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.

 AaronWilson wrote:
So Me and my friend played our first little game.

He had 643 Points, I had 636.

He had 32 Power rating, I had 31.

Pretty good so far.

now thats a value added comparison, thanks Aaron.

secretForge wrote:

Pink Horror wrote:
Also, I want to play with and against units will all the upgrades. I don't want to save points by using an 18-man unit instead of a 20-man unit, or by leaving a special weapon out of a veteran squad, or by not loading up every leader with power fists and plasma pistols. A sergeant with a boltgun is sad.

But what if your opponents, thinks units entirely equipped with bolters are cool? Then your fully upgraded squads have a massive advantage without points giving your opponents more guys.

Then either spot him some power levels or next time bring bare bones units...or both.

I'm liking power levels. In the same time it takes me to make out a 7th edition pointed list, I'd written out 4 different power level lists for my army. I don't do tournaments and working 6.5 days a week my time is extremely precious to me do I don't want to waste time at club night coming up with a pointed list.
I only get to do pickup games so the idea of being able to rock up to club, spend 30 seconds making a list and then just rolling some dice, eating chips and drinking coke sounds appealing to me.
I don't want to sit down for ages and try to workout what's going to work. Oh no, this is going over points now because this heavy weapon is now triple the points, great now I've gotta work from the ground up on a list. Pain in the arse.
Power levels let me just pick the units I want, give them the upgrades I've given them for years and just roll some bloody dice.

Most of the players in the club are the same way. No one is super competitive anymore- mostly on account of that attitude killing the 40k scene at club for the longest time forcing the waa players to migrate elsewhere. We're all of that mindset that games are fun when you are just playing them and socialising. We don't need ego stroking from our make believe plastic and metal miniatures to get any worth out of our lives.

Do some players like the nitty gritty points? Yes. We all have fun in our own ways. That's just not my way. I play to relax. Not to tire myself out mathing out numbers.

TL;DR near enough is good enough. Let's just roll some dice.

You're still mathing out points using power levels too.

And when did using points automatically make someone super competitive or unable to relax or play for fun? I must have missed the memo all these years that my using of points made me ultra competitive.

I can truthfully state that even people who will use points still look for a fun game and show up with such a mindset. I show up to socialize and push plastic army men around a table with good people, but I use points and will continue to do so.

Its really bizarre to see so many responses from people favouring power levels who categorize points as being for super competitive, not casual, non-narrative gaming. I don't know when this attitude started seeping into these boards, but its awful.

I want to point out again that the literal only difference between the two methods is that one uses less numbers to build an army, and the other uses more numbers to build an army. Every single other difference is purely of the attitude of the players involved, and completely independent of what kind of math you decided to use when pulling models out of your bag.

Points, always points.

I've seen afew batreps with Power level, and sometimes they are roughly equal in terms of points, but sometimes it differs quite alot. Saw one 50 powerlevel game which in points equated to ~1150 pts vs 850 pts.

Powerlevel doesn't really take units with expensive upgrades into the equation, so a list can easily snowball in terms of free upgrades.
It also doesn't really seem that well-tuned, as for some units one powerlevel equals to 12,5 points per powerlevel, and for some units one powerlevel equals to 25 points...

I like powerlevel as some sort of comp which adds benefits to the underdog, but as a tool to balance two lists it's, quite ironically, gak.

 Blacksails wrote:
but its awful.

I mean, when you see what you want to see and refuse to adjust your viewpoint, everything must be.

First, that's not at all what most people are saying. They're not saying that points are ultra competitive, they're saying there is an easier, faster system so why not use it since they don't feel the end result is changed much anyway.

Second of all, it doesn't affect you at all how they play, so why are you getting so affected by it? It's awful? "seeping into these boards?" Jesus, man, you sound like an ultra conservative that is scared and bewildered by change. These boards have nothing "seeping into them," they have never been a solid single opinion that you could lean on to know that the world is united. It has always been this way.

 Blacksails wrote:
You're still mathing out points using power levels too.

And when did using points automatically make someone super competitive or unable to relax or play for fun? I must have missed the memo all these years that my using of points made me ultra competitive.

I can truthfully state that even people who will use points still look for a fun game and show up with such a mindset. I show up to socialize and push plastic army men around a table with good people, but I use points and will continue to do so.

Its really bizarre to see so many responses from people favouring power levels who categorize points as being for super competitive, not casual, non-narrative gaming. I don't know when this attitude started seeping into these boards, but its awful.

I want to point out again that the literal only difference between the two methods is that one uses less numbers to build an army, and the other uses more numbers to build an army. Every single other difference is purely of the attitude of the players involved, and completely independent of what kind of math you decided to use when pulling models out of your bag.

You became WaaC when the other side saw they had no real argument and decided to try and shame us onto their side.

We've commited wrong think and so need to be ostracized for the good of humanity.

I find Power Levels are okay and are not so far off that they lead to major imbalances. Good for a pick up game where you don't have half an hour to point a list. Viewed competitively power levels do not scale with wargear meaning that elite units or armies with access to expensive wargear benefit disproportionately if your not careful. For example power levels will scale up when you increase a death company from 5 to 10 men or even 15 men. Power levels wont change a drop though if they are armed with chainsaws and bolt pistols or thunder hammers and plasma pistols.

In light of this I think the best approach is as follows:

Points for Competitive Games
Power Levels or Points for normal games/pick up games, depending on the what the other player wants to do and to a lesser extent how much you trust him not to exploit the issue with powerlevels.
Power Levels for Apoc.

I think Power levels work great for apoc where it doesnt really matter what the wargear is as it has limited impacted given the scale of the conflict.

hobojebus wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
You're still mathing out points using power levels too.

And when did using points automatically make someone super competitive or unable to relax or play for fun? I must have missed the memo all these years that my using of points made me ultra competitive.

I can truthfully state that even people who will use points still look for a fun game and show up with such a mindset. I show up to socialize and push plastic army men around a table with good people, but I use points and will continue to do so.

Its really bizarre to see so many responses from people favouring power levels who categorize points as being for super competitive, not casual, non-narrative gaming. I don't know when this attitude started seeping into these boards, but its awful.

I want to point out again that the literal only difference between the two methods is that one uses less numbers to build an army, and the other uses more numbers to build an army. Every single other difference is purely of the attitude of the players involved, and completely independent of what kind of math you decided to use when pulling models out of your bag.

You became WaaC when the other side saw they had no real argument and decided to try and shame us onto their side.

We've commited wrong think and so need to be ostracized for the good of humanity.

The argument "I enjoy the ease of which I can do this." is getting the reply "you shouldn't!"

Has anyone actually called him waac or did you just make that up to have something to argue against?

You seem really agitated, you alright?

Very recently with the release of this edition and discussion about points and power levels I've seen more and more comments that divide and generalize fluff and competitive players, when in reality, the two are one and the same. Its not good for the community, and its not good for the board.

I'm fully aware that there isn't mass collective consciousness that posts on this board who represent some sort of evil WAAC and CAAC polar opinions, but even in this discussion its either been explicitly stated or heavily implied that power levels are for fluff players, and points are for competitive players, when in reality, points are for everyone, and power levels are for everyone.

My only point in discussing this is in understanding why people think doing less math is worth the trade off of having a worse balance mechanism. I don't understand it, but I fully acknowledge (and have acknowledged it already) that is has zero impact on my gaming.

Do you feel any better now with that explanation?

Jiro wrote:
Viewed competitively power levels do not scale with wargear meaning that elite units or armies with access to expensive wargear benefit disproportionately if your not careful. For example power levels will scale up when you increase a death company from 5 to 10 men or even 15 men. Power levels wont change a drop though if they are armed with chainsaws and bolt pistols or thunder hammers and plasma pistols.

But if everyone brings the full complement of upgrades that they want on their squads with Power Levels, then they would still be roughly equal to each other, yes? If both players use Power Levels, and put on the "optimized" options, then they aren't unbalanced, are they?

I mean, I agree. Having several options available for army construction is a good thing, especially for all the different players with varied tastes and values in what they are seeking from their wargaming experience.

Not everyone wants the same thing out of the game.

 Blacksails wrote:
You seem really agitated, you alright?

Very recently with the release of this edition and discussion about points and power levels I've seen more and more comments that divide and generalize fluff and competitive players, when in reality, the two are one and the same. Its not good for the community, and its not good for the board.

I'm fully aware that there isn't mass collective consciousness that posts on this board who represent some sort of evil WAAC and CAAC polar opinions, but even in this discussion its either been explicitly stated or heavily implied that power levels are for fluff players, and points are for competitive players, when in reality, points are for everyone, and power levels are for everyone.

My only point in discussing this is in understanding why people think doing less math is worth the trade off of having a worse balance mechanism. I don't understand it, but I fully acknowledge (and have acknowledged it already) that is has zero impact on my gaming.

Do you feel any better now with that explanation?

Are you deflecting? I mean you say things like "It's awful!" and then claim that I seem agitated? Thanks for the concern, but no, unlike you I'm completely fine with this whole situation.

 Purifier wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
You seem really agitated, you alright?

Very recently with the release of this edition and discussion about points and power levels I've seen more and more comments that divide and generalize fluff and competitive players, when in reality, the two are one and the same. Its not good for the community, and its not good for the board.

I'm fully aware that there isn't mass collective consciousness that posts on this board who represent some sort of evil WAAC and CAAC polar opinions, but even in this discussion its either been explicitly stated or heavily implied that power levels are for fluff players, and points are for competitive players, when in reality, points are for everyone, and power levels are for everyone.

My only point in discussing this is in understanding why people think doing less math is worth the trade off of having a worse balance mechanism. I don't understand it, but I fully acknowledge (and have acknowledged it already) that is has zero impact on my gaming.

Do you feel any better now with that explanation?

Are you deflecting? I mean you say things like "It's awful!" and then claim that I seem agitated? Thanks for the concern, but no, unlike you I'm completely fine with this whole situation.

If we're being pedantic, there wasn't an exclamation mark after awful, denoting a lack of emphasis. And if we're also being pedantic, sure, there might be a better word, like annoying, or tedious, but I felt that the general point would be conveyed that categorizing people and assuming things about their play style based on the type of math they do is not ideal.

I'm fine with the situation too, as I explained, it doesn't impact my gaming as I will use points with my group. Thanks for assuming I'm not fine though. I even explicitly stated why I was discussing in here, which I felt was pretty clear that I am fine with the situation but would like to understand more of why people think power levels are a useful tool.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
You seem really agitated, you alright?

Very recently with the release of this edition and discussion about points and power levels I've seen more and more comments that divide and generalize fluff and competitive players, when in reality, the two are one and the same. Its not good for the community, and its not good for the board.

I'm fully aware that there isn't mass collective consciousness that posts on this board who represent some sort of evil WAAC and CAAC polar opinions, but even in this discussion its either been explicitly stated or heavily implied that power levels are for fluff players, and points are for competitive players, when in reality, points are for everyone, and power levels are for everyone.

My only point in discussing this is in understanding why people think doing less math is worth the trade off of having a worse balance mechanism. I don't understand it, but I fully acknowledge (and have acknowledged it already) that is has zero impact on my gaming.

Do you feel any better now with that explanation?

Are you deflecting? I mean you say things like "It's awful!" and then claim that I seem agitated? Thanks for the concern, but no, unlike you I'm completely fine with this whole situation.

If we're being pedantic, there wasn't an exclamation mark after awful, denoting a lack of emphasis. And if we're also being pedantic, sure, there might be a better word, like annoying, or tedious, but I felt that the general point would be conveyed that categorizing people and assuming things about their play style based on the type of math they do is not ideal.

I'm fine with the situation too, as I explained, it doesn't impact my gaming as I will use points with my group. Thanks for assuming I'm not fine though. I even explicitly stated why I was discussing in here, which I felt was pretty clear that I am fine with the situation but would like to understand more of why people think power levels are a useful tool.

Yes, the fact that several different people have chimed in with the same answer that they find it easier and less time consuming just doesn't do it for you. It doesn't matter how many people say they find it easier, if it isn't much easier for you, then you simply can't comprehend it. That is the only way I can explain your continued befuddlement. It's reiterated over and over, but you simply cannot accept it. And with that being the case, is there any point to keep asking?

Power levels to start with quick try out lists and scenarios after that mostly points once there is a good app/ calculator/ excell sheet (yes I used to do that).

 Blacksails wrote:
And when did using points automatically make someone super competitive or unable to relax or play for fun?

Actually it is the Competitive Players that seem to be doing that.

Someone says they like Power Levels and Immediately (70%-80% of the time) someone starts saying how Power Levels are not balanced and/or Competitive.

And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.

I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.

If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?

 Blacksails wrote:
And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.

I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.

If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?

Me? I play with points. I enjoy spending evenings building a list. But the idea of Power being a viable concept to others doesn't confuse me. It seems rather obvious. If your argument is "it wasn't there before, so you don't need it now" then why did we ever go past first edition? You can scratch the "how did you manage" question off, because it's just belittling and you know perfectly well how everyone "managed."

 MinscS2 wrote:
Points, always points.

I've seen afew batreps with Power level, and sometimes they are roughly equal in terms of points, but sometimes it differs quite alot. Saw one 50 powerlevel game which in points equated to ~1150 pts vs 850 pts.

Powerlevel doesn't really take units with expensive upgrades into the equation, so a list can easily snowball in terms of free upgrades.
It also doesn't really seem that well-tuned, as for some units one powerlevel equals to 12,5 points per powerlevel, and for some units one powerlevel equals to 25 points...

I like powerlevel as some sort of comp which adds benefits to the underdog, but as a tool to balance two lists it's, quite ironically, gak.

I haven't seen that much of a swing, your example is a bigger swing than I have seen. Over Nids, AdMech, BA, Orks, SM, and Imperium Mixed it seems 20 points per power level. Which keeps you close enough for any casual game.

For competitive games, yeah, "everyone" would bring maxed out "points per model" anyway. Harder to Min/Max with PL, as there is very little Min involved...

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Jiro wrote:
Viewed competitively power levels do not scale with wargear meaning that elite units or armies with access to expensive wargear benefit disproportionately if your not careful. For example power levels will scale up when you increase a death company from 5 to 10 men or even 15 men. Power levels wont change a drop though if they are armed with chainsaws and bolt pistols or thunder hammers and plasma pistols.

But if everyone brings the full complement of upgrades that they want on their squads with Power Levels, then they would still be roughly equal to each other, yes? If both players use Power Levels, and put on the "optimized" options, then they aren't unbalanced, are they?

I mean, I agree. Having several options available for army construction is a good thing, especially for all the different players with varied tastes and values in what they are seeking from their wargaming experience.

Not everyone wants the same thing out of the game.

Totally agree.

On this point why is the poll got only 2 options as if only one is acceptable? There should be at least one other option (if not more) for both systems having a place

 Blacksails wrote:
And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.

I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.

If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?

I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.

However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.

Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.

How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).

Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.

To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.

Because many people are binary minded. Tribalism is a huge thing with humans.

Its either left or its right. There is no in between.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Spoiler:

 Blacksails wrote:
And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.

I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.

If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?

I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.

However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.

Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.

How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).

Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.

To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.

Thanks for the detailed response! I can understand all that even if I haven't experienced some of it (WAAC players) or agree (balance means a lot to me), but hey.

Cheers.

Personally, I'm really excited to try out power level. As someone else pointed out, points are more granular but not necessarily more balanced. Having not tried power levels, I can certainly make no claims about it's balance. However, I thought there were mechanics about the person with a lower point levels have certain advantages, and I'd like to try that out. Here is my basic thought:
1) As a beer and pretzels player, list building takes me a fair amount of time often because I switch between armies and units a lot. I would rather just grab some units that I think might be interesting and put them together.
2) I'd like to try out imbalanced games under certain scenarios to see what that feels like. Obviously that could be done with points too.

Mainly, I'm just excited that we have another set of parameters to experiments with.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Especially since points are pretty awkward to use.

You what now? How exactly are points "awkward" for anyone with even a basic understanding of simple mathematics?

Going to need to show your working with that one.

No need to be confrontational. I've made an entire excel sheet cataloging and organizing all the points costs for the entire ork codex, and I think they are awkward. In previous editions, you looked at the datasheet and it says: Take boy, 6ppm. Take big shoota, 5ppm. Etc. All the points costs are listed on the sheet for the unit.

Now, you have to look at the unit, write down all the wargear options, both intrinsic to the model and all the options, go to the back of the book, look them all up on a table, and write it all down separately. Also, you have to ensure that intrinsic wargear doesn't have a cost, which I have seen more than one person confused about. I hate how they don't have all the matched points data and options for the unit self-contained on the unit's entry.

It's not rocket surgery, I'll admit, but it is still more trouble than it has been in the previous two ork codexes, and certainly more trouble than power levels.

 Blacksails wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Spoiler:

 Blacksails wrote:
And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.

I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.

If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?

I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.

However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.

Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.

How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).

Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.

To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.

Thanks for the detailed response! I can understand all that even if I haven't experienced some of it (WAAC players) or agree (balance means a lot to me), but hey.

Cheers.

Whaddaya know, seventh time is the charm.

 Purifier wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Spoiler:

 Blacksails wrote:
And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.

I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.

If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?

I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.

However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.

Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.

How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).

Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.

To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.

Thanks for the detailed response! I can understand all that even if I haven't experienced some of it (WAAC players) or agree (balance means a lot to me), but hey.

Cheers.

Whaddaya know, seventh time is the charm.

I had acknowledged I understood and accepted why people did it several times. You ignoring that is no reason to be antagonistic.

You could have said something nice here too, you know.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Spoiler:

 Blacksails wrote:
And then we had a discussion about how much time it was saving, which I still think is minimal, but sure.

I'll likely continue to post in this thread to see if there are any other reasons, because if the only reasons are 'its easier', then I suppose that's it.

If its not too much to ask, do you feel the time saved is worth the trade off for balance? How did you managed in every edition prior to this one? Have you considered Open play?

I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.

However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.

Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.

How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).

Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.

To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.

Thanks for the detailed response! I can understand all that even if I haven't experienced some of it (WAAC players) or agree (balance means a lot to me), but hey.

Cheers.

Whaddaya know, seventh time is the charm.

I had acknowledged I understood and accepted why people did it several times. You ignoring that is no reason to be antagonistic.

You could have said something nice here too, you know.

Hardly, you burnt that bridge with your little snide remarks a lot of posts ago. You've worked it into an art to just poke at people without technically breaking the oh so holy rule #1. My younger sister always did this when we were kids. I got fed up with it then and I can't stand it now.

And no you didn't acknowledge that at all. Hell this is just a few posts ago:

I don't understand it

That's not acknowledging that you understand it. It's the opposite.

You can pm me if you feel so strongly about this.

Today I had my first try out with 8th edition. I write it here, because I dont have enough Pics/other stuff that belongs to battlereports threads. As an introduction, I played with my mechanised Steel Legion Imperial Guard and my opponent fielded his Chaos army. We played with powerlevel points, because of all the hassle involved making points-only-lists. We didnt have tactical objectives at all, and we rolled for mission. Mission was killpoints, slay the warlord, linebreaker and first blood. Deployment was classic, long edge vs. long edge, though there was plenty of new, different kinds of deployments that were intresting. We forgot warlord traits, which after checking, didnt seem to be any good .Both of us had 6 command points, 3 for a start and 3 for a battalion. As my army was highly mobil, I tried from the start to push forward, but there was quickly big unit of Cultists blocking my way to get through. Lesson learned, tarpits are horrible. So is Defiler with it's regeneration. And my Demolishers didnt pack enough punch for full scale assault. Biggest error was that my infantry squads were in chimeras from the start, rather than disembarked for ability to shoot hard.

Here's my 70p list

tank Commander demolisher
tank Commander demolisher
infantry squad ( missile, grenadelauncher)
infantry squad ( missile, grenadelauncher)
infantry squad ( missile, grenadelauncher)
infantry squad ( missile, grenadelauncher)
Chimera
Chimera
Chimera
Chimera
armoured Sentinel (autocannon)
armoured Sentinel (autocannon)
hydra

And my opponents

Daemon Prince with wings
Terminator lord
4-5 terminators
squad of CSM in a rhino
30 cultists
Defiler
helbrute