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.

Personally - PL seems more balanced to me as it allows you to field the optimal loadout of any unit for less points than youd spend in comparison. It's the points I have an issue with because it seems like the general rule for assigning point values to things was - Step 1 - smoke lots of crack. Step 2 Assign point values to things.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally - PL seems more balanced to me as it allows you to field the optimal loadout of any unit for less points than youd spend in comparison. It's the points I have an issue with because it seems like the general rule for assigning point values to things was - Step 1 - smoke lots of crack. Step 2 Assign point values to things.

Shouldn't the optimal loadout be the most expensive one though?

Not to mention that summoning rolls are based on the units power level anyway.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally - PL seems more balanced to me as it allows you to field the optimal loadout of any unit for less points than youd spend in comparison. It's the points I have an issue with because it seems like the general rule for assigning point values to things was - Step 1 - smoke lots of crack. Step 2 Assign point values to things.

Shouldn't the optimal loadout be the most expensive one though?

Not always. The optimal loadout depends on enemy army and force composition. That extra damage output from those lascannons might be wasted and the upgrade space better utilized by a heavy flamer (to throw out an example)

I don't know about the other indexes, but for Orks powerlevels are hilarioulsy unbalanced.
You can have 30 Boyz for a powerlevel 13. Or you can have 30 Stormboyz for powerlevel 13. No kidding.
For fire support you can have either 5 lootas for a powerlevel of 8 or 6 big gunz (with grot crew) for a powerlevel of 7. Wtf?

Think about this bizarre list:
30 stormboyz, boss nob with powerklaw and kombiskorcha
15 tankbustas + 6 bombsquigs
18 Ork kannon
1 Big Mek with shokk attak gun

49 power levels.

 Bi'ios wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally - PL seems more balanced to me as it allows you to field the optimal loadout of any unit for less points than youd spend in comparison. It's the points I have an issue with because it seems like the general rule for assigning point values to things was - Step 1 - smoke lots of crack. Step 2 Assign point values to things.

Shouldn't the optimal loadout be the most expensive one though?

Not always. The optimal loadout depends on enemy army and force composition. That extra damage output from those lascannons might be wasted and the upgrade space better utilized by a heavy flamer (to throw out an example)

Exactly.

As I think about it, and only in theory because I haven't had a chance to play the game yet, only straight-up improvements would be an issue for Power Level. For instance, Pistols and some of the melee weapons upgrades.

I have really only played one army through 6th and 7th Edition, which is Space Marines/Wolves, and to me, Power Level works (in theory) because I can see relative value in each of the weapon upgrades the unit can take. Because each weapon fills a different role and is not equal to the others in terms of what they provide to the army. In the case of Codex Marines (because that's all I have real experience with), we have the following options for Tactical Marines

SPECIAL WEAPONS
- Flamers are effective against large units of weak models, and not as effective against tougher models,
- Meltaguns take down single targets, even more so at closer ranges,
- Plasma gun is just a straight upgrade over a Boltgun, and has the dangerous firemode,
- Grav-guns are also straight upgrades over Bolters, with a knack for being more dangerous against MEQs and TEQs rather than the dangerous firemode

HEAVY WEAPONs
- Heavy Bolters are for attacking horde units, but can ping heavies,
- Lascannons are strong and have good range and can put hurt on a single model,
- Multi-meltas take down single targets, but at close ranges for a Heavy Weapon,
- Plasma Cannon is kind of an all-rounder with a dangerous fire mode on it,
- Grav-cannon will do really well against elites that are MEQs and TEQs,
- Missile Launcher are all-rounders with specialist rounds for long range attacks against heavies or light infantry blocks, and is not quite as effective as either the Heavy Bolter or Lascannon

What I am getting at is that, in this case for Tactical Marines, each of these weapons have a niche that can each benefit the army in unique ways. Because of this, each item I feel should have the same Points value for each, whatever it might be. A Lascannon or Multi-melta won't be very effective against a Green Tide, and a Flamer won't be much use against a Carnifex. As such, to me, Power Levels works for these weapons, as each of them will perform a role better than the others. So in a situation where you want to build a TAC list, you have to make the decision to have your units be specialists (and what their specialty will be) or generalists in the army. When I (and I assume other Power Level supporters) are talking about balance being good enough, it's this kind of balance that is built into the unit's role on the battlefield

That said, I can see the points that others make about Power Levels not taking full "balance" into account. I mean, why wouldn't you take a Grav-pistol or Plasma Pistol over a Bolt Pistol? That is a straight upgrade as well in any case (at least you lose range with Hand flamers and Inferno pistols, that's a trade-off). Melee weapons have some inherent balance as well, what with the Power Sword/Axe/Maul/Lance and Chainsword each have strengths over the others now, and Power Fists now having a penalty to hit as a (kind of) trade-off for higher Strength and Damage. But once you look at Thunder Hammers, Relic Blades, and Eviscerators, then those become straight-up improvements again over the melee weapons available (especially in the case of Space Wolves with Frost Weapons).

So clearly, there are straight upgrades in some of the available options. Now, considering that these options for non-conditional improvement are present in the squad, why would one never take them in their squad if using Power Levels?

Possible reasons include:
- Not having the upgrades modeled anywhere. This is very possible for veterans of previous Editions where certain loadouts were considered under-powered in prior years (I mean, how many people had Tactical Squad Sergeants with Thunder Hammers running around?).
- The players aren't trying to maximize their unit's "efficiency". Whether because of fluff reasons or trying to handicap themselves to not over power the other player, they just aren't worried about winning the game over anything else.
- They want their unit to fulfill a certain role. I mean, if I want my Tactical Squad to go after Infantry, I will give it a Heavy Bolter and Flamer, and give the Sgt. a Chainsword and Combi-flamer (or a pair of Chainswords for melee), while my other Tactical Squad will take Grav weapons and go after enemy Elites.

Does anyone have any thoughts on other armies? I know Tau and Imperial Guard have a bunch of options available on their mechanized forces, while Necrons are limited in options (except for Lychguard, Praetorians, Stalkers, and Wraiths, right?). If we take this approach of considering a unit's role into its potential game strength (like how Power Levels are intended), do the other armies line up with each other then?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally - PL seems more balanced to me as it allows you to field the optimal loadout of any unit for less points than youd spend in comparison. It's the points I have an issue with because it seems like the general rule for assigning point values to things was - Step 1 - smoke lots of crack. Step 2 Assign point values to things.

This is exactly backwards, as per the tankbusta example. anyone who thinks 5 lootas (points = 85) should be PL 8 and 5 tankbustas and 2 bomb squigs (points =105) should be PL 4 really is on crack. This doesn't count double-rocket pistols (12 free points) and 2 tankhammers (20 points).

So, for 4 points I get 137 points of tankbusta goodness and for 8 points i get 85 points of lootas.

Definition of "on crack."

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally - PL seems more balanced to me as it allows you to field the optimal loadout of any unit for less points than youd spend in comparison. It's the points I have an issue with because it seems like the general rule for assigning point values to things was - Step 1 - smoke lots of crack. Step 2 Assign point values to things.

This is exactly backwards, as per the tankbusta example. anyone who thinks 5 lootas (points = 85) should be PL 8 and 5 tankbustas and 2 bomb squigs (points =105) should be PL 4 really is on crack. This doesn't count double-rocket pistols (12 free points) and 2 tankhammers (20 points).

So, for 4 points I get 137 points of tankbusta goodness and for 8 points i get 85 points of lootas.

Definition of "on crack."

And then there is the funny issue of 30 boyz being the exact same powerlevel as 30 stormboyz.

On release day i played two PL games, one at 50 and another at 100.

My SoB did rather well in the 50PL game BUT at the 100PL game my mate ended up running all of the plasma on his marines and it hurt...

I think that some armies do much better at the lower PL games but then just get annihilated the higher the level.

We sat down afterwards and worked out the point values of the two armies and his marines clocked in at 2200 to my 1850 (rounded figures) which is a 350pt difference.

In the end i think that if you can agree with your opponent to not be a d*ck i think it would be more balanced (probably not the word).

At the moment I'm painting 1000pts of Space Marines and Tyranids.

The Space Marine list is PL 54 and the Tyranid list is PL 68.

Let that difference sink in for a bit and the reason is simple: PL lack granularity.

You can easil break power level if you set out to do so. You can also not break it if you're not trying. Simple solutions.

Eligius wrote:
At the moment I'm painting 1000pts of Space Marines and Tyranids.

The Space Marine list is PL 54 and the Tyranid list is PL 68.

Let that difference sink in for a bit and the reason is simple: PL lack granularity.

Congratulations, you had a lot of infantry Marines and a lot of Monstrous Creature Tyranids.

 Elbows wrote:
You can easil break power level if you set out to do so. You can also not break it if you're not trying. Simple solutions.

Unless it's already broken before you start.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Eligius wrote:
At the moment I'm painting 1000pts of Space Marines and Tyranids.

The Space Marine list is PL 54 and the Tyranid list is PL 68.

Let that difference sink in for a bit and the reason is simple: PL lack granularity.

Congratulations, you had a lot of infantry Marines and a lot of Monstrous Creature Tyranids.

This is my 1000pts Tyranids list (switched a couple of units around so it's "only" PL 64 now)



Just your standard "old school" Tyranid army

pismakron wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally - PL seems more balanced to me as it allows you to field the optimal loadout of any unit for less points than youd spend in comparison. It's the points I have an issue with because it seems like the general rule for assigning point values to things was - Step 1 - smoke lots of crack. Step 2 Assign point values to things.

This is exactly backwards, as per the tankbusta example. anyone who thinks 5 lootas (points = 85) should be PL 8 and 5 tankbustas and 2 bomb squigs (points =105) should be PL 4 really is on crack. This doesn't count double-rocket pistols (12 free points) and 2 tankhammers (20 points).

So, for 4 points I get 137 points of tankbusta goodness and for 8 points i get 85 points of lootas.

Definition of "on crack."

And then there is the funny issue of 30 boyz being the exact same powerlevel as 30 stormboyz.

Not that there would be possibility of same happening with points (not that I would be looking at my dire avengers and guardians).

edit. And as a clarifying note, this is not to mean that one would be better than the other (although of course it might be so). They are just different. You will have different units that are "broken" and different units which are "not worth it" and therefore different kind of "meta". Probably some of the good units are the same in both systems, as there are some units that have just really good abilities.

Eligius wrote:

This is my 1000pts Tyranids list (switched a couple of units around so it's "only" PL 64 now)

Well part of the pwr level comparison problem is that you are not using full seized squads

Eligius wrote:

This is my 1000pts Tyranids list (switched a couple of units around so it's "only" PL 64 now)

You're not allowed more than one understrength unit.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Eligius wrote:

This is my 1000pts Tyranids list (switched a couple of units around so it's "only" PL 64 now)

You're not allowed more than one understrength unit.

That army has zero understrength units: Tyrant Guard are 1-3 per unit when you're using points

Hormagaunts and genestealerers come in 5s.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Hormagaunts and genestealerers come in 5s.

That's not how you buy units and you know it.

To use power levels you need to understand how they're valued. It's been very obvious from a minor amount of research that the power level is based around full "chunks" of infantry with perhaps 50-75% of available upgrades.

If you don't utilize power levels with that assumption, that's not really the game's fault, is it? That's why a randomly created points-based army will not easily convert into power levels. Because you didn't build to the power level from the start.

For instance, if we take a generic Eldar Aspect Warrior unit, it starts with five models (including an Exarch) and you pay X points for up to five more additional models, etc. This means that if you choose not to use an Exarch and want, say, six models in your unit...you're going to lose out. Because that's the same cost as a ten man unit with an Exarch.

This is why you can't "convert" points down into power level - doesn't work that way. You're never going to end up with a similar valued force. If you want to use points, use points, but if you accept a power level game it behooves you to actually look at how the power levels are purchased. It's stupid to add one model when you're "paying" for five.

 Elbows wrote:
To use power levels you need to understand how they're valued. It's been very obvious from a minor amount of research that the power level is based around full "chunks" of infantry with perhaps 50-75% of available upgrades.

If you don't utilize power levels with that assumption, that's not really the game's fault, is it? That's why a randomly created points-based army will not easily convert into power levels. Because you didn't build to the power level from the start.

Well, it kinda is the game's fault, yeah.

Let's say I have 30 Necron Warrior models. If I'm using points then I can run them as 3 blocks of 10, as 2 blocks of 15 or as 1 block of 20 and 1 block of 10. The points are all the same.

However, if I want to use power levels, running 3 blocks of 10 is 18PLs. Running a block of 20 and a block of 15 is 18PLs. Running 2 blocks of 15 is 24PLs.

That doesn't strike me as good design. I mean, would it really have killed them to at least do blocks of 5 instead of 10?

Eligius wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Hormagaunts and genestealerers come in 5s.

That's not how you buy units and you know it.

It's how you buy units when you're talking about Power.

Your "1000" points of Tyranids are much more if you actually took as many as you'd get in Power Level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

However, if I want to use power levels, running 3 blocks of 10 is 18PLs. Running a block of 20 and a block of 15 is 18PLs. Running 2 blocks of 15 is 24PLs.

There are no blocks of 15 in Power. It's a different way to take units.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
There are no blocks of 15 in Power. It's a different way to take units.

That's incorrect. Power Levels state "up to 10 additional warriors."

Thus 15 warriors is very much allowed.

I've been waiting a long time to finally see you two have a discussion together.

I think we had a very brief one ages ago.

Quite a few people thought I was arguing with myself.

 vipoid wrote:
I think we had a very brief one ages ago.

Quite a few people thought I was arguing with myself.

"Well this is awkward. One of us has to change!"

I made a 2k points list for my wolves after I checked the pl it came to 125.

That's insane using pl I'd be taking less units than using points.

So...again, you made points first and crammed them into power level? That doesn't work. So use points, big deal.

 Elbows wrote:
So...again, you made points first and crammed them into power level? That doesn't work. So use points, big deal.

Im using points anyway but the point still stands the two systems are not equal pl is clearly off by a fair margin.