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.

i was curious to see which will be more popular.
it seems like it is going to be a major pain tallying an entire armies points up bit by bit to use a points base army.

do you think power levels are a fair gauge to use when playing matched games?

Points

Altho, I won't be against using Power Levels against new and/or bad players.

Howabout more alternatives like both and/or neither?

I think power levels are great when tossing a quick list together table side for a pick up game. So if you need to quickly toss an army together out of the stuff in your bag to accommodate a new player, it will be a great option.

But I think most serious games in my area are going to be pointed. It’s a little irritating at the moment, due to the way the everything is laid out, but once some army builder tools get released, or we just get more familiar with it, I think it will work just fine.

I think the concept of using power levels to accommodate a new player is silly. If a player is incapable of basic addition then they probably shouldn't be playing 40k.

Lack of experience doesn't suddenly make someone incapable of understanding the concept of costs associated to upgrades.

And if someone is so new (or the way people seem to think of it here, dumb) that they cant write a list for themselves. then write one for them, as a pointed list should result in a fairer (read more fun) game overall.

I have a feeling that if I want to play any 40k this year, I may have to build and paint both armies myself. I might as well use power levels and throw together some quick 50 power lists.

secretForge wrote:
I think the concept of using power levels to accommodate a new player is silly. If a player is incapable of basic addition then they probably shouldn't be playing 40k.

Lack of experience doesn't suddenly make someone incapable of understanding the concept of costs associated to upgrades.

And if someone is so new (or the way people seem to think of it here, dumb) that they cant write a list for themselves. then write one for them, as a pointed list should result in a fairer (read more fun) game overall.

No one thinks a new player is dumb, but people do understand that a new player might not want to pull out a spreadsheet before they actually get to play.

Points whenever possible.

I am only using Power Levels at the moment since I am testing the system out with my nephew and it's faster to create different armies with them.

I still use detachments, however.

Points pretty much all the time.
I only see myself playing with power level if I play with a new player, or a kid who only owns like 5 units and want to do something with them.
Power level isn't a bad system, and mostly works for units that don't have too many options (like only a couple special weapons per 10-men). It's however pretty inaccurate for units in which every model can swap their weapons for vastly better options (that obviously cost additional points, but not power level).
And to me, as for most of the people I play with, list-building is fun. And it's one of the few hobby-related things I can do pretty much any time/anywhere.

Points. My only fear is that my store adopts power levels as standard, and people start refusing to use points.

If I end up playing 8th, power levels most likely - and only the cool/weird/different scenarios (I hope there are as many as they made it out to be).

Points I think, but will decide after trying both.

Power only seems appropriate when players aren't spending a lot of time thinking about their lists from an effectiveness standpoint. It's totally unsuited to a style of more-or-less competitive play where players show up for pick-up games with specific models that they intend to use as part of a list worked out in advance. It's a lot easier than points when just throwing something together in a few minutes with random models, perhaps to show someone the game. And it's pretty much the same as points for experienced players putting together armies which are not intended to be competitive (this will be especially true once army builder apps are updated).

Both. Points for tourney practice, PL for fun games where we just want to take the most expensive and not necessarily most efficient loadout on everybody and throw down.

I can see PL being the go-to for apocalypse for example.

I've just made my first list, 2000 points. Dead on. I'm keeping it's power Level with the list as well. 122. I want to see how similar the two are to each other as I continue making lists. Points was a pain. I'm not enjoying list building at all so far. mostly because the points costs for weapons feels odd right now. Power Levels might "Feel" more correct. It's all new again. I'm trying to make points and fill slots to get command points. It feels like I'm trying to game the system.
I think I'd prefer power levels over points. I think it would let me have the units I want with out stressing over ever little thing in the list.

I have no clue, what those Powerlevels are. Does the Level belong to a base unit or is it kitted out? I can not believe that it does not matter, if a Sergeant has got a Fist a sword or a Bolter. But Jumppacks are important for the System? Idk...

As I play 20 years now, I will still use my good old point-system.

points.

Power levels are WAY!!!! off for some units. For example, 10 rubrics vs 5 deathwing terminators. Rubrics are 1 power point more, but can slaughter deathwing terminators.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
points.

Power levels are WAY!!!! off for some units. For example, 10 rubrics vs 5 deathwing terminators. Rubrics are 1 power point more, but can slaughter deathwing terminators.

how do they compare in points?

I said points, but I like the idea of using both!

I will be trying out the power levels first as it will be easier to use to learn the game (not having to be nit-picky with points), though I suspect most will use points since it is the normal for 40K

Points is my default, only way I know...

That being said, for doing a real quick pick up game, or a learning mechanic game, Power Levels seem to have a place.

I've run a couple of different lists and it seems like 100-120 Power Levels equates out to 2000 points (building the army from points and then converting to Power Levels)

For quick pickup games, power levels. Just so much easier even if it tosses out some balance.

When I have time to prepare and my opponent already knows the game, definitely points. Also gonna be using points to talk about relative power here on the boards as well.

Power levels. I only ever play Narrative games with a small group of friends, so points seem like an unnecessary extra hassle.

Power levels for campaign narrative games.

Points for gittin guid groin stomping waac play.

Neither is balanced. There will be holes you can drive a truck in through both but narrative campaign play, my opponents won't do that. WAAC play however... it'll be all about abusing the bad point system

Points in the general case, but for Apoc, Power Levels might be the go-to.

I will be putting both on most lists I generate, though, out of interest to see where the greatest disparities lie. One thing I've noticed so far is that, in general, high durability and high mobility are priced very highly while pure killing power doesn't have the same premium. Highly reliable sources of damage, though, do seem to be pretty expensive. (Consider multimeltas versus lascannons, for one example)

Points. Despite GW making them much more annoying to add up, they at least have some semblance of good balance.

Points. For any and all style of gaming, I'll be using points and asking for my opponents to do the same, which I imagine they'll want to anyways.

With power levels, you still have to note how many models you're taking in a unit (and adjust the power level) and note what wargear you're taking. At that point, the only difference is spending the 1 minute to add up the points from the table.

I don't see a single advantage in power levels. They strike me as lazy game design and do nothing to add to the game. Adding up points isn't hard or complicated or even time consuming.

Both, more than likely. Depends on my opponent, or what mood I am in. However, I voted for Power Level to give it some representation since "both" is not an available option.

I am determined to make Power Level work just to prove that it is fine for army construction. Heck, I might just play without points!

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Heck, I might just play without points!

It's because of people like you that they gave us the AoS release the way it was. SHUT THIS MAN UP BEFORE GW HEARS!

Power level is really bad
Just compare Imperial Knight Crusader and Renegade knight.
Renegade knight is 23 and Knight Crusader is 27 when the Renegade knight can do LITERALLY anything Knight Crusader can except with MORE flexibility.
He's 23 because he gets melee weapons by default. But since upgrades are free he just upgrades to Crusader weapons or better