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.

 Purifier wrote:


Again, you use only your own experience. It's insane how the people arguing that power is somehow an abomination simply are unable to imagine anything but your own view. Yes, for you it's useless. I would without a doubt take at least 10 times less time to build a power level army than one where I used points. At least. I do inefficient flipping in books, I forget what I was looking up when someone talks to me etc etc. Most people are more like me than the well oiled machines that you and Sheldon Cooper represent. If they enjoy the idea of power as an easier way to set up their battles, who are you to tell them they're wrong?

You're getting really defensive here for no reason. Pump the brakes a little.

My point is that you are making it sound like adding up points is a dramatic time sink. I'm saying that either method, even if they are separated by a factor of 10 in time spent is still an absolute pittance of time.

Both methods require you to sit down and pick the units you want, so we have the same time investment there. Assuming WYSIWYG, wargear is already pre selected in both scenarios, which really would be decided in the first step anyways, so again, same time investment and decisions being made.

Where the two methods diverge is how many numbers you are willing to add. In the power level scenario, you're going through page by page to add up power levels and the changes in them based on model count in some units. You're still adding those numbers up in your preferred method (abacus for the truly hardcore) to come under a limit.

In the point scenario, you open the book to the page that has all your point costs on it, and start adding. The difference here is the numbers are bigger and there's more of them.

My ultimate point is that adding a bunch of numbers together isn't much different or significantly more time consuming than adding more of a bunch of numbers together.

To make it clear, the process of list building is nearly identical in both ways. The only difference is how long you spend punching numbers in a calculator, which I'm saying takes very little time. You'll spend more time just picking what you want to bring than doing the math.

And if you're spending 2 hours playing a game, why stress over trying to save 5 minutes adding some more numbers together?

I accept that some people will want whatever is easier/simpler, I simply disagree and question the attitude.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I just told you that you're mistaken and you just repeated the same thing again. You can see why I feel trying to talk to you at all anymore is a waste of my time, surely.

Did you miss the "Correct me if I'm wrong" bit?

I am aware that's not what you're trying to say. However, that's what I'm hearing.

So, please-in plain words, explain what you are trying to say.

I have, several times. You have failed to understand it and you will clearly continue to do so. It's not that important to me that you do understand it, so I don't want to keep investing energy.

 Purifier wrote:
I have, several times. You have failed to understand it and you will clearly continue to do so. It's not that important to me that you do understand it, so I don't want to keep investing energy.

Okay, I ask the rest of you guys-what is Purifier saying? It's apparently blindingly obvious, but I guess not to me.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Aw, thanks!

I jut try not to take the game too seriously. Perspective help; I am having some serious familial issues right now that could drastically affect several of my relationships for the rest of my life if things go sour, so little quibbles over our toy soldiers just feels unnecessary. Warhammer is my escape, and is something I hope to share with others in a positive way.

Sorry to hear about that. Hope everything works out okay.

Edit: Also, towards Purifier.

You're expending far more energy by repeatedly refusing to repeat yourself - which is its own irony - than you would be by actually explaining in simple terms what your point is. All you're doing is dodging any meaningful debate, and at this point, I'm starting to suspect you know that, and are doing it for that exact reason.

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.

So, I think PL is pretty good actually.

I played a demonstration game with a new potential player 2 days ago.

To build his army, I asked him "Which models do you like best?" and he picked out a couple of different things [some Wolf Guard Terminators, some Adeptus Custodes and their Land Radier, a Basilisk, etc.]. I totaled up approximately how much they were worth as-modeled, and grabbed a few of my nicer models that worked out to a similar points cost, and we went over and I showed him how to play.

List building is daunting, especially if you're new and don't know what every weapon is and does. The important thing about PL, I think, is that it represents a single unit price and you don't have to worry about upgrades or specifics.


It's worth mention, that I know how much each of my Leman Russes, Dominion Squads, and Wolf Guard Terminator squads are as modeled, so it's not hard for me to stick units together into an army. But if you're new, making your list and fishing through all the upgrades available can be quite a daunting task.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


Again, you use only your own experience. It's insane how the people arguing that power is somehow an abomination simply are unable to imagine anything but your own view. Yes, for you it's useless. I would without a doubt take at least 10 times less time to build a power level army than one where I used points. At least. I do inefficient flipping in books, I forget what I was looking up when someone talks to me etc etc. Most people are more like me than the well oiled machines that you and Sheldon Cooper represent. If they enjoy the idea of power as an easier way to set up their battles, who are you to tell them they're wrong?

You're getting really defensive here for no reason. Pump the brakes a little.

My point is that you are making it sound like adding up points is a dramatic time sink. I'm saying that either method, even if they are separated by a factor of 10 in time spent is still an absolute pittance of time.

Both methods require you to sit down and pick the units you want, so we have the same time investment there. Assuming WYSIWYG, wargear is already pre selected in both scenarios, which really would be decided in the first step anyways, so again, same time investment and decisions being made.

Where the two methods diverge is how many numbers you are willing to add. In the power level scenario, you're going through page by page to add up power levels and the changes in them based on model count in some units. You're still adding those numbers up in your preferred method (abacus for the truly hardcore) to come under a limit.

In the point scenario, you open the book to the page that has all your point costs on it, and start adding. The difference here is the numbers are bigger and there's more of them.

My ultimate point is that adding a bunch of numbers together isn't much different or significantly more time consuming than adding more of a bunch of numbers together.

To make it clear, the process of list building is nearly identical in both ways. The only difference is how long you spend punching numbers in a calculator, which I'm saying takes very little time. You'll spend more time just picking what you want to bring than doing the math.

And if you're spending 2 hours playing a game, why stress over trying to save 5 minutes adding some more numbers together?

I accept that some people will want whatever is easier/simpler, I simply disagree and question the attitude.

What if the difference is 6 minutes or an hour of listbuilding? That's more along the lines of the difference I am seeing. So hey, either we can start playing in five minutes or you can wait for an hour while I build my list so we can play a game for an hour and a half after. If we're just playing a game that's meant to be unbalanced anyway, which would you like? You wanna wait the hour, or do you want to concede the point that power levels might be ok for that and have a game in 5 minutes?

That is one thing I'll say for PL. It APPEARS easier-in practice, it's not very different-but it's less intimidating to get into.

So in that respect, I like it as a sort of gateway for newer players.

But it's not something I'll be using myself.

Edit: Purifier, does it take you an hour to write a list? Be honest here.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm saying that either method, even if they are separated by a factor of 10 in time spent is still an absolute pittance of time.

I have maybe time for a game maybe once a month. When I game, I have to match my schedule with people in a similar situation. The difference between building a list in six minutes, compared to a full hour, is massive. If you don't see how the PL system is making my gaming life a good bit easier - same for my friends - you must be willfully ignorant.

 Darnok wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm saying that either method, even if they are separated by a factor of 10 in time spent is still an absolute pittance of time.

I have maybe time for a game maybe once a month. When I game, I have to match my schedule with people in a similar situation. The difference between building a list in six minutes, compared to a full hour, is massive. If you don't see how the PL system is making my gaming life a good bit easier - same for my friends - you must be willfully ignorant.

You could just write a list in advance. And I really doubt it's off by a factor of ten. Maybe a factor of two, three tops.

Also, this might just be me personally, but currently, writing a list takes under three minutes, at most. I have to spend more time finding models than I do writing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
That is one thing I'll say for PL. It APPEARS easier-in practice, it's not very different-but it's less intimidating to get into.

So in that respect, I like it as a sort of gateway for newer players.

But it's not something I'll be using myself.

Edit: Purifier, does it take you an hour to write a list? Be honest here.

Usually considerably more if I do it by hand. I can spend an hour just tweaking it. I don't play very often, so I have no natural feel what my units do exactly and the finer details of how they interact. I'm not unusual, you are if you can make an army in a minute.

Okay. I'll go make a poll about list-building times, see what the average is.

And what were you trying to say?

Oh for the love of christ, your polls are useless to prove anything with. Stop clogging the board with them. I can build a list in 10 minutes and it'll make zero sense, and I have to get games going. I've also spent an hour making a good list, then another two touching it up while reading reddit. So what do I vote in your poll?

Some of y'all are simply missing the point, or power, depending on your stance.

Each one has some advantages and disadvantages. For anyone new or just learning the game or system, power level's advantage outweigh the disadvantages the majority of the time. Where power starts failing is for fluff or thematic reasons. Things like, I want my AdMech to be in units of 1,3, 6, or 12. Power level punishes me pretty harshly for a 6 model unit versus a 5 model unit.

For points, most folks end up with a "standard core" and then try some "attachments" to that core for each of their armies. The "Core" is pretty much always the same, you will know that your 20 GS are 320 points, or your 15 DC are 420 points, or your Knight Crusader is 570 points just from use. That quickly turns into this Detachment loadout is always 842 points, that Detachment is always 641...

For some lists, a spreadsheet properly setup can make a list in a minute or two. For others, you might be hand calculating for 15 minutes. An hour for a list is pretty silly, and if you are spending that time doing a list, you are not playing for fun anyway, better be some money on the line...

End of the day, what does it matter what OTHER PEOPLE are using to play. Their choice really doesn't affect you or how you play. If you will only play points, I'll play points, if you only play power, I'll play power. If you only play against Dark Eldar, well you can keep your nasty hands to yourself.

 JNAProductions wrote:
That is one thing I'll say for PL. It APPEARS easier-in practice, it's not very different-but it's less intimidating to get into.

So in that respect, I like it as a sort of gateway for newer players.

But it's not something I'll be using myself.

Edit: Purifier, does it take you an hour to write a list? Be honest here.

Yes. It easily can, if you're trying to be competitive. It took me maybe an hour to write the list that formed the foundation of the one I ended up taking to a local tournament, then I tested and revised it 3 times.

 Purifier wrote:
Oh for the love of christ, your polls are useless to prove anything with. Stop clogging the board with them. I can build a list in 10 minutes and it'll make zero sense, and I have to get games going. I've also spent an hour making a good list, then another two touching it up while reading reddit. So what do I vote in your poll?

Your average time. Not complicated. If it usually takes an hour, then put that down.

Though, if you ARE browsing Reddit or something while making a list, it'd be honest to post that, since that obviously is going to increase the time as compared to just sitting down to actually make a list.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Oh for the love of christ, your polls are useless to prove anything with. Stop clogging the board with them. I can build a list in 10 minutes and it'll make zero sense, and I have to get games going. I've also spent an hour making a good list, then another two touching it up while reading reddit. So what do I vote in your poll?

Your average time. Not complicated. If it usually takes an hour, then put that down.

Though, if you ARE browsing Reddit or something while making a list, it'd be honest to post that, since that obviously is going to increase the time as compared to just sitting down to actually make a list.

You're confusing average time with mean time. And what I post has zero impact on the poll. That's how statistics work. They don't care about circumstances.

Okay... You do realize people can read, right? They'll be able to see that some people take a long time, but they also don't fully dedicate themselves to list building when they do it. Not complicated.

Also... Look, Imma just copy-paste from Google here.

"What is the mean?"

"The mean is the average of the numbers: a calculated "central" value of a set of numbers. To calculate: Just add up all the numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are."

Pedroig wrote:
An hour for a list is pretty silly, and if you are spending that time doing a list, you are not playing for fun anyway, better be some money on the line..

Only if you make the assumption that I'm not enjoying myself building my list. I do it beforehand, and I like reading my special rules over and over again while thinking of how to use it.

I think it's pretty straightforward:

With my friends who have been playing for a long time, and are very competitively minded, I'll be using points.

With my friends who think little plastic soldiers are pretty cool, I'll be using power level.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay... You do realize people can read, right? They'll be able to see that some people take a long time, but they also don't fully dedicate themselves to list building when they do it. Not complicated.

Also... Look, Imma just copy-paste from Google here.

"What is the mean?"

"The mean is the average of the numbers: a calculated "central" value of a set of numbers. To calculate: Just add up all the numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are."

Ok, if I make three lists, #1 in 1 minute, #2 in 2 minutes and #3 in 3 hours, then the average time spent on each list is just over an hour. The mean time is 2 minutes. So I can say the same thing I did; you're confusing average with mean time. This is becoming a habit.

Just stop.

Or at least learn mean mode and median as the three most common types of defining average.

 Purifier wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay... You do realize people can read, right? They'll be able to see that some people take a long time, but they also don't fully dedicate themselves to list building when they do it. Not complicated.

Also... Look, Imma just copy-paste from Google here.

"What is the mean?"

"The mean is the average of the numbers: a calculated "central" value of a set of numbers. To calculate: Just add up all the numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are."

Ok, if I make three lists, #1 in 1 minute, #2 in 2 minutes and #3 in 3 hours, then the average time spent on each list is just over an hour. The mean time is 2 minutes. So I can say the same thing I did; you're confusing average with mean time. This is becoming a habit.

You're confusing median and mean.

Your mean time would actually be over an hour to build a list. (180+2+1)/3 = 61 minutes.

I will be using power in most games, so I voted power.

I'll personally be using points; wargear makes a huge difference.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay... You do realize people can read, right? They'll be able to see that some people take a long time, but they also don't fully dedicate themselves to list building when they do it. Not complicated.

Also... Look, Imma just copy-paste from Google here.

"What is the mean?"

"The mean is the average of the numbers: a calculated "central" value of a set of numbers. To calculate: Just add up all the numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are."

Ok, if I make three lists, #1 in 1 minute, #2 in 2 minutes and #3 in 3 hours, then the average time spent on each list is just over an hour. The mean time is 2 minutes. So I can say the same thing I did; you're confusing average with mean time. This is becoming a habit.

You're confusing median and mean.

Your mean time would actually be over an hour to build a list. (180+2+1)/3 = 61 minutes.

You're absolutely right. I messed up the word

Plus, even the median is probably reasonably good, assuming you've been playing for a long enough time.

Not to mention that you're intentionally twisting my words. I used "average" in the normal sense (which also works in the math sense) and you took it to mean median... Somehow.

Edit: By the way, still don't know what you meant with your earlier posts, since my guess was wrong.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, even the median is probably reasonably good, assuming you've been playing for a long enough time.

Not to mention that you're intentionally twisting my words. I used "average" in the normal sense (which also works in the math sense) and you took it to mean median... Somehow.

Edit: By the way, still don't know what you meant with your earlier posts, since my guess was wrong.

No, you said to put what it "usually takes"

Since I don't play often, that's a 50 50 toss up between several hour tweakings beforehand and 10 minute panicked lists of whatever I happen to remember. So the average would be somewhere I never really end up, the median would be what I usually take. I didn't twist anything, I read what you said.

But in regards to his original post, the poll would be around the average (mean) time to build a list - on the fly for a game.

When I walk into the game store and sit down with someone to play a game, first we agree to points, then I have to build a list.

The list building process takes over 30 minutes, one person usually takes that long. I would like to shorten this process, so the emphasis is, "what model should I include," rather than "how can I spend these points."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, even the median is probably reasonably good, assuming you've been playing for a long enough time.

Not to mention that you're intentionally twisting my words. I used "average" in the normal sense (which also works in the math sense) and you took it to mean median... Somehow.

Edit: By the way, still don't know what you meant with your earlier posts, since my guess was wrong.

No, you said to put what it "usually takes"

Since I don't play often, that's a 50 50 toss up between several hour tweakings beforehand and 10 minute panicked lists of whatever I happen to remember. So the average would be somewhere I never really end up, the median would be what I usually take. I didn't twist anything, I read what you said.

Don't double down.

How many sodas do you usually drink in a week? Well lets see, i drank 10 sodas 2 weeks ago, 1 soda last week, and 10 so far this week. So, I usually drink 1.

Come on. It's human to make a mistake, no one cares bro.

Alright, vastly off topic. Could say more words, but no real point.

I guess I'll summarize my feelings on PL, to be more on topic.

-I think they're less balanced than points (not to say points are perfect, but they're a damn sight better)
-They're slightly faster, but considering lists can be written in advance, it's not a big deal
-They're good for people who worry about 40k being too complicated, especially beginners. Which is a good thing, cause it'll get more people in the hobby.

Overall, I'd say they're not a BAD inclusion... Just not one I'll ever use personally.

What? The median there would be 10 and also a part of an entirely irrelevant argument. What are you trying to say?

You're looking for how long it takes people to write a list. The important thing is to know how long before you can start the game. The median makes sense. In your ridiculous metaphor you want to know amount consumed, presumably for health or financial reasons. The average makes sense.

I was informed by a friend that there seemed to be some confusion on some rather complicated math concepts in this thread: mean, median, and mode. Truth be told, I'm not a huge expert on any of this collegiate-level theory crap, but luckily I was able to find a video that explained them relatively simply, so I thought I'd be a Helpful Harry and post it:

I sincerely question anyone who argues that power levels take mere minutes of list building but points take an hour.

If you're not going to put any effort to discussing in good faith then don't bother at all.

As I explained, the only difference is in the math. In both methods you're sitting down and picking the units you want and trying to fit them under a certain value. One has more numbers to punch in than the other but in no way is the difference a full hour. Seriously.