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.

The game is Ultimately Designed around points, So it should work better over power level.

I wonder a bit if they looked at games like warmachine and went, we can have a easy to build system like that for players.
Getting sort of stuck half way between, I cannot help but wonder if they should have instead made power lvl for each unit a specific build.

For me the ability to customize units has always been a strength for 40k, That i think GW didn't handle very well for a long time and now they sort of want the best of both.
There are to many units that vary to much over the availability of upgrades that i think it leaves power levels as the default not as good option.
Useful option but nothing special.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Neat. When an actual big-name tournament does this I'll take notice.

How big a name, county, state, national, international?

A regional tournament. Like LVO or Adepticon or Nova. Something along those lines.

Would also make for an interesting poll.

A) I'm competitive - and points only
B) I'm competitive - and power level only
C) I'm competitive - and I could do either




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Just seems easier to use points and not have to worry about trying to self-balance my list.

It is forever strange to me that such competitive games exist where we try so hard to pretend to not be competing.

"Okay, you guys are Olympic athletes, but no running TOO fast. You wouldn't want to look like you're winning at all costs, would you?!"

If warhammer 40,000 were a competitive sport, then this would be spot-on.

However warhammer 40,000 is a game people play for relaxation and enjoyment. At least... there is a chunk of people that do this.

What would I select? I'm non-competitive and use both!

YOU ARE NEUTRAL YOU MUST DIE!!!

 auticus wrote:

If warhammer 40,000 were a competitive sport, then this would be spot-on.

However warhammer 40,000 is a game people play for relaxation and enjoyment. At least... there is a chunk of people that do this.

Netlisting, spam lists, and the tactics section here suggests otherwise or the presence of a silent majority.

What would I select? I'm non-competitive and use both!

You wouldn't select anything because the poll would be to see what *competitive* players would choose to use.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Netlisting, spam lists, and the tactics section here suggests otherwise or the presence of a silent majority.

Oh I am not contending that there are a lot of people that think 40k is a competitive sport. Thats why I said that there are a chunk of people that do not treat it as such. I didn't mention a majority because there is no way to back up what the majority of everyone does to claim one way or another a majority. A vast swathe of flame wars over little plastic men stem from a competitive e-athlete trying to talk to a casual player that has no interest in competitive esport 40k/whfb/whatever where the two people cannot reconcile their differences in approach and do not wish to do so.

 auticus wrote:

What would I select? I'm non-competitive and use both!

You wouldn't select anything because the poll would be to see what *competitive* players would choose to use.

Presuming the ruleset is written for all types of players and not just competitive, what value would this datum have?

 daedalus wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Just seems easier to use points and not have to worry about trying to self-balance my list.

It is forever strange to me that such competitive games exist where we try so hard to pretend to not be competing.

"Okay, you guys are Olympic athletes, but no running TOO fast. You wouldn't want to look like you're winning at all costs, would you?!"

If warhammer 40,000 were a competitive sport, then this would be spot-on.

However warhammer 40,000 is a game people play for relaxation and enjoyment. At least... there is a chunk of people that do this.

Sim-Life wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Just seems easier to use points and not have to worry about trying to self-balance my list.

It is forever strange to me that such competitive games exist where we try so hard to pretend to not be competing.

"Okay, you guys are Olympic athletes, but no running TOO fast. You wouldn't want to look like you're winning at all costs, would you?!"

If warhammer 40,000 were a competitive sport, then this would be spot-on.

However warhammer 40,000 is a game people play for relaxation and enjoyment. At least... there is a chunk of people that do this.

What would I select? I'm non-competitive and use both!

Apple fox wrote:
The game is Ultimately Designed around points, So it should work better over power level.

What do you base that on?

Power is listed with the unit's actual rules. Points are tacked on appendix. Power comes with the rules for new units in their boxes. Points are found buried in the website.

If anything, 8th edition is clearly designed around Power.

 daedalus wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Just seems easier to use points and not have to worry about trying to self-balance my list.

It is forever strange to me that such competitive games exist where we try so hard to pretend to not be competing.

"Okay, you guys are Olympic athletes, but no running TOO fast. You wouldn't want to look like you're winning at all costs, would you?!"

40K is more like a church baseball league than an Olympic sport, really.

As for me, I refuse to play in tournaments, but use points only.

Points. Not everyone plays in good faith, and as someone who likes to play fluffy/fun armies it's annoying having people tip the scales. I have no issues using PL for a quick pick up against the right opponent, but points just makes things more straight forward and easy, especially when not playing wysiwyg etc

If the person is struggling with math they can use my phone and battle scribe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I understand the drive for competition, I do. I appreciate army composition and good generalship. But trying to hold a game that is literally determined by the roll of a dice to as high of a standard as something with as much of the luck factor removed is sort of ridiculous.

Compete, have fun, etc. but tossing down literal RNG machines to dictate the outcome of just about everything in the game doesn't make for the best test of skill.

 Stormonu wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Just seems easier to use points and not have to worry about trying to self-balance my list.

It is forever strange to me that such competitive games exist where we try so hard to pretend to not be competing.

"Okay, you guys are Olympic athletes, but no running TOO fast. You wouldn't want to look like you're winning at all costs, would you?!"

40K is more like a church baseball league than an Olympic sport, really.

As for me, I refuse to play in tournaments, but use points only.

One where you can win money.

Points, without a shadow of a doubt. Powerlevels just don't function as a balancing factor.

Power Levels, because they are much faster to use when it comes to building an army. As I generally don't play power gamer lists and neither do my opponents, they work well enough for that.

Points. Tried Power Levels and found them very handy for getting to grips with the game. However, we found that some units, due to options, had way over-costed Power compared to the loadouts we were picking. I tallied a few sample forces and Power always gave fewer troops on the table vs associated Points. So we're using Points ongoing almost exclusively.

Add in that the maths is crazy on some FW Index units, and points are way more likely to be a balanced game.

Plus we like picking army lists. It's part of the fun, after all.

Strangely enough, for me, casual games are played with points, but the local league decreed that we would be using 75PL.

So I've been using points casually, and power levels competitively. All things considered, I don't notice enough of a difference to make it matter.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Points. Tried Power Levels and found them very handy for getting to grips with the game. However, we found that some units, due to options, had way over-costed Power compared to the loadouts we were picking. I tallied a few sample forces and Power always gave fewer troops on the table vs associated Points. So we're using Points ongoing almost exclusively.

that is the general idea behind it i think.
you dont need to calculate waregear, just slap on the best stuff to combat the army your facing and move on as you have allready payed the price for all the wargear.

but the price you pay for that freedom is way less models on the table if you have a non elite army. for elite armys it makes not that big difference.

Points.

I could making an ungodly Death company (ex: all power fists) for the same cost as I would a naked one if I went with Power Levels.

Power Level.

Asymmetric games with uneven power levels.

Sometimes 2:1 power levels!

Scenarios are much more fun than "balanced" matched play, by far.

Deck of Open War cards or Narrative Play scenario and 90 seconds to make armies, and we'll play 40-50PL in an hour to a satisfying conclusion.

Can't even imagine playing points/matched play anymore.