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.

redboi wrote:
People over think power points. It's meant for two people to just show up with some units and plop them on the board for a quick game without having to stress over making a competitive list. Just play your model wysiwyg and have some fun. Not every match has to be played like a cutthroat tournament finals.

We managed that for 30 odd years without Power Level.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
We managed that for 30 odd years without Power Level.

So? We managed just fine for some time before indoor plumbing as well. It's still a nice thing to have, for those who want it.

For those who just want a quick and easy system for getting approximately even-ish forces, adding up a few small numbers is quicker and easier than adding up a lot more numbers. The fact that the system with a lot more numbers was functional beforehand doesn't change that, or mean that it wasn't worth trying out a different and easier way of doing things.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
[Alternatively, why are we blaming the system because people want to exploit it? Are we implicitly supporting attempting to abuse the game system?

We're blaming the system because a well-designed system can't be abused. "Abuse" only matters if the system has flaws to exploit, and it's ridiculous to blame the players for making correct strategic choices as if it's some kind of moral failure.

Why is Matched default?

Because that's how the rules function. "Three ways to play" is a marketing gimmick, nothing more. It's a way to persuade Tau players to buy the latest primaris marines because "you can use them in open play". When we actually look at the rules and how the game is played we find that:

Matched play is, by far, the majority of 40k games. If you ask a random person at your local store to play a 40k game they're going to expect a game between each player's "standard" army (IOW, not tailoring forces to fit a specific story), at equal point levels, in a stock mission with generic objectives. They're going to expect battle-forged detachments, using the FAQs/errata, etc. Some people may disagree over whether you should use PL or conventional points as the point system for the game, but in functional terms the game is still being played the same way.

Narrative play is just matched play. GW's version of "narrative" play does very little to build a story. The missions are generic Side A vs. Side B templates that wouldn't feel terribly out of place in a tournament mission pack instead of story-driven scenarios tailored to the specific players and armies involved. There's no attempt to build an ongoing story to link multiple games. There are no characters or mechanics for developing/advancing them over time. You're just playing a matched play game in all but name, and the only difference is a weird player-created assumption that putting a "narrative" label on it creates an obligation to make poor strategic choices in list building. Granted, there could be a narrative version of 40k that is genuinely different from matched play, but GW"s "way to play" is not that game.

Open play is a joke. Aside from the absurdity of having a whole "way to play" that consists of nothing more than "I guess put some models on the table and roll some dice or whatever" and telling the players to ignore any rules they don't want to follow it's an unbalanced mess that 90% of the time is going to result in a one-sided slaughter where nobody has any fun. There's no story, no strategy, and really no reason to play a "game" at all. It says a lot that even among the "casual" players I've encountered I have never seen anyone even suggest using open play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
For those who just want a quick and easy system for getting approximately even-ish forces, adding up a few small numbers is quicker and easier than adding up a lot more numbers.

Except we're talking about a difference of what, a minute or two? On a 2-3 hour (or longer!) game? The idea that PL saves any meaningful amount of time is just silly, especially with the OP's proposal to have PL account for upgrades as well. Now you're adding up all of the same numbers, except instead of having upgrade costs that reflect the power of each upgrade you have a fixed "buy an upgrade" value.

In fact, PL can very easily take longer to build a list because the minimum increment (an entire unit swap) you can adjust your list by is a much larger percentage of your total points. If you're over the limit in a conventional points game you can often fix it by dropping an upgrade or two. If you're over the point limit in a PL game you have to find an entire unit to replace and hope that you can find a good swap. And no, "just play at uneven points" is not an answer, as that same option applies to a conventional-points game and it starts to raise the question of why you're bothering with a point system at all if you don't care about the two sides being equal.

(Amusingly, the OP's idea does help with the increment issue, but only at the cost of eliminating any time advantage PL might have over conventional points.)

 insaniak wrote:
There are plenty of players out there who don't give a hoot about balance, they just want something that gives a rough, ballpark idea of equivalency as a starting point.

I disagree with this, and you do too. You just said "there are plenty of players who don't care about balance, they just want balance". Nobody enjoys getting wiped off the table on turn 1 because their opponent's army is just plain better. In fact, balance is the entire goal of a point system. If you genuinely don't care about balance then you wouldn't be using a point system at all, whether it's PL or conventional points.

I like power levels because after playing for thirty years it’s become clear that the difference between 2000 points and 2002 points is so meaningless it doesn’t matter. If you are using 40k as a way of proving your competive metal then it might. But if your playing it as a fun game then if your armies are a few points or even a few hundred points different it doesn’t really matter. But it’s nice to have an easy tool to give you an idea of equivalency.

As for abuse, that’s up to the player. At the end of the day the result of a game of 40k doesn’t matter at all. No one really is changed by the outcome. So if you are prepared to abuse rules to beat your friends then that’s a problem with you not the rules. The rules assume a bit of human decency, as you are only playing a game.

I’ve no problem with points and power levels existing side by side and I see the point of printing the pounds else where so they can be adjusted as needed without reprints but the “rage” against power levels and insistence by perigrine and slayer fan that they are the only ones doing it right is laughable. ITS A GAME! We can all enjoy it our own way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for balance. It’s a joke. If YOU really cared about balance you wouldn’t play 40k. It’s never been balanced and some of the best games have deliberately unbalanced. Huge armies swarming over small groups of desperate defenders. Great times. Points is one way to balance armies. Not the only way. Terrain, game rules and people not been dicks is another way.

Also narrative play in the books is a structure. It’s up to you to apply the story. You have to use your imagination. There are people out there who don’t play the way you do or feel the way you do. They aren’t wrong. The only way you are wrong is that you insist others are for feeling differently to u.

 Peregrine wrote:

I disagree with this, and you do too. You just said "there are plenty of players who don't care about balance, they just want balance".

That's not what I said at all, and I suspect you know that. You can act all disingenuous if it makes you feel better, but at the end of the day your hangups with Power Levels are purely down to you viewing the game differently to those who are fans of the system. Again, just accept that you have a different opinion and move on. You're wasting your time trying to convince the rest of the world that there is only one 'right' answer here.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
We managed that for 30 odd years without Power Level.

So? We managed just fine for some time before indoor plumbing as well. It's still a nice thing to have, for those who want it.

For those who just want a quick and easy system for getting approximately even-ish forces, adding up a few small numbers is quicker and easier than adding up a lot more numbers. The fact that the system with a lot more numbers was functional beforehand doesn't change that, or mean that it wasn't worth trying out a different and easier way of doing things.

I don't feel that 40k is really fitting for people who want to play fast games. The 5 minutes you save from using Power Levels over points, at least to me, doesn't seem to make a large difference in time the game takes to complete. Board Games seem more fitting for that.

redboi wrote:
People over think power points. It's meant for two people to just show up with some units and plop them on the board for a quick game without having to stress over making a competitive list. Just play your model wysiwyg and have some fun. Not every match has to be played like a cutthroat tournament finals.

But what's the point of playing a game that's horrendously one sided because person A has an army full of options and player B has only one build for his units.

Balance is bad enough when you pay for upgrades, why would you pick the worse option?

hobojebus wrote:
But what's the point of playing a game that's horrendously one sided because person A has an army full of options and player B has only one build for his units.

Balance is bad enough when you pay for upgrades, why would you pick the worse option?

The idea is that you are not that bothered - and if most people who are playing this style tool up their guys it might not matter that much.

Now you can argue whether it works - I'm not convinced because it doesn't really do anything to resolve skew factors that are the main cause of one-sided games - but trying to make it more like points seems to miss the mark.

Cynically I can see the attraction because models often look better when fully blinged out - special and heavy weapons, special pistol and combat weapon on a sergeant etc etc. A bit like in WHFB how "every" unit should have a champion,banner and musician because it looks better. You don't have to constantly go "actually this is all a waste of points." - which, by and large, it usually is (although 8th has been better for this than 7th).

I disagree with the notion that matched play is, and should be seen as 'the default'. Having a 'default', in my experience does nothing but stifle creativity, as gamers never step outside these self imposed walls of pseudo-officialdom, and the six missions at the back of the book. Matched play is not the 'root', from which all else branches off. matched, narrative and open are parallel approaches. All have their niches.

In terms of power level, I'm sympathetic to it. I spent 5 years playing warmachine/hordes and simply much prefer a less granular points system. I've found that, in my experience, not every stat, skill, trait, special rule and bit of gear needs to be accounted for individually in a units price.

Can power level work in 40k? Sure. It requires a particular mindset, and in and of itself, it's fine. Open to abuse, for sure, but then again, points based 40k is just as bad. I find decrying power level as 'more broken' than points quickly becomes an exercise in futility - I've been only new for over ten years seeing people complaining about how incredibly broken 40k points are. They are, that's a simple fact. 'More broken' that the level of imbalance in points-based 40k gaming swiftly becomes academic. If points were balanced, we could have a different argument, but we don't. In the end, Both require like minded people, both require a 'social shock absorber' and both benefit from a collaborative game building approach. Which means for me, it comes down to a preference for a more granular, or less granular system, and as said, having played WMH since mk1, my preference is for the less granular system. And as these days, I prefer narrative gaming with a close group of friends to pick up games in a store, power level is fine.

To answer the op, I think power levels would work 'better' if the units in question were unchangeable, or had severe limitations on variable gear. You pay x power for a marine unit, and [this] is what you get. That said, I think there is potential in the ideas earlier for an additional power level cost for 'specialists' and 'gunners'.

There is no difference between power level and points. Each system just favors different armies more. Both systems have units that are undercosted and broken, and both systems have overcosted units that are gak. Are either inherently better than one another? It all boils down to personal preference.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

I disagree with this, and you do too. You just said "there are plenty of players who don't care about balance, they just want balance".

That's not what I said at all, and I suspect you know that. You can act all disingenuous if it makes you feel better, but at the end of the day your hangups with Power Levels are purely down to you viewing the game differently to those who are fans of the system. Again, just accept that you have a different opinion and move on. You're wasting your time trying to convince the rest of the world that there is only one 'right' answer here.

\
Well it is not a direct copy of your quote it dose distill the essence of your statement well. That ballpark guess is a form of trying to have balanced list if you truly did not care at all about balance you would be fine having 5 tac squads and playing vs a warlord titan.

I think the new no model/bitz no rules direction GW codexes are about reflect power levels better than the Build your Own unit of the past. If you only get one or two distinct options, Power levels are easier to balance out.

BaconCatBug wrote:

redboi wrote:
People over think power points. It's meant for two people to just show up with some units and plop them on the board for a quick game without having to stress over making a competitive list. Just play your model wysiwyg and have some fun. Not every match has to be played like a cutthroat tournament finals.

We managed that for 30 odd years without Power Level.

We only had points for 30 years.

That's like saying "we don't need Command Points, we've managed 30 odd years without it". Adding optional way to play the game doesn't hurt it, or your enjoyment of it. You don't have to play PL if you don't want to.

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
[Alternatively, why are we blaming the system because people want to exploit it? Are we implicitly supporting attempting to abuse the game system?

We're blaming the system because a well-designed system can't be abused. "Abuse" only matters if the system has flaws to exploit, and it's ridiculous to blame the players for making correct strategic choices as if it's some kind of moral failure.

But Matched Play can be abused. If you have this vitriol against Power Level, where is it for points? If you think PL is useless, why not the same for points?
Pretending that PL is the only "abusable" game mode is simply incorrect.

Furthermore, I'd like to draw emphasis to this phrase: "ridiculous to blame the players for making [i]correct strategtic choices".
Why are they "correct"? Who says it's correct? Is my way of enjoying the game not correct? Who determines if my enjoyment of the game is correct? You?
Those choices are correct to you, and they apply under your mindset of "competitive, strategic fun". That is the correct way to play, according to you, but the consensus on PL seems to be that the "correct" way to play is not the same as what you deem it to be.
Which is the definitive one? Neither, there is no definitive. People can play what they want to.

No-one's calling it a "moral failure" except yourself. There's nothing morally wrong with wanting a competitive game at the peak of your strategic acumen. At the same time, there's also nothing morally wrong about wanting a relaxed, fast and loose game. You can play either, neither, or both, if you want. Both options are valid.

Why is Matched default?

Because that's how the rules function.

Explain. How does Matched Play being more detailed make it the default way to play?

"Three ways to play" is a marketing gimmick, nothing more. It's a way to persuade Tau players to buy the latest primaris marines because "you can use them in open play". When we actually look at the rules and how the game is played we find that:

Matched play is, by far, the majority of 40k games. If you ask a random person at your local store to play a 40k game they're going to expect a game between each player's "standard" army (IOW, not tailoring forces to fit a specific story), at equal point levels, in a stock mission with generic objectives. They're going to expect battle-forged detachments, using the FAQs/errata, etc. Some people may disagree over whether you should use PL or conventional points as the point system for the game, but in functional terms the game is still being played the same way.

In your experience. At my FLGS, and with the circle I play with, PL is the preferred option.

We play with similar power level limits, we play with battleforged detachments, we use the FAQ and Errata, but we fundamentally use Power Level, not points, and play Narrative games from the book, or customise them.

Who cares if it uses Matched Play elements - we're talking about primarily Power Level, not Matched/Narrative/Open.

Narrative play is just matched play. GW's version of "narrative" play does very little to build a story. The missions are generic Side A vs. Side B templates that wouldn't feel terribly out of place in a tournament mission pack instead of story-driven scenarios tailored to the specific players and armies involved. There's no attempt to build an ongoing story to link multiple games. There are no characters or mechanics for developing/advancing them over time. You're just playing a matched play game in all but name, and the only difference is a weird player-created assumption that putting a "narrative" label on it creates an obligation to make poor strategic choices in list building. Granted, there could be a narrative version of 40k that is genuinely different from matched play, but GW"s "way to play" is not that game.

That's why people Forge The Narrative. They make their own stories using the open ended and flexible system 40k provides.

Narrative, as you put it, is hardly different from Matched, but it encourages you, the player, to Forge the Narrative and play with the system. So why is it any less valuable? If you look down on Narrative for being Matched Lite, why not look down on Matched for simply being Narrative+1? If you're being that cynical, they're two sides of the same coin, and therefore both invalid.

Open play is a joke. Aside from the absurdity of having a whole "way to play" that consists of nothing more than "I guess put some models on the table and roll some dice or whatever" and telling the players to ignore any rules they don't want to follow it's an unbalanced mess that 90% of the time is going to result in a one-sided slaughter where nobody has any fun. There's no story, no strategy, and really no reason to play a "game" at all. It says a lot that even among the "casual" players I've encountered I have never seen anyone even suggest using open play.

Funnily enough, I've played more Open Play games than Matched in 8th. I've preferred every Open game over Matched.

You think it's a joke. That's cool. What about the people who don't? Are their opinions not valid?

 insaniak wrote:
There are plenty of players out there who don't give a hoot about balance, they just want something that gives a rough, ballpark idea of equivalency as a starting point.

I disagree with this, and you do too. You just said "there are plenty of players who don't care about balance, they just want balance". Nobody enjoys getting wiped off the table on turn 1 because their opponent's army is just plain better. In fact, balance is the entire goal of a point system. If you genuinely don't care about balance then you wouldn't be using a point system at all, whether it's PL or conventional points.

And there we go again with the "I know what people think better than they do themselves!" kind of rhetoric. I'm sure you'd also love if people did the same with you.

Power Level having less granular points than the points system does not mean it has no balancing. A 30 PL list is more likely to be equal to another 30 PL list than to an 100 PL list. You might not want razor sharp balance, you might not want exactly mathematical equality, but having a rough guideline is exactly what Power Level does.

This kind of extreme radical "Power Level has no balance at all, and people who use PL have no balance at all in their games" is untrue. It's a blatant exaggeration by yourself. But, even if it were true - if people enjoy playing games with no balance, and and were cool with being wiped Turn 1, what does that have to do with you? Let them have their fun. If that's how they enjoy the game, so be it.

insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

I disagree with this, and you do too. You just said "there are plenty of players who don't care about balance, they just want balance".

That's not what I said at all, and I suspect you know that. You can act all disingenuous if it makes you feel better, but at the end of the day your hangups with Power Levels are purely down to you viewing the game differently to those who are fans of the system. Again, just accept that you have a different opinion and move on. You're wasting your time trying to convince the rest of the world that there is only one 'right' answer here.

Thank you.

hobojebus wrote:But what's the point of playing a game that's horrendously one sided because person A has an army full of options and player B has only one build for his units.

Balance is bad enough when you pay for upgrades, why would you pick the worse option?

Well, ideally, person A wouldn't be taking upgrades with the intent to take the "best possible option". They would take them because they like that weapon, or want to experiment a bit, or because they've just hammered out a basic list for a quick and dirty game. If person A's view was that "I must take only the best weapon", then Power Level is not a system that was built for them, and is unsuitable.

In the same vein, I'd call Matched Play unsuitable for someone who wants to take a fluffy Space Marine Battle Company with power armoured bodies and Inquisitorial allies, or someone who just wants to put down the Tau Riptide, Wraithknight, and Castellan models they just built all together on a battlefield.

mew28 wrote:Well it is not a direct copy of your quote it dose distill the essence of your statement well. That ballpark guess is a form of trying to have balanced list if you truly did not care at all about balance you would be fine having 5 tac squads and playing vs a warlord titan.

But you can still care about balance without needing to care about the minutia of the power sword on the fifth squad sergeant, the combat shield on the Lieutenant, or the storm bolter on the Land Raider.

To suggest that "if you don't care about the detail and granular system of points, you must be okay with a Warlord Titan versus Tactical Squads" is utterly extreme.

Voss wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
The difference is...if you bust power level, that's on you. It's not that Power Level is broken...it's that people refuse to take two minutes to figure out how it's calculated and build accordingly.

True. In power level you can have all the options for free. 'Building accordingly' is realizing you're being told that you can take it all.

If you want limits and restrictions and fair play, you need points. If you just want more exploits, that's what PL is for.

If the argument is 'you just shouldn't do that,' the PL system is inherently flawed.

You've clearly never played a bigger game, including Apoc. At some point, points really stop mattering versus we are roughly at the same level. It also just baffles me that some players see a system that is clearly meant to be a bit more casual and go, wait I CAN BREAK THE GAME EVEN EASIER, there is something wrong with the system, when they clearly don't get the spirit of what that system was meant to encourage.

 mew28 wrote:

Well it is not a direct copy of your quote it dose distill the essence of your statement well.

Not even remotely.

When we talk about games being 'balanced' we're talking about the comparative power of the opposing lists being exactly even. Which is a pipe-dream, where 40K is concerned, but it's what people keep expecting from the points system.

Those who say they don't care about balance are less concerned with the sides being perfectly even. That doesn't mean that they're throwing any sort of parity out the window, just that they don't care about it being perfect.


Trying to pretend that I'm saying something I'm clearly not doesn't actually change the reality of the situation.

Balance is a continuum. The most balanced setup is one where both players have completely identical units, like in a game of chess, but even then there's still major balance issues inherent in game design (white moves first).

Saying that wanting any sort of balance is identical to wanting perfect balance is inherently ridiculous. It's akin to arguing that because you support having a measuring stick like points or power levels, you must support both players having identical armies and only playing on a board with identically mirrored terrain. Saying that wanting power levels to balance armies means you must want points to balance armies is similarly flawed.

The last 1500 point AM list I made up was exactly 75 PL.

The difference between PL and Points is whether or not you're looking to exploit the system. Some stuff rounds up, some rounds down.

PL is for people that just want to throw down some models on the board, and have a game with their buddies. The longer I play 40k the less competitive I get about it. I played the multiplayer (Carnage?) game from the back of the book on Friday. I wound up winning (objective is to hold a central objective at the end of a battle round for 1 VP) but I spent half my time twiddling with my phone, because I wound up with long periods of time where I had to make a few saves and that was it.

Take the lists you play, the ones you build with points, and see if they're more than 1/25 PL off of your target, assuming 1 PL = 20 points. 1000 pts = 50 PL, 1500 pts = 75 PL, 2000 pts = 100 PL.

1/25 PL is a 4% margin of error. Less than the difference between a unit at 100 points vs 95 or 105. Honestly? I don't think GW's points system is externally balanced to within 10%. So the point I'm making is that PL is usually within MY PERSONAL acceptance of error.

To the people that point out that some Melee units can tool up with 100's of points of wargear... so what? 7/10 marines will be dead before they hit combat. So those 100's of points didn't actually mean anything anyway. It's the reason Death Company take 1 PF per 5 dudes... that's how many points survive to hit combat. I really don't have any problem with Power Level as a competitive balancing tool, as I find it's just as accurate as the points.

It may be less *precise*, but I find it to be just as *accurate*.

 insaniak wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

Well it is not a direct copy of your quote it dose distill the essence of your statement well.

Not even remotely.

When we talk about games being 'balanced' we're talking about the comparative power of the opposing lists being exactly even. Which is a pipe-dream, where 40K is concerned, but it's what people keep expecting from the points system.

Those who say they don't care about balance are less concerned with the sides being perfectly even. That doesn't mean that they're throwing any sort of parity out the window, just that they don't care about it being perfect.


Trying to pretend that I'm saying something I'm clearly not doesn't actually change the reality of the situation.

Building a straw man trying to define caring about balance as needing thing to be exactly even is missing the point. You want a balanced game in some form if your using power levels and their only advantage over points is saving 1 minute of math if that at the cost of becoming extremely easy to game to get an advantage, lowering gun and upgrade variety. You can use synonyms all you want asking for parity is still asking for a somewhat balanced game.

Sure, let's waste our time arguing semantics rather than discussing the actual point.

Or, you know, not.

 insaniak wrote:
Sure, let's waste our time arguing semantics rather than discussing the actual point.

It's not semantics, it's the entire point you attempted to make about being "misquoted". Your accusation of misquoting depends on accepting your personal definition of "balance", one that is excessively narrow and misses a large part of game design.

The actual point is that balance is a scale, not a binary yes or no thing. You can still have and benefit from a more balanced game even if you don't achieve some perfect ideal of 100% balance. And PL as a system is worse than conventional points at achieving balance, the entire purpose of using a point system at all. And if you want to make the argument that both are so terrible at creating balance that the difference is irrelevant, well, why are you bothering to add up PL at all? The balance level you're assuming isn't any better than just putting some vaguely equal looking piles of models on the table and playing a game, and clearly the extra 1-2 minutes of adding up PL costs is a very important thing.

The obvious conclusion is that the people using PL do care about balance. And the best system to achieve that goal is the conventional point system. The only reason not to use the conventional point system is the fact that using PL sends a message about how "casual" the game is, a point that is emphasized over and over again when PL advocates talk about how PL is inherently tied to a certain "casual" mindest about the game. A mindset, you'll note, that is not present in any of the rules published by GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Take the lists you play, the ones you build with points, and see if they're more than 1/25 PL off of your target, assuming 1 PL = 20 points. 1000 pts = 50 PL, 1500 pts = 75 PL, 2000 pts = 100 PL.

That's a poor comparison. A list isn't going to be the same if you build it with conventional points vs. PL, so why would you assume that it is? By insisting on building the list with conventional points and then checking PL you're entirely eliminating the "buy lots of upgrades" factor. The real comparison would be between a list built under conventional points and one optimized for success under PL. There you'll find that it's very easy for the PL list to have a lot of extra points, way beyond your 4%.

 Peregrine wrote:
And PL as a system is worse than conventional points at achieving balance, .

Indeed. It's almost like it's designed for people who don't particularly care about balance...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But Matched Play can be abused. If you have this vitriol against Power Level, where is it for points? If you think PL is useless, why not the same for points?
Pretending that PL is the only "abusable" game mode is simply incorrect.

Trust me, I have plenty of criticism for GW"s choices in the conventional point system. But PL is indisputably a more abuseable system, and offers essentially nothing in return besides the ability to send a message of "this is a PL game, list optimization is not welcome".

Furthermore, I'd like to draw emphasis to this phrase: "ridiculous to blame the players for making correct strategtic choices".
Why are they "correct"?

They are correct because they are the choices most likely to win the game. That's why I said correct strategic choices, not correct painting choices or correct story choices or whatever. And of course it's ridiculous to blame the players for playing a game and making the choices that are most likely to win that game. It is not the fault of the players if the game is poorly designed and those choices are too obvious or conflict with your ideas about the "right" way to play the game.

No-one's calling it a "moral failure" except yourself. There's nothing morally wrong with wanting a competitive game at the peak of your strategic acumen. At the same time, there's also nothing morally wrong about wanting a relaxed, fast and loose game. You can play either, neither, or both, if you want. Both options are valid.

You are calling it a moral failure by using judgemental terms like "abuse" and "exploit" for making good strategic choices in list construction. Taking a plasma gun because it's the best option for winning is not "exploiting" the system. Taking hunter-killer missiles on every vehicle because they cost zero points is not "abuse".

You think it's a joke. That's cool. What about the people who don't? Are their opinions not valid?

Their opinions are not valid. Open play is a terrible "game", and it's absurd that people buy GW's marketing nonsense that "you can use or not use whatever rules you want, and just roll some dice I guess" is an equally-legitimate third way to play instead of just stating the obvious fact that you can use house rules.

But, even if it were true - if people enjoy playing games with no balance, and and were cool with being wiped Turn 1, what does that have to do with you? Let them have their fun. If that's how they enjoy the game, so be it.

This is a discussion forum, not a "everyone have their ideas without criticism" forum. I am not going to someone's house and holding a gun to their head until they add up the point totals for their lists. They are free to play however they like. But I am not going to pretend that open play is anything resembling a good thing.

In the same vein, I'd call Matched Play unsuitable for someone who wants to take a fluffy Space Marine Battle Company with power armoured bodies and Inquisitorial allies, or someone who just wants to put down the Tau Riptide, Wraithknight, and Castellan models they just built all together on a battlefield.

It's funny, because the Riptide/Wraithknight/Castellan list is the sort of anti-fluffy garbage that is only acceptable in a highly competitive environment where it's accepted that you're going to be making optimal strategic choices even if it comes at the expense of fluff. If someone tried to bring that list against me in a narrative/casual game I'd give them a WTF look and ask them to bring something more reasonable instead (and decline the game if they refused).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Indeed. It's almost like it's designed for people who don't particularly care about balance...

And, as I keep pointing out, everyone benefits from balance even if they don't understand enough game design to be consciously aware of it. PL is letting them down even if they don't realize it. Unless, of course, you want to take the position that deliberately making your game less balanced has the useful purpose of signalling to other players that you're looking for a particular attitude towards the game and people who do "too much" list optimization are not welcome...

Andykp wrote:

As for balance. It’s a joke. If YOU really cared about balance you wouldn’t play 40k. It’s never been balanced and some of the best games have deliberately unbalanced. Huge armies swarming over small groups of desperate defenders. Great times. Points is one way to balance armies. Not the only way. Terrain, game rules and people not been dicks is another way.

And indeed if you care about balance you don't use any kind of point system in any game. Points aren't designed for balance. It's not their job. They are very bad for that. If you are using points to create balance you are by definition misusing points for something they aren't designed for and thus 100% quaranteed to not be balanced and end up in worse game than you would otherwise.

If PL are even more unbalanced than Points, who profits from that unbalance?

It would seem like weak codices like Space Marines and non-kultist/DP CSM would profit the most because the cost and volume of equipment options these armies have.

If so, what is wrong with that?

If PL was the default, how would the meta change?

By just clicking the imperial CP battery into battle scribe, it costs 180 points or 13 PL.
1750 points are roughly 100 PL, which means that in points you have to spend 10% of your point limit or 13% of your PL limit.

Wouldn't that be good for the game?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If you look down on Narrative for being Matched Lite, why not look down on Matched for simply being Narrative+1? If you're being that cynical, they're two sides of the same coin, and therefore both invalid.

Because Narrative is not narrative. It's a different set of matched play missions, attached to a weird player-created belief that making all upgrades cost zero points is somehow "narrative". Matched play does what it claims, Narrative does not.

(And, again, I'd be happy if GW published a legitimate narrative system and would consider that a genuine second way to play the game. But that is not the game we have.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
And indeed if you care about balance you don't use any kind of point system in any game. Points aren't designed for balance. It's not their job. They are very bad for that. If you are using points to create balance you are by definition misusing points for something they aren't designed for and thus 100% quaranteed to not be balanced and end up in worse game than you would otherwise.

You keep saying this, and it continues to be wrong. Points are designed for balance in the standard situation where you are playing a previously unknown game between new armies and/or involving new scenario rules. Points, when done right, allow you to set up the game and go straight to playing with a reasonable expectation that the game will be balanced enough to be interesting. Your weird hypothetical alternative of endlessly playtesting a specific scenario until you get it perfectly balanced does not represent reality for the vast majority of 40k players. It doesn't matter if you could hypothetically get a perfectly-balanced game with weeks of cooperative scenario design and playtesting, nobody is going to spend that much effort before they get to play the actual game. In the real world points are the best tool we have.

 Peregrine wrote:

And, as I keep pointing out, everyone benefits from balance even if they don't understand enough game design to be consciously aware of it.

You can probably stop pointing it out, as it's completely beside the point.

Trollbert wrote:
If so, what is wrong with that?

It's wrong because anyone is benefiting from an incorrect evaluation of a unit's strength. Incorrect point costs are bad, period, it doesn't matter which person's pet army is favored by a particular mistake.

By just clicking the imperial CP battery into battle scribe, it costs 180 points or 13 PL.
1750 points are roughly 100 PL, which means that in points you have to spend 10% of your point limit or 13% of your PL limit.

As I said earlier, that's a really misleading comparison. Nobody is going to be taking that 180 point CP battery in a PL game. The three infantry squads are getting lascannons and plasma guns, the HQs are getting plasma pistols and power fists. Add in the point costs of those additional weapons and see what percentage of your 1750 points you would have spent in a conventional-points game. It's definitely more than 13%, which means the CP battery is a better deal in a PL game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
[You can probably stop pointing it out, as it's completely beside the point.

You don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean it's beside the point. In evaluating the merits of a particular rule we should consider both a person's explicit statements as well as the things they aren't consciously aware of that still contribute to their enjoyment of a game.

 Peregrine wrote:

You don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean it's beside the point. In evaluating the merits of a particular rule we should consider both a person's explicit statements as well as the things they aren't consciously aware of that still contribute to their enjoyment of a game.

When the point is that some people don't particularly care about balance, stating that you think that balance benefits everyone is completely, ahem, pointless. It may or may not be true, but it's completely irrelevant.

Seriously, you can stop kicking the horse. You've made your point. We all get that you feel that using points is the only sensible way to play the game. Repeating it ad nauseum isn't going to make the rest of the world suddenly agree with you.

 Peregrine wrote:

Trollbert wrote:
If so, what is wrong with that?

It's wrong because anyone is benefiting from an incorrect evaluation of a unit's strength. Incorrect point costs are bad, period, it doesn't matter which person's pet army is favored by a particular mistake.

So playing points is wrong because Eldar, Dark Eldar and IG are clearly undercosted? What if each army would be roughly equally strong in power points, did anyone test that?

By just clicking the imperial CP battery into battle scribe, it costs 180 points or 13 PL.
1750 points are roughly 100 PL, which means that in points you have to spend 10% of your point limit or 13% of your PL limit.

As I said earlier, that's a really misleading comparison. Nobody is going to be taking that 180 point CP battery in a PL game. The three infantry squads are getting lascannons and plasma guns, the HQs are getting plasma pistols and power fists. Add in the point costs of those additional weapons and see what percentage of your 1750 points you would have spent in a conventional-points game. It's definitely more than 13%, which means the CP battery is a better deal in a PL game.

You're right on that, but are plasma weapons and power fists worth 3% of your army? That's about 47 points that you would. If it was worth these 47 points, why does nobody give their CP battery 47 points worth of equipment?

I would love to see a PL tier list, but I guess noone is playing PL extensively enough to do this.

 insaniak wrote:
When the point is that some people don't particularly care about balance, stating that balance benefits everyone is completely, ahem, pointless.

The point is that they do care, even if they aren't consciously aware of how their game works better when it is more balanced and don't have the level of game design understanding to give an informed opinion. Or if, like some people, they need to make a public statement of rejecting those benefits to keep up a certain appearance...

Seriously, you can stop kicking the horse. You've made your point. We all get that you feel that using points is the only sensible way to play the game. Repeating it ad nauseum isn't going to make the rest of the world suddenly agree with you.

As opposed to your repeating ad nauseum that PL is a valid system and the people advocating it have a point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trollbert wrote:
So playing points is wrong because Eldar, Dark Eldar and IG are clearly undercosted? What if each army would be roughly equally strong in power points, did anyone test that?

Each army can't be equally strong in PL because the variations between different upgrade choices are too high. You can't balance a naked infantry squad and an infantry squad with a lascannon, plasma gun, power fist, plasma pistol, and probably another upgrade or two I'm forgetting, not when both have the same PL cost. You might be able to coincidentally find a PL list for each faction that is balanced with every other faction's list, but you can find a set of lists like that in a conventional points game.

And you're making the mistake of confusing individual mistakes (IG being too cheap) with systemic flaws (PL being incapable of giving a correct evaluation for all units). Different flaws, different criticism.

You're right on that, but are plasma weapons and power fists worth 3% of your army? That's about 47 points that you would. If it was worth these 47 points, why does nobody give their CP battery 47 points worth of equipment?

It's more than 47 points, the lascannons alone are 20 points each. Nobody does it in normal games because adding ~100 points to the cost of the CP battery is not desirable for a unit specifically intended to be as cheap as possible. In a PL game though you get ~100 points of free stuff.