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.

My buddy and I recently played in an 1850 tourney. We made our lists.
SoB = 1850 pts = 89 PL
Nurgle = 1850 pts = 139 PL

If we met in the middle at 100 PL it would definitely be a situation of me being at 2000ish and him being at 1600ish. Power level is a terribly balanced points system.

As we've now said ad nauseum...you cannot translate a Points level army into Power Level. That isn't how it works.

 Galas wrote:
Oh my boy this again. I'll just wait for Peregrine

He'll either fly off the handle and start an uproar, or even scarier- he'll say something game-related that I 100% agree with.

It's this weird relationship I have with him. I disagree with a lot of what he says until he starts talking about the actual game, then he and I are oddly on the same sheet of music.

So the short answer to my initial question seems to be:

It's balanced well enough so long as all armies involved are similar in terms of war gear choices and everyone is maxing out everything.

(I'm sorry I saw a lot of guys saying WYSIWYG but I'd consider it pure luck if games like that end up balanced)

PL is good if you don't play with people who abuse it. If someone's first thought is "Woot everything is free, i'm taking every upgrade possible" then PL is not for them. If you play with someone who will field all combi-plasma terminators because "it's free" and take every vehicle upgrade possible because "it's free" then they are missing the point of PL.

Power Level isn't supposed to be balanced. It's for narrative and open games in which whoever has a lower PL becomes the "underdog."

as if point games are balanced

 koooaei wrote:
as if point games are balanced

Amen. At least PL is easy to count

The worst part of 7th ed at the end of it, was trying to build a list and needing to source nine different books to do it.

I've only played PL two or three times because most of local players want points for balance. However, I really enjoyed PL, as it was just simple and fun. Best of all, you could take all the things you wanted and as long as your opponent did like wise it worked fine. Points are definitely better but for a quick pick up game or something you plan in advance together, PL can be perfectly fine.

PL is excellent for teaching new players and also for people who want a quick game, who aren't going to gamify things or be "that guy" the second they hear PL. "OH PL EVERY SINGLE UPGRADE WOO WOOO!!" (Don't be that guy)

Playing power-levels with the Ork index is pure gak. It is not just about wargear options, the power-levels are seemingly set randomly by a drugged escapee from Nottingham zoo. You can pretty easily make a 3000 points Ork list for 100 pl by spamming tankbustas and bomb-squigs.

pismakron wrote:
Playing power-levels with the Ork index is pure gak. It is not just about wargear options, the power-levels are seemingly set randomly by a drugged escapee from Nottingham zoo. You can pretty easily make a 3000 points Ork list for 100 pl by spamming tankbustas and bomb-squigs.

The real question you should be asking yourself is: Who cares?

PL isn't points.

"Oh I see that I'm a little underpowered. Cool if i bring 10 extra PL?" <--- Appropriate

"Hmm, how can i maximize my wargear in PL so i can winx0rz the gaemx0rz" <---- Inappropriate

 Marmatag wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Playing power-levels with the Ork index is pure gak. It is not just about wargear options, the power-levels are seemingly set randomly by a drugged escapee from Nottingham zoo. You can pretty easily make a 3000 points Ork list for 100 pl by spamming tankbustas and bomb-squigs.

The real question you should be asking yourself is: Who cares?

PL isn't points.

"Oh I see that I'm a little underpowered. Cool if i bring 10 extra PL?" <--- Appropriate

"Hmm, how can i maximize my wargear in PL so i can winx0rz the gaemx0rz" <---- Inappropriate

Ignorance of the problem is a terrible defence. Power Level, in reality, is designed for players who prioritise simplicity and less-involved list writing over pure game balance and proper army construction. The problem still exists, but it's a trade-off.

Darsath wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Playing power-levels with the Ork index is pure gak. It is not just about wargear options, the power-levels are seemingly set randomly by a drugged escapee from Nottingham zoo. You can pretty easily make a 3000 points Ork list for 100 pl by spamming tankbustas and bomb-squigs.

The real question you should be asking yourself is: Who cares?

PL isn't points.

"Oh I see that I'm a little underpowered. Cool if i bring 10 extra PL?" <--- Appropriate

"Hmm, how can i maximize my wargear in PL so i can winx0rz the gaemx0rz" <---- Inappropriate

Ignorance of the problem is a terrible defence. Power Level, in reality, is designed for players who prioritise simplicity and less-involved list writing over pure game balance and proper army construction. The problem still exists, but it's a trade-off.

The argument you're making is that points produce a more balanced game, but that assumes all things equal. Players aligning on the goal of a game produce overall more effective balance than anything else, and with that in mind, it doesn't make sense to agonize on the minutia, when you can just as easily get rolling in far less time.

If balance falls in the forest and no one is around to WAAC, do casual gamers care?

How long does it take you guys to make lists using points? The simplicity argument makes no sense to me. It shouldnt take more than like, 10-15 mins to make a list with points especially with things like battlescribe, or, I dunno, making a list beforehand.

 Marmatag wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Playing power-levels with the Ork index is pure gak. It is not just about wargear options, the power-levels are seemingly set randomly by a drugged escapee from Nottingham zoo. You can pretty easily make a 3000 points Ork list for 100 pl by spamming tankbustas and bomb-squigs.

The real question you should be asking yourself is: Who cares?

PL isn't points.

"Oh I see that I'm a little underpowered. Cool if i bring 10 extra PL?" <--- Appropriate

"Hmm, how can i maximize my wargear in PL so i can winx0rz the gaemx0rz" <---- Inappropriate

Ignorance of the problem is a terrible defence. Power Level, in reality, is designed for players who prioritise simplicity and less-involved list writing over pure game balance and proper army construction. The problem still exists, but it's a trade-off.

The argument you're making is that points produce a more balanced game, but that assumes all things equal. Players aligning on the goal of a game produce overall more effective balance than anything else, and with that in mind, it doesn't make sense to agonize on the minutia, when you can just as easily get rolling in far less time.

If balance falls in the forest and no one is around to WAAC, do casual gamers care?

Your statement is fallacy. The very solution and criticism of points applies to Power Level aswell as Points. Talking with your opponent before the game always makes for a more enjoyable, and fair game for both parties. But this is true with both points and power level. With points the issues don't hit the same extremes as in Power Level.

If you play power levels you're doing it wrong. Period. Same PL armies can have a 300+point difference. That's too much for it to be taken seriously.

Damn. I'm playing 40k all wrong.

2000 point waac tournament list vs a 2000 point non waac list is many points of actual difference apart, though on paper they both say 2000 points.

About half of my games have been PL and Every single time it feels plenty balanced.

The other games with points have turned out similar. I'm playing Salamanders and against every faction except daemons and Tau.

it seems like my PL games are against people who've played RT and 2nd when new and points is from anyone younger than those 2 editions. My first game back I hadn't played in 25yrs and the kid I was playing against didn't know who/what Squats were.

I have no problem with either one, but my focus of gaming is on narrative play so PL works out a lil better.

Points for anything pick up style just clicks with the open war deck.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you play power levels you're doing it wrong. Period. Same PL armies can have a 300+point difference. That's too much for it to be taken seriously.

Exactly. The only use I can see for PL (outside of the going first thing) is to use it in conjunction with points where you have a limit on points and PL

Outside of Anecdotal evidence, there is little argument for the use of Power Level outside of what I said. That being to simplify the game further, and for those who don't enjoy the list-building aspect of the game.

 Marmatag wrote:
The argument you're making is that points produce a more balanced game, but that assumes all things equal. Players aligning on the goal of a game produce overall more effective balance than anything else, and with that in mind, it doesn't make sense to agonize on the minutia, when you can just as easily get rolling in far less time.

If balance falls in the forest and no one is around to WAAC, do casual gamers care?

I don't know where you've been playing, I'm curious about it. Because if you're in a tournament there's not a whole lot of players saying, "Let's make this a fun, happy, balanced experience". People are generally trying to get the most bang for their buck out of their lists and win.

Doesn't make it hostile, but that's generally the purpose of tournaments.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
If the need to calculate is the only reason for you to take powerlevel, use battlescribe or other list builders.

If I played with PL I'd call for a strict wysiwyg as well to keep the upgrades reasonable.
On the whole I think PL works good if you play CSM vs. SM or Necrons vs. Daemons, but if an army with a lot of upgrades faces an army with little customization I think it could get onesided.

Believe it or not I play a ton of power level recently, mostly with my wife who loves the models any the game but isn't into list building as much and my nephew who is learning the game. And this is how we play power level, WYSIWYG. It makes it easier on them with learning stuff if they see a plasma gun and it's a plasma gun.

Not hateing on points, it's how I prefer to do it, but power level has a place and can be useful for quick pickup games. Allows you to get into the game quicker.

Azuza001 wrote:
Believe it or not I play a ton of power level recently, mostly with my wife who loves the models any the game but isn't into list building as much and my nephew who is learning the game. And this is how we play power level, WYSIWYG. It makes it easier on them with learning stuff if they see a plasma gun and it's a plasma gun.

Not hateing on points, it's how I prefer to do it, but power level has a place and can be useful for quick pickup games. Allows you to get into the game quicker.

And that's exactly what power level was intended for. It's the people crying "PL is more balanced than Points" that irks me.

Clearly the most important feature of Power Level is that it serves as a visible badge to flaunt your Casual At All Costs cred.

Jokes aside, the tradeoff is simple and clear to anyone who isn't willfully ignoring it: Power Level is for simplicity, it facilitates quick pick-up games and can be a less intimidating way to introduce a newbie to the game.

Points are more fleshed-out and provide higher quality games, which allow players to dig deeper into list-building.

Consider this: the Stormtrooper plasma point hike doesn't apply in PL. In PL plasma stormtroopers cost exactly the same as lasgun stormtroopers.

In fact, they cost exactly the same amount as a normal command squad with lasguns. So, 3PL for four T3/5+ guys with lasguns who can't deep strike, or 3PL for four T3/4+ guys with plasma guns who can deep strike? Gee I wonder which I would pick, it's such a close call.

PL has its uses as a stop-gap or a teaching aid, but anyone claiming it's balanced or better than points are either kidding themselves or posturing so they can preen about how casual they are.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The argument you're making is that points produce a more balanced game, but that assumes all things equal. Players aligning on the goal of a game produce overall more effective balance than anything else, and with that in mind, it doesn't make sense to agonize on the minutia, when you can just as easily get rolling in far less time.

If balance falls in the forest and no one is around to WAAC, do casual gamers care?

I don't know where you've been playing, I'm curious about it. Because if you're in a tournament there's not a whole lot of players saying, "Let's make this a fun, happy, balanced experience". People are generally trying to get the most bang for their buck out of their lists and win.

Doesn't make it hostile, but that's generally the purpose of tournaments.

For any competitive game I use points.

Because points are harder to exploit. And competitive 40k is an exercise in identifying the most exploitable thing and bringing that in gangbusters. Ever wonder why every single Imperium list has a detachment of mortar spam? Is it because these people are list building geniuses, or is it because those units are incredibly effective for their cost (read: undercosted)?

If you subtract the need to exploit the game and win in list building, power works fine.

PL are not balanced at all.

Case and point, rubrics, I get all their gear for free and because of how rules are written, I can take both a flamer and bolter on all or them.

Also nice break this as well.

Also alphabet soup breaks it pretty badly because his pl did not got up just points

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you play power levels you're doing it wrong. Period. Same PL armies can have a 300+point difference. That's too much for it to be taken seriously.

The last two games of 8th edition I've played have been using Power Level. Both games were pretty close, and most importantly, both games were fun. If having fun is "doing it wrong", I hope I'm never opposite you at the gaming table. I don't tweak my units, and neither do my friends. All my Imperial Guard infantry squads have squad, platoon and company numbers, so they are what they are. Same goes for my friends' armies. It's much easier to use PL and just get on with it.

It's not a huge difference unless you MAKE it a huge difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
PL are not balanced at all.

Case and point, rubrics, I get all their gear for free and because of how rules are written, I can take both a flamer and bolter on all or them.

Also nice break this as well.

Also alphabet soup breaks it pretty badly because his pl did not got up just points

That makes rubrics MORE balanced, not less lol.

They're the same when it comes to the concept of balance in 40k, I can't believe people are so hard headed in a supposed intellectual hobby