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.

Because people who use PL are never WAACs.

Newsflash- that type of person plays whatever is available. He doesn't care about the format only that he wins.

If only as humans we could somehow select what sort of people we play with / against and associate ourselves with like minded people.

Would seem to solve a lot of issues.

Oh wait.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Because people who use PL are never WAACs.

Newsflash- that type of person plays whatever is available. He doesn't care about the format only that he wins.

Not completely the case, its just a matter of, im going to take units that synergize well with one another, be it power level or points.

I'm sure thats true. Fortunately in my experience the guys playing power level are not super serious competitive players trying to win trophies and endorsements with little plastic dudes.

So while WAAC players can play anything, at least my area seems spared of them playing Power Level.

 auticus wrote:
I'm sure thats true. Fortunately in my experience the guys playing power level are not super serious competitive players trying to win trophies and endorsements with little plastic dudes.

So while WAAC players can play anything, at least my area seems spared of them playing Power Level.

And thats mostly because the mind set of competitive players will try to find good wombo combos, and use them. There is a big difference between WAAC vs a competitive player, the former will break any game point or PL just because they will do cheeky stuff. A competitive player will break PL with out really thinking because power levels inherently are not balanced and just picking energizing units is second nature. I mean when ever i pick a unit i wanna use the first thing i do is say, "Ok these guys are good, what other unit will make them better. " Not a WAAC,Kinda common sense.

We have a few competitive players in our campaign. They do all of the grand tournaments, have ITC rankings, etc. They however know how to dial down for casual campaigns and power level without trying to bust the game.

In fact, their power level armies are perfectly fine with the casuals power level armies. Just like in a casual game with points they know how to dial down.

Any competitive player also knows that the point system is also not balanced. Any competitive player knows the name of the game of competitive/waac 40k is to abuse the broken system as much as possible and deckbuild a victory before the game even starts if possible.

Being competitive doesn't mean always min/maxing your list and trying to take advantage of things. I'm also a competitive player. But I know if a synergized combo is busted or not. In a tournament or waac environment I'll take those all day long but in a campaign or casual environment I will opt not to.

Right place right time for everything.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I'm sure thats true. Fortunately in my experience the guys playing power level are not super serious competitive players trying to win trophies and endorsements with little plastic dudes.

So while WAAC players can play anything, at least my area seems spared of them playing Power Level.

And thats mostly because the mind set of competitive players will try to find good wombo combos, and use them. There is a big difference between WAAC vs a competitive player, the former will break any game point or PL just because they will do cheeky stuff. A competitive player will break PL with out really thinking because power levels inherently are not balanced and just picking energizing units is second nature. I mean when ever i pick a unit i wanna use the first thing i do is say, "Ok these guys are good, what other unit will make them better. " Not a WAAC,Kinda common sense.

Funny thing but people actually can tone down.

And besides point level is also inheritently not balanced. It's just myth that points are somehow balanced.

I don't disagree that power level is not balanced. Its not. But thats because it sits on an unbalanced foundation that is points.

If points are unbalanced, then anything derived from those points cannot be balanced.

Points or Power Level is unbalanced and in some cases flat out busted. You get the same type of game out of either.

Slipspace wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
The point of power level is this -

Both turn up with a case of models at local LGS. Oh you looking for a game? Yeah let's do 50 PL. Then you use what's WYSIWYG in your case for a quick matchmaking experience.

It's overly obvious PL is meant for pick up games, or games where you don't want to spend the time to write a list and work out all your wargear.

It's open to abuse if you use it for the wrong purpose but it just takes a tad bit of common sense to not do that.

Minor tangent: do people actually do this? It seems kind of weird to me that you just show up at a store/club with a case full of models and no army list for using them. Even playing a pick-up game everyone I know has an army list prepared beforehand. Maybe it may need a minor adjustment up or down depending on your opponent, but this idea of showing up with an army but no list is just completely alien to me.

Happens quite a lot with my group. I normally spend that time setting up a nice table and/or socializing. It's part of the reason I prefer power level. I can't be certain my opponent calculated their list correctly using points.

All this arguing about "power level keeps those filthy WAACs away"? This is exactly the kind of useless posturing and preening I was talking about.

"Oh I'm so casual, look at how casual I am. We should only play power level, that proves I'm casual. Only a filthy WAAC would play points, you're not a WAAC are you?"

Give me a break.

PL has clear utilities: it's a workaround for if you don't have a list handy, and it can be a gateway to introduce new players. The poster who said he uses power level to teach his wife and kids to play? That's a good use of it.

But points are the way the game is designed to be played and facilitate a better overall game experience. Writing a list ahead of time is not hard, that's what spreadsheets and printers are for.

I just feel that saying "neither are points balanced" doesn't really help promote PL. To me they are just gonna have same exact problems that points have, just magnified.

On the other hand, I have point costs for most units memorized. Cause I either take usually same upgrades for them, or they don't have any upgrades at all. So if I need to make a list I just need an idea and tops 3 mins. It's not like each time I play a 1500 I have to theorycraft my list from ground up. Especially in pick up games.

No, I disagree. There are people who want to play a game, who choose a force based on what's "best for its points", and the objective is to win as quickly and decisively as possible. There are people who want to fight a battle in the Warhammer 40,000 setting, who choose a force based on the background - the models they like, the story behind the army, the appropriate mix of units based on the background, and the objective is for both players to have fun playing out "what would happen". The former should use the Matched Play subset of the rules, points values and the half-dozen or so missions in that section of the rulebook. The latter have more scope for variety - the Open War cards for determining a mission, a little bit more variety in unit choice, and additional rules such as the Land Raider variants from CA2017. They're also open to simply making stuff up and going away from the published rules entirely.

There's obviously a spectrum between those two poles, but I think there's usually a bit of a gap between the two camps. I also disagree that Matched Play is "the way the game is designed to be played" - if that were the case, the Matched Play rules wouldn't be restricted. At best, Matched and Narrative Play are equally important.

I don't know about you but I never said only waac players play with points. I said in my area that the powergamers whose predominant game mode is waac won't touch Power Level and everyone else is ok with them.

I also commented that a couple of our powergamers also know how to tone it down and are fine wiith power level as well.

Thats just the observation.

Unless one is a rules dev, no one can postulate on how the game was designed to be played. One can equally say that points being pasted on to the back of the book in the corner means Power Level is how the game was designed to be played.

Neither would have any merit or backing.

I just feel that saying "neither are points balanced" doesn't really help promote PL. To me they are just gonna have same exact problems that points have, just magnified.

Saying that neither are points balanced isn't as much promoting PL as it is contesting the myth that points are balanced but PL is not.

Its a matter of taste. Competitive tournament style powergamers will more than likely prefer points because its more granular. Thats perfectly fine.

Players not worried about hyper optimization and deckbuilding tend to be ok with power level. Thats also perfectly fine.

Or you can ask your opponent before playing a game with him if he prefers "quattro formaggi" style of game or more of a friendly game. Usually that works. And if not, I myself change my lists to tone down if previously it was too one sided in my favour.

I don’t understand some of you guys. PL is simply a less granular point system. Full stop. Neither system creates a very good framework for balance, although I’d argue points at least gets closer.

Either way you have to agree to and understand what kind of game you’re playing if both people are to have fun.

I personally don’t like PL because it’s even easier than points to create bad matchups unintentionally, but whateva -if it works for your group then game on.

I mean yeah it always comes back to a social contract.

you can play pl or points or whatever just agree to play the way you want to play it.

if something is broke then agree to not play against it.

let the tourny players whom like to break things (its not really a bad thing) break the game till gw fixes it because they are not going to be watching random people on the internet play to make balancing decisions.

8th and its chapter approved has paved the ground work to balance it self over time. it just requires a ton of games and data. and its most likely going to involve the big tournies.

pl works for people on the fly or new people. it also probably works really well for apoc games.

dosiere wrote:
I don’t understand some of you guys. PL is simply a less granular point system. Full stop. Neither system creates a very good framework for balance, although I’d argue points at least gets closer.

Either way you have to agree to and understand what kind of game you’re playing if both people are to have fun.

I personally don’t like PL because it’s even easier than points to create bad matchups unintentionally, but whateva -if it works for your group then game on.

PL works well for educational games and for new players.

I remember when I started playing. I didn't immediately know that I had to pay points for the special weapons that came with a tactical squad. I assumed that when it said "may take one item from the special weapons list" that the weapon was free.

Most of you have been playing for a very long time, and have clearly forgotten what it's like to be brand new to this hobby, or to wargaming in general. It's daunting. The fun is not in the reading of the point sheets, the fun is in the playing. You learn fastest by actually playing and talking with your teacher/opponent. PL helps you get passed the "how do i get started?" stage much faster.

Every single person I know who started new in 8th, and is totally unaware of this argument, prefers PL to points. They also refuse to play against tournament-only players, because, and i quote, "those guys aren't fun to play with."

Take from this whatever you want.

There's a difference between competitive (people that want as balanced as possible because the competition/ stacking of the odds is where the fun lies), WAAC (who want every win possible no matter what) ,and simmply TG douchbaggery to use clear gutter tactics to get a win a game vs an opponent that was clearly not a match.

The first 2 will IMHO dislike PL for its randomness and imbalance, the third is just a douche no matter what system you use.

macexor wrote:
Apparently 10 Sternguards all with combi-plasmas cost 14PL, while 10 Tactical Marines cost 10PL and get 2 of them. That doesn't seem fair.

And yes, I do have all these Sternguards with full WYSIWYG.

[EDIT] What if one guy enjoys playing with lots of infantry with no special weapons. Let's say, 20 man Black Templar troops unit with jus bolters or chainswords. Or orks with nothing but Boyz. Or IG with just flashlights. And the other guy prefers to have his units equipped with lots of specialized weapons. Meltas, flamers, power fists etc. Do they still end up with the same number of units? (let's say SM vs SM) Even though one of them has a much higher quality of his troops. And the other guy's tactic of having a sea of cheaper, less equipped units doesn't really work, cause you know, his enemy has as much units. Just better.

What if one guy enjoys playing Imperial Guard and the other guy enjoys playing Tau, or Grey Knights, or Space Marines without special characters, or a shooty Ork army, or transports, or a melee army without infiltration tricks...

I'm not saying any of those things do better with power level. I'm just saying it's not sufficient to point out some weak things to prove power level is worse. And there are going to be armies with equal power levels and wildly different points, and other armies with equal points and wildly different power levels. That doesn't tell you which system is better either.

I haven't seen any proof that points are more balanced. Maybe they are, I don't know. The main reason there's no proof is that it's hard. I don't expect anyone to try. To the people who like points, it's just obvious, right? It's more granular. It accounts for more things. They updated the points in Chapter Approved, and they'll keep updating them.

However, with practically every argument here for why power level isn't balanced, the same argument can be made for points.

Oh, you found a unit that is way underpowered for its PL? Let me show you the Stompa.

You and your opponent have to agree not to be a jerk with his list building? There are plenty of threads complaining about WAAC armies with points. Has anyone complained yet for PL?

Certain armies are unviable or on a different tier with PL? I went over that for points above.

People can min/max PL? What, you're saying tournament lists don't exist?

Units will have too many upgrades? Are devastator squads without four heavy weapons a thing? You're afraid free power weapons for their sergeants are going to overpower them? Is anyone currently complaining that Deathwatch is overpowered?

So, as has been repeated over and over again, neither points nor PL make for a "perfectly balanced game." That being said, the question is 'how is the PL balance?' versus 'are PL balanced?'

I've not conducted any large surveys/observations of local games, so my observations and answers to this question are all anecdotal, but I'll offer them anyways. I'll also note that I think the question of what is/is not "balanced" ought to be examined within a competitive framework--saying that something is good for competitive play but bad for casual play sounds to me like a failure to not hold the rules/writers accountable. If a game is balanced well competitively, then it will be just as suitable for casual play--in fact, the telltale sign of "good balance" in such a game would be for there to be no need to really distinguish "casual" lists from "competitive" ones. As such, I'm going to ignore casual/narrative-centred arguments/examinations here. I have nothing against casual play, but saying "X is really balanced under the PL system as long as you don't do perfectly-legal Y thing" sounds like a matter of imbalance to me--and that is important to answering the question.


My main takeaway is that the degree of external "balance" (that is, the balance between X faction vs. Y faction on the battlefield) within PL games seems less-consistent than with points. There is a gulf between index armies and codex armies within the point system, and some armies are plagued by really terrible internal balance, but for the most part it seems like most armies can shine under the points system if their points are spent on the best units/upgrades possible--though internal balance can be severely lacking, *most* armies seem to have enough "good" choices to make a degree of external balance possible. If any two armies take the best options possible under the PL system, then it seems like there is a lot more potential for one army to end up well ahead of others--in particular, armies which rely on a lot of units which lack upgrade options (Necrons being one of the most glaring examples) seem to consistently end up behind those that have access to upgrades.

Even when not initially setting out to game the system, some pretty dramatic gulfs can occur under the PL system which seem wider than even some of the most egregious point game imbalances I've seen. While my IG army stays more-or-less similar across points and PL and my (index) Skitarii end up with a few more minor bells and whistles, one of my favourite armies, Deathwatch, can get very out of hand very quickly, even if the goal is just to "use the coolest models I have," rather than actively trying to break the game.

See, I have some ~60 or so of the power armoured guys. However, I rarely field more than 15-20 men in a given game. Less than half of my veterans are actually bolter boys, leaving me with a selection of 30+ different special weapons, heavy weapons, eclectic sergeant-types, and people pimped out with combi plasmas /and/ power weapons because I knew I had a surplus of models and built some guys purely to look cool. The thing is, in a PL game I could very well dump hundreds of points' worth of special gear into a 5-man squad just by randomly pulling out soldiers from my case while building my teams. A lot of these models are plasma guns, combi-plasmas and frag cannons, which all make for beautifully effective 'standard-issue' weapons in a PL game. If I actively try to put all my favourite/coolest-looking models into a game, then my 5-man squads come out even better-armed (completely wysiwyg, too) than when I actually try to game the system with a competitive point-based list, just by merit of the unit having an insane amount of upgrade potential. I don't need to give everyone thunder hammers along with their ranged weapons (and I don't, because I have all of one hammer guy floating around), but in an edition where bolter fire is lacklustre, it seems silly to not at least take combi-X weapons, to give the bolter fire a little extra help. And it seems to fit perfectly with the whole well-equipped, elite force fluff.

I just can't think of a way that a Necron list can min/max PL to compete with really silly Deathwatch lists, whereas with points it seems like every army has at least one netlist that can do work--even if it's uninspired and overdone.

PL seems to have more potential for overwhelming skewed 'fluke' matchups caused by having access to a larger collection, than points do. Using points seems to curtail the worst imbalances one can find in the PL system, whereas the reverse does not seem to be true. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the PL system--I do like how it makes a lot of factions' unit leaders pimped out like the fluff thinks they ought to be--but its version of balance seems to be somehow less so than the points system's version of balance.

 Marmatag wrote:

dosiere wrote:
I don’t understand some of you guys. PL is simply a less granular point system. Full stop. Neither system creates a very good framework for balance, although I’d argue points at least gets closer.

Either way you have to agree to and understand what kind of game you’re playing if both people are to have fun.

I personally don’t like PL because it’s even easier than points to create bad matchups unintentionally, but whateva -if it works for your group then game on.

PL works well for educational games and for new players.

I remember when I started playing. I didn't immediately know that I had to pay points for the special weapons that came with a tactical squad. I assumed that when it said "may take one item from the special weapons list" that the weapon was free.

Most of you have been playing for a very long time, and have clearly forgotten what it's like to be brand new to this hobby, or to wargaming in general. It's daunting. The fun is not in the reading of the point sheets, the fun is in the playing. You learn fastest by actually playing and talking with your teacher/opponent. PL helps you get passed the "how do i get started?" stage much faster.

Every single person I know who started new in 8th, and is totally unaware of this argument, prefers PL to points. They also refuse to play against tournament-only players, because, and i quote, "those guys aren't fun to play with."

Take from this whatever you want.

You'd have to be super dense and not read more than 10 pages of the codex if you didn't know you paid for certain weapons.

That's the most lousy excuse I've seen for anything in this game in YEARS. YEARS.

 ross-128 wrote:
But points are the way the game is designed to be played and facilitate a better overall game experience. Writing a list ahead of time is not hard, that's what spreadsheets and printers are for.

Nah neither is better than the other.

And if list isn't so hard to write how come there's list errors in tournaments all the time! I mean that's list you do for one specific event well in advance. Compared to regular game where you have often less time to boot it's even more of a hasle. If players who win tournament's can't be sure of not having made mistake how is regular players supposed to? Those are the kind of players who tend to know rules and point costs inside out much better than like 99% of players...

Lol. The "Points are balanced and only true way" believers are funny.,

 Likan Wolfsheim wrote:
So, as has been repeated over and over again, neither points nor PL make for a "perfectly balanced game." That being said, the question is 'how is the PL balance?' versus 'are PL balanced?'

The four games of 8th edition I've played or witnessed using power level and the Open War deck have all resulted in games which were close-fought battles, no single-turn victories and all involved had fun. To me, that means PL is a success and is working as advertised. I can't comment more than that. If things change in the future as we add more units to our armies (I've got a load of airmobile Elysians to paint and one opponent has Mortarion to do), then I'll reconsider.

40 pl games are only an hour tops and lots of fun.

You are always going to have players that prefer list building and you have those that hate it. Its really that simple. Those who like list building will push for point usage. I do find it odd people are trying to state that PL's are just as balanced as points. They are not nor are intended to be. PL's fill a specific purpose, just as points do. One is not better than the other. Priorities of the gamers involved in a game will dictate what system is used. And when two players meet with different priorities its best to flip a coin on it or do a one game of points and one game of PL's so both parties get something. This is no different than when a WAAC player plays a PuG with a Casual player. The WAAC will be expected to tone down his list while the Casual will be expected to up his list (if possible). My point is that it still comes down to communication between players.

For PuGs I find it best to use points, and it seems that is how the studio feels as well. For quick games with like minded players ill us PL's. Both have a place.

Maybe a controversial suggestion; and may have come up already haven't read the entire thread; but I feel like power level should go hand in hand with WYSIWYG

-this would A) stop the comp players from maxing on units they wouldn't invest in in points games, B) reward aesthetic upgrades that often get ignored in points games and C) give newer players who tend to build good looking but impractical loadouts a break for once...maybe even an edge over the experienced players?

 GamerGuy wrote:
Maybe a controversial suggestion; and may have come up already haven't read the entire thread; but I feel like power level should go hand in hand with WYSIWYG

-this would A) stop the comp players from maxing on units they wouldn't invest in in points games, B) reward aesthetic upgrades that often get ignored in points games and C) give newer players who tend to build good looking but impractical loadouts a break for once...maybe even an edge over the experienced players?

Honestly, my take on it is use the systems as they were designed. PL's for non match play quick games. Points for matched play, Its when you try to put a square peg in a circular peg hole that you get problems. Im not saying dont think outside of the box. Im sure some folks could get a close approximation of point value balance with PL's, but this will be the minority case I feel.

Power Level works fine for matched play. Just as points works fine for narrative play.

My 100 Power Level army comes to 1811 points, which means when I use points I can add a unit to my army. That's really the only difference. I've haven't felt the balance is off with one style or the other. The only significance different is the way some points only players view you.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Power Level works fine for matched play. Just as points works fine for narrative play.

My 100 Power Level army comes to 1811 points, which means when I use points I can add a unit to my army. That's really the only difference. I've haven't felt the balance is off with one style or the other. The only significance different is the way some points only players view you.

Being off by 200 points isn't something to scoff about IMO. As a Tzeentch player that difference would have meant bringing 3 extra exalted flamers, a fully kitted DP, or 6 units of 10xbrimmstone horrors.

I think the point a lot of people are trying to make is that PL is calculated based off of points which is the value that GW uses to balance the game, so saying that the actual point value doesn't matter is null.

 GamerGuy wrote:
Maybe a controversial suggestion; and may have come up already haven't read the entire thread; but I feel like power level should go hand in hand with WYSIWYG

-this would A) stop the comp players from maxing on units they wouldn't invest in in points games, B) reward aesthetic upgrades that often get ignored in points games and C) give newer players who tend to build good looking but impractical loadouts a break for once...maybe even an edge over the experienced players?

Well I have yet to play where WYSIWYG(apart from grenades and standard weapons models comes with like laspistol) isn't enforced anyway.