSIWYG means if you don't have a model on-hand, you can't put it on the table. In a pick-up game, that is being thrown together on the spot, it does make a difference: only have four lascannons on hand? That's all you can bring, even if you have enough open slots for twenty of them. The point here being that you can use PLs in a casual pick-up game as long as you don't allow proxies (because proxies can utterly break it). This is pretty widely agreed on.

It definitely doesn't do anything to help balance a tournament though, because in a tournament you have months of prep-time to paint new models. Which turns WYSIWYG into a speed bump at best.

 Melissia wrote:
You compared an unupgraded squad to one with six upgrades. Stop being disingenuous.

Incorrect, I included all upgrades Stormboyz are allowed to take that are different from Boyz. Read the book.

That's why they're power level is the same.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
If you can't see the tactical difference between being able to swap out an entire squad's worth of heavy weapons or combi-weapons and choosing between no upgrade and Whip Coils I'm not really sure you're grasping the point of the argument.

Cantopek Wraiths have 4 upgrade choices in 8th. Transdimensional Beamer, Particle Casters, Whip Coils and Claws. Not sure where you got Whip Coils or nothing from.

Is a unit that can swap out it's loadout more flexible? Yes, but remember we also had units with multiple primary weapon profiles in 7th (like a Thunderfire or a Whirlwind). Is a flexible unit better? Depends entirely on costing.

Breng77 wrote:
Yes you can design a list to try to counter that (it is very hard for many armies though), but then that list may struggle against something else because it lacks the option to adjust to face other armies (because it uses specialized units).

Exact same issue exists in points, they can't adjust to everything. This is why skew lists were so effective and so common in the 7th tournament scene. This criticism is 100% valid but it's not unique to PLs.

Breng77 wrote:
The problem with the Ork Boyz vs Stormboys comparison is it assumes the upgrades on boyz are worth taking over just having more boyz.

The effect of being forced to max out on upgrades is it will detune certain units like Boyz. Powergamers will simply adjust by using more optimal units, including skimping in their troops slot if it's not optimal. So again, this is exactly like points in 7th. Where certain units were also never taken because min squads without upgrades were the most efficienct. You are again making valid points but they apply to both systems!

--------------

I think we can all agree competitive players will act exactly the same under PLs as under points, they will look for advantages and exploit them. Whether a list has flexible or inflexible upgrades, smart players build towards what the format favours. Either choosing flexible units that can tailor their upgrades to opponents, or building min-maxed skew lists that punish generalist TAC armies.

So the real question -- do transparent draft-style formats encourage balance, player interaction and player agency? I think so, which is why they exist in a lot of competitive online games. Players get another opportunity to adjust to the opponent's choices. And this might be more effective as a balance mechanism than granularity, because players will attempt to auto-balance their upgrades towards target types. Look outside 40k. It can work.

Points and static lists are far from a perfect model, we are glossing over a LOT of issues from 7th. Once again, balance is about costing. If you don't adjust it, any system will fall down. Could you make a balanced list in a 7th casual environment? Sure. But competitive gamers try to break balance in order to win. They aren't going to be any more altruistic under a points model. Mismatches don't happen just because of "granularity" error. If you look at 7th the costing of superstar and dud units was wildly imbalanced to the point of laughable. Granularity was the least of your worries.

Yes 7th had tons of issues with skew lists, The difference is allowing some armies to have effective side boards and others not. I'm not against the idea of a sideboard concept. I'm against using PL as the sideboard concept because it penalizes a great number of units that lack options/effective options.

Re-costing will be necessary for balance in either scenario, and if it is going to be done it can be done more effectively in a granular system because you have more wiggle room in the cost. Essentially if we buy the concept that 100 PL ~ 2000 points. Then re-recosting with power level can only occur in 20 point increments, So if something is OP at 4 PL and goes up to 5 PL that is a 25% cost increase on the unit. This might make it balanced or it might make it useless, the balance point might be 10%, but you are incapable of making that adjustment, unless you re-cost everything so that PL are doubled, and now that unit is 8 PL going to 9, even then this is 12.5% but at least we are getting close. By doing this you are increasing granularity. Do it enough to make slight adjustments and you might as well be playing points. The issue is that at some point you end up hurting PL as a way for casual players to play because you will need to account for the optimal value of the unit rather than a basic average.

Granularity wasn't a worry in 7th because it existed, the problem was there were plenty of things that threw points out the window (summoning, free transports), they also have never really updated points without also making rules changes, so balance never happened. At some level it is just easier to use points. Unless you limit unit options. Then if you want to go side board, the way to do it was as I suggested, make lists at game time (easy with PL) after knowing the mission and opponents faction. So you are not building a hard counter, but you have some idea about the types of units you might see and can bring an answer.