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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galef wrote:
PLs allow you to play the models as they are without worry if them going over the "point" limit, or being so below the point limit that you have to cram in another unit (that you might not have)

But it really doesn't, because you aren't adding up power levels for just one army. You're trying to make two forces come out equal. If you have models to make units with power levels of 5, 6, and 8 then you will be short in a 20 PL game. If your opponent has the models for units with PL 5, 7, and 8 then they will be at 20 PL and have an advantage. Or maybe they have 6, 7 and 8, and can't make an army without either going over the 20 PL limit or being under it by the price of a whole additional unit. The PL system actually makes it harder to make exact point totals because you can no longer change the upgrades of a unit to adjust its point cost, you're stuck with a fixed point cost for that unit no matter how you equip it. It also gives an illusion of equality that may not be correct. You might both have exactly 20 PL, but depending on how your units are equipped one side may actually be significantly stronger. You're making the numbers equal for the sake of making the numbers equal, not balancing strength.

The real solution, which you can do with conventional points, is to treat the point limit as a rough estimate rather than an absolute number. Add up the points of your models, get them roughly close, and play the game. The fact that PL makes the fact that you're 1 point over the limit invisible by hiding upgrade costs doesn't matter because you don't care if you're playing 498 points vs. 501 points in a 500 point game.

And the book has rules for balancing descrepencies in Power Level by giving out a number of Command Points based on the difference, thus solving your issue.

Blndmage wrote:
And the book has rules for balancing descrepencies in Power Level by giving out a number of Command Points based on the difference, thus solving your issue.

That rule is a joke. You get one re-roll of a single die for every full ~200 point difference between the armies. That's nowhere near balanced.

Yeah but to be fair the rules team is also a joke, a bad one.

I’ve seen power levels used for three reasons that actually make sense:

1) brand new players that don’t know what’s quite going on yet. There’s actually a lot of crap to learn once you start using an index/codex in a game. For the first couple, power level is good enough, especially as collections are limited and small.

2) ridiculously large games/apoc. There’s no point in trying to pretend there is a competitive outcome to achieve here or that it’s worth trying to have a fair game; it’s just about throwing models on the table becuase you and I have way too many.

3) a way to signal that you have finally realized that GW and 40k have given you no reason to take this game seriously, and have no desire to play anyone else who does so.

dosiere wrote:
I’ve seen power levels used for three reasons that actually make sense:

1) brand new players that don’t know what’s quite going on yet. There’s actually a lot of crap to learn once you start using an index/codex in a game. For the first couple, power level is good enough, especially as collections are limited and small.

2) ridiculously large games/apoc. There’s no point in trying to pretend there is a competitive outcome to achieve here or that it’s worth trying to have a fair game; it’s just about throwing models on the table becuase you and I have way too many.

3) a way to signal that you have finally realized that GW and 40k have given you no reason to take this game seriously, and have no desire to play anyone else who does so.

We've cracked the code, power level only players are just nihilists

PL are different. Not better, or worse, just different. Points aren't perfect. PL isn't perfect. Different units / factions become top dog, depending on which way the wind blows.

As Galef points out, Tac Marines in PL are 5 for 5 dudes, or 9 for 10 dudes. Why? Because 5 Dudes have 2 upgrades (15 pts each) and then 10 dudes have 3 upgrades (another 15 points) = 175/20 or approximately 9 PL. Upgrades are estimated into PL at approximately 15 pts per upgradeable model, to the best of my ability to loosely estimate.

I've never played a game using PL, no particular interest. But assuming you aren't actively gaming the system to have ALL THE UPGRADES then I bet it's a workable system. I would be in favour of a system in which less granularity in unit size was used. 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 guys. Upgrade costs could be factored into the cost of units, and make all upgrades equally appealing, or at least give them reasonable functionality for a specific goal.

Flamers are close range anti-infantry. 6 auto-hits at S4, no cover.
Plasma is what it is.
Melta is what it is.
Grav / Grenade Launchers could be the missile launchers of Specials, giving two less awesome options but the flexibility to do two jobs... I guess. Spitballing here.

If Guardsman squads were 85 points, and you could take a special weapon, heavy weapon, and a Sergeant upgrade of your choice, you'd be looking at 8.5 points per wound (instead of the current 4) and they would fulfill their "intended" purpose as multi-purpose line troops that provide fire support.

Who takes Tacticals without a Combi Sarge and either Special or Heavy? Just make a 5 man 95 points with 2 upgrades, or 10 man with 3 upgrades for 175. If you want cheaper points per body, you buy 10 man squads. If you want more specials per point, take 5 man squads. If you still want a 5-man sit'n'shoot heavy squad, take 10 and combat squad.

A 5-Man tactical with a Plasma Gun or a 5-Man tactical with a Lascannon. Both are basically the same points. Both have different uses. Both would be workable choices if they were 80 points each. They aren't that different. People aren't going to start running melta-tacs unless they have a good reason, like Vulkan, or plan to Pod in double-squads or something. At which point they're as good as Plasma / LC tacs.

This approach makes units easier to balance, and price appropriately, as you have predictable and specific load outs.


EDIT: And don't you paint us Nihilists with that brush!

GW have literally spelt out that Power is for casual play, and that it’s roughly an average of minimum loadout cost and maximum loadout cost, divided by 20. Any debate around that is utterly pointless as we know from publications and interviews. (Don’t ask why FW Power levels are what they are, as they’re all over the shop...)

Why almost a year after they gave us Power and Points people are still whining, debating and goading each other about which system is best is beyond me. They are both valid, but for different people and different games. SHOCKER, right?

If one system is right for you, use it, and stop deriding those who use the other. Some of the name-calling in this thread is quite sad. Power and Points have different aims and uses, and are appropriate for different situations.

We need less Snobhammer and more people letting people play how they want, and not judging them for it, as that is pathetic behaviour...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
GW have literally spelt out that Power is for casual play, and that it’s roughly an average of minimum loadout cost and maximum loadout cost, divided by 20. Any debate around that is utterly pointless as we know from publications and interviews. (Don’t ask why FW Power levels are what they are, as they’re all over the shop...)

Why almost a year after they gave us Power and Points people are still whining, debating and goading each other about which system is best is beyond me. They are both valid, but for different people and different games. SHOCKER, right?

If one system is right for you, use it, and stop deriding those who use the other. Some of the name-calling in this thread is quite sad. Power and Points have different aims and uses, and are appropriate for different situations.

We need less Snobhammer and more people letting people play how they want, and not judging them for it, as that is pathetic behaviour...

word, have an exalt!

 greatbigtree wrote:


I've never played a game using PL, no particular interest. But assuming you aren't actively gaming the system to have ALL THE UPGRADES then I bet it's a workable system. I would be in favour of a system in which less granularity in unit size was used. 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 guys. Upgrade costs could be factored into the cost of units, and make all upgrades equally appealing, or at least give them reasonable functionality for a specific goal.

I have used both systems and also(shock horror for some people no doubt. They would probably die out if they were to play like this!) without points. All have been different. Closest one that were close to balance was funnily enough without any official point system Next closest games have actually been PL games funnily enough....

I actually think PL are great for some pick up games. Looking for a 100PL game implies you want to play casual lists, and are probably more open to some houserules and/or exotic scenarios.
Someone looking for a 2000pts game could be looking for a very competitive game, or a casual one. You have to spend more time trying to figure out what the other person wants out of the game, and not everyone agrees on what is casual and what is tournament worthy (many people on this forum think a not-fully optimized list, that still only contains good units and none of the crappy ones, is a casual list).
Of course you can always end up playing against a jerk who just wants to abuse the system, but you would have an equally bad time if you played the same opponent with points.

I don't mind using points all the time, mostly because I think better balance is always better, and creating army lists is dead easy with apps. But I know a couple guys who couldn't be bothered to check the point cost of each individual piece of wargear (and usually look at their model, and not their army list, to know what options they brought), and these guys are great fun to play with. I would miss on the opportunity to play with them if I was closed to PL.

Oh man, here we go again.

“Actually, I quite like PL.”

“PL is bad.”

“OK, use points then.”

“But PL is bad.”

*repeat ad infinitum*

 Nazrak wrote:
Oh man, here we go again.

“Actually, I quite like PL.”

“PL is bad.”

“OK, use points then.”

“But PL is bad.”

*repeat ad infinitum*

Well if people would stop virtue signalling about how they use PL we wouldn't have to correct them.

Um, sure. You definitely know there’s a sensible discussion taking place when people start chucking the phrase “virtue signalling” around.

hobojebus wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Oh man, here we go again.

“Actually, I quite like PL.”

“PL is bad.”

“OK, use points then.”

“But PL is bad.”

*repeat ad infinitum*

Well if people would stop virtue signalling about how they use PL we wouldn't have to correct them.

Or maybe others could realize there are multiple ways to play none which is superior?

To me, Power Level feels more like a way to roughly quantify the ... well, power level ... of a force once you've chosen it, rather than a target to aim for like points.

By which I mean, choose a force based on whatever criteria you like (a full Batallion, three Patrols, an Imperial Guard infantry company, a Space Marine demi-company, whatever...), then total up the PL to compare it to your opponent to find out who gets the underdog bonus, (eg the cards in the Total War deck).

I use power level because i don't enjoy poring over an army list trying to min/max my gear load outs. Power level is fast and doesn't require me to have to dickaround with an army builder. I'm also not playing competitive games where we are playiing to bring A+ lists vs each other to see who wins, we typically are playing a narrative scenario so I don't care about that level of detail that the points give.

Additionally the point system in 40k is flat out just as busted if you are looking at thiings from a balance standpoint. I don't care if points is "more balanced" if its still busted. If they fix points (something they have never done in 20+ years because iit drives sales and appeases the people that love liistbuilding) then I'd consider usiing points.

It has nothing to do with virtue signalling. I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS in a similar way before official AOS points came out because after playing games like Saga, I prefer that style of army construction. I don't like spreadsheeting.

One of the best things people can do to maximize their enjoyment of 40k is to play through the three open play missions on page 191 using power level. And then do it again for the missions where the attacker and defender have different experiences (like the ones where the attacker gets a greater power level or has a different objective).

Just take what you think is cool and don't worry about taking the strongest thing with the best upgrades. If you find one person's army is very optimized against another, just adjust the power level the next time you play. All the missions say "roughly" for the amounts, like one half to double or roughly equal or whatever, so nudge it a bit if you find you need to.

I think this will give people a much more useful foundation for 40k than just going straight to matched play with even points all the time. Then add in some of the special rules from the narrative section, maybe grab an open war card deck. Maybe try some narrative scenarios if the forces and terrain described make sense for what you have.

Have they ever not been?

 Chamberlain wrote:
I think this will give people a much more useful foundation for 40k than just going straight to matched play with even points all the time.

Why? What is gained by playing games where the winner is determined primarily by who put more points on the table?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Or maybe others could realize there are multiple ways to play none which is superior?

Oh look, another person in need of correction. Using a point system that is deliberately less accurate than the conventional point system but otherwise functions exactly the same way is not "multiple ways to play", it's one way to play and some people stubbornly virtue signalling about how "casual" they are because they reject balance.

Play Power Lvl for casual games, Apoc
Play Points for competitive games, Tournaments
I've played both and I like both
Anyone saying that one is better than the other is just being narrow-minded, if they don't like one system then that's fine but neither system is superior to the other.
To the OP, no Power Lvls are not useless now, they still fulfil the same function they did when the rules came out.

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or maybe others could realize there are multiple ways to play none which is superior?

Oh look, another person in need of correction. Using a point system that is deliberately less accurate than the conventional point system but otherwise functions exactly the same way is not "multiple ways to play", it's one way to play and some people stubbornly virtue signalling about how "casual" they are because they reject balance.

They don't function the same way, because one is more complex than the other. Some people don't like adding/subtracting individual weapons' point costs, and constantly flip through their codex to see how much each thing costs.
Listbuilding is a part of the hobby some people don't enjoy, just like some others don't like painting, or reading about the fluff. For these people, PL are much better, as it vastly simplifies something they don't like. Of course the result is a less balanced game, but the few people I know who hate counting points don't care about balance at all, they just want to put two armies of roughly the same power against each other and roll some dice. It's not about rejecting balance, it's about not wanting to put the effort to achieve better balance. Whether the effort is worth it or not is a matter of personal preference, about what you want about the game.

And you accuse people of "virtue signaling", yet start your post stating people are in need of correction. That shows how much you're willing to actually discuss the topic.

fresus wrote:
They don't function the same way, because one is more complex than the other. Some people don't like adding/subtracting individual weapons' point costs, and constantly flip through their codex to see how much each thing costs.

Of course they function the same way. You add up the point cost of your units and compare it to the maximum point total for the game, adjusting as necessary. This is not complex math we're talking about here, it's basic addition that anyone but a small child is capable of with minimal effort.

Listbuilding is a part of the hobby some people don't enjoy, just like some others don't like painting, or reading about the fluff. For these people, PL are much better, as it vastly simplifies something they don't like.

You know what's even better if you hate doing basic addition for a few minutes and don't care about balance? Just putting some models on the table without adding up points at all.

And you accuse people of "virtue signaling", yet start your post stating people are in need of correction.

What do those two things have to do with each other?

Virtue signalling with PL = using an inferior system and reducing the quality of your game as a means of telling everyone how "casual" you are.

Telling people they are in need of correction = correcting bad arguments.

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or maybe others could realize there are multiple ways to play none which is superior?

Oh look, another person in need of correction. Using a point system that is deliberately less accurate than the conventional point system but otherwise functions exactly the same way is not "multiple ways to play", it's one way to play and some people stubbornly virtue signalling about how "casual" they are because they reject balance.

I think the fallacy here is a point system is used so it is inferred some kind of balance is being attempted.
It appears to be misleading or the other view: sloppy.

If the attempt was to have some measure of fun or themed play one would think it would focus on unit type selections (Example: 3 troop and 1 HQ) or going a bit further into standardized scenarios with some specific rules for attacker/defender... maybe even some depth in the scenario where if objective 1 is achieved by turn 2 or not, a new objective is set. They tended to get into detail like this in the past like where "Planetary Onslaught" cobbled together Planetstrike, Stronghold Assault, and City Fight. I usually make scenarios to try to get a game so that after some test runs it seems to be a 50/50% chance for either side winning, I usually try swapping armies with my friend to make sure I am not prejudiced either way. Since this kind of focus seems rather lacking it seems to lean toward what Peragrine is saying: poor design, not enough play testing and a possible lack of care in general.

Detailed points costs for any change of a model's capability is necessary for any passing attempt at balance. GW has constantly had problems wrestling with units that confer abilities to other units: how do you scale the cost for that? Only method is by limiting what units and how many of them it can affect. There are many absolutely brain hurting forms of game theory that demonstrate how you can have good game balance, a means of gauging and rating that balance and how to add or trim as needed (yes, I can point to some if you really must have the links... or just use the power of google). GW just seems to not use those tools and so power levels is really just a lazy rule of thumb which my suggestion of taking X number of given unit types would not be all that much worse. It could even be better if framed with some rules to those selections.

I should correct myself and others when talking about power levels making the add-ons "free".
It is more assumed that you automatically get the very best you can, anything less is just choosing to handicap your game in the name of "fun".

I like to use 40k as a form of grim-dark simulator to create some moment in fictional time in the fluff.
BUT I do not like those epic moments to devolve into a badly one-sided affair, that is not "properly" representing the story.
Heck, it still hurts my brain to think some 10 marines fit in a Rhino or Drop Pod... we all have our various levels of "suspension of disbelief".
I am trying to make my friend happy by playing Bolt Action with vehicles in 1:48 scale rather than 1:56.

It really depends on where you derive your fun.
I want tactics and strategy while it all looking pretty or I will go back to my cardboard board game tokens.

 Talizvar wrote:
I think the fallacy here is a point system is used so it is inferred some kind of balance is being attempted.

It's not a fallacy at all, it's obvious truth. If you are adding up PL it's because you want balance, otherwise you'd just put models on the table and not care about what the point total is for each side.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
I think the fallacy here is a point system is used so it is inferred some kind of balance is being attempted.

It's not a fallacy at all, it's obvious truth. If you are adding up PL it's because you want balance, otherwise you'd just put models on the table and not care about what the point total is for each side.

By the same logic, you should paint all your models to crystal brush level, because at the end of the day it's still about putting paint on the model, otherwise you should just leave them unpainted.
PL require less effort, and yield worse balance. Some people are happy with the trade-off.

Peregrine could you please explain your argument that Power Level is an inferior system and reducing the quality of your game?

fresus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
I think the fallacy here is a point system is used so it is inferred some kind of balance is being attempted.

It's not a fallacy at all, it's obvious truth. If you are adding up PL it's because you want balance, otherwise you'd just put models on the table and not care about what the point total is for each side.

By the same logic, you should paint all your models to crystal brush level, because at the end of the day it's still about putting paint on the model, otherwise you should just leave them unpainted.
PL require less effort, and yield worse balance. Some people are happy with the trade-off.

This is sounding like a longer and more in-depth version of the "Speed-Accuracy" decision making debate.
I would say since the game is not a time dependent affair (other than fitting it into our daily lives) the emphasis on fast and inaccurate means of measure or scale seems unnecessary.
Much of the effort we are trying to save is easily performed by software that is offered for free.

The painting comparison is a nice one to bring up since it is important to me.
It can seem to take forever to try to paint to a good standard, the difference can be hours or days.
Time seems to be a much more a consideration with this element of the game so it could be an unfair comparison or more like: not applicable at all.

Peregrine is correct: if I am adding up points that IS to be balance. This is looking more like how many decimal places do I choose to use pi in a calculation or from a measuring device: depends on how tight a tolerance I am allowed.
Obviously, some of us require a much higher level of accuracy than others.

fresus wrote:
By the same logic, you should paint all your models to crystal brush level, because at the end of the day it's still about putting paint on the model, otherwise you should just leave them unpainted.
PL require less effort, and yield worse balance. Some people are happy with the trade-off.

That's not a relevant comparison at all. Painting to crystal brush level is extremely difficult and beyond the ability of most people. Making a list with conventional points is barely any additional work over using PL as your point system, and anyone who isn't a small child is capable of doing it.

Just to clarify my position:
Using Points rather than PLs is obviously the best way to balance 2 armies between each other.

That does not mean that PLs are useless in all situations.
Sometimes (like right now where I am at work and cannot access my rule books) I like to do some list building in my head. PLs are MUCH easier to memorize to just get in the units I want to use, rather than remembering every single wargear points option for several different armies.

PLs also allow me to swap out wargear options in smaller games in which a few points may exceed the limit I am trying to reach.
For example, I have a very small collection of Marines that my sons can use at home. About a dozen Marines with varied weapons, a Dread, a Razorback/Rhino/Pred chasis, 3 Bikes and some Assault Marines. That's about it.

PLs gives us the option to take Lascannons on the Razorback and Meltas in the Tac squad if the enemy army is using a tank, or Assault cannons on the RB and Plasmas on the Marines if there are no vehicles or monsters.
The PL will stay the same and my son has the tools he needs to make the game fun. By using Points, the Lascannon/Melta loadout would be more expensive and my OCD would have to account for that somehow, either by dropping some other upgrade or giving the enemy list something extra.

PLs are very useful ***FOR ME***. If only for convenience sake and allowing me to change a list to give my son a fair chance against an army that he is playing against (that I also built)

I agree that Points are better for almost all other purposes, but if someone, somewhere finds a use for PLs, than a blanket statement that they are useless is inaccurate and should not be stated.

I am not trying to champion PLs as this magically great system that is on any level as good as points. I am arguing the semantics of someone saying they are useless.
I find them useful, ergo that statement that they are useless HAS to be wrong.

-

 Rolsheen wrote:
Peregrine could you please explain your argument that Power Level is an inferior system and reducing the quality of your game?

The goal of using a point system is balance. PL doesn't account for variations in a unit's power between different upgrade choices, so it gives a less accurate evaluation of that unit's value on the table and therefore does a worse job of balancing the game. And balance obviously matters or you wouldn't be using a point system at all. So you're using a system that is worse at doing the job you're trying to use it for, where the only advantage is that it tells other people that you are "casual".

And you can see this in the posts I've quoted previously, from people saying "we use PL as a sign to competitive players that they aren't welcome".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Sometimes (like right now where I am at work and cannot access my rule books) I like to do some list building in my head. PLs are MUCH easier to memorize to just get in the units I want to use, rather than remembering every single wargear points option for several different armies.

But what's the point in making those mental lists, if you can't use them in a real game (because in a real game you're going to spend an extra minute or two for the full point system)? It seems like worthless theorizing, nothing more.

PLs also allow me to swap out wargear options in smaller games in which a few points may exceed the limit I am trying to reach.

This just demonstrates why PL is a bad system. You're using PL so you can pretend that your swap isn't putting you over the point limit and giving you an advantage from having an illegal list.

By using Points, the Lascannon/Melta loadout would be more expensive and my OCD would have to account for that somehow, either by dropping some other upgrade or giving the enemy list something extra.

See, there's your problem. Get rid of the obsession with having a constant point cost for your list and just make the adjustments. Or, since this is just a casual game with a child using armies that you have built just make the swap and ignore the point cost. Who cares if you're playing at 498 points vs. 501 points in a 500 point game when you're playing a game with kids who don't even know what the point totals are?