Peregrine wrote:
{a bunch of stuff not in favor of Power Levels}

I only ever had a hard time creating lists for my army when I was studying a brand new Codex, but I would read and re-read everything in it and try to find my optimal list ideas that I would be happy playing. Once I got it memorizes (or at least the options I would take) then making lists would be quicker.

However, that was back before I was married, had kids, a full-time job, almost 90 minutes commuting to work 5 days a week, and a rotten familial situation that makes me dread and despise nearly every weekend. Warhammer is my escape, but at the same time, my family is the most important thing to me in life, and nothing will change that. At this point (hehe) in my life, if I can cut my list-building time by minutes to then spend with my kids, then I would do it in a heart beat. Sure, I will probably use Points as well to make my lists if my opponent wants that, but I'm not going to stress out and obsess over understanding why other people have different opinions and values to me in what they seek out of their wargaming experience. At this point (hehe) in my life, I have almost no hobby time to build, paint, play, or read army books - it's just not there anymore, and probably won't be for another couple years at best.

Is the time saved worth "balance"? Absolutely, as, to me, true "balance" will never be achieved with such an analog wargame as Warhammer, so if I can get "close enough" in my game's "balance", then I am good to go. I would rather lose every game for the rest of my life if it means not stressing over "points-efficiency" or "optimized lists" so I can stand a chance against my opponents.

How did I mange in prior editions? Well, in 5th Edition, I played what I thought was cool and had a functioned to serve in my army (using points as normal), in 6th Edition I just played Thunderwolf Cavalry cause they were cool (using points as normal), and in 7th I played until the WAAC players became unbearable, then stuck with only playing certain players or in narrative games (using points as normal).

Yes, I absolutely am considering Open Play. Again, it's a matter of "let's play for fun!" and not worrying about making a tournament-ready list.

To me, true victory is achieved when all players involved have fun and are glad they played, not when one player scores more objective points in a game. It's about the entire hobby experience, not the individual games.

...

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. I'm not concerned too much about balance in friendly games, at least not the balance that is dreamed about by other players where the points are perfectly representative of unit and upgrade and army power.

For me, the balance I seek is "eh, close enough, let's play already!".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asmodas wrote:
I will likely be using points for pick up games, as that seems the be the way things are going at my local shop, but for apoc I will definitely just use power levels. There is really no point in costing out every special weapon or upgrade in an 8000 point list, it's just tedious, with little payoff.

Of course, to be fair, there's no point in costing out units in Apocalypse either, or of playing Apocalypse at all. It isn't a game, it's just an exercise in removing models from the table. In fact, if you removed all of the rules of 40k entirely in favor of "line up all your models, then each turn roll a D6 for each pile of models and on a 4+ remove that pile from the table" and you'd have the exact same gameplay experience as a RAW Apocalypse game.

 SeraphimXIX wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 SeraphimXIX wrote:
Using power to build lists isn't simpler or faster then using points unless you're like, bad at addition or something, and even then there are plenty of programs (including an official GW sanctioned one soon) that will do it for you.

So the notion that power has a good niche in helping new players falls rather flat.

You're missing the point that a new player doesn't know what a meltagun does, or if a meltagun is worth 19 points for a guardsman to have, or the the guardsman would rather have a flamer because a flamer is only 9 points, or if a guardsman would rather keep his lasgun so you can buy two more guardsmen.

A new player doesn't know if a Leman Russ needs sponsons, or if it should have a Heavy Bolter or a Lascannon, or if the Annihilator, Vanquisher, or Demolisher is worth the points as a tank killer.

Literally none of this is alleviated by using the power system.

 SeraphimXIX wrote:
So take all the units naked OR teach the players how the game works so they understand what upgrades do? Power letting them take upgrades does nothing to help them learn what they do.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Okay, so, for all you power level advocates, what do I, as someone who doesn't think GW's games are all that balanced so am not in love with traditional points, do if I like a unit as a basic one when its power level is priced for it being fully upgraded?

A very straightforward example: what if I want to run my scouts as cheap, light option for Marines (this is how I like to run them, not some weird hypothetical, BTW)? Do I just run this 55 point unit for power level 6 as-is and say "hey, I'm playing what I want to" despite them not functioning in that role (they're not a cheap, fodder unit at that price)? Do I give them the bells and whistles so they're up to an average cost, with pretend camo cloaks and a kitted out sergeant (again, not what I chose them for)? Do I not take them at all? Do I take them, knowing they're way overpriced, and mentally rebalance things by taking underpriced other things to compensate so it ballpark gets a better price? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, so please don't take it that way, I'm just not seeing the point of power levels when, as far as I'm seeing, they really poorly represent some styles of play.

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

I will be putting both on most lists I generate, though, out of interest to see where the greatest disparities lie.

 Peregrine wrote:

Spoiler:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
This right here. Sure, the list building aspect of the game is important, but the GAME ITSELF is why any of us are really playing it. Especially in the case of teaching new players the game, using Power Levels as a "rough estimate" of unit strength is good enough for the newbies to get a feel for how the game works, from moving the models, seeing them on the table, rolling the dice, etc. It is just a simplified army building tool designed to make things simpler for players, and I can see how it would be very useful in teaching new players or throwing together pickup games or planning large Apocalypse events.

Except, again, GW is presenting power levels as a primary (if not the primary) way to play the game, not just a stripped-down learning system for newbies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I have my models laid out by unit on a table. I'm going to be introducing my friend's friend to Warhammer 40k. I ask him: "which ones do you like?" As of now, he knows that the Sisters of Battle are Nuns with Guns, the Space Wolves are Super-Soldier Space Vikings, and the Imperial Guard are best personified by "We Have Reserves". He picks out a squad of Custodian Guards, their Land Raider, their Dreadnought, and a squad of Wolf Guard Terminators. In his words, "The Golden Knights, the Robot, and those Big Viking Guys." So I pick out a list that's appropriately balanced against what he has, and I teach him to play. I didn't tell him how many points things were, not how much upgrades cost, I let him pick models he liked and I picked an army to match how I perceived their strength [and of course, to achieve the goal of demonstrating the game]. PL would be ideal for this case, and if he goes out and gets his own army, ideal for him until he has a lot of games under his belt and know like I do what each unit and weapon is and does. The last thing a new player needs to be doing is looking at the last 50 points of their list and wondering how to spend it, and if they really need that meltagun or if they'd rather have a plasmagun or a flamer or another, different unit. Since he'll be finding out how much things cost after adding them to his force, it would be most useful for him to have PL on the page where their stats are.

All of this can be done just as well with points. In fact, you're doing it with points! You're just doing it with points that are less accurate than the other point system. You, as the experienced player, are building their list for them (though dear god I hope you'd avoid fluff abominations like that in a real situation) using a point system to evaluate their list, and then a point system to build your own list to match their total. Replacing conventional points with power levels adds nothing here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
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.

As you said, you can use points for all of those things. Nothing is being gained by replacing the conventional point system with a point system that is a less-accurate evaluation of a unit's value.

Well, I take it back, using power levels does have one major advantage over conventional points: it allows the "casual at all costs" players to maintain their smug superiority about how little they care about balance, without forcing them to give up on balance entirely. Instead of playing a mission with, say, 1000 points vs. 1500 points and asymmetrical objectives to make up for the 500 point difference they can play at 50 points vs. 75 points and brag about how "casual" they are because they aren't using points like all those awful WAAC TFG tournament players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
This is just like being in a liberals vs conservative debate.

It really is. Advocates for power level, like conservatives, have an ideological position that must be maintained no matter what the evidence shows because it fits their moral beliefs about how the world should work. So, much like conservatives will refuse to acknowledge the evidence for climate change because it might get in the way of corporate profits, advocates for power level will ignore the fact that power level is functionally equivalent to the conventional point system because of a moral belief in the virtues of "casual" play. It doesn't matter that every single thing you can do with power levels is done better by points, and every single criticism of points applies equally well to power levels, all that matters is that power levels are more "casual" because they are less accurate as a tool for competitive balance and that makes them morally superior.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Okay, so, for all you power level advocates, what do I, as someone who doesn't think GW's games are all that balanced so am not in love with traditional points, do if I like a unit as a basic one when its power level is priced for it being fully upgraded?

A very straightforward example: what if I want to run my scouts as cheap, light option for Marines (this is how I like to run them, not some weird hypothetical, BTW)? Do I just run this 55 point unit for power level 6 as-is and say "hey, I'm playing what I want to" despite them not functioning in that role (they're not a cheap, fodder unit at that price)? Do I give them the bells and whistles so they're up to an average cost, with pretend camo cloaks and a kitted out sergeant (again, not what I chose them for)? Do I not take them at all? Do I take them, knowing they're way overpriced, and mentally rebalance things by taking underpriced other things to compensate so it ballpark gets a better price? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, so please don't take it that way, I'm just not seeing the point of power levels when, as far as I'm seeing, they really poorly represent some styles of play.

Pink Horror wrote:
What do you do when a unit you like is way overcosted in points? Do the same thing.

 Elbows wrote:
Suddenly...I understand why Peregrine is the way he is.

hobojebus wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Spoiler:

hobojebus wrote:

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.

You specifically stated how broken it was when released, as though the points had rectified that situation. Strange how suddenly when I point out that the two systems are identical in structure the points in age of sigmar are now too imbalanced as well.

If you actually thought that, it would have been the entire crux of your argument when you brought up AOS.

Edit because my fingers don't work right when I am sleepy.

Search these forums you'll never find an instance where i've said AoS is fixed or even playable these days .

It was horribly broken on release you had to stand on a fence to get a save and summoning was just outright the most OP thing ever.

This is not the gotcha moment your looking for.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Spoiler:

hobojebus wrote:

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.

You specifically stated how broken it was when released, as though the points had rectified that situation. Strange how suddenly when I point out that the two systems are identical in structure the points in age of sigmar are now too imbalanced as well.

If you actually thought that, it would have been the entire crux of your argument when you brought up AOS.

Edit because my fingers don't work right when I am sleepy.

Search these forums you'll never find an instance where i've said AoS is fixed or even playable these days .

It was horribly broken on release you had to stand on a fence to get a save and summoning was just outright the most OP thing ever.

This is not the gotcha moment your looking for.

Please, reread the post I quoted and tell me that it implies anything besides points in AOS fixing balance discrepancies. I don't need to search the thread, or even the website. You stated that get of sigmar was "a shitshow when released" and made no mention of unplayability afterwards. That can mean nothing more than you feeling the points system fixed the issue.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Okay, so, for all you power level advocates, what do I, as someone who doesn't think GW's games are all that balanced so am not in love with traditional points, do if I like a unit as a basic one when its power level is priced for it being fully upgraded?

A very straightforward example: what if I want to run my scouts as cheap, light option for Marines (this is how I like to run them, not some weird hypothetical, BTW)? Do I just run this 55 point unit for power level 6 as-is and say "hey, I'm playing what I want to" despite them not functioning in that role (they're not a cheap, fodder unit at that price)? Do I give them the bells and whistles so they're up to an average cost, with pretend camo cloaks and a kitted out sergeant (again, not what I chose them for)? Do I not take them at all? Do I take them, knowing they're way overpriced, and mentally rebalance things by taking underpriced other things to compensate so it ballpark gets a better price? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, so please don't take it that way, I'm just not seeing the point of power levels when, as far as I'm seeing, they really poorly represent some styles of play.

tneva82 wrote:
[It's quicker way of setting up game. Nothing more, nothing less.

Neither aims for balanced game really. Both aim at getting game up quickly.

 Lansirill wrote:
So, how many people that think that points are just plain better than power levels have played 10-15 games using both systems to get a feel for how they actually work out? How many people that think that power levels are useful have played 10-15 games using power levels to get a feel for how balanced they are?

I know I have an impression that one group has more experience with the two systems, but I'm also a bit biased towards that group so I thought I'd ask in case I'm just seeing what I want to see.

 Elbows wrote:
Eh, personally I'm totally fine with the player base being separated...doesn't really hurt anything.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Voted points but have nothing against power levels.

 Jambles wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Eh, personally I'm totally fine with the player base being separated...doesn't really hurt anything.

It's GW having to cater to different groups with mutually exclusive views on not just how the game should be played, but indeed what the game even is, that causes me concern.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive, I think - but it's nothing new that there are those that believe this isn't the case, so it's probably fine. I just don't want to see 40k go all French Revolution up in here.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Voted points but have nothing against power levels.

I know, I did the same, but with Power Levels...there needed to be a third option...almost makes me want to do a new thread with more options.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Voted points but have nothing against power levels.

I know, I did the same, but with Power Levels...there needed to be a third option...almost makes me want to do a new thread with more options.

Indeed. There should have been a "both", "neither", or "situational" option available. This poll I think may have inadvertently contributed to the divide of the players in this discussion.

This is a game