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.

tneva82 wrote:

 GamerGuy wrote:
Maybe a controversial suggestion; and may have come up already haven't read the entire thread; but I feel like power level should go hand in hand with WYSIWYG

-this would A) stop the comp players from maxing on units they wouldn't invest in in points games, B) reward aesthetic upgrades that often get ignored in points games and C) give newer players who tend to build good looking but impractical loadouts a break for once...maybe even an edge over the experienced players?

Well I have yet to play where WYSIWYG(apart from grenades and standard weapons models comes with like laspistol) isn't enforced anyway.

This... Exactly...

WYSIWYG should be the strived for standard, regardless of whether it is points or PL, and is always enforced (within reason – i.e grenades etc) at events – casual, narrative or competitive.

Not to mention, it’s kinda the way the game is meant to be played. So saying PL is based on a WYSIWYG requirement is …

Irregardless of other faults, power levels have one thing I really like. Models costs less for bigger units. I dont have the books in front of me but I think marines costs 5pl for 5 and 9pl for 10. When I read the indexes this seemed true for all armies. Everybody knows MSU is better (morale, overkill, flexibility) but that's not represented by matched points in any way. In this special regard power levels are more balanced than points.

Gitdakka wrote:
Irregardless of other faults, power levels have one thing I really like. Models costs less for bigger units. I dont have the books in front of me but I think marines costs 5pl for 5 and 9pl for 10. When I read the indexes this seemed true for all armies. Everybody knows MSU is better (morale, overkill, flexibility) but that's not represented by matched points in any way. In this special regard power levels are more balanced than points.

Though reason only works generally for first plump. Seems to account for vet sergeant gear. But then if you have 11-15 guys that jump is same as first jump so basic guys price doesn't decrease as unit size.

It should though. Good thing HH has had this for years. But then again HH is superior anyway so no surprise.

Gitdakka wrote:
Irregardless of other faults, power levels have one thing I really like. Models costs less for bigger units. I dont have the books in front of me but I think marines costs 5pl for 5 and 9pl for 10. When I read the indexes this seemed true for all armies. Everybody knows MSU is better (morale, overkill, flexibility) but that's not represented by matched points in any way. In this special regard power levels are more balanced than points.

Isn't this just because their average point cost is closer to 9PL than ten when the size is increased. I e an initial group would cost 1.6PL which would convert to 2PL so two would cost 3.2PL=~3PL. So I don't believe it's there as a boon to take larger groups, just for fairness in calculation when converted from points.

This whole argument always goes in circles.

If you're making the case that points are more balanced than Power Level, and you use point based values to argue that PL is imbalanced, that's ridiculous. You're starting from the assumption that points are more balanced, and using that data to prove that points are more balanced.

 Marmatag wrote:
This whole argument always goes in circles.

If you're making the case that points are more balanced than Power Level, and you use point based values to argue that PL is imbalanced, that's ridiculous. You're starting from the assumption that points are more balanced, and using that data to prove that points are more balanced.

Points and Power Level are literally the same thing, they're both numerical values to represent that tabletop game value of a unit.

The difference is that Power Level uses a different scale (which in and of itself isn't an issue), but, more importantly, has no granularity, and that's the sole difference. The argument is that the execution of this concept, in the form of Power Level, having literally zero granularity that takes no account of upgrades, loadout, options, etc, is an inherently flawed mechanism in the first place simply because of that.

Points aren't perfect, however they are more granular, and, as a result, can more precisely portray differences between units, weapons, options, upgrades, etc. As a result, assuming they're at least as well executed as Power Level ratings, they're going to be more balanced because they're more nuanced. That fundamental difference is what makes Points a better balancing mechanism.

We don't have to reference *actual* point values for that, however, given that they are more precise because they can portray these differences, they do highlight issues with PL where granularity is not covered by PL.

If points mattered as much as you guys claim then a 10 point difference in two opposed armies would make a difference in the outcome. In practice it rarely does. This game is more horse shoes and hand grenades than a finely calibrated instrument.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
If points mattered as much as you guys claim then a 10 point difference in two opposed armies would make a difference in the outcome. In practice it rarely does. This game is more horse shoes and hand grenades than a finely calibrated instrument.

Except with Power Level the point differences themselves are in the dozens to hundreds.

10 points can be a difference in armies in that it can be an additional model or weapon. In a 2000 pt game that 10 points represents a .5% difference in army strength (which doesn't strike me as being very substantial) and is proportionate in its effect on the game.

However, the biggest effect on the game is random chance. There can be a substantial difference in points but hot dice vs cold dice could win the day for the smaller force. Of course skill has a part in victory as well.

All in all your argument isn't very persuasive. Otherwise, by your logic any points difference should determine the winner as being the player with the most points.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This whole argument always goes in circles.

If you're making the case that points are more balanced than Power Level, and you use point based values to argue that PL is imbalanced, that's ridiculous. You're starting from the assumption that points are more balanced, and using that data to prove that points are more balanced.

Points and Power Level are literally the same thing, they're both numerical values to represent that tabletop game value of a unit.

The difference is that Power Level uses a different scale (which in and of itself isn't an issue), but, more importantly, has no granularity, and that's the sole difference. The argument is that the execution of this concept, in the form of Power Level, having literally zero granularity that takes no account of upgrades, loadout, options, etc, is an inherently flawed mechanism in the first place simply because of that.

Points aren't perfect, however they are more granular, and, as a result, can more precisely portray differences between units, weapons, options, upgrades, etc. As a result, assuming they're at least as well executed as Power Level ratings, they're going to be more balanced because they're more nuanced. That fundamental difference is what makes Points a better balancing mechanism.

We don't have to reference *actual* point values for that, however, given that they are more precise because they can portray these differences, they do highlight issues with PL where granularity is not covered by PL.

If the granularity isn't done properly you're left with AM and Chaos curb stomping everyone for a whole edition.

If anything isn't done properly then it will be a failure, be it a game or anything else that you attempt to do.

Thats a problem of execution, not the concept, and PL is no less immune to execution issues in the exact same manner.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Thats a problem of execution, not the concept, and PL is no less immune to execution issues in the exact same manner.

Yes but "more granularity" doesn't mean "better balance" in practice.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Thats a problem of execution, not the concept, and PL is no less immune to execution issues in the exact same manner.

Yes but "more granularity" doesn't mean "better balance" in practice.

At that point however, we're into an argument of execution, not the fundamental concept, which is why we have Errata.

If both PL and Points are executed about as well as each other, points will be the better balanced system, the only time PL will be better is if Points are obscenely off and PL's are not which I don't see anyone making the case for (at least, that theyre any more off than most PL values).

As is, Tournaments and Matched Play used points for a reason, and PL is specifically put forward for games where tight balance is not a requirement. There is a reason for that and GW makes no secret of that.

With the current metagame, I don't think anyone can make a good case that PL's will result in better balance (and theyre not intended to). They may give us a different metagame, but certainly not a more balanced one. One will note that pretty much every major advocate for PL's is adding caveats like ultra strict WYSIWYG enforcement, "it works if you dont try to break it", etc. There's a reason GW didn't switch the game entirely over to PL's

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Thats a problem of execution, not the concept, and PL is no less immune to execution issues in the exact same manner.

Yes but "more granularity" doesn't mean "better balance" in practice.

At that point however, we're into an argument of execution, not the fundamental concept, which is why we have Errata.

If both PL and Points are executed about as well as each other, points will be the better balanced system, the only time PL will be better is if Points are obscenely off and PL's are not which I don't see anyone making the case for (at least, that theyre any more off than most PL values).

As is, Tournaments and Matched Play used points for a reason, and PL is specifically put forward for games where tight balance is not a requirement. There is a reason for that and GW makes no secret of that.

With the current metagame, I don't think anyone can make a good case that PL's will result in better balance (and theyre not intended to). They may give us a different metagame, but certainly not a more balanced one. One will note that pretty much every major advocate for PL's is adding caveats like ultra strict WYSIWYG enforcement, "it works if you dont try to break it", etc. There's a reason GW didn't switch the game entirely over to PL's

Yes it is strange a few people are trying to defend PL's by saying they are more balanced than points. Or that points are flawed so PL's must be better. The fact is that you dont need any of these thoughts. If you want to use PL's for any reason use them. If you want to use points go for it. If two players want different systems then flip a coin or do a 1/1. PL's are designed for quick games that dont need tight balance. It is a good system for that (with some flaws for sure). Points are great for matched play if no other reason than to introduce the illusion of fairness to the players. Its not a zero sum situation people.

After thinking about this for a minute I have determined I am wrong. Matched play states that points are to be used. So if two players are using the RAW then they should use points for match play. This of course can be house ruled or what have you, but the basic base line PuG will be matched play with points for this reason. And that is a good thing I think. It sets up some form of standard between two players who may have just met.

I've found PL good for quick pick up games, rules learning, and army learning. We just moved to regular points after play testing a dozen games or so with PL. There are some advantages with PLs because its fast, you can take any upgrade for the most part like sponsons on Lemans and adrenal/toxin sacks on nids, and turrets for firewarriors for pretty much free.

There is some unbalance in PLs, for instance my current 1500 point Tyranids list is 84 PL and my friends 1500 Space Marine list is 75. I think the Tyranids Power Points are alittle higher because they expect everyone to throw adrenal glands and Toxin sacks on every unit, so they made up for it in PL.

In the end, PL good for fun, points good for more competitive play.

IIRC, Power Level is proportional to the average of the minimum and maximum points value for a given unit. If a unit has more possible options, then its PL will be higher than for a unit with less or cheaper options.

I'm not claiming that PL is more balanced than points. I'm claiming that the overall experience of choosing an army using PL and then playing a game is at least as fun as using points, and possibly moreso. Nothing else is important. IMO, so I'll carry on doing things this way. If I was to play against most of you lot, who seem to think PL means "I can take all the upgrades for free", then I'd probably use points.

For me PL is for beginners and those wanting a small quick game. When we last used it i compared the PL to the point's of the list's and 1 list had a couple of hundred point's advantage. That killed it for us.

Who won the game?

Much of 40k is the illusion of choice. While you technically can build a devastator squad with 4 heavy bolters, no one does it in practice. A squad of devastators with heavy bolters should have a different cost than a squad with lascannons.

I get this.

But instead of looking at this in terms of cost, perhaps we should be looking in terms of overall effectiveness.

What would it take to make the heavy bolter valued equally to a lascannon?

So leading points first to balance is one way, but effectiveness is probably in the long run the better option anyway for adjustments.

If all the options cost the same we end up in a scenario where power = points.

I know this is an oversimplification of the problem but it is worth considering as an alternative to nickel and diming points costs.

 auticus wrote:
Unless one is a rules dev, no one can postulate on how the game was designed to be played. One can equally say that points being pasted on to the back of the book in the corner means Power Level is how the game was designed to be played.

Neither would have any merit or backing.

Unless of course you base it on the history of the game and how its de facto system has been granular points based since the beginning and PL only appeared this edition as a way for new people to learn or for people to set up a quick and casual narrative match.

 deviantduck wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Unless one is a rules dev, no one can postulate on how the game was designed to be played. One can equally say that points being pasted on to the back of the book in the corner means Power Level is how the game was designed to be played.

Neither would have any merit or backing.

Unless of course you base it on the history of the game and how its de facto system has been granular points based since the beginning and PL only appeared this edition as a way for new people to learn or for people to set up a quick and casual narrative match.

I would not condemn PL so harshly.

I've been playing since 2nd edition and currently use power levels. There's a tedium to building lists with points and the simplicity of power levels is appealing. My armies tend to be experimental, anything to cut down on time spent reconfiguring them is welcome.

My complaint about power levels is points tend to come out to less. I can usually fit another unit in a points list than I could in a PL list.

For a game that had been using a point system for a lot of editions. That was just terrible.

Points back then were way to lopsided and crazy that cheese was a common theme among everyone.

WAAC obviously exacerbated this and made it the old, (my cheese is better than your cheese) which lead to very strict builds that did not leave any room at all to experiment.

I remember people running list that everyone ran at the time. Seeing five people with the same list was not fun to watch nor to play against.

PL is quick, ill give it that. While points has precision in what a person can run. But i can guarantee that the PL system will actually be more diverse than the points system down the line.

Eventually, points will just be everyone picking the most points efficient units in their army and repeating this till the cows come home. Come much further down the line the game will just be stale for people who want to actually join the game and experience the hobby as it was intended.

Meanwhile, PL will have more diverse armies, each one more diverse than the other because people can build using a theme and not be restricted to an overarching stagnant meta that will eventually come out from Points.

Will points be more balanced in the long run? probably, GW is actually working to tweak the points so no funny business goes on, but the game style will be extremely boring and repetitive down the road as everyone settles in to a pattern, interrupted annually by minor tweaks to things as a way of GW to 'freshen' thing up.

Meanwhile, PL will always be fresh. As anyone can think of everything, wherever that be an idea, a concept or even just a piece of their own story in this universe. PL can tailor to all of those things.

Even now, people in Major tournaments are actually getting things wrong with their list. And remember these are list that are usually calculated down to the last point, yet people are still doing illegal things in these tournaments.

Some tourney organizers even agreed that PL works in their favour because of the scale of some of these tournaments (With a few restrictions that they all agree upon). When a TO needs to go through 20+ list (or even 50 - 100 + list as a group) looking through points to ensure everything is legal is just something that cant be reasonably done. PL makes their jobs a WHOLE lot easier, and it turns out people actually have more fun.

We havent even gotten every codex for every army out yet, yet people are still up in arms about the PL of the index and the codex armies being out of whack. That's because the index was only meant as a stopgap solution until GW got the codexes finalized

Moral of the story is this. Sure, you can keep to your points system. But i can tell you that the game will not be the 40k everyone knows and loves when everything is said and done, and the last thing i would play is something that feels like something else

mchammadad wrote:

I remember people running list that everyone ran at the time. Seeing five people with the same list was not fun to watch nor to play against.

PL is quick, ill give it that. While points has precision in what a person can run. But i can guarantee that the PL system will actually be more diverse than the points system down the line.

Eventually, points will just be everyone picking the most points efficient units in their army and repeating this till the cows come home.

This is just completely backwards. This issue is much more severe under the PL system. With PL the gap between optimally geared army and suboptimally geared army is much more sever than under points. There is no reason* to just not load all units with the best weapons. Under point you at least usually save points for taking weaker weapons or no weapons so you can have more units.


(*Besides aesthetics, fluff etc, but that applies to points too.)

People are very harsh against PL.

I'll repeat what I said in a much earlier thread on the subject:
Increased accuracy in a measurement system is only usefull in the correct circumstances.

Points are more precise, but a big outside factor in scenario/ board/... and they become quickly inaccurate. Remember Apocalypse even in 5th basicly told you that points weren't as accurate.

Also different things have different usablitiy in the 2 systems, giving a vehicle every upgrade in points is throwing them away in PL it's kind of expected and almost easier to remember. But if one guy doesn't follow this logic, boy it he gna be behind when you count out points. while in the game not a lot.

I once won a game where my opponent was up 200 points and he still won only narrowly because of his gameplay errors ( piecemeal engaging) and a bit of bad luck, but really putting 3/4 of your army in reserves with no manipulation in 7th, isn't bad luck it's bad strategy.

Well, I have a lot of 2000 pt CSM lists that are 115 PL, and a 1836 pt Ork list is 147.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Well, I have a lot of 2000 pt CSM lists that are 115 PL, and a 1836 pt Ork list is 147.

And I won a tournament yesterday with a 40 PL sisters list that was 972 pts. So compare that with your CSM and I'm fielding 3000 to your 2000.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Well, I have a lot of 2000 pt CSM lists that are 115 PL, and a 1836 pt Ork list is 147.

And I won a tournament yesterday with a 40 PL sisters list that was 972 pts. So compare that with your CSM and I'm fielding 3000 to your 2000.

Exactly. Compare that to the Orks, and you wind up with 3,500 about compared to under 2,000.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Exactly. Compare that to the Orks, and you wind up with 3,500 about compared to under 2,000.

But points are imperfect too, so this is actually absolutely fine... *eyeroll*

Noticed in a game I played yesterday that 43 PL nurgle vs 43 PL eldar ended up with a 200 point difference for the Eldar army on Battlescribe.

Surely that makes a a pretty big difference?

We ended up rebalancing our lists with pts before playing.