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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Besides, exactly how much more complicated is "these models cost points, and some of them can choose other options to do different things for extra points" over "these models cost power, give them what the feth you want, they'll cost the same."

I'd argue to most right thinking people, allowing stuff that obviously boosts a piece's in game ability for no cost is the more counter intuitive.

Because they don't "cost power".

I like the Shadowsword, Custodian Guard, Exorcist, Living Saint, Leman Russ Vanquisher Command Tank, and Bran Redmaw, so I'm going to play with those.

Instead of "I have 2500 points to spend on the most optimal army" it's "I've got these cool things to play with, let's see how it goes."

It achieves some semblance of balance, without being so detailed as to tun the people off who are here because the big tank I have sitting on the table is pretty cool and they wanted to see what's going on.

I've learned, running demo games, that people like to make their own army. It's an integral part of the experience. But, if I give them Codex: Imperial Guard, or Codex: Space Wolves, they can stare at it for days and never come up with anything resembling a list, or come up with something that's total crap because they don't know the rules.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Well, there's the problem. I play a lot of "demo" games with people who have never played before, just started playing, haven't played in a long time and only have a few models, or play only with me borrowing my models. Power Level is absolutely ideal for this purpose. It allows them to make their own Order of Battle with things they like and play and feel good about it.

With my friends who have their own armies and have a lot of models and have been playing for a long while, we use points. I have prepped and ready 1000, 1500, 1850, 2000, and 2500 point lists I revise periodically that really did take hours to put together, considering options, weighing trade-offs, running montecarlo simulations, etc.

I used to run a few demo games too. Recently I got some people into BFG. My demo games were set up by myself to showcase the core mechanics, which got people asking more questions about what more can be done. Once they're interested then you explain the system and how army construction works. I sat down with a player who bought a small Eldar fleet to help him build his first fleet. He already had the basics and understood what the weaponry did from the demo game.

At no point during the learning curve with several players did I or they ever feel the need to have a simplified version of army construction. They picked what they wanted and did some basic math from a simple table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

"I've got these cool things to play with, let's see how it goes."

That's what open play is for.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Well, there's the problem. I play a lot of "demo" games with people who have never played before, just started playing, haven't played in a long time and only have a few models, or play only with me borrowing my models. Power Level is absolutely ideal for this purpose. It allows them to make their own Order of Battle with things they like and play and feel good about it.

With my friends who have their own armies and have a lot of models and have been playing for a long while, we use points. I have prepped and ready 1000, 1500, 1850, 2000, and 2500 point lists I revise periodically that really did take hours to put together, considering options, weighing trade-offs, running montecarlo simulations, etc.

I used to run a few demo games too. Recently I got some people into BFG. My demo games were set up by myself to showcase the core mechanics, which got people asking more questions about what more can be done. Once they're interested then you explain the system and how army construction works. I sat down with a player who bought a small Eldar fleet to help him build his first fleet. He already had the basics and understood what the weaponry did from the demo game.

At no point during the learning curve with several players did I or they ever feel the need to have a simplified version of army construction. They picked what they wanted and did some basic math from a simple table.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

"I've got these cool things to play with, let's see how it goes."

That's what open play is for.

I've found that, at least the people I demonstrate to, have more fun when they can put together their own Order of Battle. Also, we want to get into playing as fast as possible, and don't want to spend time teaching them the rules then working out the list. If I let them pick the list, then we go over the rules phase by phase through the first turn, it works better, I've found.

Which still sounds like Open play is best for you until they can figure out list construction.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Besides, exactly how much more complicated is "these models cost points, and some of them can choose other options to do different things for extra points" over "these models cost power, give them what the feth you want, they'll cost the same."

I'd argue to most right thinking people, allowing stuff that obviously boosts a piece's in game ability for no cost is the more counter intuitive.

Because they don't "cost power".

I like the Shadowsword, Custodian Guard, Exorcist, Living Saint, Leman Russ Vanquisher Command Tank, and Bran Redmaw, so I'm going to play with those.

Instead of "I have 2500 points to spend on the most optimal army" it's "I've got these cool things to play with, let's see how it goes."

It achieves some semblance of balance, without being so detailed as to tun the people off who are here because the big tank I have sitting on the table is pretty cool and they wanted to see what's going on.

I've learned, running demo games, that people like to make their own army. It's an integral part of the experience. But, if I give them Codex: Imperial Guard, or Codex: Space Wolves, they can stare at it for days and never come up with anything resembling a list, or come up with something that's total crap because they don't know the rules.

Of course they cost power! How else do you approach some semblance of balance other than saying "here's what I want to play, now it's time to total up the power level and then choose a force of equal power to oppose it?"

If you're running demo games, I'd say two, equally pointed, lists constructed explicitly for the purpose of teaching is a much better idea, less likely to accidentally find big disparities and just as likely to allow for the inclusion of something cool

I'll probably play both, but it seems like a number of people at the store will be more than happy with PL, and that's fine with me.

 Blacksails wrote:
Which still sounds like Open play is best for you until they can figure out list construction.

Not at all true, and i'm not sure how you could get that from what he said, like at all.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Which still sounds like Open play is best for you until they can figure out list construction.

Not at all true, and i'm not sure how you could get that from what he said, like at all.

They can put together their own order of battle, get playing as fast as possible, and don't want to spend too much working out the list.

Open play involves picking the units you want, putting them on the table, and get started playing.

Sounds exactly like what open play is for. Care to maybe explain why I'm wrong?

I actually like power levels, generally. Especially since points are pretty awkward to use.

And I've analyzed at least the ork codex, and it seems that, generally, reasonable points costs are baked-in to the power level amounts.

It's not exact, and perhaps not 100% exactly fair, but it's a quick and fun way to get a pretty close game going.


I think they'd work great with some of the narrative missions they describe too.

I mean, points is still the most exact way to get a perfectly even game going, but power is still a fun way to go too.

Especially since points are pretty awkward to use.

You what now? How exactly are points "awkward" for anyone with even a basic understanding of simple mathematics?

Going to need to show your working with that one.

I will be using power level.

I have ALWAYS themed my armies. Say, for example, my corsair warbands. Every felarch is given a power sword when he achieves the rank because my prince is generous to those who show loyalty. Most of my units however are more ranged weapon based and trying to not engage in melee if at all possible.

I basically handicapped myself every game by 60-90 points trying to maintain a thematic part of my army. Power levels don't care. I no longer have to worry about "if I take this I am t a disadvantage because this other thing is stronger" now I can use my harlequins with fusion pistols without thinking I have hurt myself in regards to Initial capability in points.

Does that make sense?

I'd vaguely agree with your Lythandire, except that it's been shown (from the people trying to compare both systems) that the Power Level is more indicative of the unit maxed out on its wargear.

So it's entirely possible for your army to be minorly handicapped if you play power levels. Luckily, I couldn't give two gaks about handicap, so I'll play power level if I ever play.

Honestly, the secret in the power level pudding is that I suspect this will divide much of the gaming community in a useful fashion. If you're meta-net-listing-OMG-#minmax4lyfe....I'm probably not really that interested in playing you from the get go. I'm hoping that the "whatever, let's have a game and not stress out about X, Y and Z" crowd will generally lean toward power level.

You can see this divide in almost every single thread on Dakka Dakka. I see a number of posts/threads/responses and think "Damn, glad I don't play with that guy.", and I'm sure most people here do likewise. I hope the two methods help separate that camp to make similarly minded players easier to find.

Here's hopin'.

 Elbows wrote:
I'd vaguely agree with your Lythandire, except that it's been shown (from the people trying to compare both systems) that the Power Level is more indicative of the unit maxed out on its wargear.

So it's entirely possible for your army to be minorly handicapped if you play power levels. Luckily, I couldn't give two gaks about handicap, so I'll play power level if I ever play.

Honestly, the secret in the power level pudding is that I suspect this will divide much of the gaming community in a useful fashion. If you're meta-net-listing-OMG-#minmax4lyfe....I'm probably not really that interested in playing you from the get go. I'm hoping that the "whatever, let's have a game and not stress out about X, Y and Z" crowd will generally lean toward power level.

You can see this divide in almost every single thread on Dakka Dakka. I see a number of posts/threads/responses and think "Damn, glad I don't play with that guy.", and I'm sure most people here do likewise. I hope the two methods help separate that camp to make similarly minded players easier to find.

Here's hopin'.

I mean, I intend to use both. Points for playing with my friends who also have multiple large armies, and Power Level for playing with my friends who don't currently count 40k as one of their primary hobbies.

No. No you don't. Pick a side.

 Elbows wrote:
I'd vaguely agree with your Lythandire, except that it's been shown (from the people trying to compare both systems) that the Power Level is more indicative of the unit maxed out on its wargear.

So it's entirely possible for your army to be minorly handicapped if you play power levels. Luckily, I couldn't give two gaks about handicap, so I'll play power level if I ever play.

Honestly, the secret in the power level pudding is that I suspect this will divide much of the gaming community in a useful fashion. If you're meta-net-listing-OMG-#minmax4lyfe....I'm probably not really that interested in playing you from the get go. I'm hoping that the "whatever, let's have a game and not stress out about X, Y and Z" crowd will generally lean toward power level.

You can see this divide in almost every single thread on Dakka Dakka. I see a number of posts/threads/responses and think "Damn, glad I don't play with that guy.", and I'm sure most people here do likewise. I hope the two methods help separate that camp to make similarly minded players easier to find.

Here's hopin'.

Yeah but they guy they don't want to play is TFG and when you make everyone use pl He'll turn up with every unit maxed out with upgrades and you'll have no way to say he can't because its allowed under the rules, so you'll either have to max your units or play at a severe disadvantage.

Thus creating the very WAAC environment you don't want.

Points won't stop TFG but they limit his shenanigans.

hobojebus wrote:
B..but WYSIWYG...

WYSIWYG becomes a sort of balance too. I know there are those out there who remodel or have use magnets or the Tactical Squad in their kit is actually 20+ so all of the Wargear is available depending on their situation.

Some of us do it a completely different way. My example are two of my Grey Hunter Packs.
10 Models.
2 With Plasma Guns
1 With a Plasma Pistol
1 With a Power Fist and Banner
1 Made up to have Mark of the Wulfen.
With the exception of the MotW model it has been this way since 3rd Edition. My group know this. Just I know one of the other Marine Player runs two Devastator Squads squads with 4 Multi-Meltas and one with 4 Heavy Bolters.

Our list rarely change from game to game. A Dread here and there, maybe the addition of a jump unit or Flier, but for the most part very static.

Now we can write down the points every game and at one point we could build our list from memory ad be only off 10-20 points. Sometimes we even just put models on the board and looked at each other commenting about how it looked close enough. And then we spend the next few hours blowing the out of each other.

My Points on the Power vs. Points:
1] With the right group, WYSIWYG becomes a Balance Factor because you can look and see that each unit has and know if it had been kitted out to the max.
2] If you play the same people close enough is good enough.
3] As long as you both agree and have fun it does not matter.

I went for Power Level because close enough is good enough. If I find myself winning and found I was 200 points shy of 2,000 points because of this method, well I feel good about how well I did. If I lost because of those same points, well it was my error, not his. This does not stop us from doing the same thing next time and all Power Levels will do is make the math at the end of the game easy...and yes we have played before and figured out the points after in the past. To me it made some games more exiting to not know if they were evenly matched.

hobojebus wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I'd vaguely agree with your Lythandire, except that it's been shown (from the people trying to compare both systems) that the Power Level is more indicative of the unit maxed out on its wargear.

So it's entirely possible for your army to be minorly handicapped if you play power levels. Luckily, I couldn't give two gaks about handicap, so I'll play power level if I ever play.

Honestly, the secret in the power level pudding is that I suspect this will divide much of the gaming community in a useful fashion. If you're meta-net-listing-OMG-#minmax4lyfe....I'm probably not really that interested in playing you from the get go. I'm hoping that the "whatever, let's have a game and not stress out about X, Y and Z" crowd will generally lean toward power level.

You can see this divide in almost every single thread on Dakka Dakka. I see a number of posts/threads/responses and think "Damn, glad I don't play with that guy.", and I'm sure most people here do likewise. I hope the two methods help separate that camp to make similarly minded players easier to find.

Here's hopin'.

Yeah but they guy they don't want to play is TFG and when you make everyone use pl He'll turn up with every unit maxed out with upgrades and you'll have no way to say he can't because its allowed under the rules, so you'll either have to max your units or play at a severe disadvantage.

Thus creating the very WAAC environment you don't want.

Points won't stop TFG but they limit his shenanigans.

Actually...you just don't play games with that witch. Easy solution.

Points. Power level isn't really balanced between OR across armies, I feel.

It's my sneaking suspicion that in the not too distant future we're going to start hearing more and more how filthy waac players are invading narrative player's games and not using the power levels properly.

 Torga_DW wrote:
It's my sneaking suspicion that in the not too distant future we're going to start hearing more and more how filthy waac players are invading narrative player's games and not using the power levels properly.

Distant...I expect that to be out there already.

Power levels are there so I can call my friend and say, "hey, let's meet at the club in a couple of hours. I'm not sure what I'm bringing yet -- just bring whatever, everything WYSIWYG"

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
It's my sneaking suspicion that in the not too distant future we're going to start hearing more and more how filthy waac players are invading narrative player's games and not using the power levels properly.

Distant...I expect that to be out there already.

It's... it's not like I have a spreadsheet detailing points:power ratios for minimum, maximum, and reasonably equipped units or anything.

Not that I'm actually playing power or would try to game it like that, but I was curious.

Alcibiades wrote:
Power levels are there so I can call my friend and say, "hey, let's meet at the club in a couple of hours. I'm not sure what I'm bringing yet -- just bring whatever, everything WYSIWYG"

That is totally, exactly what they are for.

For pick up games at the club I'll bring some pointed up lists because we have a number of tournament-goers and I like to be ready for them. But we have some more casual, scenario driven players too. For those games, Power Levels will be quick, easy, and for me, preferable. I don't want to spend my time at the club pointing out a fine-tuned list, I just want to start playing.

We don't have any actual proof yet that points are "more balanced" that power levels. We know they're more granular, but that doesn't mean anything for balance. I could replace every point cost in the game with a random number between 0 and 1000 and it would still be just as granular.

We also know that previous editions of 40K have terrible balance, so we shouldn't have high hopes for this point system.

We also have examples that look seriously wrong: Typhus and the Lord of Contagion, for example.

All together, I don't trust that points are any better. Over time, people will figure out the most powerful lists in points costs - lists that will easily destroy typical, naive all-comers lists with the same amount of points. What will the power levels be for those lists? Will there be any real difference? Will it be worth the extra time finding points for all the upgrades you want (this is the big time sink for me, not the arithmetic)?

Also, I want to play with and against units will all the upgrades. I don't want to save points by using an 18-man unit instead of a 20-man unit, or by leaving a special weapon out of a veteran squad, or by not loading up every leader with power fists and plasma pistols. A sergeant with a boltgun is sad.

Pink Horror wrote:
Also, I want to play with and against units will all the upgrades. I don't want to save points by using an 18-man unit instead of a 20-man unit, or by leaving a special weapon out of a veteran squad, or by not loading up every leader with power fists and plasma pistols. A sergeant with a boltgun is sad.

But what if your opponents, thinks units entirely equipped with bolters are cool? Then your fully upgraded squads have a massive advantage without points giving your opponents more guys.

secretForge wrote:

Pink Horror wrote:
Also, I want to play with and against units will all the upgrades. I don't want to save points by using an 18-man unit instead of a 20-man unit, or by leaving a special weapon out of a veteran squad, or by not loading up every leader with power fists and plasma pistols. A sergeant with a boltgun is sad.

But what if your opponents, thinks units entirely equipped with bolters are cool? Then your fully upgraded squads have a massive advantage without points giving your opponents more guys.

Then they are handicapping themselves, if they thought that it was cool I'd suggest using the stats for the primaris marines to offset the issue so they can still put out a decent amount of damage.

As an aside, I've never seen a player in this game take only the basic loadout because they thought it was cool looking. There are flame thrower and missile launchers available for crying out loud!

Power level when I play narrative stuff, points everywhere else.

Both, I think, if it works the way I think it works.

I can imagine building and theming my games along them lines of '1500 points, max power level per unit fielded of 10'.

Main thinking behind this is the sheer variety of scale in this game, as it's got everything from angry cultists armed with chains fighting cops to city stomping Titans fighting super heavy tanks and everything in between, and I don't think in this context that points on their own can adequately confer balance. I figure power level, if it is what I think it is, should allow us to essentially judge the 'power scale', and points should be able to effectively build on thst.

But we will see.

Previous even to AoS being releasd I'd have plenty of friends that were happy to play small games 'bartering' units instead of using points.

"I want to use these."

"okay, well would you be happy if I use those?"

"sure"

"I also want to this? fancy also using your that?"

"sounds good, lets get started!"

If you just wanted a quick knock about while sharing stories of the week over a drink it was a good system. Points would often be wildly skewered but the battles would be fairly even.


Sounds like power levels is somewhere between the system we were using and points.

I also think having two point systems is a good idea; some units are more effective in a 'twinked out, push it all forward' style of game play, others are better when you are considering planned loses, cost/benefit analysis, etc. To have a different balance system for each style of play may be desirable?

So Me and my friend played our first little game.

He had 643 Points, I had 636.

He had 32 Power rating, I had 31.

Pretty good so far.