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.

I expect our group to use both, but probably power points more often than not because it saves time. Some of my groups players are notorious for not bringing lists to our games and ends up spending an hour building their list before we get to play, so I think power points will save us a lot of time in that regard.

I couldn't possibly care less about what system other people use to play the game. I am however interested in understanding thought processes.

To that end I've yet to see any kind of logically consistent argument for why using power is more simple or faster than using points.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I couldn't possibly care less about what system other people use to play the game. I am however interested in understanding thought processes.

To that end I've yet to see any kind of logically consistent argument for why using power is more simple or faster than using points.

There's also no consistent argument for why points are more balanced than power levels.

What nonsense. Points are more balanced than PL because they offer a greater degree of granularity.

Whether items are pointed correctly isn't the same argument, and applies equally to PL.

Granular Points are only more balanced if the points are pointed correctly.

Which they never are.

(And yes that same applies to power level)

And in the end who cares

The real argument from a lot of people I am taking away is that they just prefer granular points. Full stop.

 Azreal13 wrote:
What nonsense. Points are more balanced than PL because they offer a greater degree of granularity.

Whether items are pointed correctly isn't the same argument, and applies equally to PL.

You're just asserting there's a connection between granularity and balance, when there's no such thing.

I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.

Pink Horror wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
What nonsense. Points are more balanced than PL because they offer a greater degree of granularity.

Whether items are pointed correctly isn't the same argument, and applies equally to PL.

You're just asserting there's a connection between granularity and balance, when there's no such thing.

Of course there is.

Guardsman A with Lasgun costs 10 points or 1 power (arbitrary numbers.)

Guardsman B with Plasma Gun costs 17 points or 1 power, because power doesn't change with equipment.

Given the Plasma gun is just about better in any conceivable situation, points much better represent that improved efficacy and therefore offer better balance.

Greater granularity offers more opportunity for balance. Power doesn't work for this while there remain objectively better or worse options, because when those options don't have an advantage or drawback (i.e. they require a greater or lesser investment in list resources) they then become unbalanced choices. Power would work fine for balance if all options were just equal but different, but while there remain greater or lesser choices, points function much more effectively.

You just said yourself, granularity offers the opportunity for balance - there is no direct connection. If GW flubs the points cost on models, there is no increased balance.

Which is, as I've already said, a different argument.

Power Levels can be equally shoddy and cause imbalance, but points still remains the superior system to give the best opportunity for balance to happen.

 Elbows wrote:
You just said yourself, granularity offers the opportunity for balance - there is no direct connection. If GW flubs the points cost on models, there is no increased balance.

A system doesn't have to be perfectly balanced to be MORE balanced then another system. You're making a strawman.

 Lobukia wrote:
If you want to play power level, do that.

If you don't, dont.

Clearly in pickup play, both can potentially create very one sided games. Truthfully I'll be surprised if more than 4 people in my local meta even want to do power levels. But I'll have a coupe 100PL lists ready to go and a couple 2k, and probably overlap a vast majority of the units between the 4.

Really don't see the big deal. I can have fun on either side of a rout. If one method seems horribly unbalanced, I'll ask for games of the other.

An open mind is a fortress with its doors unlocked and unguarded!

 Elbows wrote:
I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.

Like I said, the main appeal of power level is proving a point about how superior you are for using it, not anything to do with it being a functioning system that is better than the alternative.

 Elbows wrote:
I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.

But that's cutting your nose off to spite your face, the only person that hurts is you.

Points advocates are thinking about the good of the whole community,

hobojebus wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.

But that's cutting your nose off to spite your face, the only person that hurts is you.

Points advocates are thinking about the good of the whole community,

Hi, community member here!

Speak for yourself, and feth off.

Cheers!

I like power Levels more today than I did the last time I posted on this thread.
I don't like this, 18 points for a Mek gun, 32 points to make it a Bubble chukka and 15 more points for the crew. (62) That's a single artillery with 4 random stats, two of which are chosen by my opponent and all for 62 points. Or, I could get all of that for 3 points of power level. Points costs create the so called "unusable units". The only down side to not using points is having to buy units in assigned increments. So, I can't field 25 Storm Boys.
I can live with that.

Points all the way.

Power levels give no incentive to not have upgraded units, in order to be effective everything must be maxed out.

That said... the new point system is unnecessarily complicated in my opinion. Not including normal wargear in default unit costs is silly.

 warhead01 wrote:
I like power Levels more today than I did the last time I posted on this thread.
I don't like this, 18 points for a Mek gun, 32 points to make it a Bubble chukka and 15 more points for the crew. (62) That's a single artillery with 4 random stats, two of which are chosen by my opponent and all for 62 points. Or, I could get all of that for 3 points of power level. Points costs create the so called "unusable units". The only down side to not using points is having to buy units in assigned increments. So, I can't field 25 Storm Boys.
I can live with that.

1PL is approximately equivalent to 20pts. 62pts for a 3PL unit is dead on.

What's weird is when you do something like take a squad of Deathwatch Veterans with bolters and chainswords (95pts) and have to pay 9PL for them because the people who wrote the PL estimate are assuming you're going to take four frag cannons (another 120pts) for every five Deathwatch models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.

Like I said, the main appeal of power level is proving a point about how superior you are for using it, not anything to do with it being a functioning system that is better than the alternative.

It isn't better than the alternative. The main point isn't to prove how superior you are for using it. Power level is a quick-and-dirty approach to the game that makes list-building a lot faster and works well enough in probably 85-90% of cases (with the remaining cases being odd unit sizes, units with too many upgrade options (e.g. Deathwatch), and typos (why is Coteaz (100pts) 4PL and Greyfax (85pts) 5PL?)).

The other thing this thread seems to be missing is that there's absolutely no reason to permit playing a PL list against a points list. Make your games "50PL or 1,000pts", or "100PL or 2,000pts", and everyone can build a list the way they want to without screwing anything up. And the writers erred on the side of making PL costs too high, so while it may be a less exact method of list-building it's also at least a slight handicap to the guy who chooses to use PL most of the time.

There is the old maxim: good gaming requires tough decisions.

Power levels avoid that. That was my problem with 7th. There were too many things that were vastly better than others, both internally inside a codex, and codex to codex.

I can only repeat myself... When playing outside Matched Play, regular points often have unnecessary granularity. My question from my initial reply in this thread remained unanswered for the last three pages: are exact-to-point ballanced armies worth the fuss in a Meatgrinder scenario?

To give some of you a perhaps easier to understand example from outside of 40K: if I'm making a typical leather top hat, I can calculate the lenght of material used for circumference of the top by using PI value of 3,14. I don't need better approximation, I don't gain antyhing from better approximation. If I make the same top hat for a quick and dirty cosplay made of foam, I can even manage with PI=3 and stretch the foam a bit during assembly. If I'm making a sculpture of a top hat from welded stainless steel, I might have to use PI=3,1415 or even PI=3,14159 depending on the scale of the sculpture. Points vs Power Levels is the same case of "good enough approximation of ballance for the task at hand". Is there any post in this thread, that advocates using "naked" Power Levels for high level tournament or tournament preparation games?

nou wrote:
I can only repeat myself... When playing outside Matched Play, regular points often have unnecessary granularity. My question from my initial reply in this thread remained unanswered for the last three pages: are exact-to-point ballanced armies worth the fuss in a Meatgrinder scenario?

To give some of you a perhaps easier to understand example from outside of 40K: if I'm making a typical leather top hat, I can calculate the lenght of material used for circumference of the top by using PI value of 3,14. I don't need better approximation, I don't gain antyhing from better approximation. If I make the same top hat for a quick and dirty cosplay made of foam, I can even manage with PI=3 and stretch the foam a bit during assembly. If I'm making a sculpture of a top hat from welded stainless steel, I might have to use PI=3,1415 or even PI=3,14159 depending on the scale of the sculpture. Points vs Power Levels is the same case of "good enough approximation of ballance for the task at hand". Is there any post in this thread, that advocates using "naked" Power Levels for high level tournament or tournament preparation games?

I'd say that's pretty reasonable, but at the same time, I don't think points are nearly as bad as some people are making them out to be. I would be willing to bet that, no matter how long list-making takes, doing it with points won't take more than five minutes more. Whether you take a minute or an hour, I'm pretty sure that's the case, since the kind of people who take an hour to make lists aren't taking that hour because they're dumb and can't add-they're taking an hour because they're weighing pros and cons of various units and loadouts. The actual math doesn't take much time, regardless.

So while I'm fine with other people using PL, I'll be sticking with the greater granularity (and hopefully balance, but eh, GW) of points.

No, points aren't bad at all. I'll be using them.

But, as Lobukia said, power levels remove many of the toughest decisions from list building, making them ideal for stepping new players into the game, and for setting up things like Apocalypse games, where the granularity becomes tedium when you're working out what IG Squad #15 and Leman Russ Tank #12 has.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.

Like I said, the main appeal of power level is proving a point about how superior you are for using it, not anything to do with it being a functioning system that is better than the alternative.

Yep, and I'm fine with that.

 Elbows wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I started out pretty indifferent, but the more I read this thread the more likely I am to play power level simply out of spite. There so much anger/angst against the use of power levels...if I can piss in some of those cheerios, I shall do so.

Like I said, the main appeal of power level is proving a point about how superior you are for using it, not anything to do with it being a functioning system that is better than the alternative.

Yep, and I'm fine with that.

Yeah... That's a toxic attitude right there.

To the people who legitimately prefer PL or don't care one way or the other-that's totally fine, your gaming, you have fun with it.

To anyone doing PL or points out of spite... Grow up.

I'll let you know when I need your advice JNA, thanks.

Yeah, posting in a public discussion forum is essentially an open invitation for other people to express their opinion, so you already did.

But I'd cordially invite you to stop on this tangent at this point, as, honestly, it isn't going anywhere good is it?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, posting in a public discussion forum is essentially an open invitation for other people to express their opinion, so you already did.

But I'd cordially invite you to stop on this tangent at this point, as, honestly, it isn't going anywhere good is it?

I'm fairly entertained.

Besides, JNA's point has feth all to do with the discussion as well.

I'm a little confused by the idea that people are making lists on the fly before games? Like this game is stupid expensive, i usually spend a couple months carefully crafting a list I'm happy with before i buy my first model for it.

I don't like that power levels imply a friendly more low key system but it's really just as, if not more, abusable than points are. People are absolutely going to calculate out what units with the most effective upgrades are being charged the least for and it's going to make for even more one sided games as inexperienced players use their starter army with few upgrades represented by WYSIWYG are being charged extra power for what they could be taking but aren't able to field.
I don't like that power level will probably have an entirely different set of most power efficient units compared to a faction's most point efficient units, which means to play both to best effect you would need to buy almost 2 armies worth of models.
And I super incredibly hate that this splits the player base, that i can be at a FLG and have a kid ask me if I have a 70 power army to play with him, and that now i have to do the extra leg work of either trying to help him make a pointed list or myself a powered list that is fairly matched to his or worse need to explain that i'm not really interested in power level games and have to turn him away.

I'd like to feel ambivalently about power level for people that want to use it but it is actively hurting my hobby experience more than it is helping it.

 Actinium wrote:
I'm a little confused by the idea that people are making lists on the fly before games? Like this game is stupid expensive, i usually spend a couple months carefully crafting a list I'm happy with before i buy my first model for it.
t.

There's a mindset that collects lists and a mindset that collects armies.

FWIW, I've never subscribed to the idea of collecting lists, it leaves you vulnerable to edition changes, Codex updates, even FAQs in these enlightened times. I'll collect an army, a faction that appeals to me across a number of aspects, and as a consequence I'll have a pool of models I can choose from when drawing up a list, and can easily draw up or modify a list at short notice.

To anyone who believes power levels support the notion of piling on as many upgrades as possible, you are missing the point.

Power levels allow you to not be NEGATIVELY impacted by choosing options as opposed to trying to shoehorn in the best possible ones. The best options are always based on cost per damage. Always. That means that often times a weapon will be cast aside due to being to weak compared to another. Power level doesn't care.

Look at the difference between grav guns and plasma guns last edition. Everyone said to take grav because of how much more efficient it was in points compared to plasma. I however like plasma more. With power points the choice is based purely on personal taste.