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.

 Blacksails wrote:
You can pm me if you feel so strongly about this.

Or you could have, but you just had to get another poke in. No, I have no interest in talking to you.

 Spreelock wrote:
Today I had my first try out with 8th edition. I write it here, because I dont have enough Pics/other stuff that belongs to battlereports threads. As an introduction, I played with my mechanised Steel Legion Imperial Guard and my opponent fielded his Chaos army. We played with powerlevel points, because of all the hassle involved making points-only-lists. We didnt have tactical objectives at all, and we rolled for mission. Mission was killpoints, slay the warlord, linebreaker and first blood. Deployment was classic, long edge vs. long edge, though there was plenty of new, different kinds of deployments that were intresting. We forgot warlord traits, which after checking, didnt seem to be any good .Both of us had 6 command points, 3 for a start and 3 for a battalion. As my army was highly mobil, I tried from the start to push forward, but there was quickly big unit of Cultists blocking my way to get through. Lesson learned, tarpits are horrible. So is Defiler with it's regeneration. And my Demolishers didnt pack enough punch for full scale assault. Biggest error was that my infantry squads were in chimeras from the start, rather than disembarked for ability to shoot hard.

Here's my 70p list

tank Commander demolisher
tank Commander demolisher
infantry squad ( missile, grenadelauncher)
infantry squad ( missile, grenadelauncher)
infantry squad ( missile, grenadelauncher)
infantry squad ( missile, grenadelauncher)
Chimera
Chimera
Chimera
Chimera
armoured Sentinel (autocannon)
armoured Sentinel (autocannon)
hydra

And my opponents

Daemon Prince with wings
Terminator lord
4-5 terminators
squad of CSM in a rhino
30 cultists
Defiler
helbrute

What kind of can opener did you use for all that spam?

Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...

If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)

An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.

Our narrative events which are public events will be using power level.

Pedroig wrote:
Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...

If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)

An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.

A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.

We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.

The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.

Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.

hobojebus wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...

If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)

An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.

A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.

We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.

The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.

Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.

That part is not always true A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance most of the time is a better way to put it. I think this is where a lot of the 'Friction' is coming from, blanket statements. I for one enjoy (Not every time, but enough to not make it a freak occurrence) being on the short end of the stick. Set up a game where I am playing a 1,500 Point List vs a 2,o00 Point List can be fun a lot of the time. Now this does not mean I want every game like this, but to say I (and others) can't have fun with this is what pushes some peoples buttons.

The funny thing is all of my AOS games pre-GHB were more balanced and fun than any whfb or 40k game I've ever played, which are typically always one sided blow outs using points because the points are never balanced.

I went through this thread rather briefly, so perhaps someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but a quick question for "points are the only way" folks here: how important "perfect point ballance" is for asymmetric scenarios like Meatgrinder? And if you read narrative scenarios carefully, power level is mostly used to determine who attacks and who defends (they also provide rough estimate of how long the game will take). If scenario itself introduces imballance so huge, why on earth would I want to spend any time finding those missing 5 points (in many lists those 5-15 points mean dropping something worth 150 for something worth 130 and then "filling up" on upgrades).

For symmetric Eternal War missions, tournaments, and overall competetive (as in testing relative skill of two players in as equal environment as possible) approach to 40K, perfect (as possible) ballance is indeed desired quality, but when you play a mission with a clear AND DESIRED disadvantage to one side, then meticulous list building isn't really that important to overall fun and Power Level is a nice shortcut tool for that.

hobojebus wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...

If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)

An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.

A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.

We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.

The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.

Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.

Except that perfect "balance" is not necessary for a fun game. Some of us like the idea of having an uphill challenge with our armies in scenarios, especially if the game has significance in the context of something larger, like a campaign. For some of us, "close enough" is good enough to play, especially when we don't have the time to play like we used to and we just want to get a game in.

Besides, the "equal chance" can be brought in to make a one-sided scenario more fun and unique, making it a FAIR, yet UNBALANCED fight.

 Anpu42 wrote:
That part is not always true A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance most of the time is a better way to put it. I think this is where a lot of the 'Friction' is coming from, blanket statements. I for one enjoy (Not every time, but enough to not make it a freak occurrence) being on the short end of the stick. Set up a game where I am playing a 1,500 Point List vs a 2,o00 Point List can be fun a lot of the time. Now this does not mean I want every game like this, but to say I (and others) can't have fun with this is what pushes some peoples buttons.

I played in a large game once, it ended up being a large multiplayer game with 9500 points of Imperium versus 12,000 points of Chaos. It was only ever not balanced in Turn 4 when the last of the Heldrakes came in and began tearing through our forces (it was just after 6th Edition CSM book had dropped, and no army had solid anti-air yet). That was an awesome game, and no one got upset or had their feelings hurt at being so low in points.

Some players need to recognize that others don't play for the same reasons as them.

nou wrote:
I went through this thread rather briefly, so perhaps someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but a quick question for "points are the only way" folks here: how important "perfect point ballance" is for asymmetric scenarios like Meatgrinder? And if you read narrative scenarios carefully, power level is mostly used to determine who attacks and who defends (they also provide rough estimate of how long the game will take). If scenario itself introduces imballance so huge, why on earth would I want to spend any time finding those missing 5 points (in many lists those 5-15 points mean dropping something worth 150 for something worth 130 and then "filling up" on upgrades).

For symmetric Eternal War missions, tournaments, and overall competetive (as in testing relative skill of two players in as equal environment as possible) approach to 40K, perfect (as possible) ballance is indeed desired quality, but when you play a mission with a clear AND DESIRED disadvantage to one side, then meticulous list building isn't really that important to overall fun and Power Level is a nice shortcut tool for that.

But the Power Level system is just the average Points costs /20 anyways :/ So the difference between these two systems is - the size of the numbers.

If the point of using Power Level is that you don't care about the specific costs of units and upgrades, then it'll save you some amount of minutes in list building, and that's it as far as the comparison goes - but you'd save even more time if you just played Open.

So what's the appeal of the half-measure approach to list building? I'm not trying to be snippy here, but when I see that Power Level is just Points with some stuff taken out or handwaved away, I question what the value added is for using that system, when the "time saving" aspect is better served by the Open play system? If you wanted better balance you would use straight points, if you want to put models on the table and play with them WYSIWYG, that's Open play. If you're looking for semi-balance, as Power Level seems to offer... I would just eyeball the unit's points and go from there personally, that's how we always played narrative missions before...

It just doesn't seem to actually fulfill a role to me, other than causing consternation in the playerbase about the "right" way to play the game! Now you see lines are being drawn between the groups and I'm not excited for all the arguments to continue about which is "correct" or "better" to play with in stores

 Jambles wrote:

nou wrote:
I went through this thread rather briefly, so perhaps someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but a quick question for "points are the only way" folks here: how important "perfect point ballance" is for asymmetric scenarios like Meatgrinder? And if you read narrative scenarios carefully, power level is mostly used to determine who attacks and who defends (they also provide rough estimate of how long the game will take). If scenario itself introduces imballance so huge, why on earth would I want to spend any time finding those missing 5 points (in many lists those 5-15 points mean dropping something worth 150 for something worth 130 and then "filling up" on upgrades).

For symmetric Eternal War missions, tournaments, and overall competetive (as in testing relative skill of two players in as equal environment as possible) approach to 40K, perfect (as possible) ballance is indeed desired quality, but when you play a mission with a clear AND DESIRED disadvantage to one side, then meticulous list building isn't really that important to overall fun and Power Level is a nice shortcut tool for that.

But the Power Level system is just the average Points costs /20 anyways :/ So the difference between these two systems is - the size of the numbers.

If the point of using Power Level is that you don't care about the specific costs of units and upgrades, then it'll save you some amount of minutes in list building, and that's it as far as the comparison goes - but you'd save even more time if you just played Open.

So what's the appeal of the half-measure approach to list building? I'm not trying to be snippy here, but when I see that Power Level is just Points with some stuff taken out or handwaved away, I question what the value added is for using that system, when the "time saving" aspect is better served by the Open play system? If you wanted better balance you would use straight points, if you want to put models on the table and play with them WYSIWYG, that's Open play. If you're looking for semi-balance, as Power Level seems to offer... I would just eyeball the unit's points and go from there personally, that's how we always played narrative missions before...

It just doesn't seem to actually fulfill a role to me, other than causing consternation in the playerbase about the "right" way to play the game! Now you see lines are being drawn between the groups and I'm not excited for all the arguments to continue about which is "correct" or "better" to play with in stores

One advantage of Power Level over just "use units point value divided by 20 and don't count upgrades" is... oficialdom. 40K community craves oficialdom. And I don't really get what you mean by "Open Play is better at task" - Open Play uses Power Level to determine best mission type and mission sides - have you even read Open Play rules for 40K? It's not AOS simple model count... Difference between Open and Narrative is detail level of missions (setup, specific rules and victory conditions are vastly more detailed in Narrative) not the way you estimate force strenght...

One other thing, that most 40K veterans seem to ignore - this time GW reaches out to new audience. New players aren't familiar with point system and even with streamlined rules there is a lot of mechanics to learn during first dozen games. Power Levels let you start faster and when you understand logic behind phases, units and in game interactions, then you may move to points if you want better granularity, having actual understanding what different wargear options realy do. And before someone accuses me of treating new comers as too dumb for simple math - it is not math I'm talking about - it is "an informed decision". Just look at a typical "newbie needs help" thread here on dakka, typical human being is not born with an in-depth understanding of 40K ballance, this is knowledge that has to be learned and experience that has to be gathered.

And I don't really understand what there is not to understand or enforce over other players, both ways... Want to use points? Use them. Want to use Power Levels? Use them. Want to mix&match two players using different approach? Multiply/divide by 20 and play. Don't want to mix&match? Deny games. It's that simple.

nou wrote:

Spoiler:

 Jambles wrote:

nou wrote:
I went through this thread rather briefly, so perhaps someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but a quick question for "points are the only way" folks here: how important "perfect point ballance" is for asymmetric scenarios like Meatgrinder? And if you read narrative scenarios carefully, power level is mostly used to determine who attacks and who defends (they also provide rough estimate of how long the game will take). If scenario itself introduces imballance so huge, why on earth would I want to spend any time finding those missing 5 points (in many lists those 5-15 points mean dropping something worth 150 for something worth 130 and then "filling up" on upgrades).

For symmetric Eternal War missions, tournaments, and overall competetive (as in testing relative skill of two players in as equal environment as possible) approach to 40K, perfect (as possible) ballance is indeed desired quality, but when you play a mission with a clear AND DESIRED disadvantage to one side, then meticulous list building isn't really that important to overall fun and Power Level is a nice shortcut tool for that.

But the Power Level system is just the average Points costs /20 anyways :/ So the difference between these two systems is - the size of the numbers.

If the point of using Power Level is that you don't care about the specific costs of units and upgrades, then it'll save you some amount of minutes in list building, and that's it as far as the comparison goes - but you'd save even more time if you just played Open.

So what's the appeal of the half-measure approach to list building? I'm not trying to be snippy here, but when I see that Power Level is just Points with some stuff taken out or handwaved away, I question what the value added is for using that system, when the "time saving" aspect is better served by the Open play system? If you wanted better balance you would use straight points, if you want to put models on the table and play with them WYSIWYG, that's Open play. If you're looking for semi-balance, as Power Level seems to offer... I would just eyeball the unit's points and go from there personally, that's how we always played narrative missions before...

It just doesn't seem to actually fulfill a role to me, other than causing consternation in the playerbase about the "right" way to play the game! Now you see lines are being drawn between the groups and I'm not excited for all the arguments to continue about which is "correct" or "better" to play with in stores

One advantage of Power Level over just "use units point value divided by 20 and don't count upgrades" is... oficialdom. 40K community craves oficialdom. And I don't really get what you mean by "Open Play is better at task" - Open Play uses Power Level to determine best mission type and mission sides - have you even read Open Play rules for 40K? It's not AOS simple model count... Difference between Open and Narrative is detail level of missions (setup, specific rules and victory conditions are vastly more detailed in Narrative) not the way you estimate force strenght...

There are several good points here, well said - and you're absolutely right about Open play, I really thought it was the same as Age of Sigmar, where you just plop models on the table and go. That's my bad for not checking the specific rules, but to me GW's promotions really seemed to imply that Open was just a straightforward pick up and play format

This and more.
I have been playing since 89 and I love the idea of the Power Levels. Not because I am not good at figuring out The Exact Points, but because I don't have to. New and old players can have fun using Points/Power Levels/Just putting models on the table and going for it.
I will have to admit it is a mind set. If you feel you have to account for every point on both sides to have a fair and to you fun game, that is great for you. If you feel that Close Enough is Good Enough and don't sweat the small stuff Great too.
I feel Power Level is the best thing to happen to the game in a long time, but if you show up with my group and Demand we use Points, we are probably going to play you once out of politeness and then say 'Next Game we are going to Use Power Levels'. You know compromise. This gives you (Who ever you are) the choice of returning or not, we would be upset to see you go and we hope you would stay (Unless you are a jerk or something), but if you chose to never come back we would most likely just shrug and go back to the cheezy poofs and Dr. Pepper.
If you want to come back and play we would probably set up both Points and Power Level Games. It might be a little selfish and egocentric, but I think is the way all groups should be.
Points are for serious Games.
Power Points are for 'Just for Fun' Games.
Open play for who gives a and lets blow up using my newest models and ideas.

I think if anyone is using power levels, a good house rule should be that everything must be WYSiWYG. You're getting free stuff, at least prove you're not just power gaming your "Fluffy" army.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I think if anyone is using power levels, a good house rule should be that everything must be WYSiWYG. You're getting free stuff, at least prove you're not just power gaming your "Fluffy" army.

Uh, points doesn't let you off the hook in that department. I expect at least an attempt to be WYSIWYG no matter what.

The storm bolter on top of the command tank not actually being a purchased upgrade is tolerable. The tank being a Vanquisher when it's clearly a Battle Tank is less so. The tank actually being a Basilisk model is right out.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I think if anyone is using power levels, a good house rule should be that everything must be WYSiWYG. You're getting free stuff, at least prove you're not just power gaming your "Fluffy" army.

Uh, points doesn't let you off the hook in that department. I expect at least an attempt to be WYSIWYG no matter what.

The storm bolter on top of the command tank not actually being a purchased upgrade is tolerable. The tank being a Vanquisher when it's clearly a Battle Tank isn't.

i think that depends. if you have never run a vanquisher and want to try it in a game before purchasing the model, or are building your army over time due to funds I can totally deal with some proxies, if there are a lot I hope they are clear. but yea if you have been a club member or flgs player for years and are still doing this... yea

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I think if anyone is using power levels, a good house rule should be that everything must be WYSiWYG. You're getting free stuff

You aren't supposed to be getting free stuff. Obviously there are some exceptions (I'm looking at you Rubric Marine Warpflamers and Chaos Knights), but options are supposed to be taken into account for Power.

I think it works fine most of the time, some units have huge point swings though. I felt bad using power levels for my Chaos Terminators, most of whom had combi-meltas. Theyre 14 power for 5, which is a lot, but still hefty in the upgrafe department.

If and when my groups switched to 8th edition, we will be sticking to points. It is a more accurate picture of what your army is worth in combat value. I have been playing with the points method since Rouge Trader days. No need to stop now.

 Jambles wrote:

nou wrote:

Spoiler:

 Jambles wrote:

nou wrote:
I went through this thread rather briefly, so perhaps someone has already brought this up and I missed it, but a quick question for "points are the only way" folks here: how important "perfect point ballance" is for asymmetric scenarios like Meatgrinder? And if you read narrative scenarios carefully, power level is mostly used to determine who attacks and who defends (they also provide rough estimate of how long the game will take). If scenario itself introduces imballance so huge, why on earth would I want to spend any time finding those missing 5 points (in many lists those 5-15 points mean dropping something worth 150 for something worth 130 and then "filling up" on upgrades).

For symmetric Eternal War missions, tournaments, and overall competetive (as in testing relative skill of two players in as equal environment as possible) approach to 40K, perfect (as possible) ballance is indeed desired quality, but when you play a mission with a clear AND DESIRED disadvantage to one side, then meticulous list building isn't really that important to overall fun and Power Level is a nice shortcut tool for that.

But the Power Level system is just the average Points costs /20 anyways :/ So the difference between these two systems is - the size of the numbers.

If the point of using Power Level is that you don't care about the specific costs of units and upgrades, then it'll save you some amount of minutes in list building, and that's it as far as the comparison goes - but you'd save even more time if you just played Open.

So what's the appeal of the half-measure approach to list building? I'm not trying to be snippy here, but when I see that Power Level is just Points with some stuff taken out or handwaved away, I question what the value added is for using that system, when the "time saving" aspect is better served by the Open play system? If you wanted better balance you would use straight points, if you want to put models on the table and play with them WYSIWYG, that's Open play. If you're looking for semi-balance, as Power Level seems to offer... I would just eyeball the unit's points and go from there personally, that's how we always played narrative missions before...

It just doesn't seem to actually fulfill a role to me, other than causing consternation in the playerbase about the "right" way to play the game! Now you see lines are being drawn between the groups and I'm not excited for all the arguments to continue about which is "correct" or "better" to play with in stores

One advantage of Power Level over just "use units point value divided by 20 and don't count upgrades" is... oficialdom. 40K community craves oficialdom. And I don't really get what you mean by "Open Play is better at task" - Open Play uses Power Level to determine best mission type and mission sides - have you even read Open Play rules for 40K? It's not AOS simple model count... Difference between Open and Narrative is detail level of missions (setup, specific rules and victory conditions are vastly more detailed in Narrative) not the way you estimate force strenght...

There are several good points here, well said - and you're absolutely right about Open play, I really thought it was the same as Age of Sigmar, where you just plop models on the table and go. That's my bad for not checking the specific rules, but to me GW's promotions really seemed to imply that Open was just a straightforward pick up and play format

Honest mistake, totally understandable after the whole early AOS "no points whatsoever" disaster thing and GW using same terms for different things... Glad I managed to clear things up for you. Cheers!

nou wrote:
One other thing, that most 40K veterans seem to ignore - this time GW reaches out to new audience. New players aren't familiar with point system and even with streamlined rules there is a lot of mechanics to learn during first dozen games. Power Levels let you start faster and when you understand logic behind phases, units and in game interactions, then you may move to points if you want better granularity, having actual understanding what different wargear options realy do. And before someone accuses me of treating new comers as too dumb for simple math - it is not math I'm talking about - it is "an informed decision". Just look at a typical "newbie needs help" thread here on dakka, typical human being is not born with an in-depth understanding of 40K ballance, this is knowledge that has to be learned and experience that has to be gathered.

This doesn't make much sense. There's no meaningful difference between "add up the point costs of your units and their upgrades" and "add up the point costs of your units and some of their upgrades", if you can figure out how to use power levels you can do the same with points. And neither concept is complicated at all, you should be able to understand it with a few minutes of explanation at most. And for your first leaning games you're probably playing with lists someone else made to teach you the rules so the method of list construction doesn't matter.

And of course the final argument against "power levels are for new players" is how GW is presenting the system: as a standard mode of play, not just a stripped-down learning system. It's a core mechanic and, judging by the way power levels are prominent and point costs are hidden away in the back of the book, it seems to be the default way GW expects most players to play the game.

Peregrine wrote:judging by the way power levels are prominent and point costs are hidden away in the back of the book, it seems to be the default way GW expects most players to play the game.

GW told us why the points costs are "hidden away in the back of the book." It's so that they can change them as needed with minimal frustration for the player base.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think it works fine most of the time, some units have huge point swings though. I felt bad using power levels for my Chaos Terminators, most of whom had combi-meltas. Theyre 14 power for 5, which is a lot, but still hefty in the upgrafe department.

And my wolf guard terminators have combi-plasma.
I would not see that as an issue

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
One other thing, that most 40K veterans seem to ignore - this time GW reaches out to new audience. New players aren't familiar with point system and even with streamlined rules there is a lot of mechanics to learn during first dozen games. Power Levels let you start faster and when you understand logic behind phases, units and in game interactions, then you may move to points if you want better granularity, having actual understanding what different wargear options realy do. And before someone accuses me of treating new comers as too dumb for simple math - it is not math I'm talking about - it is "an informed decision". Just look at a typical "newbie needs help" thread here on dakka, typical human being is not born with an in-depth understanding of 40K ballance, this is knowledge that has to be learned and experience that has to be gathered.

This doesn't make much sense. There's no meaningful difference between "add up the point costs of your units and their upgrades" and "add up the point costs of your units and some of their upgrades", if you can figure out how to use power levels you can do the same with points. And neither concept is complicated at all, you should be able to understand it with a few minutes of explanation at most. And for your first leaning games you're probably playing with lists someone else made to teach you the rules so the method of list construction doesn't matter.

And of course the final argument against "power levels are for new players" is how GW is presenting the system: as a standard mode of play, not just a stripped-down learning system. It's a core mechanic and, judging by the way power levels are prominent and point costs are hidden away in the back of the book, it seems to be the default way GW expects most players to play the game.

This makes sense, I think.

If the PL is on the page with the unit, it's convenient for when you're searching for the datacard for those then guys sitting in the table in front of you, flipping to the back of the book for PL is an inconvenience.

When you're building a competitive list, it's an inconvenience to flip around all the time looking for the page that the unit is on to look for it's costs. It's really nice to have all the costs in one place.

I hope the books in the end are like the 6th or 5th ed books, with a nice section in the back with all the points costs and upgrades consolidated, and detailed unit datacards throughout the book, with their PL's on their page.

 auticus wrote:
The funny thing is all of my AOS games pre-GHB were more balanced and fun than any whfb or 40k game I've ever played, which are typically always one sided blow outs using points because the points are never balanced.

This is why late whfb and 6th/7th ed 40k I had largely switched to a barter system instead of points.

It simply tended to give better results.

hobojebus wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...

If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)

An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.

A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.

We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.

The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.

Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.

If the points system in AOS is good enough to mitigate all of the balance issues there, then the exact same system in 40k (power level) will be good enough here.

The two systems work fine on their own merits, arguing otherwise is simply stating personal opinion as fact.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
If the PL is on the page with the unit, it's convenient for when you're searching for the datacard for those then guys sitting in the table in front of you, flipping to the back of the book for PL is an inconvenience.

When you're building a competitive list, it's an inconvenience to flip around all the time looking for the page that the unit is on to look for it's costs. It's really nice to have all the costs in one place.

I don't get it, you're using power levels and points for the exact same thing. Why is it convenient for one to be in one location, but inconvenient for the other to be in the same place?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
Just another moderate post on this life or death, hot topic issue that will determine the fun for the masses for eons to come...

If you work up a list by points, divide by 20 will get you "close enough" for a power level game, the inverse is also true. Course that's if you are just playing for fun. (Some folks have trouble grasping that concept)

An organized event needs to pick one or the other... And since it has been points since the beginning of time, I'd put my money on points it remaining.

A games fun when both people have a roughly equal chance, when one side overwhelmingly slaughters the other that's not fun unless you're TFG.

We really don't want the shitshow that was aos on release and the imbalance power level has built in could result in a similar clusterfekke hence our concern.

The very core of our argument is that we want everyone to have fun with a well balanced game.

Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.

If the points system in AOS is good enough to mitigate all of the balance issues there, then the exact same system in 40k (power level) will be good enough here.

The two systems work fine on their own merits, arguing otherwise is simply stating personal opinion as fact.

Except even people who play aos will openly say ghb is not balanced.

Because the longest part of building a list with points currently is the last bit filling out/ trimming down the mast few points and that's a crazy hassle right now with points for one unit to be all over the place (3-4 pages sometimes). If I'm building a matched play list I'll supposedly know what all the names mean and just need the appendix to calculate.

PL could be written in both places tough.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
One other thing, that most 40K veterans seem to ignore - this time GW reaches out to new audience. New players aren't familiar with point system and even with streamlined rules there is a lot of mechanics to learn during first dozen games. Power Levels let you start faster and when you understand logic behind phases, units and in game interactions, then you may move to points if you want better granularity, having actual understanding what different wargear options realy do. And before someone accuses me of treating new comers as too dumb for simple math - it is not math I'm talking about - it is "an informed decision". Just look at a typical "newbie needs help" thread here on dakka, typical human being is not born with an in-depth understanding of 40K ballance, this is knowledge that has to be learned and experience that has to be gathered.

This doesn't make much sense. There's no meaningful difference between "add up the point costs of your units and their upgrades" and "add up the point costs of your units and some of their upgrades", if you can figure out how to use power levels you can do the same with points. And neither concept is complicated at all, you should be able to understand it with a few minutes of explanation at most. And for your first leaning games you're probably playing with lists someone else made to teach you the rules so the method of list construction doesn't matter.

And of course the final argument against "power levels are for new players" is how GW is presenting the system: as a standard mode of play, not just a stripped-down learning system. It's a core mechanic and, judging by the way power levels are prominent and point costs are hidden away in the back of the book, it seems to be the default way GW expects most players to play the game.

There is a VAST meaningfull difference, but for some reason it keeps being totally ignored by point advocates (and if you read everything I wrote in this thread you should be aware, that what you cited was an additional argument, not a basis for defending Power Levels) - by design Power Level and Points ARE NOT designed for the same purpose. They CAN be used for the same purpose to some degree, but they have two different uses with two different sets of missions to use in. And for Narrative section using points doesn't make much sense, because missions themselves accomodate power level discrepancies (al of them work better that way, and some of them work ONLY when power levels are different enough), so the very process of "adding up the points" is very different, because you don't have to fit as closely as possisble within an arbitrary margin, which is a clue with competetive (ballanced) point list building. Of course, you can use points for this, but even if they were on the same page such process is simply unnecessary longer (not more complex, just longer by the unnecessary multiplications and addictions you have to make for wargear and single model cost) and has unnecessary granularity.

When reaching for new audience GW assumes (correctly), that not everyone will end up using points - you missed the part "then you may move to points if you want better granularity" - not everyone want's that and you have proof for this in this very thread. And you also missed the point of "making an informed decission" - points for wargear aren't just math behind points to add up, they are meaningfull in game decissions to be made and you simply have to know how the game plays before you understand that, there is no "theoretical workaround" for experience, mathhammer in the void is pretty much useless.

And realy, what there is to not understand after reading Narrative section and looking at this discussion? Some people want to use Power Levels and WILL use Power Levels because for them THERE IS meaningfull difference. This is not a subject of "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude and lawyering. Are there any people here that advocate dropping points altogether? Then why there are people who want to advocate, that Power Levels should not be used by anyone/are dumb/are unnecessary or try to argue with any personal or rulebook reasons behind using Power Levels presented to them? This thread can only give answers to people who wonder why other people chose Power Levels, not to people who think that there is a necessary choice between points and Power Levels to be made, because there simply is none.