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.

Power Levels are exactly the same as the "Points" in Age of Sigmar. You pay for models in fixed "packs".
As I run a lot (And when I say a lot, I say that I run a wargames club where every saturday we have a open day for children, etc...) of games with small girls and boys, I really like this baby-point system to introduce the older ones to list building without launching them to a proper and complete point system.


I strongly disagree with you Peregrine in regard to Narrative play, but everyone can have his oppinion and tastes.

 ross-128 wrote:
As you can see the points list has quite a few more steps.

It doesn't really, because most of the time you have standard unit choices. You aren't buying an infantry squad at 50 points and then adding weapons, you're paying for a GL/ML squad at 70 points, a melta CCS at 100 points, etc. Once you're at all familiar with your army the number of things to add up is pretty much the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
Wow, this manages to be both hateful AND useless, kudos kido.

You have a very strange definition of "hateful".

In my experience, Matched is for people who approach 40k as a fundamentally adversarial experience. You're there primarily to win the game and demonstrate your superior skill in list building/tactical/dice rolling. Anything that could get in the way of that- discussing changes with your opponent, tactical considerations you can't control, etc.- are inherently bad, because they get in the way of you showing up a stranger.

Narrative is a more community experience, where who wins the game is less important than the fun that's had along the way. So that's where GW has put all the interesting expansions and fun game modes- Cities of Death, the Sabotage or Meat Grinder missions, that kind of thing. Balance is a secondary concern because balance only matters if you're trying to display your comparative skill. When you're expected to work with your opponent to set up a scenario, balance is no longer important- you can ask them to not take unbalanced combos or invent new compensating rules on the fly.

This is why people like Peregrine always insist that "99.9999% of games will be Matched." If all you're looking for is a balanced competitive experience, you're going to automatically dismiss anyone who suggests otherwise. So of course you're going to think that the only people who play the game play Matched- they're the only ones who will talk to you.

Two other things I want to address: yeah, you could already do this in the rules. But having "default" narrative scenarios supported in the core rules lowers the barrier to entry significantly.

Finally, obviously power level is less balanced than points. But again, balance is not a concern in narrative, because the scenario is introducing factors that make the idea of a "balanced fight" already moot.

First I know this is a post about Age of Sigmar from a forum about Age of Sigmar, however it is a discussion that it feel is very relevant to this post. Even more so because its quite clear that nearly every person on DakkaDakka has a simplistic (and condescending) attitude towards Open Play. So read on and perhaps learn something new!

http://www.tga.community/forums/topic/9381-open-play-lets-read-the-generals-handbook/

In fact if you'd like to learn more about Narrative and Open Play I'd really check out some posts on The Grand Alliance forum. It seems a little backwards but the AoS Narrative and Open Play community have been exploring this style of gaming for nearly two years and in my opinion, with greater depth and creativity than has existed in 40k for more than a decade.

Having some story to your games doesn't mean you're playing Narrative.

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Balance is a secondary concern because balance only matters if you're trying to display your comparative skill.

This is utterly wrong. Balance is important in narrative games because people still expect a narrative game to have a 50/50 chance of winning for each player. It isn't much fun to play a narrative game expecting an exciting battle where the outcome is in doubt until the final heroic actions of the last surviving units, but get a one-sided slaughter where the outcome is obvious by the end of the first turn and the game ends within 2-3 turns. A balanced game makes it a lot more likely that you'll have the first kind of game, throwing out balance makes it a lot more likely that you'll get the second type.

Also, even if you believe that balance isn't as important you still aren't gaining anything by removing balance. A point system (power level) that is less accurate as a guide to a unit's value is not magically better than one that is more accurate (conventional points). Using power levels offers nothing in return for its flaws, so why would you ever want to use it?

This is why people like Peregrine always insist that "99.9999% of games will be Matched."

No, I say this based on the dismal failure of both no-points AoS and unbound 7th edition 40k. Hardly anyone plays unbound in 40k, and no-points AoS nearly killed the game before GW added a point system and more concern for balance. The facts here are obvious, most players want points and balance and have no interest in "take whatever you want" games.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Balance is a secondary concern because balance only matters if you're trying to display your comparative skill.

This is utterly wrong. Balance is important in narrative games because people still expect a narrative game to have a 50/50 chance of winning for each player. It isn't much fun to play a narrative game expecting an exciting battle where the outcome is in doubt until the final heroic actions of the last surviving units, but get a one-sided slaughter where the outcome is obvious by the end of the first turn and the game ends within 2-3 turns. A balanced game makes it a lot more likely that you'll have the first kind of game, throwing out balance makes it a lot more likely that you'll get the second type.

You are making a big asssumption here: that people aren't willing to accept 40/60 or even 30/70 games. Player skill can account for that. A multi game narrative campaign can have this happen. If I know beforehand my chances of victory are slim fine, or craft a special scenario where points aren't( equal but neither are objectives. power levels aren't precise because whacky scenario rules/objectives play mmmerry havoc with balance. Also I am happy to throw in the towel on turn 3 if I have only a 10% chance winning. Much more fun to use the time to go another round.

Also, even if you believe that balance isn't as important you still aren't gaining anything by removing balance. A point system (power level) that is less accurate as a guide to a unit's value is not magically better than one that is more accurate (conventional points). Using power levels offers nothing in return for its flaws, so why would you ever want to use it?

This is why people like Peregrine always insist that "99.9999% of games will be Matched."

No, I say this based on the dismal failure of both no-points AoS and unbound 7th edition 40k. Hardly anyone plays unbound in 40k, and no-points AoS nearly killed the game before GW added a point system and more concern for balance. The facts here are obvious, most players want points and balance and have no interest in "take whatever you want" games.
You are saying 1 in million games will not be matched? I'd challenge you there. Most of the more interesting scenarios are narrative (planetstrike,cities of death,..) so people wil gravitate there. Using matched poins for a game that otherwise follows the narrative ruleset counts toward neither so breaks your 0.000001% assumption. You assume no one plays unbound because of the lack of balance? True: a battleforged list ,especially most decrurions, will trounce an unbound list like it's not even funny. And unexpectedly so.

Earth127 wrote:
You are making a big asssumption here: that people aren't willing to accept 40/60 or even 30/70 games.

I'm assuming no such thing. There is no specific win percentage that is unacceptable, it's just preferable that it be closer to 50/50. While people may accept or grudgingly tolerate a 70/30 game I don't think many people will say "I like it when I only have a 30% chance of winning because the rules are poorly balanced". Improving balance improves the game, whether it's narrative or competitive.

power levels aren't precise because whacky scenario rules/objectives play mmmerry havoc with balance.

And, again, nothing is gained by removing this precision. Making the point costs of units less accurate does not improve the game at all, everything that can be done with power levels can be done better by the conventional points system.

You are saying 1 in million games will not be matched? I'd challenge you there. Most of the more interesting scenarios are narrative (planetstrike,cities of death,..) so people wil gravitate there. Using matched poins for a game that otherwise follows the narrative ruleset counts toward neither so breaks your 0.000001% assumption. You assume no one plays unbound because of the lack of balance? True: a battleforged list ,especially most decrurions, will trounce an unbound list like it's not even funny. And unexpectedly so.

Sigh. Is nitpicking the exact number of 9s I wrote with "it's not literally 1 in a million" really the best argument you have? Whether it's 99.999999% or 99.99% or 95% or whatever it happens to be, the unavoidable truth is that no-points AoS and unbound 40k were both overwhelmingly rejected by the players as soon as they were released, and never found any acceptance.

Just a reminder to keep it polite in this thread - the last page was definitely out of hand! You can disagree, just do it without insults. Thanks all

Open play is this thing that doesn't really exist and no one has ever or will ever play. No one really knows why it's talked about and the only people who think it's a thing are GW themselves.

 Peregrine wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
You are making a big asssumption here: that people aren't willing to accept 40/60 or even 30/70 games.

I'm assuming no such thing. There is no specific win percentage that is unacceptable, it's just preferable that it be closer to 50/50. While people may accept or grudgingly tolerate a 70/30 game I don't think many people will say "I like it when I only have a 30% chance of winning because the rules are poorly balanced". Improving balance improves the game, whether it's narrative or competitive.

I beg to differ on Grudgingly Tolerate.

Yes I love being the 300 Spartans vs the 250,000 Persians a lot and we have a few in our local area who do the same thing. This goes with most of Table Top Game Players around here that I play with. After years of playing against Ultra-Competitive and WAAC (and I was one of those WAAC Players) we all sat around one day talking and found we were not having fun playing that way. Currently there is only about 4 of us still living in the area who play, but we went from 'Lets See Who Can Build The Best List' (and by that meaning spending more time making the list that actually playing the game) to 'Lets Just Have Fun And Play What We Want And Not Worry About It'.

What do we do with those who are Ultra-Competitive and WAAC...nothing. They will either quit playing with us because we take the game to Seriously or start to play the way we do, for fun and take the Ultra-Competitive and WAAC attitudes to Competition.

That is not to say we are not competitive is wrong, but the stakes are lower, it is about bragging rights and who takes care of the Pizza Tip. We have not had a rage quit in...a decade so I think we are doing something right.

I've been a narrative player most of my life with the exception of a decade of competitive WAAC play for a decade.

Most of the narrative guys I play with are ok wtih scenarios not being wholly balanced.

The only ones that pitch a fit are the competitive guys.

I find the truly competitive guys are as numerous as the narrative guys. That is - all the minority. The majority I've experienced don't give much of a damn and just want to have a game. The extreme ends of the spectrums are the very vocal ones however.

 Peregrine wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
You are making a big asssumption here: that people aren't willing to accept 40/60 or even 30/70 games.

I'm assuming no such thing. There is no specific win percentage that is unacceptable, it's just preferable that it be closer to 50/50. While people may accept or grudgingly tolerate a 70/30 game I don't think many people will say "I like it when I only have a 30% chance of winning because the rules are poorly balanced". Improving balance improves the game, whether it's narrative or competitive.
"people my accept or grudgingly tolerate" I think you ment to say I in that statement. While I do agree that balane helps it doesn't have to be an exact thing especially when it can be if I want it to be.

power levels aren't precise because whacky scenario rules/objectives play mmmerry havoc with balance.

And, again, nothing is gained by removing this precision. Making the point costs of units less accurate does not improve the game at all, everything that can be done with power levels can be done better by the conventional points system.
It works good for people who don't want to micromanage every point in an army list

You are saying 1 in million games will not be matched? I'd challenge you there. Most of the more interesting scenarios are narrative (planetstrike,cities of death,..) so people wil gravitate there. Using matched poins for a game that otherwise follows the narrative ruleset counts toward neither so breaks your 0.000001% assumption. You assume no one plays unbound because of the lack of balance? True: a battleforged list ,especially most decrurions, will trounce an unbound list like it's not even funny. And unexpectedly so.

Sigh. Is nitpicking the exact number of 9s I wrote with "it's not literally 1 in a million" really the best argument you have? Whether it's 99.999999% or 99.99% or 95% or whatever it happens to be, the unavoidable truth is that no-points AoS and unbound 40k were both overwhelmingly rejected by the players as soon as they were released, and never found any acceptance.

The problem is less that you are pointing out the flaws of open/narrative/power levels and more that you are complaining that they even exist as if their mere existance will force you to us them.

Well, as for myself, part of me is standing with those who prefer Narrative/Open-Play side of the game. This was the method where I started wargaming, and I usually participate on these level game. To support this kind of gaming, there are story-written campaigns, model conversions, mixing real-life battles or warzones into miniatures gaming. Best of what happened this way to me was that I got my Steel Legion army built and painted, mixing with real life colour scheme and some conversion work done with wicked mixture of real weapons etc.

On the other hand, I support tournament gaming, to the certain point of limits. I'm not the fan of those deathstar units, but I do find tournament armies with a good theme very pleasing. For example, when wh40k was at 4th or 5th edition, I tried to play with full company of marines, drop podding with out proper figure for it. And of course it didn't work

Editions come and go, kind of a sad thing, but understood that balance has to maintained.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Yes I love being the 300 Spartans vs the 250,000 Persians a lot and we have a few in our local area who do the same thing.

Sure, you like being the 300 Spartans, when it is a balanced game. IOW, when the 300 Spartans have enough of an advantage from their defensive position that it's a 50/50 game whether or not they can hold out long enough to accomplish their strategic goal of delaying the Persian force. Nobody has any fun when the 300 Spartans fight the 250,000 Persians on an open field and die in one turn to a barrage of arrows. And balance is what gets you those 50/50 games.

 auticus wrote:
I've been a narrative player most of my life with the exception of a decade of competitive WAAC play for a decade.

Most of the narrative guys I play with are ok wtih scenarios not being wholly balanced.

The only ones that pitch a fit are the competitive guys.

I find the truly competitive guys are as numerous as the narrative guys. That is - all the minority. The majority I've experienced don't give much of a damn and just want to have a game. The extreme ends of the spectrums are the very vocal ones however.

Sounds about right to me. My group falls in the middle, although we're moving towards narrative based. Playing the game is far more important than winning. And I personally don't have fun if my opponent doesn't have fun. Removing the pressure to win, and a perfectly balanced game, helps people relax.

It's not for everyone. I openly admit that. But it IS for me, and i'm excited, no matter how squarely that fits me into the kiddy pool.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Yes I love being the 300 Spartans vs the 250,000 Persians a lot and we have a few in our local area who do the same thing.

Sure, you like being the 300 Spartans, when it is a balanced game. IOW, when the 300 Spartans have enough of an advantage from their defensive position that it's a 50/50 game whether or not they can hold out long enough to accomplish their strategic goal of delaying the Persian force. Nobody has any fun when the 300 Spartans fight the 250,000 Persians on an open field and die in one turn to a barrage of arrows. And balance is what gets you those 50/50 games.

So include a defensive position in the scenario? It's not that hard dude.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Balance is a secondary concern because balance only matters if you're trying to display your comparative skill.

This is utterly wrong. Balance is important in narrative games because people still expect a narrative game to have a 50/50 chance of winning for each player.

You would know this is not the case if you actually played narrative games, not "matched, but with some fluff." Unequal scenarios- or scenarios where the forces are uneven but the objectives are assymetrical, or where scenario rules make up the difference- are the entire point of narrative play, and they simply cannot be easily squared with a point-based, competitive balance mindset.

This is why people like Peregrine always insist that "99.9999% of games will be Matched."

No, I say this based on the dismal failure of both no-points AoS and unbound 7th edition 40k. Hardly anyone plays unbound in 40k, and no-points AoS nearly killed the game before GW added a point system and more concern for balance. The facts here are obvious, most players want points and balance and have no interest in "take whatever you want" games.

Thus, the power level system. Avoids "take whatever you want," allows an easy way to eyeball the relative strength of armies without the hassle and restrictions of matched play.

ERJAK wrote:
So include a defensive position in the scenario? It's not that hard dude.

You're missing the point completely there. Obviously you include a defensive position, but the point is that even when you say "300 Spartans vs. 250,000 Persians" you aren't talking about playing a one-sided massacre where the Persians have a 800:1 advantage in power like playing a 300 points vs. 250,000 points game of 40k. You're talking about a game where the scenario has been designed so that both sides have an equal chance of winning. Whether that's through limiting the number of Persians that can attack at once, giving the Spartans powerful fortification bonuses, etc, the end result is the same. You create a balanced 50/50 game, and the scenario isn't going to be much fun if you fail to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
they simply cannot be easily squared with a point-based, competitive balance mindset.

Then 8th edition's "narrative" mode is going to be a complete failure, because it's a point-based competitive balance system. The only difference between matched play and narrative is that the points are less accurate in matched play. Anything that can be done with power levels can be done better by conventional points.

Playing a forlorn hope can be fun even if it isn't 50/50. Just seeing how long you can last with tactical tricks versus a superior force is entertaining and a challenge.

But regardless, why shouldn't GW suggest a few different ways to play? Might spark something in someone to bump up the enjoyment, even if only 1 of the ways is ever likely to get much playtime.

 Flinty wrote:
Playing a forlorn hope can be fun even if it isn't 50/50. Just seeing how long you can last with tactical tricks versus a superior force is entertaining and a challenge.

Very much so, but how does having a well balanced point system change that?

You could make a scenario where your opponent has ten times the points you have in your Forlorn Hope. But if the points system is so skewed that your outnumbered force is actually stronger on the table top than your opponents how is that better?

If players are making up their own scenarios in narrative play they can make better choices with a balanced point system. Would you like a system that had those 300 Spartans tabling all 250k Trojans by the end of Turn 2?

 Formerly Wu wrote:
they simply cannot be easily squared with a point-based, competitive balance mindset.

Then 8th edition's "narrative" mode is going to be a complete failure, because it's a point-based competitive balance system. The only difference between matched play and narrative is that the points are less accurate in matched play. Anything that can be done with power levels can be done better by conventional points.

Peregrine, all respect because I know you're a smart guy, but it reads like you're not actually considering my argument here. Just because you and the people you play with have a certain expectation of what makes a fun game does not make your position the 99% default.

Narrative, as designed, is not a points-based competitive balanced game mode. Appeoaching it like it is is doomed to failure. If you want to stick to Matches, which [i]is[\i]
that, great! But talking down to the many people who don't is rude and unfactual.

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Narrative, as designed, is not a points-based competitive balanced game mode.

In 40k 8th edition it indisputably is. The power level system is a point system, period. The only difference between power levels and conventional points is that GW has deliberately made power levels a bad point system by ignoring major parts of a unit's value. Any criticism that applies to the conventional point system applies just as much to power levels.

I think people is here discussing about two complete different topics:

The first one is about the Narrative play, caracterized normally for scenarios with more diverse conditions both ambiental and to win or lose, normally for the capacity to make campaings or connect scenarios in a way that the outcome of one affects the other, changing some conditions or units stats, more diverse rules and in general freedom for the players to properly reflect the history of the setting, where variety is more valued than pure balance, etc, etc...

And the second one: Peregrine is arguing about how the Power Level system is just a Point system-little that is objetively worse in everyting besides speed and how easy it is to learn to a proper and complete point system.

I can agree with the second point, but to say that narrative play is inviable because the Power Level, is ignoring completely what is really narrative play, and the fact that it can fuction with a point system, a Power Level system, or with not points at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

In 40k 8th edition it indisputably is. The power level system is a point system, period. The only difference between power levels and conventional points is that GW has deliberately made power levels a bad point system by ignoring major parts of a unit's value. Any criticism that applies to the conventional point system applies just as much to power levels.

Only if they are used for the same purpose. Which they emphatically are not. Competitive balance is not the purpose of power levels.

You can use points in Narrative play if you want. But because Narrative features inherent and un-anticipatable imbalances based on the whims and strange rules interactions of its format, you're going to encounter situations where a points system is unwieldy, too granular, or inhibiting to the kind of story you want to tell. Thus, power levels.

This is my last post on the subject, because otherwise I feel we're going in circles. If I haven't convinced you, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

 Galas wrote:
I can agree with the second point, but to say that narrative play is inviable because the Power Level, is ignoring completely what is really narrative play, and the fact that it can fuction with a point system, a Power Level system, or with not points at all.

You're making the mistake of confusing narrative play in the sense of playing story-based games with Narrative Play, one of the three modes of playing 8th edition rules-wise. And you can't ignore the power level issue because the primary defining attribute of Narrative Play compared to matched play is the use of power levels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Only if they are used for the same purpose. Which they emphatically are not. Competitive balance is not the purpose of power levels.

You're making the mistake of assuming that competitive balance is some special form of balance. It isn't. Balance is balance, period. The same balance that makes competitive play better is also good for narrative/casual games.

You can use points in Narrative play if you want. But because Narrative features inherent and un-anticipatable imbalances based on the whims and strange rules interactions of its format, you're going to encounter situations where a points system is unwieldy, too granular, or inhibiting to the kind of story you want to tell. Thus, power levels.

And the point you keep missing is that power levels are a point system. Don't buy the GW hype that power levels are somehow a new way of building armies, they're just a badly-designed point system that fails to give an accurate evaluation of a unit's power. Any situation where power levels can be used can be done better by conventional points, and any criticism of conventional points applies just as strongly to power levels. Absolutely nothing is gained by going from conventional points to power levels.

Here's the thing-a balanced system is better, EVEN IF YOU DON'T WANT A BALANCED GAME. Because, in a balanced system, you can identify and plan for intentional imbalances. In an unbalanced system, you just have to hope.

 Peregrine wrote:

Then 8th edition's "narrative" mode is going to be a complete failure, because it's a point-based competitive balance system. The only difference between matched play and narrative is that the points are less accurate in matched play. Anything that can be done with power levels can be done better by conventional points.

According to the manager of my FLGWS, the narrative mode isn't designed *for* you.

It's been designed for persons who struggle with the concept of matched play entirely, as a consequence of physical or mental impairments. This is a non-trivial demographic of GW customers, at least in the UK. GW stores are often venues that carers bring their charges. The example he cited was an AS spectrum chap who was entirely incapable of grasping the concept of not following the CAD despite having bought the wrong models by following someone else's advice on what to buy, and refusing to acknowledge the staff's attempt to correct his information.

Now you're free to withhold your participation based on disability (which at times is entirely appropriate), but in the UK at least there are some fairly strict laws which limit GW's ability to do so. That they're taking an actual pro-active step in designing a component of 40k specifically for the impaired in response to customer and manager feedback should probably be commended - if that's actually true.

So i'd suggest bitching about narrative is the same as bitching about closed captions for the hearing impaired. It's not for you so just turn it off

Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.

Hmm, I had been scratching my head over "why are they making a big deal out of formalizing something that people who didn't care for points probably already houseruled?"

It didn't occur to me that they might want to offer an option for people who couldn't handle the math of points and couldn't understand the idea of a houserule, whether due to age or disability. Could be useful for, say, a parent playing a game with their kids. (Just tell the spouse it's an educational game, you're teaching them math!)

I will say though, the "what if I WANT the game to be unbalanced?" argument is kind of silly. If you really want to be at a disadvantage, just let your opponent bring more points than you.