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.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
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

The last message out of GW was that power levels were a sort of consideration between how they came bog standard, but also what their maximum capacity was. If the two are near indistinguishable, it would be odd for them to have such different power levels. I can only take your word for it though, as the group I play with have been ignoring Knights entirely as their release was the point where we all agreed the "get bigger stronger toys"-thing went completely out of control, so I know precious little about how they play. I've faced one once in a tournament.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
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

and how do they compare points wise?

 Purifier wrote:

 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!

Lol, I was one of the guys who didn't play AoS until the General's Handbook came out and provided the points. I'm just taking a much more zen approach to my wargaming and not worrying about competition or finagling a fine-tuned list.

Imperial Knight Crusader
Power Points 27
Points:
-320-Knight
-95-Avenger Gatling Cannon
-17-Heavy Flamer
-4-Heavy Stubber
-76-Thermal Cannon
-0-Titanic Feet
Options:
-Ironstorm Missile Pod-16
-Meltagun-17
-Rapid Fire Battle Cannon-100
-Stormspear Rocket Pod-45
-Twin Icarus Autocannon-30
So the Crusader is anywhere from 512 (stock) to 611 (RFBC, Stormspear, two Meltas).

Renegade Knight
Power Points 23
Points:
-Knight-320
-Reaper Chainsword-30
-Thunderstrike Gauntlet-35
-Heavy Stubber-4
-Titanic Feet-0
Options:
-Avenger Gatling Cannon-95
-Heavy Flamer-17
-Ironstorm Missile Pod-16
-Melta-17
-Rapid Fire Battle Cannon-100
-Stormspear Rocket Pod-45
-Thermal Cannon-76
-Twin Icarus Autocannon-30
So the Renegade is anywhere from 389 (stock) to 616 (two RFBCs, three meltas).

 JNAProductions wrote:
Imperial Knight Crusader
Power Points 27
Points:
-320-Knight
-95-Avenger Gatling Cannon
-17-Heavy Flamer
-4-Heavy Stubber
-76-Thermal Cannon
-0-Titanic Feet
Options:
-Ironstorm Missile Pod-16
-Meltagun-17
-Rapid Fire Battle Cannon-100
-Stormspear Rocket Pod-45
-Twin Icarus Autocannon-30
So the Crusader is anywhere from 512 (stock) to 611 (RFBC, Stormspear, two Meltas).

Renegade Knight
Power Points 23
Points:
-Knight-320
-Reaper Chainsword-30
-Thunderstrike Gauntlet-35
-Heavy Stubber-4
-Titanic Feet-0
Options:
-Avenger Gatling Cannon-95
-Heavy Flamer-17
-Ironstorm Missile Pod-16
-Melta-17
-Rapid Fire Battle Cannon-100
-Stormspear Rocket Pod-45
-Thermal Cannon-76
-Twin Icarus Autocannon-30
So the Renegade is anywhere from 389 (stock) to 616 (two RFBCs, three meltas).

Well, with the rather large difference in points, the power level difference actually makes sense, if it is like they said that the power level is based on "both stock and max loadout". It pretty accurately puts it in between. Of course this means that two identically equipped things can have different power costs, but that's the whole point of Power. It's not supposed to be an accurate point system. It's taking into account that you might field a stock Knight, which is exactly what it should be doing. If you, like me, have a problem with that, you don't use Power. You use points.

Is their an option for both, I'm not sure, don't feel like hitting a button on the poll if I can't do that.

 Purifier wrote:
Well, with the rather large difference in points, the power level difference actually makes sense, if it is like they said that the power level is based on "both stock and max loadout". It pretty accurately puts it in between. Of course this means that two identically equipped things can have different power costs, but that's the whole point of Power. It's not supposed to be an accurate point system. It's taking into account that you might field a stock Knight, which is exactly what it should be doing. If you, like me, have a problem with that, you don't use Power. You use points.

Bolded the important bit.

The POINT is to be less balanced? That... That's just dumb. Why would you want an intentionally less balanced system?

For a competitive minded person it won't make sense. Because you'll just take the under valued items and jack them up to 11 (max them out).

For a competitive minded person, the concept of power level would be elusive because granular points will always be more attractive due to "balance*"

* - i don't believe points are balanced either. We will know more when we get to spreadsheet the entire game out to cojmpare everything at once though.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Well, with the rather large difference in points, the power level difference actually makes sense, if it is like they said that the power level is based on "both stock and max loadout". It pretty accurately puts it in between. Of course this means that two identically equipped things can have different power costs, but that's the whole point of Power. It's not supposed to be an accurate point system. It's taking into account that you might field a stock Knight, which is exactly what it should be doing. If you, like me, have a problem with that, you don't use Power. You use points.

Bolded the important bit.

The POINT is to be less balanced? That... That's just dumb. Why would you want an intentionally less balanced system?

Because the point is to be able to create narrative games. They're often not supposed to be balanced. In many cases they're specifically supposed to be unbalanced. Who wins may not even be in question at the start. Maybe you're just fighting an impossible defense against three times the size of your army. Power is supposed to help you create something that while unbalanced, gives you an idea of what kind of unbalanced it is.

You, like me, clearly want games where we match ourselves against our opponent. The only difference here is that I have the capacity to understand that not everyone wants what I want.

You can play a deliberately lopsided battle using points too, though.

 Blacksails wrote:
You can play a deliberately lopsided battle using points too, though.

Yes, but if you have Power which is considerably easier and faster to make an army with, you wouldn't. It's not by a little that it's faster. You can pick up things from your bag and just keep tallying as you pick them up if you're just adding power. They've got whatever you've modelled on them. Army done.

Also may be factored in with said factions own units compared.

 Purifier wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
You can play a deliberately lopsided battle using points too, though.

Yes, but if you have Power which is considerably easier and faster to make an army with, you wouldn't. It's not by a little that it's faster. You can pick up things from your bag and just keep tallying as you pick them up if you're just adding power. They've got whatever you've modelled on them. Army done.

Well, unless you have all the power level values memorized and all the increments for different units sizes, then you can do that, but otherwise you'll be consulting the book. At that point, you'd be spending an absolute grand total of 5 minutes adding up the wargear present on your models. I'd probably wager you could add up those things in a minute. Which you'd still have to add up the power levels from the book too, again, assuming you don't have everything memorized which is the likely scenario.

I truly and honestly think people are way overestimating the difficulty of adding up points (we've been doing it for 7 editions now and in nearly every single other wargame) and equally overestimating the time saved in adding up to a limit using smaller numbers without wargear costs.

 Purifier wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Well, with the rather large difference in points, the power level difference actually makes sense, if it is like they said that the power level is based on "both stock and max loadout". It pretty accurately puts it in between. Of course this means that two identically equipped things can have different power costs, but that's the whole point of Power. It's not supposed to be an accurate point system. It's taking into account that you might field a stock Knight, which is exactly what it should be doing. If you, like me, have a problem with that, you don't use Power. You use points.

Bolded the important bit.

The POINT is to be less balanced? That... That's just dumb. Why would you want an intentionally less balanced system?

Because the point is to be able to create narrative games. They're often not supposed to be balanced. In many cases they're specifically supposed to be unbalanced. Who wins may not even be in question at the start. Maybe you're just fighting an impossible defense against three times the size of your army. Power is supposed to help you create something that while unbalanced, gives you an idea of what kind of unbalanced it is.

You, like me, clearly want games where we match ourselves against our opponent. The only difference here is that I have the capacity to understand that not everyone wants what I want.

Horse crap. Intentionally unbalanced gameplay does NOT make better narrative experiences.

I do agree with Auticus that points probably aren't going to be fully balanced (this IS Games Workshop, after all) but they're a damn sight better than points.

The thing is, sometimes, in a narrative scenario, you DO want an unbalanced game. But that's not achieved by having the SYSTEM be unbalanced-that's achieved by the players figuring out what sort of imbalance they want. If the SYSTEM is unbalanced, then the players have a much greater chance of NOT getting what they want. Say, for instance, you want a game where it's a valiant last stand of an outnumbered force-that's easily achievable by having one player field, say, 800 points and the other 2,000. But, let's take this to the extreme. Let's say the system is so damn unbalanced, that the 800 points are worth more like 1,200, and the 2,000 worth more like 1,000, if the game WERE balanced. Now it's not a valiant last stand-it's a match in favor of the "last stand" guys.

I don't think points OR Power Levels are THAT bad. But Power Levels are worse than points in pretty much every way.

The problem with the Knight example that there is also a Knight Galant that is also worth 23 points. Like the Traitor knight. Except he pretty much CAN'T BE UPGRADED.
He stays at <400 at 23 power while the traitor can go to 600+ at 23 power

The thread title is inaccurate. It should be "40k - points vs. less-accurate points... which will you be using?", and the obvious correct answer is to use the point system that is more accurate.

Power level seems like an answer to an unrelated question. It's there to do the job of Points, but intentionally doesnt really do the job well at all, in the name of simplicity. Now, I'm all for simplification, but this mechanic has been simplified to the point where it doesnt even really function, and thus, for simplicities sake, should just be removed entirely.

I will not be using power level personally. I just dont see the value. I can see what GW was going for, but, in typical GW fashion, it just really fails in its execution.

power level for pick up games and for learning the new edition. once my club establishes where we want basic games to be points wise we will probably start that. and league games will be points as will tournaments. our monthly apocalypse games on the other hand will be power levels only no points.

 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.

Unit vs unit in vacuum comparisons are worse than useless. According those rubrics suck as interceptors wipe floor with them. Are deathwing then double screwed vs them?

I'll do some experimenting first but probably points.

 Purifier wrote:

 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!

Why? Valid wav to play. Lack of points wasn't and isn't aos big problem.

tneva82 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 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!

Why? Valid wav to play. Lack of points wasn't and isn't aos big problem.

Look at AoS sales numbers before the GHB.

Now look at them after.

 Peregrine wrote:
The thread title is inaccurate. It should be "40k - points vs. less-accurate points... which will you be using?", and the obvious correct answer is to use the point system that is more accurate.

There is no right answer with subjectives and quite a many disagree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 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!

Why? Valid wav to play. Lack of points wasn't and isn't aos big problem.

Look at AoS sales numbers before the GHB.

Now look at them after.

Unrelated to quality of rules.

Humans don't look quality first. Just look at elections...well pretty much anywhere.

Points it's just not sensible to use the less balanced system and expect a fun game.

tneva82 wrote:


Unrelated to quality of rules.

Humans don't look quality first. Just look at elections...well pretty much anywhere.

So you can say with certainty its unrelated to the rules but then blame it on some vague notion humans are all not very bright?

You're gonna need a better explanation than that.

We'll be using points. We're used to the power system as that's pretty much what AoS uses and we're quite used to it. Our group is pretty relaxed and we don't have min/max or waac players in our group.

Plus we don't trust that points are any more balanced than power right now. The cost of the angelus boltgun vs a plasmapistol for example. We just want to meet and play, and power lets us do that quickly.

We made several 2000 point lists and converted them to power to see where they were and they came in consistently between 100 and 120 power. We're starting at 110 plus or minus 2 power right now for standard games. Because you can't just drop 1 marine or a few upgrade points to get you under points. Again, we're relaxed and this works well for us.

 JNAProductions wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 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!

Why? Valid wav to play. Lack of points wasn't and isn't aos big problem.

Look at AoS sales numbers before the GHB.

Now look at them after.

Yes, Age of Sigmar is selling better now that the General's Handbook is released, and I was one of those who never really tried the game without points before hand. That is partly due to the fact that so many players were afraid of the "pay-to-win-and-fill-the-board" and "infinite-summoner" players (of which I was concerned to face, given the WAAC attitude of several local players). That a game could be played without a structuring system is completely foreign to so many players because they are worried about something beyond having a good time. In hindsight, it was a gutsy move on part of GW to do that, and I applaud them for trying to do something completely new and original compared to their game systems.

Now that I have been playing AoS regularly for about a year, I can see that Points and Power Levels are both "guidelines" to figuring out an army's size and relative power. Due to the variety in terrain, discrepancies in the analog nature of how models are moved around and can be bumped or finagled into and out of optimal positions, and inconsistencies in standard base sizes, conversions and modelling for advantage/disadvantage, you will never be able to have an empirically balanced game. Unless the game moves to preset terrain and boards, and a hex-based or grid-based map for movement and range checking, and the players share from a common pool of dice free from being weighted, then you won't be able to have a truly "balanced" game.

I mean, what was the reaction in Warmahordes when they went from more granular points in Mark 1 to the more rough estimate points amounts in Mark 2? Was it the same reaction? (Seriously, I don't know, I never played in Mark 1).

I am willing to try the game without the super granular points that we have become used to, because the points won't be perfectly balanced either. Maybe I'm lucky in that I have enough local players that are untainted by the WAAC attitude that has plagued our local area for over 4 years now, but I have no problem asking any of my friends if they would want to try the game without Points OR Power Levels.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Horse crap. Intentionally unbalanced gameplay does NOT make better narrative experiences.

And that's not what I've said at all, so the rest of your rant can be safely ignored, since it doesn't in any way, shape or form argue against anything I've said.

I'm not saying "it's better because it's unbalanced" which is what you're arguing against. I'm saying "It's fine that it's a bit unbalanced, because they're not seeking perfect balance anyway."

It's a considerably easier way to build a list. End result is not as well balanced, but if you're not looking at balance anyway, only a rough idea, they give that and then what's the point of using the more granular points?

Well, unless you have all the power level values memorized and all the increments for different units sizes, then you can do that, but otherwise you'll be consulting the book. At that point, you'd be spending an absolute grand total of 5 minutes adding up the wargear present on your models. I'd probably wager you could add up those things in a minute. Which you'd still have to add up the power levels from the book too, again, assuming you don't have everything memorized which is the likely scenario.

No, adding up granular points isn't a minute more over a full army. If it is for you, good for you, fantastic. You're not even close to representative of the norm. you're some kind of math savant. Flipping through the book and adding up a number that is right next to the name of the unit, maybe 10 numbers need to be added and you're done. Going granular you've got standard weapons for the unit to look up, then choosing and paying for their specials, then any extra gear they choose to bring. Same thing for every vehicle. You're flipping back and forth a lot and you're doing a whole lot more adding up. Then you realise that nah, that's getting too expensive and even if we of course have some leeway since we clearly are not trying to balance the game, I have to try and stay around half your cost, so now I've added up two units there that I drop, and then I go on to make a half a unit of something instead and we're back to flipping in the book.

No, there is no way you can convince me that making an army with power levels or with points is about the same time investment. It just isn't.

It could easily be the same, if GW had points right on the page.

And you said yourself-you want to know what KIND of imbalanced it is. That's only achievable with a balanced system.

 JNAProductions wrote:
It could easily be the same, if GW had points right on the page.

And you said yourself-you want to know what KIND of imbalanced it is. That's only achievable with a balanced system.

Nope, the rough idea is just fine. You're just stuck in the square thinking of a balanced system. Like I said before: We want the same thing. I just have the capacity to see it from the other side that you lack.