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'm missing the option of "both, depending on the situation" - which I would vote for.

In some situations you want to calculate the exact points, for example in a competetive environment. In other situations the rough estimate the power levels provide can be enough. Think of "quick pickup games" or games between friends. You might look for a roughly even playing field without wanting to add up points for every last option.

I can see the use of both ways, and will likely use both.

I have yet to see a single reason to use power levels over points. It takes about 30 extra seconds on a calculator, so even if you're making a list on the fly with your available models it's frighteningly easy.

As a pretty dedicated "narrative" player who likes the occasional tournament, I fail to see how power levels help in any conceivable scenario that's been shown to me so far. If anything narrative games benefit from tighter controls in the army building phase than one-off competitive games do, so I really don't understand.

The only thing I can imagine is that GW is somehow going to tie power levels into their 3 ways to play format and make power levels the default choice for one or more of them. Even then, I'd be pretty simple to convert said system to points.

 Purifier wrote:


No, adding up granular points isn't a minute more over a full army. If it is for you, good for you, fantastic. You're not even close to representative of the norm. you're some kind of math savant. Flipping through the book and adding up a number that is right next to the name of the unit, maybe 10 numbers need to be added and you're done. Going granular you've got standard weapons for the unit to look up, then choosing and paying for their specials, then any extra gear they choose to bring. Same thing for every vehicle. You're flipping back and forth a lot and you're doing a whole lot more adding up. Then you realise that nah, that's getting too expensive and even if we of course have some leeway since we clearly are not trying to balance the game, I have to try and stay around half your cost, so now I've added up two units there that I drop, and then I go on to make a half a unit of something instead and we're back to flipping in the book.

No, there is no way you can convince me that making an army with power levels or with points is about the same time investment. It just isn't.

Both scenarios, involving the calculator present on your phone;

Power Levels

Models are out on table with wargear represented, as per your scenario.
Open book, and individually flip through the pages to add up the power levels on the calculator.

Points
Models are out on table with wargear represented.
Open book to the one page at the back, add up points on the calculator.

The difference in punching numbers 10 times for power levels and some arbitrary amount more for points isn't going to add up to any meaningful amount of time. With a calculator and the page open, I can back out my 1500pts list in under a minute. Let's say I'm shooting the gak with my buddy too, and we take 5 minutes. Its still a pittance of time.

The point is that in both scenarios, you have the book open and are using a calculator to add everything up. For my Guard army, I'd go from adding up the roughly 12 units worth of power levels, to about 4 times that for doing the same with points. I don't think that's a huge difference.

And part of the issue is that GW made points more annoying to use.

They had the system working fine before.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And part of the issue is that GW made points more annoying to use.

They had the system working fine before.

Multiples of 5 were easier for head math, sure, but I do it all on a calculator to be sure. It doesn't make much of a difference to me. Once I memorize the basic weaponry costs, it'll be just as it was before.

 Blacksails wrote:
Once I memorize the basic weaponry costs, it'll be just as it was before.

And that's the issue you seem to ignore: most casual gamers never memorize anything but the basic rules (sometimes not even that). What you describe as "it will take just a few seconds more" can take quite some time for people who don't have the time or the will to learn all the point costs by heart.

Power levels cut this process down to one step per unit, which is much easier and faster to do.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


No, adding up granular points isn't a minute more over a full army. If it is for you, good for you, fantastic. You're not even close to representative of the norm. you're some kind of math savant. Flipping through the book and adding up a number that is right next to the name of the unit, maybe 10 numbers need to be added and you're done. Going granular you've got standard weapons for the unit to look up, then choosing and paying for their specials, then any extra gear they choose to bring. Same thing for every vehicle. You're flipping back and forth a lot and you're doing a whole lot more adding up. Then you realise that nah, that's getting too expensive and even if we of course have some leeway since we clearly are not trying to balance the game, I have to try and stay around half your cost, so now I've added up two units there that I drop, and then I go on to make a half a unit of something instead and we're back to flipping in the book.

No, there is no way you can convince me that making an army with power levels or with points is about the same time investment. It just isn't.

Both scenarios, involving the calculator present on your phone;

Power Levels

Models are out on table with wargear represented, as per your scenario.
Open book, and individually flip through the pages to add up the power levels on the calculator.

Points
Models are out on table with wargear represented.
Open book to the one page at the back, add up points on the calculator.

The difference in punching numbers 10 times for power levels and some arbitrary amount more for points isn't going to add up to any meaningful amount of time. With a calculator and the page open, I can back out my 1500pts list in under a minute. Let's say I'm shooting the gak with my buddy too, and we take 5 minutes. Its still a pittance of time.

The point is that in both scenarios, you have the book open and are using a calculator to add everything up. For my Guard army, I'd go from adding up the roughly 12 units worth of power levels, to about 4 times that for doing the same with points. I don't think that's a huge difference.

I have never seen anyone write a list in 5 minutes, let alone 1. That said, I don't know anyone that knows all the weapons costs by heart either. I, and I think a vast majority of 40k gamers, don't have several games a week. We have maybe one gaming night a month. We don't memorise all this stuff, and we don't know exactly what we have.

Again; if you can do it in a minute, great for you. The Power system isn't for you, yet you call it useless based only on how you don't need or want it. I think it's a little unnecessary myself, but since it's there anyway, I can see why it would be used over the points system. You obviously can't, but almost 30% of the poll wants to use it, so maybe take a step back and realise that it has a use and that it's just that you don't understand it.

 Blacksails wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And part of the issue is that GW made points more annoying to use.

They had the system working fine before.

Multiples of 5 were easier for head math, sure, but I do it all on a calculator to be sure. It doesn't make much of a difference to me. Once I memorize the basic weaponry costs, it'll be just as it was before.

It's not the numbers, it's the locations.

I see it this way...

One system gets you playing the game quicker, if neither player can be bothered to spend any of their own time adding stuff up before they meet.

If both players have bothered to do any preparation neither method is noticeably quicker than the other.

One method is more likely to result in less balanced, (and therefore) less fun games.

Therefore spending the 5-10 minutes to write a points based list is a better idea rather than spend 2 hours playing a game that due to a loss of balance between upgraded units isn't fun for either party.

Now it could be argued that people will be friendly and select lists which aren't powerful. I propose that its a lot harder and more time consuming to get two people to write lists which will provide fun and varied challenges for each other, while still putting the things that they like on a table, than is is following a framework of rules designed to provide just that.

Yes I agree that the point system is not perfect, but better to commit to a system which has the greater potential to provide balance and fun, than the clearly inferior system.

Without wanting to get too bogged down in the details, in 4E/5E/6E (before the weirdness started at 6E's tail end) I could easily write most lists in a couple minutes, and knew pretty much all common wargear and upgrade costs.

Meltagun? 10pts. Flamer? 5pts. Powerweapon? 15pts. Rhino? 35pts. Extra Armour? 15pts. Russ sponson multimeltas? 30pts (5E). Grenade Launcher? 5pts. Powerfist? 25pts. Smoke Launchers? 3-5pts depending on book and unit. Etc ad nauseum.

Memorizing these sorts of things came fairlu quickly, most time was spent deciding on choices, not fiddling with or having to remember points values.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Without wanting to get too bogged down in the details, in 4E/5E/6E (before the weirdness started at 6E's tail end) I could easily write most lists in a couple minutes, and knew pretty much all common wargear and upgrade costs.

Meltagun? 10pts. Flamer? 5pts. Powerweapon? 15pts. Rhino? 35pts. Extra Armour? 15pts. Russ sponson multimeltas? 30pts (5E). Grenade Launcher? 5pts. Powerfist? 25pts. Smoke Launchers? 3-5pts depending on book and unit. Etc ad nauseum.

Memorizing these sorts of things came fairly quickly, most time was spent deciding on choices, not fiddling with or having to remember points values.

Now I find myself spending 15-20 minutes making a list using points, because models don't come with weapons and each weapon's cost isn't an easy number to remember anymore. Weapons and models aren't on the same page either, so flicking to either page in one hand while writing with the other becomes fairly awkward.

So initially, I will be using Power Levels as I learn the rules and find out what models do (as well as using a points system as cool sounding as Power Level). I will eventually move onto points, because being more specific in points values is always a good thing, but it simply a bit awkward to use for now.

secretForge wrote:

One method is more likely to result in less balanced, (and therefore) less fun games.

You're making the faulty and wildly narcissistic assumption that everyone enjoys games in exactly the way that you do.

 JNAProductions wrote:

It's not the numbers, it's the locations.

Yes, points are really cumbersome to try to use going off of the books, and it's basically due to pretty bad design. What the unit does is on one page. What its bodies cost is on another. What its wargear costs is on another one or two. What its wargear does is sometimes on yet another page. Sometimes some of its options -- but of course not their costs or what they do -- are on a final page. I actually think the idea of bespoke rules for everything makes a lot of sense, especially since a lot of people are going to have this stuff digitally. But you have to actually go all the way and put everything in one place.

It's not going to be a big issue long-term, since eventually we'll have army builders and the indices will be obsolete except maybe for referencing unit special rules, but they've certainly made it about as annoying as it could possibly be to compare and calculate points.

 Purifier wrote:

secretForge wrote:

One method is more likely to result in less balanced, (and therefore) less fun games.

You're making the faulty and wildly narcissistic assumption that everyone enjoys games in exactly the way that you do.

+1

Darnok wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Once I memorize the basic weaponry costs, it'll be just as it was before.

And that's the issue you seem to ignore: most casual gamers never memorize anything but the basic rules (sometimes not even that). What you describe as "it will take just a few seconds more" can take quite some time for people who don't have the time or the will to learn all the point costs by heart.

Power levels cut this process down to one step per unit, which is much easier and faster to do.

Sure, some people never memorized much of anything, which is fine. But when it comes to list building, memorized or no, the difference between making it in power levels and points is minimal. Its not a matter of one stop shop for power levels because any unit that can take more models has one or two different power levels. In both scenarios for list building, you're opening the book and checking the numbers and adding them up. As I pointed out in a practical example, it goes from adding up roughly 12 units of power levels to about 4 times that in total numbers punched in a calculator. Its a minimal time investment.

Purifier wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


No, adding up granular points isn't a minute more over a full army. If it is for you, good for you, fantastic. You're not even close to representative of the norm. you're some kind of math savant. Flipping through the book and adding up a number that is right next to the name of the unit, maybe 10 numbers need to be added and you're done. Going granular you've got standard weapons for the unit to look up, then choosing and paying for their specials, then any extra gear they choose to bring. Same thing for every vehicle. You're flipping back and forth a lot and you're doing a whole lot more adding up. Then you realise that nah, that's getting too expensive and even if we of course have some leeway since we clearly are not trying to balance the game, I have to try and stay around half your cost, so now I've added up two units there that I drop, and then I go on to make a half a unit of something instead and we're back to flipping in the book.

No, there is no way you can convince me that making an army with power levels or with points is about the same time investment. It just isn't.

Both scenarios, involving the calculator present on your phone;

Power Levels

Models are out on table with wargear represented, as per your scenario.
Open book, and individually flip through the pages to add up the power levels on the calculator.

Points
Models are out on table with wargear represented.
Open book to the one page at the back, add up points on the calculator.

The difference in punching numbers 10 times for power levels and some arbitrary amount more for points isn't going to add up to any meaningful amount of time. With a calculator and the page open, I can back out my 1500pts list in under a minute. Let's say I'm shooting the gak with my buddy too, and we take 5 minutes. Its still a pittance of time.

The point is that in both scenarios, you have the book open and are using a calculator to add everything up. For my Guard army, I'd go from adding up the roughly 12 units worth of power levels, to about 4 times that for doing the same with points. I don't think that's a huge difference.

I have never seen anyone write a list in 5 minutes, let alone 1. That said, I don't know anyone that knows all the weapons costs by heart either. I, and I think a vast majority of 40k gamers, don't have several games a week. We have maybe one gaming night a month. We don't memorise all this stuff, and we don't know exactly what we have.

Again; if you can do it in a minute, great for you. The Power system isn't for you, yet you call it useless based only on how you don't need or want it. I think it's a little unnecessary myself, but since it's there anyway, I can see why it would be used over the points system. You obviously can't, but almost 30% of the poll wants to use it, so maybe take a step back and realise that it has a use and that it's just that you don't understand it.

You don't have to know the costs off by heart. For me, I like to because I often toy around building lists when I may not have the books on hand, but fortunately, at a game, everyone will have their book to build a list. In your example, you were pulling models out of a bag and adding up their power levels. The same scenario with points would take another minute of adding wargear.

Again, look at my reasonable example. My Guard army consisting of 6 squads, 2 officers, and 2 artillery batteries is 10 units worth. Each squad has a special and heavy weapon (two items of wargear) as do my officers. Artillery batteries only have one weapon to add (the hull weapon), so on average, I'm adding up two extra numbers onto the base unit cost.

I'd go from adding up 10 numbers of power levels to 30 numbers for the units and their wargear.

Given that both methods of list building require you to select the models and wargear, the only difference becomes how many times you punch in numbers on a calculator.

 Purifier wrote:

secretForge wrote:

One method is more likely to result in less balanced, (and therefore) less fun games.

You're making the faulty and wildly narcissistic assumption that everyone enjoys games in exactly the way that you do.

I think the bigger point is that one system can be used for almost any game with almost any intent, while another has only the bare minimum value to be of use in the most casual of settings where the players could probably make do just as well without it anyway.

So you want unbalanced games?

In ways that you don't know are unbalanced?

Because again-an unbalanced SYSTEM is bad even if you WANT imbalance-unless you're fine not knowing how the imbalance will work, it's better to have a balanced system even if your specific scenario is unbalanced.

For those saying power levels are crap because they are imbalanced...

When the GW points turn out to be... as they always are... grossly imbalanced... whats the difference then?

Because if the GW points are actually balanced, you will be a part of the rapture and hell will have indeed frozen over.

The points have always been grossly imbalanced. Always. There has never been a time where there weren't min/max monstrosities roving around that were undercosted so badly that they busted the game and people pounced on those.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So you want unbalanced games?

In ways that you don't know are unbalanced?

Because again-an unbalanced SYSTEM is bad even if you WANT imbalance-unless you're fine not knowing how the imbalance will work, it's better to have a balanced system even if your specific scenario is unbalanced.

Look, you will not understand, and the problem lies with you. I've tried to explain it, but you simply aren't equipped to understand why that doesn't matter.

Given that both methods of list building require you to select the models and wargear, the only difference becomes how many times you punch in numbers on a calculator.

Again, you use only your own experience. It's insane how the people arguing that power is somehow an abomination simply are unable to imagine anything but your own view. Yes, for you it's useless. I would without a doubt take at least 10 times less time to build a power level army than one where I used points. At least. I do inefficient flipping in books, I forget what I was looking up when someone talks to me etc etc. Most people are more like me than the well oiled machines that you and Sheldon Cooper represent. If they enjoy the idea of power as an easier way to set up their battles, who are you to tell them they're wrong?

 auticus wrote:
For those saying power levels are crap because they are imbalanced...

When the GW points turn out to be... as they always are... grossly imbalanced... whats the difference then?

Because if the GW points are actually balanced, you will be a part of the rapture and hell will have indeed frozen over.

The points have always been grossly imbalanced. Always. There has never been a time where there weren't min/max monstrosities roving around that were undercosted so badly that they busted the game and people pounced on those.

I dont think anyone would argue that GW's points have always had issues, but these are issues of execution typically, mistakes and the like. Points arent perfect, but theyre the best we're gonna get and is how most tabletop games function. Power level on the other hand has a fundamentally dramatically less certain and much more variable value, it is inherently at their core less meaningful.

 Purifier wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So you want unbalanced games?

In ways that you don't know are unbalanced?

Because again-an unbalanced SYSTEM is bad even if you WANT imbalance-unless you're fine not knowing how the imbalance will work, it's better to have a balanced system even if your specific scenario is unbalanced.

Look, you will not understand, and the problem lies with you. I've tried to explain it, but you simply aren't equipped to understand why that doesn't matter.

Try one more time? Because, correct me if I'm wrong-you're saying to some people balance doesn't matter. In which case, I'd invite someone to step forward and say "No, I don't care at all about balance."

You're mistaken. Feel free to read the posts I've made so far. It's all there still, and just retyping it now seems worse than a waste of my time.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So you want unbalanced games?

In ways that you don't know are unbalanced?

Because again-an unbalanced SYSTEM is bad even if you WANT imbalance-unless you're fine not knowing how the imbalance will work, it's better to have a balanced system even if your specific scenario is unbalanced.

Look, you will not understand, and the problem lies with you. I've tried to explain it, but you simply aren't equipped to understand why that doesn't matter.

Try one more time? Because, correct me if I'm wrong-you're saying to some people balance doesn't matter. In which case, I'd invite someone to step forward and say "No, I don't care at all about balance."

I'm really close to not caring about balance in friendly games, at least not the balance that is dreamed about by other players where the points are perfectly representative of unit and upgrade and army power.

For me, the balance I seek is "eh, close enough, let's play already!".

 Purifier wrote:
You're mistaken. Feel free to read the posts I've made so far. It's all there still, and just retyping it now seems worse than a waste of my time.

That's the message I'm getting from you. "Some people don't care about balance." Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the impression I get from your posts.

BB, that's legit. Would you say the same for pick-up games, with someone you don't know?

I just told you that you're mistaken and you just repeated the same thing again. You can see why I feel trying to talk to you at all anymore is a waste of my time, surely.

 Purifier wrote:
I just told you that you're mistaken and you just repeated the same thing again. You can see why I feel trying to talk to you at all anymore is a waste of my time, surely.

Did you miss the "Correct me if I'm wrong" bit?

I am aware that's not what you're trying to say. However, that's what I'm hearing.

So, please-in plain words, explain what you are trying to say.

But surely 'close enough' is a lot better represented by a points system than something far less granular.

Apparently its narcissism to think that a lot of people discovering that they are playing an unfun uphill (or downhill) battle with a more generalised system is likely.

And if someone doesn't want balance.... like 'hey lets see how completely unmatched we can make this game'. Then why use any form of balancing mechanism?

In short, if you're going to use a balancing mechanism, why not use the best one you have access to, if you have 5 minutes available at some point during your busy pre game schedule.

 JNAProductions wrote:
BB, that's legit. Would you say the same for pick-up games, with someone you don't know?

I am willing to give it a shot! Against a newer player who has a rough idea how to play, absolutely. Against a veteran who I have yet to play? I would ask what they wanted to do and what kind of game they want to play, but I would be willing if they were!

Points, Power Level, or nothing at all, I'm good whichever way gets me a fun game. Maybe I'm being more zen about it than others, but it's all Warhammer to me

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
BB, that's legit. Would you say the same for pick-up games, with someone you don't know?

I am willing to give it a shot! Against a newer player who has a rough idea how to play, absolutely. Against a veteran who I have yet to play? I would ask what they wanted to do and what kind of game they want to play, but I would be willing if they were!

Points, Power Level, or nothing at all, I'm good whichever way gets me a fun game. Maybe I'm being more zen about it than others, but it's all Warhammer to me

You seem like a cool player. You probably have the best attitude about all this, honestly. No sense getting worked up over toy soldiers.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
BB, that's legit. Would you say the same for pick-up games, with someone you don't know?

I am willing to give it a shot! Against a newer player who has a rough idea how to play, absolutely. Against a veteran who I have yet to play? I would ask what they wanted to do and what kind of game they want to play, but I would be willing if they were!

Points, Power Level, or nothing at all, I'm good whichever way gets me a fun game. Maybe I'm being more zen about it than others, but it's all Warhammer to me

You seem like a cool player. You probably have the best attitude about all this, honestly. No sense getting worked up over toy soldiers.

Aw, thanks!

I jut try not to take the game too seriously. Perspective help; I am having some serious familial issues right now that could drastically affect several of my relationships for the rest of my life if things go sour, so little quibbles over our toy soldiers just feels unnecessary. Warhammer is my escape, and is something I hope to share with others in a positive way.