Switch Theme:

Power Level instead of points, how is the balance?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






 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.


Actually, from the beginning, it was expected that you'd have a GM to set up a scenario and decide the forces, and points was a secondary method.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 knas wrote:
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?


I don't know; try it and see.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/15 11:21:59


 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




 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.


Yeah. The history of the game hasn't always been granular points and even if it had been, that isn't really proof of their *current* design decisions. The game also always had terrain mattering until now, for example. AOS only has a power level system currently. Its no more a stretch to say the game was designed with power level as the base and points tacked on to appease people that need that level of detail. Considering how loopy the point system is in general and how off the points were and still are, that would also make perfect sense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/15 13:18:52


 
   
Made in dk
Deadly Dire Avenger





Well the rulebook (matched play pg. 212) does present Points as the typical and Power levels as an alternative.

"Typically, you and your opponent will build an army to an agreed points limit, but you could instead, for example, build armies that have a set number of units. Alternatively, you could use the Wounds characteristic or the Power Rating of each unit."
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Yes for matched play it does. Matched play the expectation is granular points.

The next question that follows is... did the developers design the game with matched play as the primary focus?

AOS we know that was not the case.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






After talking about it and looking at it from the SOB thread.

I really want to play PL tournament now with my SOB, they literally can have every Sister with a special weapon in 5 man units, each for 5PL's

You can have literally a Full 5man unit of Melta Guns in basically Open top Rhino with an Invul and +1 wound, x2 HF's a SB and HKM that has the Scout Rule for 9PL total.

Here is an Example of 100 PL's

Celestine x2 Gemini
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM

Canoness: Relic, Inferno Pistol
Imagifier
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM
Dom: X4 MG's 1 Combi-Melta - Repressor, 2HF, SB, HKM


When looking at a list like that, knowing that the entire army has Scout and can shoot from inside the Rhino, it just gets really silly. IDK if Space Marines could compete with that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/15 17:24:40


   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Just curious, but how many points would that list be?
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






A little over 2500 points

   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




As a GK player I'm lucky to get 2K in 100PL.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






OK... well my DE can get 2600+ pts at 100pl LOL.

Thats in total
20 DL's
32 Blasters
12 PGL's and 12 Agoniser's
10 Venoms
4 RWF's
2 Archons
50 Treuborns

Warriors are 3 PL, but can only take 2 blasters vs 5PL for 3 blasters 2 DL's. the Trueborns are well worth the PL

   
Made in us
Devious Space Marine dedicated to Tzeentch




 knas wrote:
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.


This makes just as much sense as designing two armies with points, noticing the PL are different, and therefore deciding points are unbalanced. I mean, if one army has 10 more PL than the other, surely that makes a pretty big difference?
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Pink Horror wrote:
 knas wrote:
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.


This makes just as much sense as designing two armies with points, noticing the PL are different, and therefore deciding points are unbalanced. I mean, if one army has 10 more PL than the other, surely that makes a pretty big difference?


The thing is, as was mentioned earlier, assuming Points and PL are of similar quality, points are going to be more balanced because they have increased precision and granularity.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




And yet there is always someone crying about how something is too cheap or overcosted for it's ability. When has GW demonstrated the ability to refine the points with precision? I'm not saying Power level is a better system to points, I just don't think points are the panacea you lot claim.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Crimson Devil wrote:
And yet there is always someone crying about how something is too cheap or overcosted for it's ability. When has GW demonstrated the ability to refine the points with precision? I'm not saying Power level is a better system to points, I just don't think points are the panacea you lot claim.
Just because it's not perfect, doesn't mean it's objectively better.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Crimson Devil wrote:
And yet there is always someone crying about how something is too cheap or overcosted for it's ability. When has GW demonstrated the ability to refine the points with precision? I'm not saying Power level is a better system to points, I just don't think points are the panacea you lot claim.


Yeah, that's the thing. Points are borked, but since PL seems to be based on points (1 PL=20 Points, taking the average of upgrades) that means that PL is going to be just as borked, if not more.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




Do we actually know how GW set power level? I've seen the theory that they're based on points, but I've never seen GW confirm it.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Do we actually know how GW set power level? I've seen the theory that they're based on points, but I've never seen GW confirm it.


And your alternate explanation is...

The evidence seems to point to that. I won't say that it's 100%, uncontestable truth, but I will say it seems likely.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 auticus wrote:
AOS only has a power level system currently. Its no more a stretch to say the game was designed with power level as the base and points tacked on to appease people that need that level of detail.


I think the bigger stretch is any claim that AOS was "designed", at least to start with.

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in us
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Dysartes wrote:
 auticus wrote:
AOS only has a power level system currently. Its no more a stretch to say the game was designed with power level as the base and points tacked on to appease people that need that level of detail.


I think the bigger stretch is any claim that AOS was "designed", at least to start with.


BAZINGA!
yeah AoS had no design to start with but that's for another thread.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in jp
Longtime Dakkanaut





Jumping in on this.

To me points feel more balanced. I've noticed the huge discrepancy between points and PL that has been pointed out before. I'm also more comfortable with points then I am with PL.

At the end of the day, I'd rather use points, but I'll use PL if it means getting a game it. No complaining. And while I'm not going to WAAC's my opponent, or take wargear for the sake of it being free, I'm also not going to apologize if my equal list in PL is 400 more under points either.

Just play what you feel comfortable with, cherish the few games you get outside of that comfort zone, it makes for a more well rounded player.

But if you tell me I'm wrong just because you dislike my preferred choice, you WON'T be the person setting up across from me.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






A friend brought this to my attention

DE can have 3700pts in a 3 detachment list with 100PL. if a 4th Detachment its over 3800pts

Outrider x3, same detachment x3
Archon fully geared
Razorwing Flocks x12
Razorwing Flocks x12
Razorwing Flocks x12
Razorwing Flocks x12
Razorwing Flocks x12
Razorwing Flocks x12

2 Detachments add this
Beastmaster + Razorwing Flock unit x12

240 4 wound bodies, 8 attacks, Fly. 3726pts

Let me know if anyone else can get 2 armies worth of points for 100pl

   
Made in gb
Stubborn White Lion




I tend to use power level.

I find it fine because me and my buddy don't maximise the loadouts or spam units. I've added up the differences in power level to points for our battles before and they've always come out close enough when using this approach If one wants to do the make the best list you can thing (or at least close to), certainly use points.

Really I think power level works best for the "standard traditional 40k army" lovers, fair amount of troops, some elite infantry, the odd tank or dread.

If one works for you use it, why the need to be a jerk to people who are coming at the game from a different perspective I have no idea. (I used to dislike "power gamers" but I have come to the realisation I was being a jerk)

Play how you want to play, have fun.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/18 15:02:58


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Why are people acting like power levels are anything but a point system? They're a poorly-balanced point system, but they're still a point system. The only difference between power levels and the more detailed point system is that one accounts for variations in power between a unit's different configurations, while the other assumes that all configurations cost the same number of points. There is no possible situation where the second option gives better results than the first.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are people acting like power levels are anything but a point system? They're a poorly-balanced point system, but they're still a point system. The only difference between power levels and the more detailed point system is that one accounts for variations in power between a unit's different configurations, while the other assumes that all configurations cost the same number of points. There is no possible situation where the second option gives better results than the first.


Well, there is SOME possibilities. For instance, if a squad of Guard Infantry was 2 PL but cost 400 points, I think we can all agree that the PL is more balanced.

However, assuming similar effort was put into both, you're gonna see points be more precise and better reflective of reality.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 JNAProductions wrote:
Well, there is SOME possibilities. For instance, if a squad of Guard Infantry was 2 PL but cost 400 points, I think we can all agree that the PL is more balanced.

However, assuming similar effort was put into both, you're gonna see points be more precise and better reflective of reality.


Well yes, I'm talking about the system concepts themselves, not the exact numbers. Obviously if GW does a terrible job with one of them it's going to be worse, but that just says that GW screwed up the implementation.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: