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.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.

That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.

When will GW adjust the rules around how much CP Stratagems and reinforcements cost to not be around PL?

When are you going to stop asking for plasma pistols to not be any better than las pistols to fix your broken pts format? It's not that it couldn't be done, but the amount of work it'd take is silly. You'd have to give a special rule to Sergeant bolt pistols and Sergeant las pistols to account for the worse and even worse profile. Giving them a cost of 1 and 2 pts is much easier.

PL costs for expensive upgrades is silly, because the moment you realise that upgrades should cost something you realise that having more granular cost upgrades is better since then you can differentiate between weapons with clear but not necessarily large amounts of value like upgrading an Infantry Squad Sergeant to have a plasma pistol instead of a las pistol.

How many points is a plasma pistol or lascannon in an infantry squad again?

Ignoring that that Change is due to pl and horrific rulesmisshandling?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Ignoring that that Change is due to pl and horrific rulesmisshandling?

The change isn't due to PL at all, it's due to the reticence to release a guard book promptly and the inability to balance the unit with points.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
I am skeptical that anyone genuinely enjoys 3.5e (or even Pathfinder, which is 3.5e but better). I'm sure there are people who enjoy 3.5e games despite 3.5e being a bad system, for system-independent reasons like having a great DM or memorable characters or whatever. But if you take away the fear of change that makes people cling to bad rules the vast majority of them would enjoy 5e more.

3.5 is a glorious, imbalanced mess and I love it for this. You need a GM who knows how to handle a group of different tier classes, but this very imbalance gives a "realistic" feel and immersion to it, which I haven't felt with any other system I played so far. 5e is good, but it feels more like somebody gives you a 1750 point list of your chosen 40k army and you are free to spend the remaining 250p on some upgrades to your liking. You can't really mess up that much, but at the same time you are very set in what your character / list will do and play like. Book of Nine Swords Crusader was the most fun character I ever played in any system.

And imbalance doesn't matter that much in a cooperative game and can help with immersion.


I prefer points over PL because I believe more granularity leads to better balance in theory. I wouldn't mind playing a game of PL if somebody asked me, but my army is not WYSIWYG prepared for it, so I would potentially be at a handicap, points-wise. I don't believe GW spends alot of time thinking about PL and if one way of calculating armies would have to go, I know which one I picked. But if somebody wants to use it and GW keeps it around, I don't really care all that much.

Points are always going to be imbalanced as well nor is point of points even balance. If you think points are there for sake of balance you are kidding yourself.

If you actually want balance you need to get rid of idea of points all together...

tneva82 wrote:
Points are always going to be imbalanced as well

Agree with the first part. Though the chance that PL is less balanced is higher, given how much less granularity it uses.

tneva82 wrote:
nor is point of points even balance. If you think points are there for sake of balance you are kidding yourself.

Disagree with the second.
Points in 40k are clearly used to indicate that higher point cost = more powerful unit or option and so both players show up to a game with a roughly equal force of units. GW might be bad at guesstimating actual values and the addition of 0 point cost relics, Stratagems and WT throws a big wrench into it, but that does not change the meaning of points.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Disagree with the second.
Points in 40k are clearly used to indicate that higher point cost = more powerful unit or option and so both players show up to a game with a roughly equal force of units. GW might be bad at guesstimating actual values and the addition of 0 point cost relics, Stratagems and WT throws a big wrench into it, but that does not change the meaning of points.

Don't bother. You're talking to someone who thinks that points only exist to create deliberately overpowered units and cycle through which units meta chasers will buy, and that the only way to have balance is to cooperatively work with your opponent to carefully design a scenario and specific army lists (preferably with multiple playtesting games to get it right). The fact that this is completely unrealistic and not representative of how the vast majority of wargaming players play their games is irrelevant.

I'd believe that the vast majority of 40k players use PL, either as Open, Crusade, or even PL based Matched Play. I'd also believe that the majority who play, probably play with a close, possibly small group. I'd also believe that very few of those players show up here on dakka.

Lots of folks got brought back with the 8th Ed changes, I did, and in 8th I played both points (standard competitive meta), and PL (home group).

The board size change in 9th was brilliant as now, along with the core rules, and indexes, small games were quick and could scratch the 40k itch for a while when forced to be bed bound.

While I play necrons, I actually ran indexes for a long time, untill most of the 9th books came out, as we couldn't afford an entire 8th edition library, but managed to get all the indexes aside from the Imperial Armour ones, and the chapter approved books.

 Blndmage wrote:
I'd believe that the vast majority of 40k players use PL, either as Open, Crusade, or even PL based Matched Play. I'd also believe that the majority who play, probably play with a close, possibly small group. I'd also believe that very few of those players show up here on dakka.

Magical silent majority that just happens to corroborate your viewpoint?


They said the same thing about AOS players before points were added in...

a_typical_hero wrote:
3.5 is a glorious, imbalanced mess and I love it for this. You need a GM who knows how to handle a group of different tier classes, but this very imbalance gives a "realistic" feel and immersion to it, which I haven't felt with any other system I played so far. 5e is good, but it feels more like somebody gives you a 1750 point list of your chosen 40k army and you are free to spend the remaining 250p on some upgrades to your liking. You can't really mess up that much, but at the same time you are very set in what your character / list will do and play like. Book of Nine Swords Crusader was the most fun character I ever played in any system.

And imbalance doesn't matter that much in a cooperative game and can help with immersion.

It's not just the balance issues, it's the massive rules bloat*. 3.5 has so much content that actually building a character becomes completely unwieldy. You either spend hours digging through lists of possible feats/variant classes/magic items/etc or you limit yourself to the core PHB content and have even fewer options than 5e. And that first option is only possible at all because third-party sites have indexed everything in one place and people have written extensive build guides that you can copy. Then once you finally manage to figure it all out you have complicated feat chains, stacking a dozen modifiers on every roll, keeping track of all of your exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions to the core rules, etc. 5e has a much better balance between having enough options to let you play your character but not so many that you get bogged down in the mechanics of trying to figure out how to execute the game mechanics. You might not be able to play literally every character with the exact combination of abilities you had in 3.5e but if you're willing to put more weight into role playing than roll playing I haven't seen many concepts that don't work at all.

And yes, balance matters a lot even in a cooperative game. It isn't fun when one player is dominating the game because their character is stronger than the rest of the party combined. It isn't fun when you have +40 to your good skills/saves and +3 to your bad ones, so challenges are either trivial or instantly lethal. And it creates a balance nightmare for the DM when you have to design an encounter that is balanced and interesting for both the rogue with +50 to stealth and the fighter with -5 to stealth. Or when the monster has an AoE ability that applies to both the fighter with a +20 fort save and the wizard with a +5. When balance is better it's a lot easier to make sure each player gets their turn in the spotlight and encounters are always interesting.


*To keep this at least tangentially related to 40k and PL, it's the same kind of rules bloat as PL. You have a bunch of different feats/spells/etc that all do effectively the same thing, like how 40k has two redundant point systems that do the same thing. Just as 5e cleared away the clutter 40k should do the same and remove PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
I'd believe that the vast majority of 40k players use PL, either as Open, Crusade, or even PL based Matched Play. I'd also believe that the majority who play, probably play with a close, possibly small group. I'd also believe that very few of those players show up here on dakka.

How convenient that this supposed "vast majority" is silent and can never be asked to confirm those preferences. Meanwhile it's not just on dakka, everywhere you look the majority of discussion is matched play with the normal point system. PL discussion is rare and Open™ Play™ discussion is virtually nonexistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
The board size change in 9th was brilliant as now, along with the core rules, and indexes, small games were quick and could scratch the 40k itch for a while when forced to be bed bound.

You know the "brilliance" of this has nothing to do with your needs, right? Or any game design factors? The change in board size was purely because it's the size of board that fits into GW's standard cardboard boxes and lets them consolidate some of their packaging and shipping logistics.

And you also know that people were playing small games on smaller boards long before 9th, right? Combat patrol on a 3'x3' or 4'x4' table was very common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
They said the same thing about AOS players before points were added in...

Clearly this silence extends to not showing up at the store to buy anything. But trust her, they're still the majority.

 Blndmage wrote:


Why?
Why would I lie?


This forum isn't for just competitive formats. It's not like I'm talking about this on r/WarhammerCompetitive.

Why do I get so much gak from people when I'm playing a version of the game that actually exists and my playgroup (which, again, includes kids, folks on the spectrum, other neurodivergent folks, those categories overlap at times) enjoys and prefers it?

Being a kid, on the spectrum, or neurodivergent doesn't mean someone has to use PL, so why bring it up? At 10 years old I was using spreadsheets to add up my WHF army's points, and as I've mentioned previously I have a mental disability myself.

As for why you'd lie or be mistaken? Any of a number of reasons.

The reason you get "so much gak" is because your first post on this thread was extremely hostile to people who aren't proponents of PL, and you've made outlandish arguments via an assumed victim status in its favor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Why does switching from Power Level mean immediately jumping to the highest investment level of 40k? Why do you need to abandon how you play if Power Level is dropped?
I don't advocate for its removal, but it's not like someone will be forcing you to play the most advanced parts of 40k just because most numbers have an extra 0.
In addition, dropping Power Level means nothing for the Matched Play Only crowd. I don't see why anyone would advocate for the removal of such a small part of the game that costs almost no development time and only benefits people, even if at just in a minor amount.

I advocate for its removal because I like Narrative Play too, and I'd rather it use points.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Ignoring that that Change is due to pl and horrific rulesmisshandling?

The change isn't due to PL at all, it's due to the reticence to release a guard book promptly and the inability to balance the unit with points.

no its a design shift, as already mentioned that facilitates PL over Pts leads to fixed loadouts and a lack of customisation under the guise of "balance", including but not limited to avoid GW's inability to balance points reasonable and remove workhours.

 Blndmage wrote:
I answered the question posed. Then talked about why I enjoy PL and the style of play we use it in.

Then CSB decided to rip me a new one and Hecaton straight up calling me a liar. As stated a few times now, I'm terminally ill and disabled. I have a limited amount of time and energy to spend on 40k.

There are only a few places left to discuss the game and the versions it offers. Dakka being the biggest (and my style of play not being applicable to R/WarhammerCompetitive).

I don't feel like I'm off topic talking about how Power Levels and the mindset around playing it is different from the standard Matched Play.

You started off pretty hostile. It ain't cool to throw stones and then cry foul when they get hurled right back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
I've lost track after 40+ pages of bickering nested quote zigarites.

So show of hands: Who here claims theyd play less in a PL only world?

I 100% would.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%. Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.

If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.

Because you can take a lot of plasma pistols in a 1k list. Harlequin troops are particularly egregious - the optimal loadout at 5 PL is 128 points. Field a lot of those and you could be 20% over your points limit.

 Blndmage wrote:
So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?

Why does switching to points also require any of those other things? You can still play using without the Advanced Rules, without using the GT mission pack and without any of the other Matched Play restrictions if you use points. I don't know why you're bringing all those other things up when nobody has suggested you stop using them.

Not Online!!! wrote:
no its a design shift, as already mentioned that facilitates PL over Pts leads to fixed loadouts and a lack of customisation under the guise of "balance", including but not limited to avoid GW's inability to balance points reasonable and remove workhours.

I doubt it. Guard have been the ones getting this "design shift", other factions haven't. It's very clearly GW trying to fix the codex without going below the 5ppm floor with basic guardsmen or having to release an actual rule update without charging $50 for it in codex form. Giving infantry squads free upgrades lets them effectively put guardsmen at ~4ppm (assuming ~20 points of gear out of the 60 total) without letting you spam a bunch of naked guardsmen for 40 points per 10. I suppose it could stay given GW's struggle to make horde units work in a game with a 5ppm floor but I think it's more likely that the new codex buffs guardsmen to be worth 5ppm and their equipment goes back to normal costs.

(And yes, I know other guard units have been getting the same treatment. It's a cascade effect where once infantry squads get 20+ points of free gear you have to do the same for all of the other units or you'll never see anything but fully loaded infantry squads.)

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
no its a design shift, as already mentioned that facilitates PL over Pts leads to fixed loadouts and a lack of customisation under the guise of "balance", including but not limited to avoid GW's inability to balance points reasonable and remove workhours.

I doubt it. Guard have been the ones getting this "design shift", other factions haven't. It's very clearly GW trying to fix the codex without going below the 5ppm floor with basic guardsmen or having to release an actual rule update without charging $50 for it in codex form. Giving infantry squads free upgrades lets them effectively put guardsmen at ~4ppm (assuming ~20 points of gear out of the 60 total) without letting you spam a bunch of naked guardsmen for 40 points per 10. I suppose it could stay given GW's struggle to make horde units work in a game with a 5ppm floor but I think it's more likely that the new codex buffs guardsmen to be worth 5ppm and their equipment goes back to normal costs.

CSM also got it, hence the utterly brainmelting cultist datasheet, the not double special / HW's on legionaires and the further cutting off options in regards to CSM HQ. Same with accursed weapons for Chosen and terminators.

It is an easier system to write in, since GW has to consider less builds and can "standardise" the game experience for these units.
Partially it also avoids the work of GW finally needing to understand that a powerfist on a havoc champion =/= powerfist on a Legionaire champion =/= Chosen champion =/= aspiring champion =/= Lord.

Not Online!!! wrote:
CSM also got it, hence the utterly brainmelting cultist datasheet, the not double special / HW's on legionaires and the further cutting off options in regards to CSM HQ. Same with accursed weapons for Chosen and terminators

I think you're confusing "no model, no rules" and PL vs normal points. CSM troops can't take double heavy/special weapons because those weapons aren't on the sprue, not because GW is moving to a flat rate point system. Other factions have had the same NMNR treatment without the point costs changing. In fact, Tau even got a soft NMNR with crisis suit variable pricing introducing even more granularity to the system as a way of discouraging you from using equipment choices that don't match what is in the box.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
CSM also got it, hence the utterly brainmelting cultist datasheet, the not double special / HW's on legionaires and the further cutting off options in regards to CSM HQ. Same with accursed weapons for Chosen and terminators

I think you're confusing "no model, no rules" and PL vs normal points. CSM troops can't take double heavy/special weapons because those weapons aren't on the sprue, not because GW is moving to a flat rate point system. Other factions have had the same NMNR treatment without the point costs changing. In fact, Tau even got a soft NMNR with crisis suit variable pricing introducing even more granularity to the system as a way of discouraging you from using equipment choices that don't match what is in the box.

That is bs considering just how Non-consistent the NMNR has been applied within the CSM codex alone.
The only explanation is that GW cut a corner in the hours required for a designer and used PL as an easy facilitator to do just that.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
CSM also got it, hence the utterly brainmelting cultist datasheet, the not double special / HW's on legionaires and the further cutting off options in regards to CSM HQ. Same with accursed weapons for Chosen and terminators

I think you're confusing "no model, no rules" and PL vs normal points. CSM troops can't take double heavy/special weapons because those weapons aren't on the sprue, not because GW is moving to a flat rate point system. Other factions have had the same NMNR treatment without the point costs changing. In fact, Tau even got a soft NMNR with crisis suit variable pricing introducing even more granularity to the system as a way of discouraging you from using equipment choices that don't match what is in the box.

This (we're in agreement on something). Cultists and Guardsmen have the lovely coincidence of sitting on the points "floor" because frankly they're so bad there's no way to price them appropriately due to the current flawed points structure. The free upgrades aren't a result of "moving to PL" it's a result of the much taunted granular points system being crap as it is now.

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
CSM also got it, hence the utterly brainmelting cultist datasheet, the not double special / HW's on legionaires and the further cutting off options in regards to CSM HQ. Same with accursed weapons for Chosen and terminators

I think you're confusing "no model, no rules" and PL vs normal points. CSM troops can't take double heavy/special weapons because those weapons aren't on the sprue, not because GW is moving to a flat rate point system. Other factions have had the same NMNR treatment without the point costs changing. In fact, Tau even got a soft NMNR with crisis suit variable pricing introducing even more granularity to the system as a way of discouraging you from using equipment choices that don't match what is in the box.

This (we're in agreement on something). Cultists and Guardsmen have the lovely coincidence of sitting on the points "floor" because frankly they're so bad there's no way to price them appropriately due to the current flawed points structure. The free upgrades aren't a result of "moving to PL" it's a result of the much taunted granular points system being crap as it is now.

As if it would get better with PL, it doesn't contrary it gets worse.

The only thing that changes is the "measurment unit / stick".

Not Online!!! wrote:
That is bs considering just how Non-consistent the NMNR has been applied within the CSM codex alone.
The only explanation is that GW cut a corner in the hours required for a designer and used PL as an easy facilitator to do just that.

NMNR may be inconsistent but you can not dispute the fact that the troops entry is exactly in line with the options in a single box. NMNR explains the situation a lot better than a move to pseudo-PL, especially since those upgrades still cost points as normal and the only change is to which upgrades you can take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
This (we're in agreement on something). Cultists and Guardsmen have the lovely coincidence of sitting on the points "floor" because frankly they're so bad there's no way to price them appropriately due to the current flawed points structure. The free upgrades aren't a result of "moving to PL" it's a result of the much taunted granular points system being crap as it is now.

You do realize that PL has the exact same problem, right? And that the 5ppm floor is not an inherent requirement of the normal point system? GW doesn't want to go below 5ppm but that doesn't mean that 5ppm is an actual minimum point cost that can't be broken. If GW wasn't voluntarily committing to a 5ppm floor they could easily make guardsmen 4.5ppm, 4ppm, etc, to match their value. In fact, the floor problem is worse with PL because you can't go just slightly below the floor. You can only adjust points in 20-point intervals, which means if a 10-man unit isn't working at the equivalent of 5ppm you have to go all the way down to 3ppm to change its cost.

And, again, this situation only exists at all because GW wants to buff the worst faction in the game without giving away free rules. When you won't do proper rule updates without a $50 codex purchase the only way to buff a broken unit/faction is by reducing its point cost, and eventually after enough power creep you reach a point where you can't keep cutting point costs without pushing the limits of what the game is designed to handle. But that has nothing to do with granularity, infantry squads would be just as broken in a PL-only system if they had to be 2 points each to be viable.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
That is bs considering just how Non-consistent the NMNR has been applied within the CSM codex alone.
The only explanation is that GW cut a corner in the hours required for a designer and used PL as an easy facilitator to do just that.

NMNR may be inconsistent but you can not dispute the fact that the troops entry is exactly in line with the options in a single box. NMNR explains the situation a lot better than a move to pseudo-PL, especially since those upgrades still cost points as normal and the only change is to which upgrades you can take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
This (we're in agreement on something). Cultists and Guardsmen have the lovely coincidence of sitting on the points "floor" because frankly they're so bad there's no way to price them appropriately due to the current flawed points structure. The free upgrades aren't a result of "moving to PL" it's a result of the much taunted granular points system being crap as it is now.

You do realize that PL has the exact same problem, right? And that the 5ppm floor is not an inherent requirement of the normal point system? GW doesn't want to go below 5ppm but that doesn't mean that 5ppm is an actual minimum point cost that can't be broken. If GW wasn't voluntarily committing to a 5ppm floor they could easily make guardsmen 4.5ppm, 4ppm, etc, to match their value.

And, again, this situation only exists at all because GW wants to buff the worst faction in the game without giving away free rules. When you won't do proper rule updates without a $50 codex purchase the only way to buff a broken unit/faction is by reducing its point cost, and eventually after enough power creep you reach a point where you can't keep cutting point costs without pushing the limits of what the game is designed to handle. But that has nothing to do with granularity, infantry squads would be just as broken in a PL-only system if they had to be 2 points each to be viable.

Go back and re-read what I said. I didn't say PL didn't have problems and I laid the problem at the feet of the current GW points structure. It is largely to do with granularity as the jump between core infantry and their respective value isn't granular enough atm. When moving a sister of battle up or down 1 point (of 2000) is a whole 10% of their value and no option to get in between, it's not granular enough. If you made a cultist 4 points, they're 20% cheaper, it's a massive leap because they're all priced with low finite numbers.

Dudeface wrote:
Go back and re-read what I said. I didn't say PL didn't have problems and I laid the problem at the feet of the current GW points structure. It is largely to do with granularity as the jump between core infantry and their respective value isn't granular enough atm. When moving a sister of battle up or down 1 point (of 2000) is a whole 10% of their value and no option to get in between, it's not granular enough. If you made a cultist 4 points, they're 20% cheaper, it's a massive leap because they're all priced with low finite numbers.

You're ignoring the fact that the point system can include fractional point values. If you want guardsmen at 4.5ppm you make the squad cost 45 points. In fact, there's nothing inherent to the system that prevents you from just having a plasma gun cost 7.35 points if that's what you want its value to be. GW chooses not to do fractional points (whether you agree or disagree with their reasons) but if they ever decided to all they'd have to do is print the new numbers.

(And yes, PL could do the same and have fractional point costs for units. But it can only do so by forfeiting the "easier to add up the numbers" advantage that PL advocates have claimed.)

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Go back and re-read what I said. I didn't say PL didn't have problems and I laid the problem at the feet of the current GW points structure. It is largely to do with granularity as the jump between core infantry and their respective value isn't granular enough atm. When moving a sister of battle up or down 1 point (of 2000) is a whole 10% of their value and no option to get in between, it's not granular enough. If you made a cultist 4 points, they're 20% cheaper, it's a massive leap because they're all priced with low finite numbers.

You're ignoring the fact that the point system can include fractional point values. If you want guardsmen at 4.5ppm you make the squad cost 45 points. In fact, there's nothing inherent to the system that prevents you from just having a plasma gun cost 7.35 points if that's what you want its value to be. GW chooses not to do fractional points (whether you agree or disagree with their reasons) but if they ever decided to all they'd have to do is print the new numbers.

(And yes, PL could do the same and have fractional point costs for units. But it can only do so by forfeiting the "easier to add up the numbers" advantage that PL advocates have claimed.)

To be honest if they want points to be workable and enable true "balance" we need to basically multiply everything by (as an example, not a genuine number, just easy maths) 5, so standard games are 10k points, then you have 25 pt cultists and 100 pt intercessors with plenty of room to tweak the numbers inbetween.

Edit: I'd prefer the larger whole numbers over fractional point costs as simply put it reads better and looks a lot less like a failed system at that point. But that's subjective optics.

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Go back and re-read what I said. I didn't say PL didn't have problems and I laid the problem at the feet of the current GW points structure. It is largely to do with granularity as the jump between core infantry and their respective value isn't granular enough atm. When moving a sister of battle up or down 1 point (of 2000) is a whole 10% of their value and no option to get in between, it's not granular enough. If you made a cultist 4 points, they're 20% cheaper, it's a massive leap because they're all priced with low finite numbers.

You're ignoring the fact that the point system can include fractional point values. If you want guardsmen at 4.5ppm you make the squad cost 45 points. In fact, there's nothing inherent to the system that prevents you from just having a plasma gun cost 7.35 points if that's what you want its value to be. GW chooses not to do fractional points (whether you agree or disagree with their reasons) but if they ever decided to all they'd have to do is print the new numbers.

(And yes, PL could do the same and have fractional point costs for units. But it can only do so by forfeiting the "easier to add up the numbers" advantage that PL advocates have claimed.)

To be honest if they want points to be workable and enable true "balance" we need to basically multiply everything by (as an example, not a genuine number, just easy maths) 5, so standard games are 10k points, then you have 25 pt cultists and 100 pt intercessors with plenty of room to tweak the numbers inbetween.

Edit: I'd prefer the larger whole numbers over fractional point costs as simply put it reads better and looks a lot less like a failed system at that point. But that's subjective optics.

This is probably the only thing I agree with CSB. If you believe in granularity=balance, then not using fractions is straight up dumb. Fractions enable you to not have to rescale ALL point values, in ALL publications if you just want, for example, to scale down the cost of an individual conscript.

A twenty-fold increase in the number of points in a game and the cost of models would leave plenty of space to find balanced costs for models that are worth less than 5 pts in the current game. Yes, fractions are a better idea, but 40k pts being the standard would be cool and if you were doing a custom pts standard it would make it easily distinguishable from normal pts so people don't confuse lists for an unofficial pts base for lists that are legal in official 40k.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Ignoring that that Change is due to pl and horrific rulesmisshandling?

The change isn't due to PL at all, it's due to the reticence to release a guard book promptly and the inability to balance the unit with points.

How can you say there is an inability when GW hasn't tried? 4 pt Guardsmen even without HotE would be great despite all the power creep we've had since the start of 9th.

Infantry Squad
Unit size 10 models
Unit cost 47 pts
• Mortar +2 pts
• Autocannon +3 pts
• Heavy bolter +4 pts
• Missile launcher +3 pts
• Lascannon +5 pts
• Flamer +2 pts
• Meltagun +2 pts
• Plasma gun +3 pts
• Bolt pistol +1 pt
• Boltgun +2 pts
• Plasma pistol +2 pts
• Power sword +2 pts
• Chainsword +1 pt
• vox-caster +1 pt

Will these pts costs break the game? I know it wouldn't make the datasheet perfectly balanced, but there would be a reason for every option and a reason not to take every option, even if I think it'd be slanted heavily in favour of plasma gun + lascannon. Snipers and grenade launchers free because of HotE. Chainswords and power swords and pistol replacements slightly overcosted because lasgun is worse than bolt pistol is worse than boltgun and we don't have half points currently so it has to be 0 is worse than 1 is worse than 2 even if they are probably worth half that in most cases.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Points in 40k are clearly used to indicate that higher point cost = more powerful unit or option and so both players show up to a game with a roughly equal force of units. GW might be bad at guesstimating actual values and the addition of 0 point cost relics, Stratagems and WT throws a big wrench into it, but that does not change the meaning of points.

Relics and WL trait balance aren't that important, you're talking maybe 50 pts +- between picking good and bad options. Compared with an army being 10% overcosted or undercosted, it's not a big deal. Every relic and WL trait being cool is more important. A short-ranged once-per-game relic that deals about 2 MW is just a massive letdown, even if you got it for 5 pts while every other relic was 30 pts, it'd still be a letdown.

The problem with power sword at 2 points is that you are already well into buying a new infantry guy while only getting 2 attacks in melee that can do something. Melee that those infantry men will rarely ever initiate except in last ditch situations.

If your upgrade is going to cost the same as an infantry men is that upgrade going to more than double its efficacy or not? If it doesn't then it shouldn't cost so much.

I'd argue that if people are really married to the idea that all upgrades should cost points then all base unit costs should be multiplied by 5 and every game is a 10.000 point battle. This would at least allow some nuance in adjusting points. 2000 points with models costing as little as 4-5 points has no room for nuance.

Hecaton wrote:


I advocate for its removal because I like Narrative Play too, and I'd rather it use points.

Unless you're an "official at all cost" zealot I don't see why you can't already do that. I mean it's narrative play, not competitive gaming. I don't believe you can't find players who refuse to play that kind of game by using points or other house rules. How hard is it to convert PL into points?

Official at all cost is for matched play and random pick up games, where a standard that is the same for everyone and everywhere is pretty much necessary to keep things easy between players.

 Eldarsif wrote:
The problem with power sword at 2 points is that you are already well into buying a new infantry guy while only getting 2 attacks in melee that can do something. Melee that those infantry men will rarely ever initiate except in last ditch situations.

If your upgrade is going to cost the same as an infantry men is that upgrade going to more than double its efficacy or not? If it doesn't then it shouldn't cost so much.

I'd argue that if people are really married to the idea that all upgrades should cost points then all base unit costs should be multiplied by 5 and every game is a 10.000 point battle. This would at least allow some nuance in adjusting points. 2000 points with models costing as little as 4-5 points has no room for nuance.

Bingo!

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


I advocate for its removal because I like Narrative Play too, and I'd rather it use points.

Unless you're an "official at all cost" zealot I don't see why you can't already do that. I mean it's narrative play, not competitive gaming. I don't believe you can't find players who refuse to play that kind of game by using points or other house rules. How hard is it to convert PL into points?

Official at all cost is for matched play and random pick up games, where a standard that is the same for everyone and everywhere is pretty much necessary to keep things easy between players.

It's much easier to have narrative games when the system of allotting what goes on either side is more granular and thus allows, in theory, for a better understanding of the relative balance/power of different models in different armies. Especially when those models have different equipment options which they can take. It doesn't mean you have to play your narrative game at 2K points per side matched play style. It does mean that if one person takes 1K and another takes 2K then everyone going in already knows that the 1K person is up against a wall. That perhaps they need some narrative protection (eg some walls to hide behind whilst the enemy charges over an open field); that the game might well be a "fight till the last man" or "try to see if you can last 7 turns before "reinforcements arrive".


It also means that everyone comes to the table with a granular structure which accounts for upgraded parts and weapon options. IT means you don't have to spend ages debating/discussing with all players (a narrative match might have more than two) about what kind of game you want. About if you're going to go all out with loadouts or restrict things or if one of you doesn't want too or does.
Points, well done, bring people to a level playing field (in theory). Power Level doesn't even try. It's quick, its dirty, but it leaves a lot of bits messy and up for players to discuss - if they realise. I'm sure there are some who take the min weapon loadouts and another who takes the max loadouts and neither one realises the disparity (and might just blame GW balance for the disparity in performance).



Again power level just hits this wall that, in 40K, many units have a very wide roster of powers, equipment and weapon choices which can have a dramatic impact on their game performance. It's why its really not an ideal system for this kind of game. Now if power level came iwth a criteria such as "units must take base options with zero upgrades/weapon swaps" or if the game were closer to Old World/Age of Sigmar where most units have very limited to no equipment options. Then power level would be potentially more viable.









All this doesn't mean there aren't people out there using power level and having widely varied power levels between armies and having fun. Perhaps they really just don't understand the game all that well; perhaps they really just do not care one bit; perhaps they are fine with auto losing every game because they take min upgrades and their opponent takes max; perhaps, perhaps,perhaps. However when you step back its very hard to make a logical argument for power level in the current form of 40K. The only bonus it brings to the table is the numbers are simpler to add up. That's it, everything else is basically a negative.