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.

Are the big winners from the various grand tournaments bringing more or less power level than the average?

A 2000 point game is roughly equivalent to 100 power, I was just curious and don't have access to every index/codex.

Thanks in advance!

Tournaments operate in points for the most part, as there is the most granularity for equipment etc. PL benefits some armies over others much more so.

As a Night-Lord player, my common 2000pt army lists tend to weigh in around 110-118 power level depending on what units I bring and how I kit them out.

my typical list looks as such:

1 Lord
1 Jump Sorceror

3x10 CSM units with special + heavy weapon.

2x8 man raptor units with flamers and champion with combi-flamer
1x10 man unit of warp talons

Chaos predator with twin lacannons and lascannon sponsons
Maulerfirnd with lasher tendrils

2 heldrakes with baleflamers.

Works out to 2007pts and 111PL in a battalion.

I don't have access to most of the lists that have been winning, but the question wasn't about whether tournaments were using PL - they aren't, as you note - but rather, whether most of the tournament-winning lists tend to be above the average in PL. A rule of thumb is that a 2000 point list is about 100PL, and a 100PL list is about 2000 points - are these winners 2000 point lists that come out to more like 130PL or the like?

jade_angel wrote:
I don't have access to most of the lists that have been winning, but the question wasn't about whether tournaments were using PL - they aren't, as you note - but rather, whether most of the tournament-winning lists tend to be above the average in PL. A rule of thumb is that a 2000 point list is about 100PL, and a 100PL list is about 2000 points - are these winners 2000 point lists that come out to more like 130PL or the like?

I would guess that horde-based armies tend to come out at a lower PL ratio (boys before toys), and low-model-count armies tend to have a higher power ratio. That said, I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples, and that it varies greatly by faction and unit.

I wondered because I see units in tournament lists that have no upgrades in order to fill up points or simply march block.

If a tournament were to put a limit on power level as well as points, how much would that change people's list construction? Is big Rob for ultramarines as cost efficient in power level as he is in points? Are scions really so much better for their cost when they are the same power level as a 10 man guardsman unit?

Just wanting to know how much of a difference there would be if you only had 100 power level to work with when spending 2000 points.

Such a rule would be punishing for some armies and less so for others. It may invalidate some strong lists, but I don't see how it would make anything better.

Oh, one thing would be severely punished: bringing only one or two models over the minimum unit size. That costs as much extra power as bringing double the models in most cases.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I wondered because I see units in tournament lists that have no upgrades in order to fill up points or simply march block.

If a tournament were to put a limit on power level as well as points, how much would that change people's list construction? Is big Rob for ultramarines as cost efficient in power level as he is in points? Are scions really so much better for their cost when they are the same power level as a 10 man guardsman unit?

Just wanting to know how much of a difference there would be if you only had 100 power level to work with when spending 2000 points.

In practice, using both besides being stupidly confusing and obnoxious, is that either one or the other becomes irrelevant.

If you have a super elite army with lots of upgrades like harlequins or greyknights, or deathwatch, points become your constraint because you'll run out of thos first.

If you're playing horde/vehicle lists with minimal upgrades then powerlevel is your constraint as you run out of those first.

Using both resource systems at once doesn't actually use both, it uses whichever one your army depletes first, while again being SUPER obnoxious.

But your hordes will be reigned in and your elite will have to put out more bodies.

Wouldn't that make them more even, in theory?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But your hordes will be reigned in and your elite will have to put out more bodies.

Wouldn't that make them more even, in theory?

What makes you think that?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But your hordes will be reigned in and your elite will have to put out more bodies.

Wouldn't that make them more even, in theory?

Define "reigned in"

Making me play PL for example means every infantry squad is rocking Powerweapon/plasma pistol, plasma gun, lascannon and a voxcaster for 3 PL. I feel like I'm coming out ahead on the Power level game there when a full kit tac squad comes in at something ludicrous like 8-9 for what is going to be far less firepower if we're looking at them in a vacuum without support.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But your hordes will be reigned in and your elite will have to put out more bodies.

Wouldn't that make them more even, in theory?

Define "reigned in"

Making me play PL for example means every infantry squad is rocking Powerweapon/plasma pistol, plasma gun, lascannon and a voxcaster for 3 PL. I feel like I'm coming out ahead on the Power level game there when a full kit tac squad comes in at something ludicrous like 8-9 for what is going to be far less firepower if we're looking at them in a vacuum without support.

They're talking about using BOTH PL and Points, so you are paying for each upgrade.

The issue is, as was pointed out, you're basically using one system, whichever is more expensive for you.

Fixing things that are either too good or not good enough is what should be done, not making list building arbitrarily more complex.

The result of this would just be different, not more balanced. This is the rules change equivalent of a sledgehammer. You can't fix details and make small adjustments with a sledgehammer. You need a precision tool. You need to look at each datasheet and rule individually.