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.

 Tokhuah wrote:

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.

There's nothing to abuse. There's a reason Power levels are what they are.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

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

Incorrect

Oh look another person making the absurd argument that a unit with upgrades is equal to a unit without them, or that all upgrades are equal. Powerlevels make people do funny things!

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Tokhuah wrote:

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.

There's nothing to abuse. There's a reason Power levels are what they are.

There are absolutely things you can abuse. There are reasons why points are what they are, you cannot tell me that it is not abusive that a space marine player can essentially get a free heavy weapon (assuming more expensive ones) in every Devestator squad. If you look at points I can take six 4 lascannon dev squads at 1k points, for 50 PL (which is supposed to be similar) I can take 7. So I get enough points for another squad. On the flip side Necrons get the exact same number of warriors (eight 10 man squads) Orks get fewer boyz (can take 150 easily at 1k points only take 100 at 50 PL)

 Melissia wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

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

Incorrect

Oh look another person making the absurd argument that a unit with upgrades is equal to a unit without them, or that all upgrades are equal. Powerlevels make people do funny things!

What point are you trying to make here? I objectively illustrated why Boyz and Stormboyz have the same power level. That's a fact that is inarguable

What are you trying to get here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Tokhuah wrote:

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.

There's nothing to abuse. There's a reason Power levels are what they are.

There are absolutely things you can abuse. There are reasons why points are what they are, you cannot tell me that it is not abusive that a space marine player can essentially get a free heavy weapon (assuming more expensive ones) in every Devestator squad. If you look at points I can take six 4 lascannon dev squads at 1k points, for 50 PL (which is supposed to be similar) I can take 7. So I get enough points for another squad. On the flip side Necrons get the exact same number of warriors (eight 10 man squads) Orks get fewer boyz (can take 150 easily at 1k points only take 100 at 50 PL)

They aren't going to take only the most expensive options. Unless they want to lose that is. Are you upset that some people might intentionally create bad armies because Power Levels will let them think that expensive is synonymous with best?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

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

Incorrect

Oh look another person making the absurd argument that a unit with upgrades is equal to a unit without them, or that all upgrades are equal. Powerlevels make people do funny things!

What point are you trying to make here?

My point is simple: in spite of your attempt to math away the objections, your argument doesn't by any means actually make the case that powerlevels given to the units balanced properly. Like I said before; not all upgrades are equal.

Ork Boyz unit upgrades are something of a joke. A lot of Ork players don't ever bother to even take them simply because they're kinda useless. There's very little difference between 30 ork boyz with 2 rokkits and 30 ork boyz without any special weapons at all. which basically means the increase in powerlevels are caused by what is essentially dead weight to the squad. Yeah, you might as well take them, since they're free, along with every other free upgrade. But it still overcosts the unit in terms of powerlevels, where it doesn't in terms of points (because you can choose not to take the relatively worthless upgrade and spend your points elsewhere).

Which is a problem a lot of armies face right now, while some armies gain a ton of advantage because their upgrades are both plentiful and powerful. Powerlevels exacerbate the already substantial differences between armies that have plenty of toys and more limited armies.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

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

Incorrect

Oh look another person making the absurd argument that a unit with upgrades is equal to a unit without them, or that all upgrades are equal. Powerlevels make people do funny things!

What point are you trying to make here? I objectively illustrated why Boyz and Stormboyz have the same power level. That's a fact that is inarguable

What are you trying to get here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Tokhuah wrote:

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.

There's nothing to abuse. There's a reason Power levels are what they are.

There are absolutely things you can abuse. There are reasons why points are what they are, you cannot tell me that it is not abusive that a space marine player can essentially get a free heavy weapon (assuming more expensive ones) in every Devestator squad. If you look at points I can take six 4 lascannon dev squads at 1k points, for 50 PL (which is supposed to be similar) I can take 7. So I get enough points for another squad. On the flip side Necrons get the exact same number of warriors (eight 10 man squads) Orks get fewer boyz (can take 150 easily at 1k points only take 100 at 50 PL)

They aren't going to take only the most expensive options. Unless they want to lose that is. Are you upset that some people might intentionally create bad armies because Power Levels will let them think that expensive is synonymous with best?

What are you even talking about? What options? If I take a devastator squad it costs what it costs. Are you arguing that they are too expensive in PL when they are cheaper than in points? Or are you saying Orks should choose different options because boyz are more expensive? Warriors are exactly the same. So in PL Marines get an advantage in this scenario because their unit is actually cheaper for the same (not uncommon) loadout. Whereas ork boyz for their common load out are significantly more expensive.

Is your argument that orks should make more elite armies of not so durable models (which are also more expensive?) Unless you do that basically every unit runs significantly more expensive in PL than you would typically run that model otherwise. So you end up with fewer models (which are typically not durable) with more expensive upgrades.

For instance my current 2k ork list runs ~120 power. So to get down to 100 power I would need to cut 2-3 units. My dark angels list (which is a more tuned list for points) runs 104. So I could easily just exchange one HQ choice for another almost equally good choice (maybe an even better choice actually) and I would be under. So one list needs to Cut 3 units, the other needs to swap one HQ, and that is the better list.

Christ internet. I just don't understand you sometimes.

You said 2+2=5. I showed you it was 4, and your response is "facts schmatcs."

I give up here.

Breng77 wrote:
I'm against using PL as the sideboard concept because it penalizes a great number of units that lack options/effective options.

This is a valid point, dynamic upgrades would be a different format. It's inevitable it will aid some units and penalize others, irrespective of balance. Same deal with mission types.

If you want static upgrades, they are less complicated to understand but unfortunately tend to lean towards fielding the same cookie-cutter solutions. Defeating players before the game starts by gaming the competitive meta or bringing compositions of units that players don't or can't anticipate is unfortunately common. Tldr = skew lists and min-maxing.

40k is usually better when players create lists that balance each other, which competitive players don't want -- they want to leverage advantage. So some kind of PL draft or "I go U go" upgrade sideboard has potential. It's essentially a way to formalize cooperative list building in a competive environment. But as always implementation and inertia will be significant sticking points, you'd want to experiment at a small scale first.

For reals guys, can we stop pretending like power levels are anything more than a less granular point system? We can go back and forth all day comparing the totals of certain builds in each system and get nowhere. They're just two flavors of the same fething thing. Pick one, or both, and use whichever makes more sense for the game you're playing that day.

Breng77 wrote:
I'm against using PL as the sideboard concept because it penalizes a great number of units that lack options/effective options.

This.

There is a tourney this Saturday at Sarge's Comics and Games that has a PL of 75 points and a sideboard.

I play daemons. My units are getting an average of 13-17 points per PL. Marines are getting around 25.
This means at a 75 point tourney, I'm taking 1200 points to the game, and my opponent is bringing 1950.

Sure, in a casual friendly game this does not matter. When I'm throwing down money in a tourney, then I just won't go.

Just No.

This is up there with 'no pre-measuring' as the most backwards thought process for a competitive environment.

 labmouse42 wrote:
I play daemons. My units are getting an average of 13-17 points per PL. Marines are getting around 25.

Just looked at this quickly.

----> 10 Daemonettes + Icon + Instrument = 125pts.
----> 125pts/5x PL = 25pts per PL.

----> 5 Tacticals + Flamer + Combi-Flamer + PF = 105pts.
----> 105pts/5x PL = 21pts per PL.

Now you could definitely attempt to increase the points of the SM squad using more expensive ranged weapons, but it might not be to the SM player's best interest.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
I play daemons. My units are getting an average of 13-17 points per PL. Marines are getting around 25.

Just looked at this quickly.

----> 10 Daemonettes + Icon + Instrument = 125pts.
----> 125pts/5x PL = 25pts per PL.

----> 5 Tacticals + Flamer + Combi-Flamer + PF = 105pts.
----> 105pts/5x PL = 21pts per PL.

Now you could definitely attempt to increase the points of the SM squad using more expensive ranged weapons, but it might not be to the SM player's best interest.

It is almost always to the space marine players best interest to take more expensive upgrades (that is why they are more expensive). Also if we assume min-maxing, why are you taking tacticals at all?

Why not 5 devastators with lascannons, and a combi-flamer, and PF, cherub? that would be 201 pts for 7 PL 28 points per power level.
of 5 sternguard with 2 heavy flamers and 3 combi-flamers and a PF at 7 PL, so that is 23 points per if I want a flamer squad.

Then if you take Max Daemonettes to gain their advantage for large squad you are 15 Pl for 305 points and getting ~21 Points per power level.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
I play daemons. My units are getting an average of 13-17 points per PL. Marines are getting around 25.

Just looked at this quickly.

----> 10 Daemonettes + Icon + Instrument = 125pts.
----> 125pts/5x PL = 25pts per PL.

----> 5 Tacticals + Flamer + Combi-Flamer + PF = 105pts.
----> 105pts/5x PL = 21pts per PL.

Now you could definitely attempt to increase the points of the SM squad using more expensive ranged weapons, but it might not be to the SM player's best interest.

Look at what 20 plague bearers. They get a ratio of 18.33.
You will never run units of 10 daemonettes, you should be taking them in units of 20+. Daemonettes have a slightly better ratio than plague bearers, but not by much.

You also compared them to tacticals. How about you compare them to a unit like sternguard? That's what people are going to be taking to tourneys with free upgrades.
----> 5 sternguard w/5 combi-meltas PF = 195pts.
----> 195pts/7x PL = 27pts per PL.

----> 3 bikes w/2 metlaguns PF = 153pts.
----> 153pts/6x PL = 25.5pts per PL.

The problem is when units have lots of upgrades, like Breng77 mentioned -- you get skewed ratios. If we're just playing for beer and pretzels, it does not matter. When were throwing down money to play for prize support, it does.

Edit : Another problem is that the daemon player does not have the options for sideboarding like the other armies do. The marine player can bring 20 different stermguard and just plop down whichever he needs to fit the situation. Facing hordes, here come 5 combi-flamers. Knights? Here come 5 combi-meltas. Daemons (and I'm guessing other armies) can't change to that degree. A screamer is a screamer.

I'm starting to come around to power level and in some ways think it may lead to less annoying tournament cheesing. For example right now one of the aspects that decides which spammy net-list is going to be used is points levels of equipment. if something is point costed .000001% more points efficient than you're going to see everyone spam only that. With power level you can take less used weapons, or take weapons that might fit a specific purpose while not necessarily being the cheapest, without being tied down to how much it costs compared to the other equipment.

Now this would probably work best in units that can take 1-2 special weapons per unit. Where it get's out of hand is in units where everyone model can take a special weapon and points are the limiting factor.

Danny slag wrote:
I'm starting to come around to power level and in some ways think it may lead to less annoying tournament cheesing. For example right now one of the aspects that decides which spammy net-list is going to be used is points levels of equipment. if something is point costed .000001% more points efficient than you're going to see everyone spam only that. With power level you can take less used weapons, or take weapons that might fit a specific purpose while not necessarily being the cheapest, without being tied down to how much it costs compared to the other equipment.

My guess would be probably not, rather, you're just going to get people taking whatever the most powerful option is, every time, by default in any sort of competitive environment.

Cost efficiency is still a factor, it's just far less granular and controlled. Power Level is not going to be the excuse people are looking for to break out Ye Old IG Grenade Launchers for instance, but it's going to make plasma spam wonderfully easy.

Danny slag wrote:
I'm starting to come around to power level and in some ways think it may lead to less annoying tournament cheesing. For example right now one of the aspects that decides which spammy net-list is going to be used is points levels of equipment. if something is point costed .000001% more points efficient than you're going to see everyone spam only that. With power level you can take less used weapons, or take weapons that might fit a specific purpose while not necessarily being the cheapest, without being tied down to how much it costs compared to the other equipment.

Now this would probably work best in units that can take 1-2 special weapons per unit. Where it get's out of hand is in units where everyone model can take a special weapon and points are the limiting factor.

As Vaktathi says if people are spamming due to 0.00000001% more points efficient options, why wouldn't they do it when somethings are far more points efficient, and the options are far more obvious?

power levels are only appropriate for casual and unbalanced games, leave them out of everything else.

Points vs Power is like "six in one, half a dozen in the other" IMHO...

Power levels are not the most upgraded unit divided by 20. it's the AVERAGE between minimum and most upgraded divided by 20.

----> 10 Daemonettes + Icon + Instrument = 125pts.
----> 10 Daemonette with zero upgrades = 90pts
---> Average between those is 107.5. NOW you Divided by 20 = 5.375, or 5 rounded down
Ergo, PL5 is appropriate and this formula works 95% of the time, just try it.

Using PLs to swap upgrades form game to game is dumb, though. You make your list fixed whether using PLS or Points. I'm not sure where this idea came from

The REAL reason you do not want to use PLs for Tourneys is because Summoning new units is free.
Using Reinforcement points is meant as a way to use POINTS in Match Play.
Narrative play uses Power levels and thus new units are free.

A simple fix, of course, is to house rule "Reinforcement Power levels", but at that point, you can just house rule anything.

 labmouse42 wrote:
The marine player can bring 20 different stermguard and just plop down whichever he needs to fit the situation. Facing hordes, here come 5 combi-flamers. Knights? Here come 5 combi-meltas.

I imagine you want to field them in a detachment with transport, so calculated out :

---> 2x HQs : Captain, Librarian (11 PL)
---> 3x Tacticals (15 PL)
---> 4x Sternguard (28 PL)
---> 4x Rhinos (16 PL)

Total is 70 PL, that's not exactly chump change. And this list looks by no means unbeatable.

Yoyoyo wrote:
I imagine you want to field them in a detachment with transport, so calculated out :

---> 2x HQs : Captain, Librarian (11 PL)
---> 3x Tacticals (15 PL)
---> 4x Sternguard (28 PL)
---> 4x Rhinos (16 PL)

Total is 70 PL, that's not exactly chump change. And this list looks by no means unbeatable.

If you are using PL, why use you use tacticals? Take one of the detachments that lets you bring another choice in it's place.
Go with more dreads or some predators. This is what I would take for marines at 75 PL. It has 7 drops, giving it a good chance of going first. It has extremely solid firepower and a well rounded army.
---> 1 : Captain (5PL)
---> 1 : Scout Squad (6PL)
---> 2 : Venerable Dreads (16PL)
---> 4 x Sternguard (28 PL)
---> 4x Razorbacks (20 PL)

With daemons, this is what I would have for 75 PL. I have these models today, and this is a solid list.
---> 1 : GUO (12PL)
---> 1 : Herald of Nurgle (4PL)
---> 3 : Nurgling squads (18PL)
---> 3 : Exalted Flamers (12PL)
---> 1 : 30 Plaguebearers (15PL)
---> 1 : 6 Plague Drones (14PL)

The difference is that the first list is just flat out better. Run the points on both, and see how the points match up. If the second list is as expensive -points wise- as the first, I'll eat my hat.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Christ internet. I just don't understand you sometimes.

You said 2+2=5

Actually it's more like "DarknessEternal said 2+2=7, and everyone is telling him he's wrong while he's confused about it".

You don't understand how points OR power levels actually work, you just keep trying to push how you WANT them to work.

Points are flawed. The points costs are unbalanced. No one is denying that. What the argument is being made is that, in spite of their flaws, points at the very least attempt to provide some balance between units with different upgrade choices. The more powerful an upgrade, usually, the more points it costs. This is a very rational and logical system.

Unlike points, however, power levels do not even bother. They've given up even trying to balance upgrades. All upgrade choices are costed the same. It doesn't matter how powerful they are. They're all the same cost. And yet you act like because they're costed the same, they magically now ARE the same balance-wise.

Because of course you are. You work from the assumption that power levels are better, rather than looking at each of them for their merits and flaws individually.

Well, to be more accurate, what happens is that because power levels are based on points, any errors made in points will also be reflected in power levels. So, like thermodynamics, you can't get ahead and you can't break even.

However, power levels also have a much lower resolution than points and allow you to change a lot of variables for zero cost. This means errors in points are not just reflected in power levels, they are amplified and compounded with errors in the power levels themselves. For any problems you may have with points, by going to power levels those problems can only get worse.

The biggest problem with powerlevels is that some armies just have better upgrades than others. And they now basically get them for free. While armies with crap upgrades now pay for them even if they would never actually use them.

If GW would go and fix the upgrades so all upgrades are equally viable, powerlevels might be a good system. This will never happen, and powerlevels will never be a good system.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
I imagine you want to field them in a detachment with transport, so calculated out :

---> 2x HQs : Captain, Librarian (11 PL)
---> 3x Tacticals (15 PL)
---> 4x Sternguard (28 PL)
---> 4x Rhinos (16 PL)

Total is 70 PL, that's not exactly chump change. And this list looks by no means unbeatable.

If you are using PL, why use you use tacticals? Take one of the detachments that lets you bring another choice in it's place.
Go with more dreads or some predators. This is what I would take for marines at 75 PL. It has 7 drops, giving it a good chance of going first. It has extremely solid firepower and a well rounded army.
---> 1 : Captain (5PL)
---> 1 : Scout Squad (6PL)
---> 2 : Venerable Dreads (16PL)
---> 4 x Sternguard (28 PL)
---> 4x Razorbacks (20 PL)

With daemons, this is what I would have for 75 PL. I have these models today, and this is a solid list.
---> 1 : GUO (12PL)
---> 1 : Herald of Nurgle (4PL)
---> 3 : Nurgling squads (18PL)
---> 3 : Exalted Flamers (12PL)
---> 1 : 30 Plaguebearers (15PL)
---> 1 : 6 Plague Drones (14PL)

The difference is that the first list is just flat out better. Run the points on both, and see how the points match up. If the second list is as expensive -points wise- as the first, I'll eat my hat.

I mean it depends on upgrades to these units.


If I go with combi-plasma on all sterngaurd, assault cannon Razorbacks, and Twin Autocannon Dreads, scouts with sniper rifles and cammo cloaks, powerfists on sarges, captain with TH and Storm shield. I get that list 1636

The Daemons if the Plaguebearers and drones have an icon and instrument I get 1462.

 labmouse42 wrote:
The difference is that the first list is just flat out better. Run the points on both, and see how the points match up. If the second list is as expensive -points wise- as the first, I'll eat my hat.

Of course that assumes points are some holy bible of unit efficiency which they aren't.

tneva82 wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
The difference is that the first list is just flat out better. Run the points on both, and see how the points match up. If the second list is as expensive -points wise- as the first, I'll eat my hat.

Of course that assumes points are some holy bible of unit efficiency which they aren't.

No ones assuming they're the holy bible of efficiency. They are, however, assuming correctly that most upgrades are priced within a reasonable margin of error for their efficiency.

Points not being perfect is not a good argument for a different system that cares even less about accuracy, and is derived from the points people are decrying as being inaccurate.

tneva82 wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
The difference is that the first list is just flat out better. Run the points on both, and see how the points match up. If the second list is as expensive -points wise- as the first, I'll eat my hat.

Of course that assumes points are some holy bible of unit efficiency which they aren't.

No it assumes points have some value, and that typically speaking something that costs more is better if cost is not an issue. Look at it this way, can you objectively tell me that A sternguard squad with 5 combi-meltas is not better than one without those upgrades? In a points system that might not be true because of the added cost, but if both cost the same, the 5 combi-meltas are obviously better.

Similarly we can assume that infantry costed at say 10 points per model is relatively equal to other infantry costed at 10 PPM. Now it isn't exact, and errors happen, but in general we must accept this notion. If we say, no points are super wrong across the board and provide no information on unit performance, then the same is true for power level, only the gap is bigger.

In a points system you run into the issue of things being too expensive for their durability. So you might not load down a unit of say Ork nobs with power klaws, cybork bodies, ammo-runts, Kombi-rokkits, because they become too expensive for their durability. In Power level you with either, always do this because they are durable enough for their power and so take as many upgrades as you can because the upgrades make them straight better (no upgrade exists to my knowledge that makes a squad worse), or you never take them because they are not worth the power given their durability ever. Power level largely makes units a binary choice, either the unit is good and always worth taking, or it is bad and never worth taking, there is no real middle ground, In points there can be a middle ground where say a tactical squad is worth it but only if you take a 5 man unit with plasma and combi-plasma, a power fist sarge makes them too expensive to be worth it.

Breng77 wrote:
Look at it this way, can you objectively tell me that A sternguard squad with 5 combi-meltas is not better than one without those upgrades?

Versus 30x Plaguebearers at 6". Assume multi-wound simply removes DR.


Given the numbers above, a 144pt squad with Combi-Flamers and a Claw (20.6) puts out objectively much better damage than a 195pt squad with Combi-Meltas and a Fist (27.8). Appropriate upgrades win, even if it levels out the min-maxing.

 labmouse42 wrote:
If you are using PL, why use you use tacticals?

I wanted to see if 4 Sternguard can break balance in a relatively conventional list. So I decided to keep other factors to a minimum, like skimping on troops and HQs.

Summoned Plaguebearers with +1" and a command reroll on the charge can probably make it past Flamer overwatch, some MSU might not be unwise. You're gaining a lot of benefits from the Instrument, Icon, and CP for strategems, probably moreso than from the -1 to hit in bigger squads.

28 PL (3x Combi-Flamer, 2x HF, Claw Sternguard) = 624pts, 22.3 ratio
30 PL (6x MSU Plaguebearers) = 690pts, 23.0 ratio

Here is the general calculus in a more complete list at 60 PL.

SM: 1x Captain w/JP, SS, TH (22.2), 1x Camo/Sniper/Fist Scouts (18.3), 4x Flamer Sternguard (22.3), 4x TL Lascannon Razorbacks (23.0) = 1327pts
CD: 2x Heralds (17.5), 6x Plaguebearers (23.0), 2x Soul Grinder (21.4) = 1300pts

So, no need to eat your hat after all, but difference is equal to about 1x PF on a sniper squad. Adjust the lists as you deem fit, but if the Sternguard are tackling the Plaguebearers, they aren't going to be more efficient by outfitting the squad with more expensive Fists and Combi-meltas. And don't forget there's a 5CP disadvantage for SM.