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.
Blacksails wrote: Which isn't something points doesn't also offer, unless you're going to claim points are complicated. We both they're not.
You'd agree that power level is simpler than points, right? Points don't have to be complicated for power level to be simpler and for some people to like that.
There are differences like that right? And even if I may not find them sufficient reasons to prefer Power Level, other people might? That increased simplicity is something points doesn't do for those people but power level does?
but then are bothered that certain builds using points is not optimal (like the HK missile example above). If you don't care about optimization, then at least have the consistency to not care about optimization in both systems.
I think both optimization and non-optimization can work with both points and power level. The local marine player who takes his hunter killer missiles likes them and likes that his list isn't made weaker by taking them.
As long as both players are into a similar level of optimization, then the system they use will make different things optimal and allow those who like loading up wargear to do so.
I know some people in this thread have tried to put power level players on some sort of pedestal of casual play glory, but I think a wide variety of people play 40k and a wide variety of optimization preferences are present even in power level users.
So Power Level provides a difference there in that it makes different list building choices optimal for that way of building.
Points makes optimization about efficiency across the whole list whereas Power Level makes optimisation about efficiency within datasheets and punishes things like naked guard squads for command points. So that is a real difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:Gaming buddy of mine didn't put hunter killer missiles on his rhinos.
In a points game, this would make his overall list better.
In a PL game, this would make his overall list worse.
Changing which units are the best choice is not an improvement, it's just change.
And if some people like the change, then it's doing something they want right?
They might even find it useful.
If one system allows a fan of certain models and weapons to enjoy using them, then I think it's doing something very important. It's letting people enjoy their models the way they want in a game.
Some people like loading stuff up with stupid amounts of upgrades and having their crazy tanks and squads bristling with weapons.
I think it's cool that they can play with Power Levels and not have to worry about how doing so makes their stuff worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: It would hardly be more balanced, or offer more choice than points, but it would offer different choice, and let's be honest, the current 40k ruleset with points doesn't offer that many options anyway if you want to be optimal.
I wonder if the PL meta would be broader than the current points meta. Do you think it's possible a greater number of units would be tournament viable under power level than points?
Is it possible power level might actually be a better system for matched play? If, and only if, we accept the idea that variety in viable datasheets is a worthwhile goal of course.
--
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/04/14 18:14:57
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
You'd agree that power level is simpler than points, right? Points don't have to be complicated for power level to be simpler and for some people to like that.
There are differences like that right? And even if you or I may not find them sufficient reasons to prefer Power Level, other people might? That increased simplicity is something points doesn't do for those people but power level does?
I think the extra simplicity is negligible at best, as is the time saved. I think the trade off for this negligible gain in simplicity for the added granularity of points is a pretty bad trade off for most players in most situations, but sure, I guess people will do whatever they want with their time, and power to them. I maintain power levels add nothing of value to the game, and were a waste of developer resources and space in the rulebook.
I think both optimization and non-optimization can work with both points and power level. The local marine player who takes his hunter killer missiles likes them and likes that his list isn't made weaker by taking them.
As long as both players are into a similar level of optimization, then the system they use will make different things optimal and allow those who like loading up wargear to do so.
I know some people in this thread have tried to put power level players on some sort of pedestal of casual play glory, but I think a wide variety of people play 40k and a wide variety of optimization preferences are present even in power level users.
So Power Level provides a difference there in that it makes different list building choices optimal for that way of building.
Points makes optimization about efficiency across the whole list whereas Power Level makes optimisation about efficiency within datasheets and punishes things like naked guard squads for command points. So that is a real difference.
If both players are approaching the game with similar perspectives on optimization, then power levels add nothing because you can do the same with points.
The rest of what you wrote just makes a case against power levels adding anything of value. You literally said it punishes you by running squads without upgrades. Points on the other hand, while still suffering under GW's general game design incompetence, offers an appropriate cost difference between upgrades of varying powers and makes for better opportunities to run units with little to no upgrades for specific purposes.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Blacksails wrote: I think the extra simplicity is negligible at best, as is the time saved.
I've noticed that some people have a very different level of capability when handling arithmetic. Some people are very visual or verbal. I don't think your evaluation of the simplicity or time savings is taking into account the variety within humanity.
If both players are approaching the game with similar perspectives on optimization, then power levels add nothing because you can do the same with points.
Not in this case. I think it might help to boil power levels down a bit.
What are they? they're an average of points costs. So every upgrade (including not choosing an upgrade for that slot) costs an average of all upgrades for that unit. So you have points, where all those upgrades have different costs and then power level where all those upgrades have the average cost.
You can see how in those cases the different cost of upgrades is going to make different choices optimal, right?
Power Level is just an averaged out points system. So obviously if you cost not taking an upgrade as the same as the average cost of all possible upgrades, then it's going to punish taking those.
The rest of what you wrote just makes a case against power levels adding anything of value. You literally said it punishes you by running squads without upgrades.
Maybe that's a good thing for people who want lots of weapons and upgrades everywhere?
In previous editions of 40k if you went into a list building forum and took a look at lists made by new players, they'd have characters loaded with wargear. Every slot was full. Even after Jervis dumbed down the codex options for a while. People like taking wargear. So a system that doesn't punish them for it definitely is useful. It allows people's first instincts about list building to not be totally wrong like it is with points where all those upgrades degrade the whole list.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I do wonder if the polarized opinions about power level are the typical reaction to change thing.
When Age of Sigmar came out, there were people who could never, ever, ever see any good qualities in it. It was all bad, all the time. No matter what people who played it said.
Now with 8th edition pushing 40k towards an "Age of the Emepror" approach, maybe we're seeing the same thing? A total inability to acknowledge the obvious strengths of Power Level alongside it's obvious weaknesses.
Perhaps the more nuanced position is to say that how useful someone will find it will be based on how the weaknesses may or may not negatively impact that person and how the strengths may or may not benefit that person? That it may or may not be a good tool for setting up a game depending on what that individual desires from their game rather than our own desires?
--
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/04/14 18:39:40
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
I've noticed that some people have a very different level of capability when handling arithmetic. Some people are very visual or verbal. I don't think your evaluation of the simplicity or time savings is taking into account the variety within humanity.
Between everyone having a phone on them and apps that do the work for them, and also assuming a large number of people make lists in their spare time before showing up to a store, I think my evaluation is mostly correct. Besides, both power levels and points are simple arithmetic. If you can add 7+6+1+1+2+12 then you can add 100+10+60+5+200.
Not in this case. I think it might help to boil power levels down a bit.
What are they? they're an average of points costs. So every upgrade (including not choosing an upgrade for that slot) costs an average of all upgrades for that unit. So you have points, where all those upgrades have different costs and then power level where all those upgrades have the average cost.
You can see how in those cases the different cost of upgrades is going to make different choices optimal, right?
Power Level is just an averaged out points system. So obviously if you cost not taking an upgrade as the same as the average cost of all possible upgrades, then it's going to punish taking those.
The key point is that's a rough average, that we think from our own reverse engineering. And its not even consistently applied. If we assume that GW struggles at balancing points, then a system that uses those points as a baseline to make a less granular Power Level must surely be even less balanced and useless as a tool to compare unit strengths.
Maybe that's a good thing for people who want lots of weapons and upgrades everywhere?
In previous editions of 40k if you went into a list building forum and took a look at lists made by new players, they'd have characters loaded with wargear. Every slot was full. Even after Jervis dumbed down the codex options for a while. People like taking wargear. So a system that doesn't punish them for it definitely is useful. It allows people's first instincts about list building to not be totally wrong like it is with points where all those upgrades degrade the whole list.
There are also plenty of examples of characters loaded down with gear that are perfectly powerful or useful for their costs. This system also punishes players who don't want to load up on everything, or want to take a few cheap options that they think are cool. In either situation, points would still provide a better method of army construction.
Now with 8th edition pushing 40k towards an "Age of the Emepror" approach, maybe we're seeing the same thing? A total inability to acknowledge the obvious strengths of Power Level alongside it's obvious weaknesses.
Perhaps the more nuanced position is to say that how useful someone will find it will be based on how the weaknesses may or may not negatively impact that person and how the strengths may or may not benefit that person? That it may or may not be a good tool for setting up a game depending on what that individual desires from their game rather than our own desires?
--
The issue remains that power levels don't have any obvious strengths. They save a meaningless amount of time and math, provide a less granular system of measuring unit strengths, have now served to further divide the player base. Power levels have added nothing that wasn't already covered by points.
The only tangible strength I've seen put forward is being a time saver, which I dispute as being functionally meaningless, because adding a string of numbers into your phone takes seconds. Whether you're adding 10 numbers together or 30, the difference boils down to seconds. Every other aspect of list building (picking your models, selecting wargear, designating warlords) is the same, its simply the final math that is different.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
frozenwastes wrote: That it may or may not be a good tool for setting up a game depending on what that individual desires from their game rather than our own desires?
Magic the Gathering figured this out. They have player "psychographics" where people want different things. As well as multiple formats (ways the game is used). Actually spelling this out has led them to massively grow their business. They make cards for everyone, so more people can be customers than if they only made cards for one type of player. Then GW did it with their "ways to play" and I'm sure it's contributed to their recent record sales levels.
In Magic each set that comes out is going to have cards for many formats and players. A part of each set is going to be "playable" in each format. The meta of a given standard environment might mean a new legendary creature isn't worth playing, but the players of the very popular multiplayer Commander format will flock to buy the card. It's okay that the game appeals to multiple ways to play and that not everything is for everyone.
The alternative is a battle for the soul of 40k. Where there's one way to play the game and we all have to make sure the way we want to play is the one that wins out locally as well as in the eyes of the design studio.
This is a really bad idea. It seems fine as long as your way to play is ascendant, but a new edition, a change in demographics and so on and we can suddenly find our way to play as being disregarded. If we instead acknowledge that there are lots of valid ways to play and work on building an inclusive player base we can all have more opponents for our preferred way to play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: Between everyone having a phone on them and apps that do the work for them
Why can't people just have a game where they don't need a calculator? You can use one, but why do they have to?
Why is that so hard?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/14 19:04:23
frozenwastes wrote: I've noticed that some people have a very different level of capability when handling arithmetic. Some people are very visual or verbal. I don't think your evaluation of the simplicity or time savings is taking into account the variety within humanity.
This is basic addition we're talking about, almost always done with a calculator. Nobody is required to do calculus-heavy engineering problems or prove obscure mathematical theorems to generate an army list. The people who could legitimately have mental problems with adding up point costs but not have the same problem adding up different point costs are such an absurdly tiny minority that it isn't worth talking about them. And TBH I wouldn't be surprised if the number is zero.
Maybe that's a good thing for people who want lots of weapons and upgrades everywhere?
Ok, sure, but I don't see why "the particular units I use in my army list become more powerful" is a legitimate reason for using a different point system. We might as well argue for the "all of Peregrine's units cost 1 point" system because it makes my stuff better.
I do wonder if the polarized opinions about power level are the typical reaction to change thing.
No. Other changes do not get the same reaction. The objection to PL is that it's game design.
When Age of Sigmar came out, there were people who could never, ever, ever see any good qualities in it. It was all bad, all the time. No matter what people who played it said.
That's because AoS was an unplayable dumpster fire that almost killed off GW's fantasy IP entirely before they scrambled to put out an updated version of the rules and salvage the game. There might have been a good rule hidden in there somewhere, but it was far outweighed by the fact that literally the only viable strategy was "spend as much money as possible on GW models" and models on large enough bases (or on flying bases) were immune to melee combat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: Then GW did it with their "ways to play" and I'm sure it's contributed to their recent record sales levels.
That is marketing nonsense, nothing more. GW didn't give three ways to play, they gave one way to play. PL and conventional points are the same game except one is less balanced than the other, and "whoever buys the most GW stuff wins" is not a way of playing that anyone ever uses.
Blacksails wrote: Between everyone having a phone on them and apps that do the work for them
Why can't people just have a game where they don't need a calculator? You can use one, but why do they have to?
Why is that so hard?
Good question. Why use PL and have to add up points with a calculator? Just put models on the table and roll dice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/14 19:14:23
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Blacksails wrote:If we assume that GW struggles at balancing points, then a system that uses those points as a baseline to make a less granular Power Level must surely be even less balanced and useless as a tool to compare unit strengths.
Isn't it possible that since GW makes a variety of mistakes in both over costing and undercosting things that an average might actually be more correct rather than less? If every point value has a a good chance of being off either way, then an average might smooth a lot of those errors out.
And given how few data sheets in a given codex are tournment viable, I think it's a good reason to believe GW has gotten things off centre in both directions.
There are also plenty of examples of characters loaded down with gear that are perfectly powerful or useful for their costs. This system also punishes players who don't want to load up on everything, or want to take a few cheap options that they think are cool. In either situation, points would still provide a better method of army construction.
I think you might be confusing your preferences with some universal idea of "better." If someone likes a system where loading up on expensive options is rewarded and taking naked units and units with fewer and cheaper options, then wouldn't that be "better" for them?
I think the idea that GW could ever get the points right to the degree required so that all options are viable is a pipe dream. So it's a matter of choosing the system that support what you and your opponents would prefer. Some people want "mowr awesome!" 40k so a system that rewards the more powerful and larger weapons does what they want.
The issue remains that power levels don't have any obvious strengths.
Okay then.
Chamberlain wrote:The alternative is a battle for the soul of 40k.
lol. I guess so.
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
That is marketing nonsense, nothing more. GW didn't give three ways to play, they gave one way to play. PL and conventional points are the same game except one is less balanced than the other, and "whoever buys the most GW stuff wins" is not a way of playing that anyone ever uses.
Looks at gaming group where since 8th has come out only one person has played matched play (me) and everyone else (8 other people) only does open and narrative. Looks back at your post.
Yep. Sure thing. Whatever you say...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/14 19:38:19
Isn't it possible that since GW makes a variety of mistakes in both over costing and undercosting things that an average might actually be more correct rather than less? If every point value has a a good chance of being off either way, then an average might smooth a lot of those errors out.
And given how few data sheets in a given codex are tournment viable, I think it's a good reason to believe GW has gotten things off centre in both directions.
I see what you're saying, but we'd have to assume that GW was off roughly equally in both directions for each individual total unit upgrade costs, which is we know isn't true. Generally, a lot of upgrades are pretty fairly costed, with the occasional outlier. Taking an average still incentives the expensive (generally better) options while punishing the cheaper (generally worse off) option.
I think you might be confusing your preferences with some universal idea of "better." If someone likes a system where loading up on expensive options is rewarded and taking naked units and units with fewer and cheaper options, then wouldn't that be "better" for them?
I think the idea that GW could ever get the points right to the degree required so that all options are viable is a pipe dream. So it's a matter of choosing the system that support what you and your opponents would prefer. Some people want "mowr awesome!" 40k so a system that rewards the more powerful and larger weapons does what they want.
I'm going off an idea of better as being a better designed game where player choices matter. Having every upgrade be nominally free doesn't make for much a real choice for players. Instead of me having to pick between the more expensive lascannon for guard unit or the cheaper autocannon, power levels just let me pick the obivously superior anti-tank gun without any downside or penalty.
The people who want more awesome and bigger everything can still do that using points, and by and large, are not punished too much in this edition for doing so.
GW getting points right is a pipe dream, agreed, but other companies, not so much.
That is marketing nonsense, nothing more. GW didn't give three ways to play, they gave one way to play. PL and conventional points are the same game except one is less balanced than the other, and "whoever buys the most GW stuff wins" is not a way of playing that anyone ever uses.
Looks at gaming group where since 8th has come out only one person has played matched play (me) and everyone else (8 other people) only does open and narrative. Looks back at your post.
Yep. Sure thing. Whatever you say...
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/14 19:41:59
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
I'm going off an idea of better as being a better designed game where player choices matter. Having every upgrade be nominally free doesn't make for much a real choice for players. Instead of me having to pick between the more expensive lascannon for guard unit or the cheaper autocannon, power levels just let me pick the obivously superior anti-tank gun without any downside or penalty.
Not everyone considers list building to be an essential part of the game. Some would even consider it a chore. I find strategic choices are more fun within the game and not before it. Besides, an autocannon and lascannon serve slightly different roles (autocannons are generally better at shooting things with invulns or 2 W models). Just because I can take a lascannon for "free" doesn't mean I would want to, such as playing against infantry heavy armies.
I'm going off an idea of better as being a better designed game where player choices matter.
Player choice matters either way. If the points are used then you evaluate which is the best option for the points and take that. If it's power levels then you evaluate which is the best option given no additional cost and take that.
Both Power Level and Points offer those interested in optimizing their list meaningful choices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/14 20:08:11
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
Not everyone considers list building to be an essential part of the game. Some would even consider it a chore. I find strategic choices are more fun within the game and not before it. Besides, an autocannon and lascannon serve slightly different roles (autocannons are generally better at shooting things with invulns or 2 W models). Just because I can take a lascannon for "free" doesn't mean I would want to, such as playing against infantry heavy armies.
If list building is a chore, then why bother with PL. Just use Open and put models on the table and go.
Just like all your evidence?
List the arguments I've used based on anecdotal evidence.
frozenwastes wrote:
Player choice matters either way. If the points are used then you evaluate which is the best option for the points and take that. If it's power levels then you evaluate which is the best option given no additional cost and take that.
Both Power Level and Points offer those interested in optimizing their list meaningful choices.
The idea behind player choice is the choices are meaningful. Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
Power levels mean optimizing is simply taking the most 'expensive' option is most cases for upgrades.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Chamberlain wrote: How many people coming out of the woodwork to say they like Power Level and play Narrative and Open do you need?
GW obviously saw a sufficient level of success from the three ways to play in Age of Sigmar to include them in 8th edition 40k.
And not only that! Include them as the default! Power Levels are on the data sheets. Points are stuck in the back.
I don't think they'd have done that without a very, very good reason.
I think the typical internet forum user is nothing like the average GW customer.
bolded and underlined for a reason. they say the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but sometimes it's just a noisy wheel and doesn't represent all wheels.
As much as everyone derides GW for "messing" up points costs etc, 3 ways to play was obviously built into 8th from top/down. GW as a company doesn't do things just cuz.
I rarely look at points costs when I'm building a list. only after I have selected my units (which are wysiwyg) do I factor in points. then I pare down to the agreed upon points. most of the time I have maybe 15-20 points left over and I'll go back and add in wargear to make it "close".
But I'd much rather just work up a PL list and not have to worry about the minutiae. I always give my vehicles hunter/killer missiles, my characters have the best (objectivley) equipment, and I could give 2 scheiss if it's not points efficient.
In 8th, out of 40-50 games ive played, I've never been tabled/alpha strike. so I guess my experience is just luck (even tho I play against heavy tourney lists all the time) and I should just do it points and make more work for myself. if it's good enuff for GW (who make the game) to include it for a reason, and gives me an easy way to get playing, I'll use it everytime.
If you don't like it(PL), fine, if you do fine. One is not better than the other, just different strokes for different folks. no one is holding a volkite culverin to your head, so why do you (you know who you are) keep belittling others just for not playing how you want them to?
This Peregrine / Blacksails “stop liking what I don’t like” tag-team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU DON’T LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people they’re wrong for liking playing the game the way they want to, you’ll have a happier day.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
JohnnyHell wrote: This Peregrine / Blacksails “stop liking what I don’t like” tag-team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU DON’T LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people they’re wrong for liking playing the game the way they want to, you’ll have a happier day.
Have I said people are wrong for playing PL?
The answer is no, I even expressly stated that people are fine to play what they like. I've stated that I think PL was a waste of dev time and adds nothing of value to the game.
This is a discussion. I'm discussing. If you don't want to read or participate then you're free not to. Putting words in my mouth or typing in caps isn't helpful or insightful.
Once again, play however you like, I don't care because it has zero impact on my life. I'm having a discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of power levels.
I'm having a perfectly happy day. Cracked open a beer, about to light the bbq for the first time this season (though its still 5C and rainy out here) and my dogs finally settled down...a little anyways.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Blacksails wrote: Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
I may not be understanding what this part of the thread is about, but didn't you just make a distinction between a lascannon and an autocannon based on its role in the game right there? Didn't you take their same cost into consideration and make a choice for the lascannon because you want the better anti-tank weapon?
So I guess Power Levels do provide meaningful choices because you can't even make the case that they do not without making such a choice, demonstrating yourself to be wrong? You made a comparison and chose what you saw as the superior anti tank weapon.
Blacksails wrote: Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
I may not be understanding what this part of the thread is about, but didn't you just make a distinction between a lascannon and an autocannon based on its role in the game right there? Didn't you take their same cost into consideration and make a choice for the lascannon because you want the better anti-tank weapon?
So I guess Power Levels do provide meaningful choices because you can't even make the case that they do not without making such a choice, demonstrating yourself to be wrong? You made a comparison and chose what you saw as the superior anti tank weapon.
Seems meaningful to me.
The superior anti-tank weapon is the lascannon. It costs more than an autocannon because its a better weapon. In points, its a meaningful choice to pay more for a better weapon, or less for a worse weapon. In power levels, I don't have to worry about costs, I just take the superior weapon.
I'm not sure what you're missing about that.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
I think at this point that you've demonstrated that you are so committed to this position that you can't accept anything that people say it adds for them. If it adds at least something of value for someone, then the statement that it adds nothing is proven false.
Power Level:
Is simpler than points and people seem to like that about it.
Adds an incentive to lots of wargear and big weapons for people who like that in their games.
Gives a place for power level efficient options that are not points efficient options to shine
Allows people to build lists very rapidly on the fly
If your reply is "no it doesn't! no it doesn't! no it doesn't! no it doesn't!" but people are telling you that they use it to do those things all the time, maybe you should question whether or not your preferences for 40k are as universal as you think they are. To deal with the simplicity and time saving thing, you had to have people use apps and calculators! There's no louder endorsement of the simplicity of Power Level than a basher of the system advocating someone pull out their calculator.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/14 21:41:51
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
I think at this point that you've demonstrated that you are so committed to this position that you can't accept anything that people say it adds for them. If it adds at least something of value for someone, then the statement that it adds nothing is proven false.
Power Level:
Is simpler than points and people seem to like that about it.
Adds an incentive to lots of wargear and big weapons for people who like that in their games.
Gives a place for power level efficient options that are not points efficient options to shineThis especially
Allows people to build lists very rapidly on the fly
If your reply is "no it doesn't! no it doesn't! no it doesn't! no it doesn't!" but people are telling you that they use it to do those things all the time, maybe you should question whether or not your preferences for 40k are as universal as you think they are. To deal with the simplicity and time saving thing, you had to have people use apps and calculators! There's no louder endorsement of the simplicity of Power Level than a basher of the system advocating someone pull out their calculator.
DINGDINGDINGDING BINGO!
I have no problem with people who prefer points over power, but unfortunately the reverse does.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/14 21:46:31
Blacksails wrote: The idea behind player choice is the choices are meaningful. Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
Power levels mean optimizing is simply taking the most 'expensive' option is most cases for upgrades.
So you see factoring in 10 points here as the source of the meaning in the choice? I don't. I think the meaning enters the equation when you decide whether or not you want a generalist weapon or a specialist weapon given the larger context of both the entire list and what the opponent might take.
Do I think that additional factor is an additional factor and thus adds something to the experience of using points differences for list building? Absolutely. Just as points are less simple than power level, they are also better for those who want to weigh more factors. I'm not at all convinced that without those factors, the choices of someone using Power Level suddenly become meaningless. Just like how Power Level being more simple doesn't suddenly render points complicated.
It's like different systems do different things for different people. It's not an all or nothing thing where one system must be better than another in all ways at all time.
This idea that one system or the other has no strengths and only weaknesses? That's probably a sign of a failure of reasoning. Where you mistake your individual preferences for universal ones.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/04/14 22:39:48
Blacksails wrote: The idea behind player choice is the choices are meaningful. Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
Power levels mean optimizing is simply taking the most 'expensive' option is most cases for upgrades.
So you see factoring in 10 points here as the source of the meaning in the choice? I don't. I think the meaning enters the equation when you decide whether or not you want a generalist weapon or a specialist weapon given the larger context of both the entire list and what the opponent might take.
Do I think that additional factor is an additional factor and thus adds something to the experience of using points differences for list building? Absolutely. Just as points are less simple than power level, they are also better for those who want to weigh more factors. I'm not at all convinced that without those factors, the choices of someone using Power Level suddenly become meaningless. Just like how Power Level being more simple doesn't suddenly render points complicated.
It's like different systems do different things for different people. It's not an all or nothing thing where one system must be better than another in all ways at all time.
This idea that one system or the other has no strengths and only weaknesses? That's probably a sign of a failure of reasoning. Where you mistake your individual preferences for universal ones.
I gotta disagree with power levels given more choice. On a unit like tactical squads with points you have 3 ways to run it no upgrades 1 gun or fully kitted . Power levels reduce that to just fully kitted anything else is just putting yourself at a disadvantage.
have also tried to suggest "open play" for APOC scale games, however only one other player is will to couple it with "no proxies" to stop the utter spam that it leads to
mew28 wrote: I gotta disagree with power levels given more choice. On a unit like tactical squads with points you have 3 ways to run it no upgrades 1 gun or fully kitted . Power levels reduce that to just fully kitted anything else is just putting yourself at a disadvantage.
I agree. One of the potential weaknesses of everything being included is that it does encourage loading up. For some, that's exactly what they want out of 40k. Others want to not care about optimization at all and just play whatever. Others want to weigh as many factors as possible.
I don't have any problem with the idea that points are better at things than power levels. I just disagree with the notion that they are better at all things, or that there's no reason for power levels to even exist, or that people using them successfully should have their experiences written off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: We tried power levels when 8th dropped locally.
have also tried to suggest "open play" for APOC scale games, however only one other player is will to couple it with "no proxies" to stop the utter spam that it leads to
I think you discovered a mismatch between player goals there. In my group proxies, unpainted models and deviation from WYSIWYG is very rare.
I find many people can turn their optimizing on and off. They can play the best possible list at a huge tournament like Adepticon and then go to a Narrative event and play their ork speed freaks or chaos marines or whatever else they would never consider for the event.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/14 23:29:39
Blacksails wrote: Upgrades costing nothing means there is no meaningful choice to make. An autocannon vs lascannon is a meaningful choice when there's 10pts difference between them. If they're both free, then the lascannon is the superior anti-tank weapon.
I may not be understanding what this part of the thread is about, but didn't you just make a distinction between a lascannon and an autocannon based on its role in the game right there? Didn't you take their same cost into consideration and make a choice for the lascannon because you want the better anti-tank weapon?
So I guess Power Levels do provide meaningful choices because you can't even make the case that they do not without making such a choice, demonstrating yourself to be wrong? You made a comparison and chose what you saw as the superior anti tank weapon.
Seems meaningful to me.
The superior anti-tank weapon is the lascannon. It costs more than an autocannon because its a better weapon. In points, its a meaningful choice to pay more for a better weapon, or less for a worse weapon. In power levels, I don't have to worry about costs, I just take the superior weapon.
I'm not sure what you're missing about that.
Seems someone is missing the concept of an Anti-Infantry weapon being better than an Anti-Tank Weapon in some circumstances. Or a multi-use weapon being better than both.
alextroy wrote: Seems someone is missing the concept of an Anti-Infantry weapon being better than an Anti-Tank Weapon in some circumstances. Or a multi-use weapon being better than both.
Seems someone doesn't understand how IG work. You don't take anti-infantry heavy weapons because you already have lasguns, Wyverns, etc that are great at killing infantry. You take anti-tank heavy weapons, and the lascannon is the best anti-tank weapon. The autocannon is only better than a lascannon in weird edge case scenarios that are mostly created for the sole purpose of "proving" that the autocannon has a place. The vast majority of the time if both weapons cost the same you're taking the lascannon. In a conventional points list you at least have to think about whether you're willing to invest 20 points in a heavy weapon and maybe consider the cheaper option. In a PL game they both cost zero points so you take the lascannon, anything else is crippling your squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: This Peregrine / Blacksails “stop liking what I don’t like” tag-team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU DON’T LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people they’re wrong for liking playing the game the way they want to, you’ll have a happier day.
This "stop hating what I like" tag team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people that they're wrong for pointing out GW's incompetence in game design, you'll have a happier day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: I don't think they'd have done that without a very, very good reason.
You seem to be forgetting GW's long history of incompetence in game design. Why would you ever make the assumption that if GW did something they must have a very good reason for it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: The local marine player who takes his hunter killer missiles likes them and likes that his list isn't made weaker by taking them.
Do you honestly not see how selfish this is? The local marine player benefits from it, but at the expense of the marine player who doesn't take those missiles having their list made weaker. That player is selfishly advocating changing the point system to buff their particular unit choices, turning a balancing system into another thing to exploit for personal gain.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/04/15 00:11:29
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
alextroy wrote: Seems someone is missing the concept of an Anti-Infantry weapon being better than an Anti-Tank Weapon in some circumstances. Or a multi-use weapon being better than both.
Seems someone doesn't understand how IG work. You don't take anti-infantry heavy weapons because you already have lasguns, Wyverns, etc that are great at killing infantry. You take anti-tank heavy weapons, and the lascannon is the best anti-tank weapon. The autocannon is only better than a lascannon in weird edge case scenarios that are mostly created for the sole purpose of "proving" that the autocannon has a place. The vast majority of the time if both weapons cost the same you're taking the lascannon. In a conventional points list you at least have to think about whether you're willing to invest 20 points in a heavy weapon and maybe consider the cheaper option. In a PL game they both cost zero points so you take the lascannon, anything else is crippling your squad.
I thought we were talking about PL vs Points, not IG weapon load outs. We all know that Autocannons are bad, but that is because they just don't have a good niche due to their rules. I think we can make a case for Heavy Bolters vs Missile Launchers vs Lascannons as options for many units that can take one of the three. I'm darn sure that a Heavy Bolter is better against infantry than a Lascannon. Not an issue when playing guard, but PL isn't exclusively for guard.
Besides, everyone know that people only take Mortars on Guardsmen now days
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
game design.
