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:

 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".

Thank you for explaining, I now understand why your not making any sense. You don't understand the basis of using Power Lvls over Points and are making arguments on false ideas

Congrats, a few posters have run this thread into the ground within three pages.

Debate Pro-Tip: You can't just tell someone that their point of view is Wrong. You actually have to convince them. When was the last time that you saw an angry protester with a big sign, advocating a viewpoint you disagreed with, and that person changed your mind? Never? I'm going to go with Never.

I thought about locking this thread, but I'm going to leave it open. Be more respectful, don't try to shout down other posters.

And if you can't convince someone to agree with your viewpoint, it doesn't mean that they're wrong, or you're wrong, or you're bad at convincing, or that they're not comprehending your points. Learn when to let go.

-=Edit=- I'm also unhappy I had to read the phrase "virtue signaling". Makes me think that David Attenborough and Margaret Meade raised a child who is desperate to impress them. UGH.

@Peregrine:
I just, I mean, why am I so bothered by this?
And why are you trying to force me to use points, when I like using PLs for this purpose?

You are suggesting that I not be bothered by playing 498pts vs 501pts. I am not. Several of the lists I am making are 1PL off. That's a 20pts difference or more.
The point is that I was unit X to have Y wargear in one game, or Z wargear in another without adjusting game size at all.
I also do not have the Codices for Marines, CSMs or Necrons, yet I have the Indexes and about 500pts of all 3 armies.

I do not build to a certain PL. I take the units I want/have and balance the units with the other list. PL is just way to see if I am "close".
I could do this with the points I have from the Indexes, probably spending a whopping 15 extra minute, no big deal, aside from having to physically change the numbers on my typed list.

But it's likely inaccurate to the Codices anyway, so why would I?
Being 1 PL difference seems closer to a 20pt+ difference. Who cares if that is accurate. There are my games and I am playing within the legal rules.

All I want from this thread is the acknowledgement that PLs are indeed a useful tool FOR SOME PEOPLE IN SOME SITUATIONS.
They are in the rules, I make legal lists with them, so they are useful.

-

 Galef wrote:
And why are you trying to force me to use points, when I like using PLs for this purpose?

I'm not forcing you to do anything. Your game is your game. But if you're going to post on a public discussion forum about how PL is a good system then I'm going to respond and explain why it isn't. If PL had never been created you'd be playing the exact same games with the exact same lists and having the exact same experiences. You probably never would have even thought that there was a need for the PL system to fill. PL has added nothing to your game. At best it has accomplished the same things that the conventional point system does, and is redundant.

I've played both, but PL by far the preferred.

Both are an attempt at providing some concept of 'balance', both fail beyond some subjective view of 'good enough'. In a game with so many parameters that will affect how a game will go there is no way any static point system can balance an individual game. I can play the same person with the same armies on different boards and/or different victory conditions and have very different views on which was balanced or not. I can play the same army on the same board with the same victory conditions and have different views on balance cos the player on the other side was different.

Those who turn up for a random game and grasp that will be being playing a lot faster than those who are believe that costing at some pistol vs sword granular level somehow provides better balance. Extra granularity does not equate to accuracy of balance, simply because it is more granular, and it certainly doesn't equate to rendering less granular not good enough for large numbers of people.

To the above poster, time is an issue - I turn up I want to get playing as gaming sessions are not that long and can easily overrun, I have no interest in wasting time working out a list to the Nth degree chasing spurious accuracy. A quick agreement that it is 50/60//70/100 PL or whatever, and totting up a few quick and easy numbers is simply faster than totting up rifles, pistols, swords and the like, even more so if it becomes someone trying to fiddle the last bits to max out the points. Somehow I always manage to have good, reasonably balanced games - and have certainly never felt that the granularity of 'point' has provided anything better.

If you always arrange stuff up front, and always expect lists/armies to be ready on arrival at a session with no further discussion, or have ready access to your digital apps etc then maybe the points work for you. If time is less an issue and you like fiddling with fiddly things then go for it.

I'm sure some can show theoretical PL forces that are supposedly one sided, just as there is plenty of discussion on the same vein but using points on these forums. Somehow theory and practise don't really collide where I play.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galef wrote:
And why are you trying to force me to use points, when I like using PLs for this purpose?

I'm not forcing you to do anything. But if you're going to post on a public discussion forum about how PL is a good system then I'm going to respond and explain why it isn't.

Ah, I see that there might be a misunderstanding here.
I am not making the claim that PLs are a good system.
I am saying they have been useful for me. There is a difference.
I definitely think using points is a far superior system.

I've also tried to explain why PLs were useful for me. I get that you disagree and would use points for the same situation.
But for whatever reason that I may not even know myself, I like using PLs for my very small, often cut short due to my kids lack of attention span, games at home.

Since I have found them useful, I am trying to argue that saying they are not useful cannot be true.
My failure to convince anyone on "how" they have been useful shouldn't affect the argument that they have, indeed, BEEN useful.

-

puree wrote:
Extra granularity does not equate to accuracy of balance, simply because it is more granular

Of course it does. If weapon A costs 5 points and weapon B costs 20 points then this is more accurate than assuming that both cost zero points. The only way it doesn't equate to accuracy of balance is if you deliberately make point costs that are the opposite of what they should be.

To the above poster, time is an issue - I turn up I want to get playing as gaming sessions are not that long and can easily overrun, I have no interest in wasting time working out a list to the Nth degree chasing spurious accuracy.

Then show up with standard 1000/1500/1750/2000 point lists. I mean, if you aren't doing this already then how do you know which models to bring to the game? Do you really bring your entire collection every time, just in case you need to play a 1640 point game?

A quick agreement that it is 50/60//70/100 PL or whatever, and totting up a few quick and easy numbers is simply faster than totting up rifles, pistols, swords and the like, even more so if it becomes someone trying to fiddle the last bits to max out the points.

Not necessarily. What do you do if you're at 71 PL in a 70 PL game and the only units you have cost a minimum of 5 PL? Do you play at 66 PL, equivalent to being ~80 points down? Or do you spend a bunch of time completely re-writing your list to be 70 PL? With conventional points this is much easier to fix, you can simply drop a single plasma gun or whatever if you're 5 points over and immediately start the game.

or have ready access to your digital apps etc then maybe the points work for you.

There are people who don't, in 2018? Aren't smartphones kind of universal at this point?

I thought PL was intended for kit by kit comparison.
A box of Death Guard only has 7 models and limited weapon options. Is there any evidence this might have been the intention? Do PL balance out better if restricting builds to the contents of a single kit?

Despite anything discussed here, I still think PL serves well for Apoc level games, where you're bringing 300-500 PL armies. At that point, small differences in points are irrelevant for the most part anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

Maybe the winner is not determined primarily by who put more points on the table? Maybe these are scenarios with victory conditions and deployment conditions that make the mismatch in points work?

 Peregrine wrote:

or have ready access to your digital apps etc then maybe the points work for you.

There are people who don't, in 2018? Aren't smartphones kind of universal at this point?

This is a completely separate issue that I have strong feelings about.
I personally prefer an actual book. I've actually never met anyone who can scroll to the same page in a digital as fast as I can just open my book to the right page (as I mark all my books with sticky note tabs).
I also want a decent sized screen to look at (so not my smart phone) and am not willing to buy a tablet just for wargaming.

That is obviously my choice, and that's the point.
PLs are not useful FOR YOU, because you've made the choice that points are better in all cases.
My point is that having the choice between Pts and PLs is a good thing.
It allows players to use the system that fits their needs. And that is very useful.

There are clearly several groups that have posted in this thread that are really enjoying PLs. If that is not a clear statement that they are indeed useful, than nothing I can say will every be able to sway you.

-

 vaklor4 wrote:

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

Hmm, I was actually being serious about point 3 in particular. This game, IMO obviously, cannot be taken seriously as a very competitive experience. Ergo, why put a bunch of effort into making it so. I only use points at this time becuase everyone else does; I’d just as happily use PL if anyone actually was using it. At home I rarely even bother with either system. I’d rather play the odd ball guy wanting to use PL than the horde of tournament practicing “pick up” games.

Are points more accurate? In most cases yes, I’d say so. Does it really matter considering what game we’re talking about? I’d say in most cases no, it doesn’t.

 krodarklorr wrote:
Despite anything discussed here, I still think PL serves well for Apoc level games, where you're bringing 300-500 PL armies. At that point, small differences in points are irrelevant for the most part anyway.

The root of the issue is that it isn't small differences in points. My friend and I both made 2000 point lists. At 2k points, his was 136 power level, mine was 86. We then scaled them both to 100 PL and I had a 400 point advantage. Multiply that times 5. We now both have 500 points of PL. I show up to the Apoc game against him with an additional 2000 points. That's pretty significant. Since the accuracy of balance is so skewed you're better off just putting whatever models on the table and calling it a day without bothering to use a point system at all.

I think one major point of contention with power levels I have is that it creates two streams of players if their lists do not take both into account.
I suppose it IS easy enough that both are tallied in the before mentioned list building programs.
Of course it gives a more min/max mindset person two completely different streams of list and loadout.

I have been trying to keep something of an open mind of both systems but it seems to add another element of separation in a game that should be striving to be inclusive.

I still have it in the back of my mind for use in huge Apocalypse games because tallying to that level of detail for "normal" costing for all my stuff could potentially drive me mad (or more-so than I am now) even with using list build programs BUT in large amounts a point here and there adds up quick.

In the end, whatever method / rules both players agree to play to is "correct" no matter what the argument.
Balanced enough or fair enough is the part up for debate on how badly do we want to divide an already divided player base?
The entire purpose of a set of rules and a game system is to find other players to play with that already conform to.

Now I feel I need to contact the players at my FLGS and confirm what system they prefer... I suspect I will receive good natured ridicule in response.

If you are trying to min/max powergame PL fails. If you are playing a less competitive style game PL is “close enough” to like produce as good a game as points will.

The issue is that the competitive side is looking at PL as not taking upgrades into account so it can be cheesed to your advantage. Which matters if you are trying to do just that. If you and your group are say showing up with 10 man tactical squads with grav guns and multi-melta, with grav pistol, powerfist sarges. PL is probably fine and actually more likely to produce a good game because you are not optimizing so would likely lose horribly in a points game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Despite anything discussed here, I still think PL serves well for Apoc level games, where you're bringing 300-500 PL armies. At that point, small differences in points are irrelevant for the most part anyway.

The root of the issue is that it isn't small differences in points. My friend and I both made 2000 point lists. At 2k points, his was 136 power level, mine was 86. We then scaled them both to 100 PL and I had a 400 point advantage. Multiply that times 5. We now both have 500 points of PL. I show up to the Apoc game against him with an additional 2000 points. That's pretty significant. Since the accuracy of balance is so skewed you're better off just putting whatever models on the table and calling it a day without bothering to use a point system at all.

If you care a lot about balance in apoc you’re doing it wrong. Apoc is and always has been a mess when balance is a question, it isn’t about winning and losing a fair match.

 deviantduck wrote:
That's pretty significant. Since the accuracy of balance is so skewed you're better off just putting whatever models on the table and calling it a day without bothering to use a point system at all.

That is what was originally suggested when Apocalypse was dreamed up, ah, found the controversial revisiting of that by Jervis:
https://twitter.com/corehammer/status/621233761263460352
It is a hobby that can readily be scaled from 1(fluff) to 10(competitive) and many people trying to find a way to meet in the middle.
Agreed 40k has not been designed or even marketed as a highly strategic/tactical game.

I talk to my opponent and try to work it out from there: if he does not have fun or I don't, the game is dead to us.
In a tournament however, it is rules to the max damn the torpedoes.

You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.

THANK YOU.

I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game. That's the reason why they don't bother to update PLs. They don't think that changing anything in PL will mean anything in the long run.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.

THANK YOU.

Hmm, can you give an example of a recent unit that doesn't fit the formula anymore?

I answered the Daemon Summoning issue earlier, but as I do not have the most recent points/PLs available, I could not confirm if the formula still holds.
Almost every unit I've seen that has updated points has also had their PL adjusted. And the formula still holds for those units
Eldar Shining Spears and Necron Heavy Destroyers, for example had a points decrease AND a PL decrease

The median Pts to PL for those units still matchs the 1:20 ratio
The only wargear Daemons have are Icons and Instruments and those were included in the PL from the Index

-

I prefer PL, myself, but I’ve seen claims that it isn’t fair to some armies/units/blah blah blah. I’m fine playing with points, too, and at least points undergo changes over time, theoretically maximizing the likelihood that things will be somewhat balanced.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game. That's the reason why they don't bother to update PLs. They don't think that changing anything in PL will mean anything in the long run.

To that last point, yes and no. In the short-long term, probably not. But what if some units DURASTICALLY change? The defiler already has 11 power, making its apparent median 220, which is actually on the high end if not highest possible after the CA point drop. What if they buff the defiler again? Its going to be corner cases if this does slip by undetected, but its such a quick thing to fix that GW just doesnt care about.

Also, Galef, read the above. Defiler is pretty bad, the highest you can get now is around 210. At 11 power, 220 points is NOT the middle.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.

PL was never intended to be adjusted, it is why PL was printed on the data slates and points were not. So it isn’t laziness just when you design a ball park system not designed to be stretched to its limits (there is a reason why matched play uses points), there is not really a reason to change them. So if you are super concerned with balance and someone pushing the limits of the system, use points they are designed for that. If you and yurbuddu just want to throw models on the table and have a ball park idea that you are on the same page as far as army “size” PL is fine:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game.

I really don't understand how PL helps such people, it seems to me it would be worse for them. In points better weapons tend to cost more, so gluing inferior weapons on your models will at least save you some points so you can have more stuff. With PL every option costs the same, so taking anything except the most powerful weapons is just gimping yourself. Now, you of course don't need to care about your weapons being bad, but you can not care about it with points too.

Breng77 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.

PL was never intended to be adjusted, it is why PL was printed on the data slates and points were not. So it isn’t laziness just when you design a ball park system not designed to be stretched to its limits (there is a reason why matched play uses points), there is not really a reason to change them. So if you are super concerned with balance and someone pushing the limits of the system, use points they are designed for that. If you and yurbuddu just want to throw models on the table and have a ball park idea that you are on the same page as far as army “size” PL is fine:

But as we're seeing from the plethora of points changes that GW's been putting out, I don't think you have to be "super concerned with balance" or "pushing the limits" to use them. I think it was short-sighted of GW to put the PL on the data slates (even if I do simultaneously appreciate it for summoning purposes.) Either way, just because the PL are printed doesn't mean they shouldn't be altered (especially since they already have done some PL altering.)

 vaklor4 wrote:
Also, Galef, read the above. Defiler is pretty bad, the highest you can get now is around 210. At 11 power, 220 points is NOT the middle.

Clearly then the Defiler needs it's PLs lowered. In which case, your OP makes sense. It isn't a perfect system and gets worse with each new release.
Although, to that I would argue that it's not the purpose of PLs to portray accurate comparisons between units, more of a rough estimate so that units are not wildly out of proportion to others.
Arguably, since many units are considers "over costed" garbage or "under costed" over powered spam, Points are about as accurate.

Out of curiosity, what is the lowest points cost for a Defiler, and the highest points cost?

 Crimson wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game.

I really don't understand how PL helps such people, it seems to me it would be worse for them. In points better weapons tend to cost more, so gluing inferior weapons on your models will at least save you some points so you can have more stuff. With PL every option costs the same, so taking anything except the most powerful weapons is just gimping yourself. Now, you of course don't need to care about your weapons being bad, but you can not care about it with points too.

The point is your opponent isn’t min maxing either, and it lets you use your figures that might not fit into a points game because you put expensive gear on them.

Breng77 wrote:

The point is your opponent isn’t min maxing either, and it lets you use your figures that might not fit into a points game because you put expensive gear on them.

So are you not min maxing, or are you putting expensive gear on your modes? Which is it? And if one player is doing one thing and one the another, then it probably will have undesirable effects.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
You guys lost the thread of the OP. This wasn't a question about PL v. Points; just a statement that while FAQs and patches have changed points values for certain units, they've often neglected to change the PL in kind. So either: a) GW thinks that certain units are unbalanced in points but not in PL (this seems unlikely to me) or b) GW's been a little lazy in keeping both systems updated, and so the balance is falling by the wayside in PL. Like OP said, this comes into play in points games in cases like daemon summoning. Do people have an opinion on this? I'm curious about that, personally. If I want to read a PL vs. Points debate I'll just go dig up one of the other 15 threads on this topic.

PL was never intended to be adjusted, it is why PL was printed on the data slates and points were not. So it isn’t laziness just when you design a ball park system not designed to be stretched to its limits (there is a reason why matched play uses points), there is not really a reason to change them. So if you are super concerned with balance and someone pushing the limits of the system, use points they are designed for that. If you and yurbuddu just want to throw models on the table and have a ball park idea that you are on the same page as far as army “size” PL is fine:

But as we're seeing from the plethora of points changes that GW's been putting out, I don't think you have to be "super concerned with balance" or "pushing the limits" to use them. I think it was short-sighted of GW to put the PL on the data slates (even if I do simultaneously appreciate it for summoning purposes.) Either way, just because the PL are printed doesn't mean they shouldn't be altered (especially since they already have done some PL altering.)

You missed the entire point, the intent of GW was points will be more balanced and be changed for balance. PL will be the easy way to play and won’t be changed that way people can just own their codex and still play without multiple sources.

 vaklor4 wrote:
To that last point, yes and no. In the short-long term, probably not. But what if some units DURASTICALLY change? The defiler already has 11 power, making its apparent median 220, which is actually on the high end if not highest possible after the CA point drop. What if they buff the defiler again? Its going to be corner cases if this does slip by undetected, but its such a quick thing to fix that GW just doesnt care about.
Also, Galef, read the above. Defiler is pretty bad, the highest you can get now is around 210. At 11 power, 220 points is NOT the middle.

Yes, as touched on before the sidetrack of fluff vs competitive: I think that completely depends on if GW supplies the occasion PL tweak as well as points changes as FAQs come out.
They are useless now IF changes are drastic enough that it demands a PL change but does not happen.
Yes, arguments of how fine a measurement is not the point, but at some point changes will be demanded if that system is supported.

Has anyone seen any power level changes as they roll out updates?
It would be nice to point to something.
I looked quickly through the updates and do not see PL changes but also points changes have been slight at first glance.