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.

I love using PL. If you want to take options you'd never normally want because you'd be compromising your points limits, then PL is great. It's far faster to built lists with too.
If you're using PL to "get gud", or to win games, then I'd advise against using it personally.

Irbis wrote:In my experience, PL is completely fine unless you play 'that guy' who takes minimum sized squads full of lascannons (or equivalent),

I wouldn't say that's an issue with PL, but more with "That Guy".
Don't blame the game for people being a-holes.

In fact, I find PL is better in a sense that you don't need to worry about reshuffling your whole list because you're 1 pt over and have no easy way of taking it out, you just take fluffy squads and off you go.

This is why I like it. You can afford to give your models aesthetic or lore-friendly upgrades, without worrying about compromising on what units can take.

Sure, in PL, you can go over any limits by taking certain units, but that's the only thing that can affect you. In points, it can be unit upgrades as well as units themselves.

Peregrine wrote:Why would you expect that using a less accurate point system will improve the amount of fun you're having?

Fun is subjective.

I like power level over points. I don't much care for list building these days and would much rather add up a bunch of units I want to put together to a set power level and then go over and pick up the models I want to use and place them in my transport case.

Even with Battlescribe, Fallen Dark Angels are a pain to point out. If I am bringing Fallen I am usually running 3 squads with Cypher. It is so much easier to pay the PL and then sort out which squad is getting which special weapons. If GW continues to put out new CSM kits with more weapon options, I will soon have the same issue with Chosen too.

For what I run, I don't see that big of different in effectiveness between my lists in points or power level. The army just isn't that different between the two systems. Sure, I tend to run a lot of plasma and melta, but that is because my army is largely infantry so I need some sort of anti-armor. I don't have many vehicles, I don't like the look/price of CSM vehicles, nor do I have many man portable missile launcher and no man portable lascannons (I really don't like the finecast/price of the current Havoc squad). I also have no issue not running full man squads with power level. I only have about 24 Fallen models without adding plainer count-as models, so I often run 7-8 man Fallen squads with Cypher.

So I appreciate the time saved listing building as I can much more easily just remember how many units I can get for a particular power level and then fill in the details before I head to the gaming shop. Opposed to points, where I pretty much have to point out each list each time.

I think power level works just as good as points most of the time. It might be easier to break which also means it is easier to spot when you encounter a potential opponent breaking it than points, but it isn't like points are some unbreakable stalwart of balance. I really don't think Warhammer 40k works as such a game in either respect. Points just happen to be harder to break and lend an air of being more precise given its granularity. Either system is going to lead to a poor game if players are coming from different approaches and desires out of a game.


Note: Below is a bit of an editorial somewhat tangent to the discussion.
I truly think GW should further increase the cost of every unit so a current 2000 army would be a 40,000 point army which should allow for all the granularity needed for points adjustment while being kinda flavorful too. There are too many Troop choices that are too good at say 4 points per model but not very good at 5 points model. But if the game designers had a range of 80-100 points per model I think they could fine a good place for them. And if players don't want to deal with huge numbers, that is what power level is for.

A squad of 10 models can be priced at 45 points. Or 42. Or 47.

Granularity is less important than accuracy. If we consider a situation in which one army is 10% over powered (110% relative power) and another is 10% under powered (90% relative power) we should have a situation where equally skilled opponents should have a rough 11:9 win ratio. I don’t believe that is currently the case. My observation is that some armies have a roughly 150% vs 50% relative strength. A sitution in which a 3:1 win ratio isn’t out of the question. So if the true value of armies can be that far apart? Granularity is irrelevant. 20 point increments / 1 PL is still a smaller increment than is relevant to a 1500 point game of 40k.

Thanks for the help so far in this thread, got a game coming up in a few days that we decided to go ahead and use points for instead of PL. We're also going to give the cityfight rules a shot and see how that goes.

As a bit of a tangent, I've been doing some research trying to figure out how other semi-casual people are playing and how they're making the game work for them (what kind of lists are they bringing, what kinds of boards are they playing on, missions etc). That said, I haven't really found very many battle reports in that vein that show a good, close game. Instead, I see mostly games like the one below:





I've personally used a SM list that's almost exactly the same as the one in the video, which I'd consider to be semi-competitive and the resulting games have been pretty much the same as what happened in the video (getting more or less tabled by turn 3) -- admittedly, I don't know much about necrons so I can't say if that's a "hard" list or not but it looked like a fairly normal list at a glance. Looking at that report, why did they have such a bad game? I feel like that video is pretty representative of most of the games of 8th edition I've had (on one side or the other) so I'm really curious to see what people who have more experience with this edition think about what went wrong.

If anyone has some links to some batreps that show two semi-competative lists having a good close game I'd greatly appreciate it so I can try out what they're doing.

In my experience, the disparity between Points and PL is minimal if under 1000pts/50PL. Both sides will tend to still be equivalent enough not to matter. Roll dice and have fun
At this game size, I actually prefer PL. It allows for repeat games against the same army with minor tweaks to units without the intense micro-management that my OCD demands when using Points

The games to watch out for are games at 1500pts/75PL+ in which one side has units with upgrades and the other army does not. That is when the imbalance creeps up and Points become preferred.

-

 Galef wrote:
In my experience, the disparity between Points and PL is minimal if under 1000pts/50PL. Both sides will tend to still be equivalent enough not to matter. Roll dice and have fun
At this game size, I actually prefer PL. It allows for repeat games against the same army with minor tweaks to units without the intense micro-management that my OCD demands when using Points

The games to watch out for are games at 1500pts/75PL+ in which one side has units with upgrades and the other army does not. That is when the imbalance creeps up and Points become preferred.

-

Thanks, anecdotally, just writing some lists for 75 PL I consistently was seeing my lists come in 200-300 pts under the 'expected' 1500 which seems to confirm what you're talking about (I wasn't going hog wild with upgrades, just WYSIWYG) which is one reason we decided to just go ahead and play with points. Though I plan using PL with some other people from work at lower pts values.

I know some people here have said they don't really see dramatic point/PL differences in their lists but I just haven't seen that be the case for me so far. Now, wether or not being 'down' 200 pts at the start of the game really matters or not is a different matter, but it seems hard to believe it would still result in a close game.

A "semi-competitive" space marine list, to me, looks something like...
A couple of Captains and Lieutenants
A couple of squads of scouts
A Stormcannon Leviathan
Some Devastators with missiles and heavy bolters
Like a half dozen razorbacks
30 Guardsmen, 2 Company Commanders
Maybe a couple more dreadnought varieties, like a Contemptor-Mortis or something.

I see things like this all the time, the tend to hold up to other casual lists well enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomadimp wrote:


Thanks, anecdotally, just writing some lists for 75 PL I consistently was seeing my lists come in 200-300 pts under the 'expected' 1500 which seems to confirm what you're talking about (I wasn't going hog wild with upgrades, just WYSIWYG) which is one reason we decided to just go ahead and play with points. Though I plan using PL with some other people from work at lower pts values.

I know some people here have said they don't really see dramatic point/PL differences in their lists but I just haven't seen that be the case for me so far. Now, wether or not being 'down' 200 pts at the start of the game really matters or not is a different matter, but it seems hard to believe it would still result in a close game.

If you're playing with PL, take all the things. That will solve your "300 points down" problem

This is answering my own question a little bit but I did finally find a battle report that shows the kind of game I'm looking for!




The thing that jumps out to me is that they have a huge amount of giant LOS blocking terrain. Coming from past editions, that looks like an insane amount of terrain for 40k but maybe that's what's needed to actually get a well balanced game. Gonna see what I can pull together.

Had an organizer that wanted to use PL to help new players

1. Simply not as accurate as points
2. More easily exploited by those that have played longer (obviously maxing out best loadout that might not be apparent to new players/ building your guys like this might hurt you once you get into points)
3. Hurts new player by almost forcing larger squads (ex. warriors for necrons come in 12 man squads. playing 12 cost just as many as playing 20 and as a new player telling someone to either go out and get another box or dont run 2 models they just painted is dumb)
4. In reality, doesn't save any meaningful time while building a list

conclusion: just stick with points

I don't mind power level. My issue is people who look at it and immediately think "Oh everything is free I'll take every upgrade I can". These people are missing the point completely.

I wouldn't use power level all the time but for campaigns and narrative scenarios where you don't care if things are that equal, they are great. There's a reason why virtually ever GW battle report in White Dwarf has used power level and not points.

I think the biggest problem with power level is that GW refuses to balance/update it. SM armies (among others) are overcosted in PL compared to current points levels.

Otherwise, PL can be useful for just getting stuff on the table.

nomadimp wrote:
This is answering my own question a little bit but I did finally find a battle report that shows the kind of game I'm looking for!




The thing that jumps out to me is that they have a huge amount of giant LOS blocking terrain. Coming from past editions, that looks like an insane amount of terrain for 40k but maybe that's what's needed to actually get a well balanced game. Gonna see what I can pull together.

This is definitely not an insane amount of terrain by any means. Moreover - this terrain layout is meaningfull - that is, there are no "useless pretty courtains in the corner" unusable small ruins shoved as far in the corner as possible, not having any impact on decision making. That terrain would produce nice game in any edition, forcing players to divide their forces for different tasks in isolated areas of the table. It is close to density I commonly use and for older editions it actually needs more craters, barricades, low obstacles and generall ground mess between those large buldings to have plenty of cover and movement penalties/limitations everywhere. In past editions whith more sane terrain rules I would move a lot of those crates and barrels more towards middle of those streets. Narrow streets like that are also great in earlier editions, because wrecked vehicles actually change the landscape for the reminder of the battle.

I once used the following movie example: typical 40K game on minimal terrain and with end game scoring looks and feels similarily to tree line assault scene from "Fury". But with enough terrain and complex enough cumulative scoring or Maelstrom and less literal look on the scale and time scope it can easily feel like snapshots from an entire Black Hawk Down movie, because you will have numerous small and separated skirmishes and in maelstrom units would have to move around performing various duties in sequence and adapt to changing flow of the game, resulting in vastly different experience from typical tournament game.

This report is good example of one more thing - because of 8th ed and simple kill point mission they still cram in few areas and most of the table is totally unused. Those parameters - terrain layout separating areas and exact mission to play have way more impact on the resulting feel of the game (not only result of the game) than choosing points over PLs or vice versa. You could easily play a couple games in a row on that table with those exact same forces, just switching deployment layout and missions and get games with vastly different flows and results. This rarely happens with "fair, symmetrical, minimal terrain" with unrestricted and wide shooting lanes and large areas to blob&buff in.

This report is good example of one more thing - because of 8th ed and simple kill point mission they still cram in few areas and most of the table is totally unused. Those parameters - terrain layout separating areas and exact mission to play have way more impact on the resulting feel of the game (not only result of the game) than choosing points over PLs or vice versa. You could easily play a couple games in a row on that table with those exact same forces, just switching deployment layout and missions and get games with vastly different flows and results. This rarely happens with "fair, symmetrical, minimal terrain" with unrestricted and wide shooting lanes and large areas to blob&buff in.

Yeah the killpoint mission isn't really my cup of tea all the time, but is nice to mix in there, especially when you don't know it's coming and just randomly draw it. I think you're right in that a different mission would play very differently there and an objective based mission would be even more up my alley on that table.

As for the terrain I guess it wasn't the density of terrain itself that surprised me but the giant blocks of impassible LOS blockers everywhere did. On the plus side, I had some very similar buildings at hand that I just never thought would be good for 40k so I'm gonna try a very similar setup with city fight rules on saturday and see how it goes but I'm heartened by seeing something that looked like a good game of 40k to me after watching dozens of batreps where someone gets blown off the table and concedes before their 3rd turn despite neither side bringing anything that looked particularly egregious list-wise. That's just not a type of game I'm personally interested in spending a lot of precious time playing.

Obviously, a good game of 40k is super subjective and I'm not trying to say any one way or another is better. I'm just trying to find a setup that works for me and my group so I appreciate everyone's input.

Wayniac wrote:
I don't mind power level. My issue is people who look at it and immediately think "Oh everything is free I'll take every upgrade I can". These people are missing the point completely.

Exactly this.

Asmodios wrote:
Had an organizer that wanted to use PL to help new players

1. Simply not as accurate as points
2. More easily exploited by those that have played longer (obviously maxing out best loadout that might not be apparent to new players/ building your guys like this might hurt you once you get into points)
3. Hurts new player by almost forcing larger squads (ex. warriors for necrons come in 12 man squads. playing 12 cost just as many as playing 20 and as a new player telling someone to either go out and get another box or dont run 2 models they just painted is dumb)
4. In reality, doesn't save any meaningful time while building a list

conclusion: just stick with points

Alternatively, an experienced player can use PLs to mitigate the disparity between 2 Factions and/or expereince level between players

For example, I taught both my sons to play 40K using PLs. I designed both lists in any games we've play. They both wanted to play Space Marines. I play Eldar
While designing both lists, I tending to take more upgrades for the Marine lists and far less for the Eldar lists.
So we were "equal" on PL, but the Eldar lists we've used were very often 150-300 pts lower than the Marine lists

Used intentionally in this manner, PL can be a great tool for designing 2 opposing lists that are "equal" but give an edge to the "underdog" army, either because that player is new, or the 2 factions are jsut not balanced. In our case, it was both: Eldar are just better than Marines and the players were new.
We have had some incredibly balanced and fun games this way

And now that they have more experience and have built up more of their armies, we are transitioning into using Points.
It doesn't matter what counter-points (like just playing with a handicap) someone presents, I wholeheartedly believe this is how 40K should be approached

-

Power level in my experience is fine for people turning up with say 25 power each for a 4 way game with forces they like and have painted. Scenario play is also fine with power. If you have two large sides playing book missions you are better off with points. Equally if one person is determined to max out on every good option to make their army as effective as possible, don't use power.

In short it seems aimed at those that want to play with their collection, not those who wish to design army lists and have a competition to see which one is best.

In your requirement I would say dust off the army's, work out their power, play a couple of games then issue handicaps to account for exact model make up and other imbalances. It works with a 'fun, light' attitude of taking your cool stuff. It breaks down with competitive army list building.

It's not as bad as I would have thought the few times I used it. It creates some perverse incentives, though.

Well for what it's worth, we decided to use 1500 points instead of 75 PL. Imperial Fists vs 1k Sons on a city fight board full of large LOS blocking terrain. We also used the cities of death rules for height advantage, obscured targets -1 to hit and soft/hard cover. Rolled for a random maelstrom mission from CA18 and we had a really good, close, fun game.

Some interesting notes from the game:

- The terrain helped keep early casualties to a minimum (neither of us got First Strike) and the game really reached its climax turn 3 with some key assaults and shooting/psychic shennanigans (once units maneouvered into good positions).
- The solwer pace and objective oriented nature of the maelstrom missions meant that keeping my DS reserves off the board until turn 3 was actually useful (and I would have keep them off longer if I could).
- Even on turn 5 we both still had almost 1/2 of each of our armies alive just because of how much more survivable the city fight rules made everything. -- we had to call it due to time but extra turns would have been very meaningful still.
- I had 10 tactical marines in a rhino that didn't shoot all game but still scored me 3 of my 6 victory points just by maneouvering through some ruins up a flank where other units had cleared a path.

In other words, this was exactly the type of game that I've been looking for in this edition since 8th came out.

Interestingly, though we played with points, my list came out to 106 PL and the 1k sons came out to 113 PL, so actually fairly close to each other but both waaaaay over the 75 PL we'd have used for an 'equivalent' to a 1500 pt game. We'd actually be playing something closer to a 1000 pt game in terms of scale/number of units on the board. It seems like for casual play, whichever system you're using, a quick comparison of both players' PL AND Points is a reasonable sanity check. If either value is grossly out of line with your oppenents' that might be a red flag.

"Optimal" Power Level and Points lists comes out in very different ways.
Often, a good Points unit is one that comes in really cheap with good base gear. (For example, Dominions with Storm Bolters are an excellent buy at 60pts, giving high amounts of mobile anti-infantry fire for a low cost.)

On the other hand, a good Power Level unit is one that takes all the extra goodies, even the theoretically "Bad" ones.

Both have their merits. Power Level encourages players to explore more types of gear than the cheapest, most efficient options, while Points rewards players for planning ahead and only bringing what they'll certainly need.

I find that Power Level games tend to be balanced if you approach it in a friendly way, know what your opponent is bringing, and agree not to deliberately cheese the system. In other words, if you're playing with a friend who you know and who's chill, you'll have no problems. Playing at your LGS will lead to mixed results, but that's true of any casual game - One player's "This is fine" is another player's "tournament list", and then you've got two armies that aren't going to be anywhere close to fair against each other.

All in all, I find Power Level to be generally not as good as Points, but it has a few specific perks and some people find it easier to use. (Though, IMO, Battlescribe or other listbuilding software completely eliminates the ease-of-use problem.)

I would never want to go to a competitive event using Power Level, and I wouldn't want to play *all* of my friendly games using PL, but it's not a bad system for casual and friendly games.

I like the above post about how you can't directly compare armies built with points and pl as they have different focus on efficiency; consider the 'loyal 32'. I feel it is very fluffy to include a contingent of guard in most imperial lists and these guys are an effective choice in both points and PL! The difference being in points you skimp back on upgrades so they are just badly supplied dudes with lasguns, whereas under PL they are more likely to have the compliment of special and heavy weaponry you'd expect a platoon of guardsmen to be equipped with.

abyrn wrote:
I think the biggest problem with power level is that GW refuses to balance/update it. SM armies (among others) are overcosted in PL compared to current points levels.

Otherwise, PL can be useful for just getting stuff on the table.

not true; ork boyz went down in PL and up in points with their new codex!!

I currently play at 800 points, and as a SM player, the CA points reductions have meant that I'm now bringing 45 PL for my 800 points. Playing PL would be like removing all the good work that GW have been doing to make my army fun to play.

nareik wrote:
There are two camps in the debate;

1) power level is obviously inferior and as such I will never play it

2) I've played PL a few times and it didn't seem to make that much of a difference.

Actually, I'd say there are two camps in the debate;

1) People capable of forming and articulating an actual argument.

2) People who's only recourse is completely mischaracterising the discussion and those participating in it because they're incapable of 1.

Personally, I love PL. As others have said, it's somewhat dependent on everyone being on the same page to make it work, but I'd say that's true of pretty much anything to do with 40K. Some people are mad about PL, despite the fact nobody's making them use it, but that's the internet for you.

As for the Marines thing, I've noticed this too. It seems the more recent Codices have a higher points to PL ratio, whereas the Marines seem to be stuck with a ratio that more closely aligns with that of the Indices that came out at the start of 8th. Personally, were I playing, say, my Orks against Marines, I wouldn't object to the Marines getting like a 10-20% PL bonus, but that's a conversation you'd need to have with your opponent on a game-by-game basis.

 Nazrak wrote:
As for the Marines thing, I've noticed this too. It seems the more recent Codices have a higher points to PL ratio, whereas the Marines seem to be stuck with a ratio that more closely aligns with that of the Indices that came out at the start of 8th.

CA updates points, not PL, so the older your Codex, the more different it becomes. Not a problem in matched play of course...

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
As for the Marines thing, I've noticed this too. It seems the more recent Codices have a higher points to PL ratio, whereas the Marines seem to be stuck with a ratio that more closely aligns with that of the Indices that came out at the start of 8th.

CA updates points, not PL, so the older your Codex, the more different it becomes. Not a problem in matched play of course...

Yeah, I'd like to see PL getting the occasional update outside Codices tbh. Ridiculous that regular Marine Scouts are still technically PL6 when the Dangles and the Bangles are both just 4.

 Nazrak wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
As for the Marines thing, I've noticed this too. It seems the more recent Codices have a higher points to PL ratio, whereas the Marines seem to be stuck with a ratio that more closely aligns with that of the Indices that came out at the start of 8th.

CA updates points, not PL, so the older your Codex, the more different it becomes. Not a problem in matched play of course...

Yeah, I'd like to see PL getting the occasional update outside Codices tbh. Ridiculous that regular Marine Scouts are still technically PL6 when the Dangles and the Bangles are both just 4.

And I guess that's quite a compelling argument for saying that PL isn't as balanced as points.