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.

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And you do the same with yours - you choose points because it "optimises" your list because you didn't take every upgrade. You don't want to be charged for equipment you didn't take, which is fair enough for you. Still optimising in that sense.

So let me get this straight: "a unit's point cost should reflect its actual strength, including purchased upgrades, as closely as possible" is optimizing just like "I don't want this particular upgrade I like to cost me points, so I want to use the point system where I get it for free"? Are you serious?

But I'm not getting the upgrade for free. I'm paying for that upgrade as part of the flat cost of the unit. I pay, as part of the flat cost of the PL unit, to take anything.

You ARE still optimising, under the same way you phrased your initial point to me. If what I'm doing is optimising, then so is yours.

Have you considered that I really don't care that much what the unit is armed with so much that I get to field the unit in the first place? It might just be a case of perception, but having the unit prices be flat costs doesn't make me think "oh, I really wish I could shave a few points off this unit so I could fit another one in". It's probably a perception thing, but that's what I see.

IOW, you want to get all of your upgrades for free so you don't have to consider whether or not they are worth points compared to having additional units. I get that you want free stuff for yourself, but that doesn't make it good game design.

I'm not after free stuff. I just don't want the macro-construction of my army affected by trivial micro-constructions. If I truly was as selfish and greedy for free stuff, don't you think I'd never miss a chance to slap an upgrade on something? As it stands, half of my Tactical Sergeants have nothing more than a bolter and chainsword. The other half are kitted out with combis, pistols, melee weapons and suchlike. If I was solely in this for the free stuff, don't you think I'd have put it on the other half of my list?

During 7th, I paid points for my transports when using a Gladius, because I didn't take it for free stuff. I took the Gladius because it was the style of army building I preferred. But I guess me saying "I built my army to be fluff-accurate" is virtue signalling.

Keep on reeling off those buzzwords

And this is why people don't play you.

Plenty of people play me. But if people whose idea of playing a game is to mindlessly roll dice at each other without even being aware of what their units are equipped with want to refuse to play me then no, I don't think I'm missing anything.

I wouldn't play you. And I think quite a few people on this forum wouldn't play you.

And agreed. I don't think I'm missing anything from anyone who feels the need to say that people are having fun in the wrong way and should stop playing the game because they're too casual.

You're genuinely telling me that I shouldn't play 40k because I don't do it the way you do?

I'm questioning why you bother to play 40k at all when you reject the entire concept of a game. If you aren't even bothering to look at what weapons a unit has until after you've already rolled to hit then you aren't playing a game anymore, you're rolling dice mindlessly and counting who gets more 4+ results. Maybe this is the sort of "beer and pretzels" game where you have to get black-out drunk to find it appealing?

You think the ONLY concept of 40k is to play competitively and with your strategic thinkin' cap on all the time?

Yeah, I really dodged a bullet not ever having to interact with you.
People can enjoy their games however they want to. Just because I wouldn't play a game the way you do doesn't mean I get some kind of free reign to morally lord it over people who do.

Actually, if my opponent was in that 12" range, I'd probably be charging them. Not to mention the Sergeant would probably be dead by this point.

You do realize that you can shoot AND charge, right? And you didn't answer my question. If you had a plasma pistol shot would you decline to fire because the pistol is "just aesthetic" or would you insist that the plasma pistol on your model exists rules-wise and take the shot?

Odds are, I'd probably throw a grenade at this point. Sounds cooler in my head.

I'm not saying points are hard, but I am saying that 1+1 is easier than 1+1+1+1+1+1. There are literally less numbers involved, and less variables.

Both are so trivially easy that I find it unbelievable that anyone, other than small children, could complain that either is meaningfully harder than the other. Or that, in the age of universal smartphones, anyone could care whether they're putting 1+1+1+1 or 112+33+55+80 into their calculator to add up the point costs.

Implying that I A, have my phone on me at all times, and B, still want to spend that time flipping through more pages, putting in more numbers, and counting just how many power swords are in my list?

However, you spin it, power level IS faster. Is it fast enough that it makes it worth it over points? That's up to your personal preference. Subjectivity, yo.

Dandelion wrote:
They're nice and useful don't get me wrong, but fun games can be played without them.

However, it is much more likely that a game that is better balanced via using the superior point system will be more fun. The fact that you can, by blind luck, have a balanced game using a less-accurate point system does not make the alternative better.

In your opinion, it's superior, and more fun. It is more likely FOR YOU it will be more fun.

It's more likely for me PL will be more fun. We all have opinions, dude. Some of us actually let other people have theirs.

You missed the point. It was a more general commentary on accepting differing preferences even if you yourself don't subscribe to them.

Why should I accept your ridiculous preferences in the context of a discussion of those preferences? If you want to have your preferences without criticism then leave this thread, go play silently, and don't present them for discussion. If you want to say "I like X" in a discussion forum then you should be prepared for someone else to say "no, X sucks".

You're right. We shouldn't have expected common respect or acceptance for people liking different thing from Peregrine.

After all, if you don't want your personal preferences attacked because people can't handle the idea of different kinds of fun, you just shouldn't ever voice those preferences.

I've personally got nothing wrong with you, or anyone, saying "PL sucks for me", or even "PL sucks". Saying "if you play PL, you suck" goes beyond voicing your opinion, and into pushing your opinion on other people. That's what the issue is.

Peregrine wrote:If people don't want to be asked why they are posting here or told to leave then they shouldn't make elaborate declarations of how they don't care about the subject (but stubbornly insist on posting about it anyway) or try to pretend that criticizing their posts in a discussion forum is equivalent to coming to their house unprovoked and lecturing them about how they need to stop having fun the wrong way.

At the same time, one should reasonably expect to be able to voice their preferences and not be attacked and told that their idea of fun is wrong, and they are somehow less of a person for thinking that.

Voice your opinion on how it affects you, by all means. Voice your opinion on how you'd never play it. But berating other people for having the audacity to voice their own is what I'd call bullying.

mew28 wrote:I gota go with Peregrine PL has no real use in the end unless you don't play to win and basic addition is hard for you. The simple fact that it is so easy to game PL compared to points kinda ruins it for me at least.

It's trivially easy to game points too.
Step 1: Take Guard
Step 2: Take Slamguinius
Step 3: Take at least a Castellan
Step 4: ???
Step 5: PROFIT!!

All of 40k can be broken if you try. If you don't try to break it, then you're probably going to have a better time. I don't know about you, but I don't go out with the aim to break the game, or to leverage an overwhelming advantage over my opponent. My idea of fun is different from that.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:same here, PL is a great thing for 2 folks who have never played and want to throw down with the easy build zero option models that came in Dark Imperium or forgebane.

but once you have a collection, and 'Choices' of models ..

Playing PL can end up like playing chess where the White player is missing a queen and 7 pawns.

40K is at its core a tactical strategy game and it feels bad to hand out a beating with a superior force, (Regardless of skill)

it feels worse to be on the other end of that repeatedly and then later find out that in points you were always going to lose, the balance swings too far.

I've got plenty large collections of armies. I actually find that PL works better for me than points does, largely because of that. If I'm putting down a full Battle Company supported by a Tank Company and Infantry Companies respectively, I really don't want to comb through each unit and calculate each unique one. When I come to shooting or fighting with that unit, I'll see what they have, but beyond that, they're just another Tactical Squad, another Leman Russ, another Infantry Squad.

Again, regarding the whole Chess analogy, you can have the same scenario occur in points games. Or is 2000 points of Grey Knights really equal to 2000 point of Imperium soup?

Galef wrote:Uses I have found for PLs:
--Great for throwing together a Force quickly from an army you don't normally play and aren't that serious about (but somehow have the models anyway)
--Great for lists in which you are putting together for BOTH players that will be playing several games against and tweaking wargear options to make them feel on-par with each other. I, for example, have a small collection for Marines, CSm and Necrons that I exclusively play against each other with my sons at home. PLs mean I can start with medium wargear options and if one list is consistently better, I can tone it down or buff up the other lists without changing the level of the game, just swap out for other choices.
--Great when you do not have the Codex or CA or BattleScribe, but can remember each unit's PL

What PLs are not great at is:
Putting together a serious list mean for competitive play

Since 99% of player tend to do the later and probably less than 1% do the former, Points are objectively the better choice. But that in no way makes PLs "useless"
If 1 person finds it useful, by definition, it's useful.

Agreed and slightly disagreed. Points are only objectively the better choice for the 99%. For the 1%, they're objectively better, if they prefer that.

1 thing I actually don't like about PL is that you often cannot just add 1 additional model without paying the PL for several additional models. Sometimes, I just want to make a 3-man unit into a 4-man unit, NOT a 6 man, but the PL increase is the same for either

Nah, I agree on this one. My GK Paladins are terrible for this, because I do have 6 Paladins, but they come in blocks of 3, 5, and 10. However, if it's a sufficiently small game, I'll just play them as two separate units of 3.

deviantduck wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:So because you have fun with power levels means we can’t have a discussion on a forum about which point system is better?

Better is subjective. Which is EXACTLY my point.
We can absolutely discuss why we might think it is better for ourselves, but a lot of people seem to be incapable of understanding that other people's ideas of "better" isn't the same as their own.
Because I have fun with PL means it is better for me. If you want to discuss why you prefer yours without insulting my enjoyment, I'm all ears.

First and foremost, I don't care if people use PL. Enjoy. Have fun. Just don't tell me that it's more balanced than Points. Better is not subjective when you refer to math. Your Fiat might be a better fit for you and you have more fun driving it, but don't try and argue that it'll outpace a Lambo. PL is the less balanced point system.

I haven't said it's objectively better or more balanced than points. I've said it's subjectively better to me.

Objectively, that Fiat IS slower. That doesn't make it objectively WORSE. It could be subjectively worse to someone who values speed, but it's subjectively better for someone who prefers the fit of it.

auticus wrote:

Particularly if you're trying to achieve a balanced game.

Points do zero in 40k to achieve a balanced game.

Oh wait, you're serious...

Is 2000 points of Grey Knight Terminators balanced against 2000 points of AM/BA/Knight soup?

Reemule wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
No one is arguing that points are not more precise in theory. Our argument is that kind of precision isn't required to have fun.

So why are you playing points? Why did you go past your section?

Page 212, first paragraph. "Matched play games give you the option to fight battles with armies that are intentionally balanced against one another"

Unless your looking for that specific option, don't go this many pages into the rule book. You need to start playing the game as GW intended for you to play it.

That section also states that you don't have to use points for matched play, you can use Power Levels, or even counting wounds (their own example, I'd never even thought if it).

Power levels are really problematic for many armies which have lots of options which have high cost variables. I played two games using power, (back to back against the same opponent) and after the games I mathed it out he had like 500 more points then I did the first game, and like 200 more the second after I changed my list. There is just to much room for this kind of lopsidedness with power. If I was playing someone new, or teaching someone how to play I would probably use power levels to throw together a quick army for that purpose, but outside of that, I don't like power

When someone powerlists with points, they are making their 2000 points operate like 3000 points.

Which is why a 2000 pt game of Grey Knights or whatever weak army you want to use feels like you're facing against 3000 points of the latest soup of the day.

Aelyn wrote:
One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.

This is said over and over again in defense of PL, but it's absolutely false. Of course optimization is relevant in PL. When all upgrades cost zero points then anything but the most powerful one is sabotaging your own unit. For example, if a power fist is zero points then modeling your sergeant with a knife because you don't like the look of power fists is sacrificing optimization for aesthetics, just like in the conventional point system. If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same.

The only way that PL "improves" the situation is the virtue signalling aspect: by saying "I USE PL" you're announcing to the world that you're a particular sort of player and list optimization is not welcome in your games.

Reemule wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
No one is arguing that points are not more precise in theory. Our argument is that kind of precision isn't required to have fun.

So why are you playing points? Why did you go past your section?

Page 212, first paragraph. "Matched play games give you the option to fight battles with armies that are intentionally balanced against one another"

Unless your looking for that specific option, don't go this many pages into the rule book. You need to start playing the game as GW intended for you to play it.

Blndmage wrote:
That section also states that you don't have to use points for matched play, you can use Power Levels, or even counting wounds (their own example, I'd never even thought if it).

Boom!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.

This is said over and over again in defense of PL, but it's absolutely false. Of course optimization is relevant in PL. When all upgrades cost zero points then anything but the most powerful one is sabotaging your own unit. For example, if a power fist is zero points then modeling your sergeant with a knife because you don't like the look of power fists is sacrificing optimization for aesthetics, just like in the conventional point system. If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same.

The only way that PL "improves" the situation is the virtue signalling aspect: by saying "I USE PL" you're announcing to the world that you're a particular sort of player and list optimization is not welcome in your games.

Oh for feths sake! What is broken in your brain that says everytime someone does something you don't like, it means they think they are superior to you?

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.

This is said over and over again in defense of PL, but it's absolutely false. Of course optimization is relevant in PL. When all upgrades cost zero points then anything but the most powerful one is sabotaging your own unit. For example, if a power fist is zero points then modeling your sergeant with a knife because you don't like the look of power fists is sacrificing optimization for aesthetics, just like in the conventional point system. If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same.

The only way that PL "improves" the situation is the virtue signalling aspect: by saying "I USE PL" you're announcing to the world that you're a particular sort of player and list optimization is not welcome in your games.

You really don't seem to understand the idea that someone might take an option other than trying to win do you? Over the years I've stayed away from options or builds because they didn't sit well with the background of my space marines or I otherwise felt it just didn't seem right fluff wise. Did I take into account how good an upgrade or unit was, yes of course. But it doesn't at to my gaming experience to only ever take the best option, and it certainly wouldn't make my opponents much better either. My game group and I have found 40k regardless of edition is more fun when you take things cause there cool or they help tell a neat story, not just to smash face.

It's a competitive game. While I do understand not always playing super hardball, I'd honestly feel a little cheated if someone "played down" to me.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You ARE still optimising, under the same way you phrased your initial point to me. If what I'm doing is optimising, then so is yours.

You are advocating a point system that favors your particular upgrade preferences at the expense of balance, and openly doing so because it favors your preferences. IOW, you are deliberately creating an imbalance in your favor. I am advocating a point system that more accurately evaluates everyone's upgrade choices, improving balance for everyone. Nobody gets an imbalance in their favor. The idea that the two are equivalent is absurd "MOMMY HE DID IT TOO" nonsense.

I'm not after free stuff. I just don't want the macro-construction of my army affected by trivial micro-constructions.

IOW, you want free stuff. You want to have upgrades on your models, but you don't want those upgrades to take points out of your budget for buying units. That's the very definition of getting stuff for free.

You think the ONLY concept of 40k is to play competitively and with your strategic thinkin' cap on all the time?

There is a difference between playing competitively and literally being so oblivious to what is going on that you roll dice to hit before being aware of what weapons you're shooting. That isn't playing a game, it's mindlessly rolling D6s and seeing what happens.

However, you spin it, power level IS faster.

Yes, PL is faster, but not in any meaningful way. Spending 3 minutes instead of 2 minutes adding up a list for a 3 hour game is irrelevant.
You're right. We shouldn't have expected common respect or acceptance for people liking different thing from Peregrine.

I've personally got nothing wrong with you, or anyone, saying "PL sucks for me", or even "PL sucks". Saying "if you play PL, you suck" goes beyond voicing your opinion, and into pushing your opinion on other people. That's what the issue is.

It's a discussion forum. The whole point is to push your opinion on other people. Nobody is showing up uninvited at your house to tell you how you're wrong, you voluntarily placed yourself into the discussion. If you don't like it then feel free to leave, but don't complain about how you didn't get nothing but praise for your ideas.

You are not discussing anything Peregrine. You're trying to bully us into silence.

It can be a competitive game, it can be a narrative game, it can be anything two or more people want it to be. I find it more enjoyable to go a bit easier because that allows for far more armies and builds to be viable. Otherwise entire armies might as well not even bother showing up and I find it boring to play the same optimized lists over and over.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Oh for feths sake! What is broken in your brain that says everytime someone does something you don't like, it means they think they are superior to you?

I don't. But in the case of PL the entire purpose is virtue signalling and superiority. If it's genuinely about "casual" play then they'd just use the conventional point system and take less-optimized lists. The only reason to use a less-accurate point system and deliberately reduce the balance of the game, aside from figuring out a particular list/upgrade strategy that wins more with PL and trying to rig the game in their favor, is that by using PL they get to announce to the world that they are superior "casual" players and not those WAAC TFGs.

 Peregrine wrote:
If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same...

If you're building a model in a specific way to optimise your list, you're probably not playing in the sort of atmosphere where PL shines.

Or to put it another way, you're still working on the assumption that people are powergaming.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a discussion forum. The whole point is to push your opinion on other people.

This explains a lot.

Aelyn wrote:
If you're building a model in a specific way to optimise your list, you're probably not playing in the sort of atmosphere where PL shines.

Or to put it another way, you're still working on the assumption that people are powergaming.

Thank you for very nicely proving my point about PL and virtue signalling.

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
If you're building a model in a specific way to optimise your list, you're probably not playing in the sort of atmosphere where PL shines.

Or to put it another way, you're still working on the assumption that people are powergaming.

Thank you for very nicely proving my point about PL and virtue signalling.

You're aware that I play points games, right? Why would I be virtue signalling with PL when I don't actually use it?

Saying things are different does not imply one is better than the other.

Aelyn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Thank you for very nicely proving my point about PL and virtue signalling.

You're aware that I play points games, right? Why would I be virtue signalling with PL when I don't actually use it?

Saying things are different does not imply one is better than the other.

Whether or not you personally use it you just defended PL by describing virtue signalling.

Aelyn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
If you're building a model in a specific way to optimise your list, you're probably not playing in the sort of atmosphere where PL shines.

Or to put it another way, you're still working on the assumption that people are powergaming.

Thank you for very nicely proving my point about PL and virtue signalling.

You're aware that I play points games, right? Why would I be virtue signalling with PL when I don't actually use it?

Saying things are different does not imply one is better than the other.

It is important that people play with their toy soldiers in the correct adult way. We dont want to be seen playing in the less serious way.

Sarcasm aside, PL is perfect when i play a game with my son and the whole concept makes building his space marines a lot more fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.

This is said over and over again in defense of PL, but it's absolutely false. Of course optimization is relevant in PL. When all upgrades cost zero points then anything but the most powerful one is sabotaging your own unit. For example, if a power fist is zero points then modeling your sergeant with a knife because you don't like the look of power fists is sacrificing optimization for aesthetics, just like in the conventional point system. If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same.

This is perfectly valid observation. PL literally doesn't do what Aelyn thinks it does. Points are better if you want to just equip your guys with with suboptimal weapons for looks. My marine captain has a powersword and bolt pistol, lieutenant has a power mace and a bolt pistol. I like how they look. Sure, they don't achieve much with their weapons, but then again, under points I'm not paying much for those weapons either. Under PL system my guys would cost the same than opponents similar characters that are armed to the teeth with the best gear they can find from the marine armoury.

The only way that PL "improves" the situation is the virtue signalling aspect: by saying "I USE PL" you're announcing to the world that you're a particular sort of player and list optimization is not welcome in your games.

Then again, I really don't think this sort of commentary is helpful; you're not a mind reader, you don't know other people's motivations. Some people can prefer PL system for its ease of use, and I don't think that with points being scattered across several publications now, that is an irrational stance at all, albeit not one I personally hold.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Yep.

Allegedly some people play games to Power Level limits rather than points, but I've never met any of them.

EDIT - Well, not alongside, no. Points are listed in the back, Power Level on the datasheet of the unit.

Power level is the only way to play apoc. After building a 10k list, then doing the same with power level, there is no competition on which is easier. Besides, if you care about balance in apoc, you are doing it wrong. Also great for narrative games, as it removes the points on wargear, letting players create narrative units filled with flavor. Also excellent for teaching. It's just bad at tournament level.

I've met a lot of people who cannot understand this concept, and that is fine. It's just like how I cannot understand the concept of TCG games being enjoyable and interesting. Most of the time though, the people who don't grasp why PL can be useful, just get really defensive and end up insulting me or tryp up long reasons why they don't like it, which I don't care about lol. I love forging a narrative, and usually I have to do it within the constraints of points, but from time to time I get a game with power level against a like minded individual and have the best of times. There is nothing wrong with not liking power levels, but there is no reason to condemn them and be negative about people who enjoy them.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
Power level is the only way to play apoc. After building a 10k list, then doing the same with power level, there is no competition on which is easier. Besides, if you care about balance in apoc, you are doing it wrong. Also great for narrative games, as it removes the points on wargear, letting players create narrative units filled with flavor. Also excellent for teaching. It's just bad at tournament level.

TBH PL is overkill for Apocalypse balancing anyway. Apocalypse isn't a game, it's an exercise in taking models out of the box and then putting them back in. You can precisely duplicate the experience by arranging everyone's entire collection on a table, rolling D6s for 18 hours (not doing anything with the results, just rolling the dice) and then putting all of the models away. There's really no point in even adding up PL to figure out which models to put on the table.

For narrative games where you want to be able to determine upgrades based on fluff PL is worse than the conventional point system. If all options cost zero points then anything but the one with the best stat line is sabotaging your own list. In a conventional points game you have a lot more freedom to pick less-powerful upgrades because they also cost less.

 Peregrine wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
Power level is the only way to play apoc. After building a 10k list, then doing the same with power level, there is no competition on which is easier. Besides, if you care about balance in apoc, you are doing it wrong. Also great for narrative games, as it removes the points on wargear, letting players create narrative units filled with flavor. Also excellent for teaching. It's just bad at tournament level.

TBH PL is overkill for Apocalypse balancing anyway. Apocalypse isn't a game, it's an exercise in taking models out of the box and then putting them back in. You can precisely duplicate the experience by arranging everyone's entire collection on a table, rolling D6s for 18 hours (not doing anything with the results, just rolling the dice) and then putting all of the models away. There's really no point in even adding up PL to figure out which models to put on the table.

For narrative games where you want to be able to determine upgrades based on fluff PL is worse than the conventional point system. If all options cost zero points then anything but the one with the best stat line is sabotaging your own list. In a conventional points game you have a lot more freedom to pick less-powerful upgrades because they also cost less.

Is it so hard to believe people might get enjoyment from this game outside of crushing your opponent with the best thing you can bring? Apocalyspe is a really fun variant because, yea I can bring my whole collection vs another whole collection and have a ton of great in game moments. Titans taking down Titan, entire tank groups having at it, until your down to a few models fighting over that last scrap or objective. A lot of use get more out of cool moments and models rather than the final score tally at the end. It's the in game moments that do it for me, not the end result.

 Peregrine wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
Power level is the only way to play apoc. After building a 10k list, then doing the same with power level, there is no competition on which is easier. Besides, if you care about balance in apoc, you are doing it wrong. Also great for narrative games, as it removes the points on wargear, letting players create narrative units filled with flavor. Also excellent for teaching. It's just bad at tournament level.

TBH PL is overkill for Apocalypse balancing anyway. Apocalypse isn't a game, it's an exercise in taking models out of the box and then putting them back in. You can precisely duplicate the experience by arranging everyone's entire collection on a table, rolling D6s for 18 hours (not doing anything with the results, just rolling the dice) and then putting all of the models away. There's really no point in even adding up PL to figure out which models to put on the table.

For narrative games where you want to be able to determine upgrades based on fluff PL is worse than the conventional point system. If all options cost zero points then anything but the one with the best stat line is sabotaging your own list. In a conventional points game you have a lot more freedom to pick less-powerful upgrades because they also cost less.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

I've met a lot of people who cannot understand this concept, and that is fine. It's just like how I cannot understand the concept of TCG games being enjoyable and interesting. Most of the time though, the people who don't grasp why PL can be useful, just get really defensive and end up insulting me or type up long reasons why they don't like it, which I don't care about lol. I love forging a narrative, and usually I have to do it within the constraints of points, but from time to time I get a game with power level against a like minded individual and have the best of times. There is nothing wrong with not liking power levels, but there is no reason to condemn them and be negative about people who enjoy them.

I'm sorry, I can't get over the logic you have here:

For narrative games where you want to be able to determine upgrades based on fluff PL is worse than the conventional point system. If all options cost zero points then anything but the one with the best stat line is sabotaging your own list.

So you want to pick an upgrade based on fluff, but you are afraid that if you choose the fluffy upgrade it will nerf you because you could have had a non fluffy, stronger upgrade?

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Thank you for very nicely proving my point about PL and virtue signalling.

You're aware that I play points games, right? Why would I be virtue signalling with PL when I don't actually use it?

Saying things are different does not imply one is better than the other.

Whether or not you personally use it you just defended PL by describing virtue signalling.

Virtue signalling is using a statement to indicate (assumed) moral superiority. Nothing that I have said about PL implies any sort of morality.

If you want to say that talking about PL says something about the atmosphere in which you play, well... yeah, obviously, different ways to play happen in different playgroups. But without using this to imply a moral superiority, it can't be virtue signalling.

Please don't strawman me. If you want to debate, that's fine, but don't deliberately mischaracterise my statements in an effort to undermine me.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Is it so hard to believe people might get enjoyment from this game outside of crushing your opponent with the best thing you can bring? Apocalyspe is a really fun variant because, yea I can bring my whole collection vs another whole collection and have a ton of great in game moments. Titans taking down Titan, entire tank groups having at it, until your down to a few models fighting over that last scrap or objective. A lot of use get more out of cool moments and models rather than the final score tally at the end. It's the in game moments that do it for me, not the end result.

Apocalypse sucks for reasons entirely unrelated to balance. It sucks because 40k does not scale up well enough to handle it, and the game gets bogged down in a tedious mess. The table is too crowded to have any meaningful movement, objectives are almost always forgotten because who gives a after 12 hours of slogging through multi-hour turns, 90% of the models on the table are just there to be removed by titans, and IGOUGO means that one side can literally go off for dinner and come back before the active players have finished their turn. At no point in an Apocalypse game have I ever seen any meaningful strategy, and the rare cool moments are tiny outliers in a vast sea of boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
So you want to pick an upgrade based on fluff, but you are afraid that if you choose the fluffy upgrade it will nerf you because you could have had a non fluffy, stronger upgrade?

Exactly. PL forces you into a choice between taking fluffy upgrades or improving your ability to win games. The conventional point system doesn't force this choice, because less powerful upgrades have cheaper point costs. PL penalizes the fluffy choice, the conventional point system supports it. So if you want to have an environment where fluff-driven choices are encouraged then you should avoid PL at all costs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aelyn wrote:
Nothing that I have said about PL implies any sort of morality.

You are, however, referencing the PL-advocate assumption that "casual" games/players are superior to competitive ones. Therefore you are quoting a virtue signalling argument, even if you aren't signalling yourself.

Apocalypse games are a way to have "fun" with your "friends".

Some definitions for you:

Fun - enjoyment, amusement, or lighthearted pleasure.

Friends - virtue signalling you have a peasant personalty.

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
Nothing that I have said about PL implies any sort of morality.

You are, however, referencing the PL-advocate assumption that "casual" games/players are superior to competitive ones. Therefore you are quoting a virtue signalling argument, even if you aren't signalling yourself.

Really? Where did I say anything about superiority, or compare casual players to competitive ones, other than saying that they ply different types of games?

Aelyn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
If you're building a model in a specific way to optimise your list, you're probably not playing in the sort of atmosphere where PL shines.

Or to put it another way, you're still working on the assumption that people are powergaming.

Thank you for very nicely proving my point about PL and virtue signalling.

You're aware that I play points games, right? Why would I be virtue signalling with PL when I don't actually use it?

Saying things are different does not imply one is better than the other.

 Peregrine wrote:


Exactly. PL forces you into a choice between taking fluffy upgrades or improving your ability to win games. The conventional point system doesn't force this choice, because less powerful upgrades have cheaper point costs. PL penalizes the fluffy choice, the conventional point system supports it. So if you want to have an environment where fluff-driven choices are encouraged then you should avoid PL at all costs.

Do you even know what fluff is? If you have a unit that is famed for their swordsmanship and you've arranged narrative match where you will have an HQ with two power swords and a unit of elites with power swords. Then, the organizer says "hey, we use power level, not points", do you:

A: stick to your fluff for the narrative game, building a true narrative experience.
B: Change your lore so you can have a unit famed for their hammers because you want to win.
C: Become so torn on the decision between narrative driven games and winning that you refuse to play because power level gives you more options with no penalties.
D: Freak out at the idea that other players will bring power lists, so you exploit power level to the max and not bring lore at all.

You are saying you don't like the option that lets you choose because you can't handle the choice. It's like saying you would rather have to choose between a 99 cent cheeseburger and $20 fancy burger, than just be given the option to eat whichever you want because the choice is too hard. You truly do not seem to comprehend that fluff/narrative games are not about winning and are not competitions. They are about playing and telling a story. It's like going for a walk to enjoy the outdoors, instead of going for a walk to lose weight, its about the experience, not the result.

There are many Peregrine vs Power Level threads. Now we have another, woot.

auticus wrote:When someone powerlists with points, they are making their 2000 points operate like 3000 points.

Which is why a 2000 pt game of Grey Knights or whatever weak army you want to use feels like you're facing against 3000 points of the latest soup of the day.

Exactly - so why are points treated like this pinnacle of balance, and Power Level is slammed because someone could have more "points" than another, even when using the same limitations?

Peregrine wrote:This is said over and over again in defense of PL, but it's absolutely false. Of course optimization is relevant in PL. When all upgrades cost zero points then anything but the most powerful one is sabotaging your own unit. For example, if a power fist is zero points then modeling your sergeant with a knife because you don't like the look of power fists is sacrificing optimization for aesthetics, just like in the conventional point system. If you want to optimize your list you're forced to take the power fist even if you hate how it looks on the model. The precise upgrades that are mandatory may change under PL, but the underlying principle is exactly the same.

The fact you're saying that "not minmaxing my unit is sabotaging myself" is exactly WHY Power Level isn't for you. It works just fine for people who don't minmax their lists, who don't play the game to soundly and strategically pound your opponent into the dust, but rather people who simply don't care about that.
Funnily enough, don't the majority of Warhammer TV games on their official Twitch channel use Power Level?

You can't say they're enjoying the game wrong.

The only way that PL "improves" the situation is the virtue signalling aspect: by saying "I USE PL" you're announcing to the world that you're a particular sort of player and list optimization is not welcome in your games.

And by saying "you shouldn't play 40k because your idea of fun isn't the same as mine", you announce to the world you have a singular lack of respect.

JNAProductions wrote:It's a competitive game. While I do understand not always playing super hardball, I'd honestly feel a little cheated if someone "played down" to me.

Is it a competitive game by default?
People can play it competitively, but it doesn't mean that it IS a competitive game. Football can be played competitively, but it can also be played for fun, just for the fun of kicking a ball around. Why is 40k not able to be played for non-competitive reasons?

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You ARE still optimising, under the same way you phrased your initial point to me. If what I'm doing is optimising, then so is yours.

You are advocating a point system that favors your particular upgrade preferences at the expense of balance, and openly doing so because it favors your preferences. IOW, you are deliberately creating an imbalance in your favor. I am advocating a point system that more accurately evaluates everyone's upgrade choices, improving balance for everyone. Nobody gets an imbalance in their favor. The idea that the two are equivalent is absurd "MOMMY HE DID IT TOO" nonsense.

And you favour points because you don't want to be "sabotaged" by static points.

That's optimising your own game style, which is that of selective and combat-effective list building. You're welcome to that style of gameplay. I wouldn't play it myself, but I won't knock what you prefer. I ask that you respect the same of me.

I'm not after free stuff. I just don't want the macro-construction of my army affected by trivial micro-constructions.

IOW, you want free stuff. You want to have upgrades on your models, but you don't want those upgrades to take points out of your budget for buying units. That's the very definition of getting stuff for free.

Only because you look at the game and think "what can I take that will maximise my combat effectiveness?". I look at it and think "what looks cool?". You're welcome to your view, but don't try and assume I'm using the same logic as you are. My outlook on the game is far different to yours.

You think the ONLY concept of 40k is to play competitively and with your strategic thinkin' cap on all the time?

There is a difference between playing competitively and literally being so oblivious to what is going on that you roll dice to hit before being aware of what weapons you're shooting. That isn't playing a game, it's mindlessly rolling D6s and seeing what happens.

That's the game to me. The "game" is making good stories, fun encounters, and generally enjoying what happens on the tabletop. That's still the game, unless you want to find a quote from GW about 40k and how it's "supposed" to be played as a game.

You're welcome to your pleasures. Let other people have theirs.

However, you spin it, power level IS faster.

Yes, PL is faster, but not in any meaningful way. Spending 3 minutes instead of 2 minutes adding up a list for a 3 hour game is irrelevant.

Irrevelant to you. Not to other people. Or does that not compute for the Almight Lord Peregrine, Who's opinion is fact, and cannot be disputed?

I've personally got nothing wrong with you, or anyone, saying "PL sucks for me", or even "PL sucks". Saying "if you play PL, you suck" goes beyond voicing your opinion, and into pushing your opinion on other people. That's what the issue is.

It's a discussion forum. The whole point is to push your opinion on other people. Nobody is showing up uninvited at your house to tell you how you're wrong, you voluntarily placed yourself into the discussion. If you don't like it then feel free to leave, but don't complain about how you didn't get nothing but praise for your ideas.

I'm not asking for praise. I'm asking for common respect from a fellow human, who just might recognize that people have their own personal likes and dislikes, which are inherently subjective.

Oh wait. "The whole point is to push your opinion on other people."
That explains a lot. Poor etiquette, if you ask me.

Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Oh for feths sake! What is broken in your brain that says everytime someone does something you don't like, it means they think they are superior to you?

I don't. But in the case of PL the entire purpose is virtue signalling and superiority.

Is that so?

So, if I claim that "the entire purpose of points is to be a WAAC TFG", that's just as truthful as yours? I mean, they're both horrifically insensitive, not to mention presumptuous... oh, it's Peregrine. Of course.

If it's genuinely about "casual" play then they'd just use the conventional point system and take less-optimized lists.

Why would I use the points system? What benefit does it give?

Bear in mind that I don't care about "balance", that I want the freedom to take aesthetic upgrades without being penalised in what other units I can take, and that I value faster and less micro-detailed list construction. Why would I pick points?

The only reason to use a less-accurate point system and deliberately reduce the balance of the game, aside from figuring out a particular list/upgrade strategy that wins more with PL and trying to rig the game in their favor, is that by using PL they get to announce to the world that they are superior "casual" players and not those WAAC TFGs.

Wow!! It's like he's right in my head!! He knows what I'm thinking better than I do!! Oh Lord Peregrine, praise to Him!! /sarcasm

Yeah, I don't need to explain why thinking you know my thoughts better than I do is a bad argument.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
You truly do not seem to comprehend that fluff/narrative games are not about winning and are not competition

It is precisely this, the inability to separate his subjective desires from other people's subjective desires. The flaw in the argument that points are better for fluff because PL penalizes you assumes that people who play games for narrative/fluff purposes see such a thing as a "penalty". Such a thing is only a penalty if at least one of your desired outcomes for a game is a test of skill, often, of course, this is not part of the desired outcomes of players who simply want to play a game narratively. Generally, the most important outcome for that milieu is how the story plays out.

To give a personal example, I play both Warmachine and 40k. When I make a list for 40k I think to myself what makes the most narrative sense here in this battle. I use PL to help me organize my thoughts and because it also allows me to play battle forged armies and get CP without having to come up with house rules on strategems. I like strategems. I could use points for this, but I don't want that much granularity tbh, and quite frankly I just enjoy adding up to the small numbers more. Contrast this with how I build a Warmachine list, I look at what is going to be the most optimal force that fits my playstyle and will give me an increased chance of having dice rolls go my way. I do not care about the story when I play Warmachine. I have fun with both games in completely different ways. I will do test runs with that list and tweak it and tweak (well, in theory, I hardly have time to play, unfortunately).

Many people, however, can not separate their personal enjoyment from how other people personally enjoy something. As someone once told me, there is no right way to play a game only infinite wrong ways.