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.

Points, if I'm playing. Power, if I'm playing with children.

Otherwise, if and when I want to play pretend I will play DND.

But the grav squads in 7th were objectively way better? So everyone that can is going to pay the same power for the better thing and punish the people that prefer plasma weapons or more extreme the 'heavy bolters look cool' guy. The 'heavy bolters look cool' guy would be disadvantaged in points games too but at least he'd be paying a little less and taking more of something else.

 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.

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.

What you wrote may be a key to a lot of misunderstandings in this thread - me and my wife own about 10,000 points total worth of various Eldar factions, Tyranids and Genestealer Cults (and slowly starting AdMech and Necrons), yet we usualy played 7th ed at 1100-1500pts level, with lists changing every week. We usually played 2-4 games over a weekend, totaling 100+ games between ourselves alone in 2016. If you add games with other players in our small group, it might be clearer why cutting time on listbuilding using Power Levels for narrative/asymmetric scenarios is usefull to us - we can simply fit more other parts of life in a week spending less time on 40K preparations or fit more, more varied 40K games in a single weekend making new lists "on the fly" and learning new edition not by mathhammering but by quickly gaining intuitive tabletop experience. Many people posting on dakka play less than a dozen times in a year (I made a poll about games frequency couple of months ago) and more often than not do so with complete strangers - such discrepancies within a single discussion lead to many confusions, because people often assume, that other people play 40K for exact same reasons in exact same way as they do (or as people in their FLGS do, or as most players do, whatever their bias is). I can't even imagine how bored with 40K would I be if someone sadistic forced me to play those 100+ times with the same opponent, on the same (even if modular) table, using same lists (even perfectly painted ones), always in a Matched Play, Eternal War, perfectly ballanced style...

Another thing leading to many further confusions is an assumption made by some, that choosing any of viable ways of having fun with 40K automatically mean, that you despise any other way... Or that there is The Only True Way of playing 40K, whichever way this may be...

Power levels most of the time. Points if my opponent insists. Most of the cool alternative rules and unusual scenarios are written for power levels and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

 Actinium wrote:
But the grav squads in 7th were objectively way better? So everyone that can is going to pay the same power for the better thing and punish the people that prefer plasma weapons or more extreme the 'heavy bolters look cool' guy. The 'heavy bolters look cool' guy would be disadvantaged in points games too but at least he'd be paying a little less and taking more of something else.

Exactly. It's ridiculous to say that the differences in value between different upgrade choices are a reason to use a point system that prices all upgrades equally (at zero points), those differences in power are a major reason for using the conventional point system with different point costs for each upgrade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
If you add games with other players in our small group, it might be clearer why cutting time on listbuilding using Power Levels for narrative/asymmetric scenarios is usefull to us - we can simply fit more other parts of life in a week spending less time on 40K preparations or fit more, more varied 40K games in a single weekend making new lists "on the fly" and learning new edition not by mathhammering but by quickly gaining intuitive tabletop experience.

It really doesn't let you do this. If you're playing that many games you're probably very familiar with your army, which means using the full point system is going to take maybe five minutes per game, at most. That's 10-20 minutes even under the most favorable assumption for time, not long enough to make any meaningful difference in how much other stuff you can do.

 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.

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.

You do that? I just sort of impulse buy things I like. That's how I end up with too many Leman Russes and not enough Chimerae. So then, because I have quite a few Russes and not-quite-a-few Chimerae, I sit down and write Armoured Battlegroup lists as opposed to Mechvets lists.

But you're missing the point of power level. If your computing the most power-efficient army, then I'm going to wait for you to recompute it's points cost. You're clearly not in the spirit of game as played with power levels. It's like bringing a jetboat to a concrete canoe event. Power is a rough gauge, for applications like apocalypse games, asymmetric narrative games, and facilitating play with new players who don't have the experience to craft a detailed list and don't know if they need a flamer or a storm bolter or a meltagun.

Also, as others said, PLx20=Points, so a 70 PL army is approximately a 1400 point army.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
If you add games with other players in our small group, it might be clearer why cutting time on listbuilding using Power Levels for narrative/asymmetric scenarios is usefull to us - we can simply fit more other parts of life in a week spending less time on 40K preparations or fit more, more varied 40K games in a single weekend making new lists "on the fly" and learning new edition not by mathhammering but by quickly gaining intuitive tabletop experience.

It really doesn't let you do this. If you're playing that many games you're probably very familiar with your army, which means using the full point system is going to take maybe five minutes per game, at most. That's 10-20 minutes even under the most favorable assumption for time, not long enough to make any meaningful difference in how much other stuff you can do.

Of course you know better how much time it takes me or how long it should take, no matter the particular circumstances of any scenario played... You don't play too many Aspect Warrior based Eldar games, do you? It can sometimes take 30+ minutes to figure out some interesting new composition of "not smaller than some minimum" blocks to fit nicely into a rigid point limit. Which of course is fun in it's own way, but I welcome having a well defined alternative, especially when it comes with nice "shorctut" narrative scenarios to use alongside in one neat package.

And how I'm supposed to be familiar with what my 8th ed army do to the same extent as I'm familiar what my 7th ed units do, when I'm only a couple games into entirely new mechanics, efficiencies and points/power level values?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Power is a rough gauge, for applications like apocalypse games, asymmetric narrative games, and facilitating play with new players who don't have the experience to craft a detailed list and don't know if they need a flamer or a storm bolter or a meltagun.

None of these things benefit from a less-accurate point system.

Apocalypse "games" don't need points, or even any kind of rules at all. Pile models all over the table, then put them back in their boxes as quickly as you can. Once all of the models have been removed (or you've spent enough hours "playing" that you get tired of it) tell yourself how much fun you had playing Apocalypse. It's the exact same experience as a real "Apocalypse" game, but with none of the tedious worrying about what the rules are.

Asymmetric narrative games are harder to balance with a less-accurate point system. You know there's asymmetry in the game, but it helps to know exactly how much asymmetry is in the army strengths so you can balance it with the scenario rules and give each player a 50/50 chance of winning. And, at best, using the less-accurate point system is saving maybe a minute or two of setup time compared to the better point system, so you're gaining nothing by using it.

Newbie teaching games are using pre-made lists created by the more experienced player anyway, so the newbie doesn't even know what point system was used. And making all upgrades cost zero points doesn't help them figure out that question. They still have to decide which is the better weapon, even if the costs are equal, and making the wrong choice still creates a weaker unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Of course you know better how much time it takes me or how long it should take, no matter the particular circumstances of any scenario played...

I know how long basic addition takes, and once you know the point costs of your most common units/upgrades there's no meaningful difference between adding 20+15+10 and 400+300+200.

You don't play too many Aspect Warrior based Eldar games, do you? It can sometimes take 30+ minutes to figure out some interesting new composition of "not smaller than some minimum" blocks to fit nicely into a rigid point limit.

I honestly have no idea how you can spend that much time trying to figure out a list, especially for a "casual" game where you don't really care about winning or precise competitive balance. Just put together some units and call it good enough, you don't need to spend a bunch of time deciding between 10-model and 12-model units or 11 and 11.

And how I'm supposed to be familiar with what my 8th ed army do to the same extent as I'm familiar what my 7th ed units do, when I'm only a couple games into entirely new mechanics, efficiencies and points/power level values?

Obviously a new edition changes things, but if you're playing as many games as you claim you're probably going to start remembering your most common points pretty quickly (just like you'll start remembering your most common power levels).

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
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.

...Unless you prefer a stripped down unit. Then you need to pay for upgrades you're not taking, or take upgrades you don't want.

And how does taking weapons for a flat cost (often free) make people any less prone to or capable of taking whichever is the most efficient (in this case, strongest, rather than best for the investment as with paid for upgrades)?

 Peregrine wrote:

Apocalypse "games" don't need points, or even any kind of rules at all. Pile models all over the table, then put them back in their boxes as quickly as you can. Once all of the models have been removed (or you've spent enough hours "playing" that you get tired of it) tell yourself how much fun you had playing Apocalypse. It's the exact same experience as a real "Apocalypse" game, but with none of the tedious worrying about what the rules are.

Seriously?

I have a lot of fun playing large games with lots of tanks.



And, I've explained how PL is great for new players already. It's like the shallow end of the swimming pool, if you will. There's a lot of depth of 40k, and a massive amount of "being good" at the game is in list building and weighing the costs and benefits of upgrade. Building a list for a new player is like putting floaties on them so there's no way to sink, useful if they can't swim, but a hindrance if they can but aren't good enough to go where their feet can't touch the bottom. Power Level lets them build their own list without me having to look over their shoulder.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Seriously?

I have a lot of fun playing large games with lots of tanks.

Yes, seriously. Every single Apocalypse game I've played has been a tedious slog, even when the organizers were enforcing timed phases instead of letting a single phase take an hour or more. The table is too packed with models for movement to matter (other than the occasional charge directly forward across the neutral space), there's seldom any objective beyond "kill some stuff", and all you do is roll dice back and forth until the game ends. It's kind of fun to see the spectacle of that many models on the table at once, but as a game Apocalypse sucks.

And, I've explained how PL is great for new players already. It's like the shallow end of the swimming pool, if you will. There's a lot of depth of 40k, and a massive amount of "being good" at the game is in list building and weighing the costs and benefits of upgrade. Building a list for a new player is like putting floaties on them so there's no way to sink, useful if they can't swim, but a hindrance if they can but aren't good enough to go where their feet can't touch the bottom. Power Level lets them build their own list without me having to look over their shoulder.

And, I've explained why your argument doesn't work. Making upgrades cost zero points doesn't remove the cost-benefit analysis. You still have to figure out if, say, a flamer is better than a plasma gun, and if you make the weaker choice then your unit is not as good as if you'd made the correct choice. Anyone who can figure out how to make a functioning list with less-accurate points can do the same with more-accurate points.

Also, remember that new players are often limited in what they have available if you want to play by WYSIWYG rules. Ignoring the cost of upgrades means that a new player who lacks the models for the optimal unit configuration suffers from overpriced units, on top of having missing upgrade slots, because the point cost of a unit assumes that you're taking those upgrades. But when you count the cost of upgrades the new player isn't paying for upgrades they can't bring, their units are less powerful but cost fewer points to compensate. So in this situation the newbie trying to build a list with the less-accurate point system is going to be at a disadvantage compared to playing the game with the conventional point system.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Seriously?

I have a lot of fun playing large games with lots of tanks.

Yes, seriously. Every single Apocalypse game I've played has been a tedious slog, even when the organizers were enforcing timed phases instead of letting a single phase take an hour or more. The table is too packed with models for movement to matter (other than the occasional charge directly forward across the neutral space), there's seldom any objective beyond "kill some stuff", and all you do is roll dice back and forth until the game ends. It's kind of fun to see the spectacle of that many models on the table at once, but as a game Apocalypse sucks.

And, I've explained how PL is great for new players already. It's like the shallow end of the swimming pool, if you will. There's a lot of depth of 40k, and a massive amount of "being good" at the game is in list building and weighing the costs and benefits of upgrade. Building a list for a new player is like putting floaties on them so there's no way to sink, useful if they can't swim, but a hindrance if they can but aren't good enough to go where their feet can't touch the bottom. Power Level lets them build their own list without me having to look over their shoulder.

And, I've explained why your argument doesn't work. Making upgrades cost zero points doesn't remove the cost-benefit analysis. You still have to figure out if, say, a flamer is better than a plasma gun, and if you make the weaker choice then your unit is not as good as if you'd made the correct choice. Anyone who can figure out how to make a functioning list with less-accurate points can do the same with more-accurate points.

You clearly haven't been playing the same Apocalypse games I've been playing. We use the floor of a large room for about 6000 points. There are a number of objectives across the board, and at each break we score them. There are approximately 3 breaks [Lunch, Mid-day, Dinner] and a final round of scoring in the evening before we clean up. At 6000 points, turns don't take that long. Most infantry is mounted up or in reserve, if it exists at all. 5000-6000 points works well, because each player can bring 2500 to 3000 points of things, and there's plenty of space on the board to do things. Typically a player side consists of a team of two, and two players also helps to speed the game up since we can resolve shooting twice as fast.


You also clearly don't routinely play 40k with people who, before meeting you, didn't even know that tabletop miniatures wargaming is a thing that exists. I think Power Levels will work well for this purpose. Many people I play with are challenged as to whether or not they want to use a squad of terminators. Considering the upgrades they're allowed to take would make their brain melt.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
We use the floor of a large room for about 6000 points.

Oh hell no. Aside from the gameplay issues (short-ranged/slow units ever getting to interact with each other on that large a space) that sounds like an exercise in masochism. Pain from kneeling to play on the floor all day, broken models if someone makes a single careless step, etc.

You also clearly don't routinely play 40k with people who, before meeting you, didn't even know that tabletop miniatures wargaming is a thing that exists. I think Power Levels will work well for this purpose.

No, I don't, but I still don't see how using a bad point system is better than using a good point system. All of the difficulties in learning the better point system apply to the bad one, the only difference is a very small amount of basic addition to do in list construction. You'd have a point if power levels involved fixed unit configurations and stripped out a lot of the customization, but all of the work of figuring out how to equip a unit is still there. And, arguably, there's more work to do with power levels because you don't have upgrade costs as a guide. If a flamer costs 5 points and a plasma gun costs 15 points it's very obvious that your choice is between a cheaper but less-powerful weapon and an awesome gun that costs more to equip. When both weapons cost zero points you don't have that guide, and if you accidentally pick the flamer because you don't understand how to analyze the choices yet you're over-paying for your unit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
We use the floor of a large room for about 6000 points.

Oh hell no. Aside from the gameplay issues (short-ranged/slow units ever getting to interact with each other on that large a space) that sounds like an exercise in masochism. Pain from kneeling to play on the floor all day, broken models if someone makes a single careless step, etc.

You also clearly don't routinely play 40k with people who, before meeting you, didn't even know that tabletop miniatures wargaming is a thing that exists. I think Power Levels will work well for this purpose.

No, I don't, but I still don't see how using a bad point system is better than using a good point system. All of the difficulties in learning the better point system apply to the bad one, the only difference is a very small amount of basic addition to do in list construction. You'd have a point if power levels involved fixed unit configurations and stripped out a lot of the customization, but all of the work of figuring out how to equip a unit is still there. And, arguably, there's more work to do with power levels because you don't have upgrade costs as a guide. If a flamer costs 5 points and a plasma gun costs 15 points it's very obvious that your choice is between a cheaper but less-powerful weapon and an awesome gun that costs more to equip. When both weapons cost zero points you don't have that guide, and if you accidentally pick the flamer because you don't understand how to analyze the choices yet you're over-paying for your unit.

Hammerheads, Leman Russes, Flyrants, Doomsday Arks, Shadowswords, Heirophants, and Basilisks have never had a problem.

We've also done it on a Ping-Pong table to alleviate the hands-and-knees aspect, but that becomes overcrowded at 5000 points. The games store also sometimes pushes together 3 realm-of-battle boards if it's an event, but that only happens once in a while.

The problem with Apoc is that you have to gather at someone's house, because you can't really do it at the LGS. In order for enough people to play to compensate the LGS for letting you take up all the space all day long, you'd need a bigger space than the LGS has.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Power is a rough gauge, for applications like apocalypse games, asymmetric narrative games, and facilitating play with new players who don't have the experience to craft a detailed list and don't know if they need a flamer or a storm bolter or a meltagun.

None of these things benefit from a less-accurate point system.

Apocalypse "games" don't need points, or even any kind of rules at all. Pile models all over the table, then put them back in their boxes as quickly as you can. Once all of the models have been removed (or you've spent enough hours "playing" that you get tired of it) tell yourself how much fun you had playing Apocalypse. It's the exact same experience as a real "Apocalypse" game, but with none of the tedious worrying about what the rules are.

Asymmetric narrative games are harder to balance with a less-accurate point system. You know there's asymmetry in the game, but it helps to know exactly how much asymmetry is in the army strengths so you can balance it with the scenario rules and give each player a 50/50 chance of winning. And, at best, using the less-accurate point system is saving maybe a minute or two of setup time compared to the better point system, so you're gaining nothing by using it.

Newbie teaching games are using pre-made lists created by the more experienced player anyway, so the newbie doesn't even know what point system was used. And making all upgrades cost zero points doesn't help them figure out that question. They still have to decide which is the better weapon, even if the costs are equal, and making the wrong choice still creates a weaker unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Of course you know better how much time it takes me or how long it should take, no matter the particular circumstances of any scenario played...

I know how long basic addition takes, and once you know the point costs of your most common units/upgrades there's no meaningful difference between adding 20+15+10 and 400+300+200.

You don't play too many Aspect Warrior based Eldar games, do you? It can sometimes take 30+ minutes to figure out some interesting new composition of "not smaller than some minimum" blocks to fit nicely into a rigid point limit.

I honestly have no idea how you can spend that much time trying to figure out a list, especially for a "casual" game where you don't really care about winning or precise competitive balance. Just put together some units and call it good enough, you don't need to spend a bunch of time deciding between 10-model and 12-model units or 11 and 11.

And how I'm supposed to be familiar with what my 8th ed army do to the same extent as I'm familiar what my 7th ed units do, when I'm only a couple games into entirely new mechanics, efficiencies and points/power level values?

Obviously a new edition changes things, but if you're playing as many games as you claim you're probably going to start remembering your most common points pretty quickly (just like you'll start remembering your most common power levels).

Realy, I just give up...

You are obviously right about one thing though, basic addition is trivial. But I leave to you figuring out why exactly your answer to this part of my post was utterly ignorant in the context of my posts in this thread... Which may be hard for someone who thinks, that the problem with deep understanding of game mechanics of new 40K edition boils down to remembering point/power level costs of things...

Hmmm... I find power levels very usefull to teach people to play and the basis of making a balanced army, not because people are making a list from 0 and selecting all the wargear of their units.

Is more like Heroscape. You give that person a number of pre-made units, you say him or her how many points are you gonna play, and you let pick the units.

"You have here 5 squads of Space Marines, 4 tanks, 3 Characters and 2 squads of bikes. You can choose units to 30 Power Level"

That way you let them began the process of listbuilding without having to care about upgrades and weapons. The models are already made.

Thats why Heroscape is a game so good to teach new people how to Wargame. They have freedom to make their army, but they have still choice without entering in more complicated things as choosing the full loadout of a Tactical Squad + Sargeant.

That way, mi 8 years old niece learned that picking the Orc Leader in raptor alongside the squad of Orc archers and Orc warriors was better than Picking the Orc leader, the dragon and the Giant Robot, because the Orc Leader can give +1 dice of attack to the orcs. Even if both of those armies where the same number of points.

When 80% of the people you play with are using your own armies, is actually a very usefull tool, because they can pick units but not the loadout of them.

 Galas wrote:
"You have here 5 squads of Space Marines, 4 tanks, 3 Characters and 2 squads of bikes. You can choose units to 30 Power Level"

That way you let them began the process of listbuilding without having to care about upgrades and weapons. The models are already made.

This works just as well with conventional points. You build the units and add up their point costs, and only present the newbie with the total for each unit.

Jambles wrote:

 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.

This is just fanning the flames at this point. I mean, you outright state here that you're only hoping to have your viewpoint reaffirmed.

This ain't a discussion anymore, people are too entrenched. We've got strawmanning and scapegoating all over the place. Somebody called it earlier that this got political too fast, there's too many vocal extremists on both sides. I guess we'll just have to learn to live with the new divide - not a fan of how GW puts these sorts of things in place without thinking of how it can separate their player base.

Actually, I was more hoping to have my viewpoint checked. I mean, I certainly *expected* it to be affirmed, since I came to it based on what I've already seen but I could be wrong. (For what it's worth, it seems like 'Team Power Levels are OK' has played a game or two with power levels and 'Team Points Are Best' has not tried using power levels. Since nobody was interested in answering I don't feel like I need to keep my opinion to myself to avoid biasing anyone.)

Frankly, I don't really care too much about the points system; it'll exist, it'll be flawed, it'll be the standard, and I'll deal with it just like I always have. I'm very curious to see how well power levels work out though, because it seems like a good system for breaking out suboptimal toys without getting terribly punished for it. Sure you can do that with points as well, but power levels might work better. If I can see it working out for other people, then I don't have to do *all* of the hard work of seeing how good (or bad) the system is myself.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
"You have here 5 squads of Space Marines, 4 tanks, 3 Characters and 2 squads of bikes. You can choose units to 30 Power Level"

That way you let them began the process of listbuilding without having to care about upgrades and weapons. The models are already made.

This works just as well with conventional points. You build the units and add up their point costs, and only present the newbie with the total for each unit.

You are correct, but for children is much easier to add small numbers as PL to 60 than points for a 1k army for example.

 Galas wrote:
You are correct, but for children is much easier to add small numbers as PL to 60 than points for a 1k army for example.

Possibly true, though I would wonder why you think that a game with the level of brutal violence and suffering of 40k is something that is appropriate for small children who still struggle with simple addition...

Or that a child can have sufficient intellect to understand the game to the point where a list building technique of any colour is needed, but isn't able to do the simple addition.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You are correct, but for children is much easier to add small numbers as PL to 60 than points for a 1k army for example.

Possibly true, though I would wonder why you think that a game with the level of brutal violence and suffering of 40k is something that is appropriate for small children who still struggle with simple addition...

Typical western double standards I don't explain the dept of the lore to new comers. Ones are the good guys, others are the funny green guys, other are elfs, other are bugs that eat things, etc... Isn't like I expose children to all of the horrors about the Cherubin, Servitors, Slaanesh and all of that, etc...

 Azreal13 wrote:
Or that a child can have sufficient intellect to understand the game to the point where a list building technique of any colour is needed, but isn't able to do the simple addition.

I'm here only to speak for myself, but I have teach how to play both to adults and children, all of them totally newcomers for Wargames, and normally they can grasp the basics of the game without a problem, but put them in front of a codex and tell them to buy a army and they normally have much more problems with that. And others just don't care, they want to play with some units, but don't want to learn all the different weapon profiles and special rules, etc...

I know Peregrine than you have big traumas with "Casual at all costs" type of players, but theres people out there that are genuine casuals, they only want to throw some dice with nice miniatures. (But to be honest normally in that case we even play without points at all)
I'm not here to say that Power Levels are better than Points, they aren't in any shape or form. But to me they are gonna be usefull.

That's not the same as simple maths.

Expecting someone to be able to draw up an army list from a Codex =\= being able to add up the points cost. If you can't add, especially without limitation on using aides, then you're not old enough/smart enough to grasp the game.

 Galas wrote:
I'm here only to speak for myself, but I have teach how to play both to adults and children, all of them totally newcomers for Wargames, and normally they can grasp the basics of the game without a problem, but put them in front of a codex and tell them to buy a army and they normally have much more problems with that. And others just don't care, they want to play with some units, but don't want to learn all the different weapon profiles and special rules, etc..

Someone who has trouble with those things is going to have the exact same problems with power levels. Replacing a point system with a slightly less accurate point system doesn't change anything here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Typical western double standards I don't explain the dept of the lore to new comers. Ones are the good guys, others are the funny green guys, other are elfs, other are bugs that eat things, etc... Isn't like I expose children to all of the horrors about the Cherubin, Servitors, Slaanesh and all of that, etc...

If you aren't going to explain the lore then why play 40k at all? The lore is the whole point of the game, without it you've just got a terribly written and poorly balanced mess with no redeeming qualities.

Well. One day, I played the game (In a very simple form and with many rules wrong, but wathever) with a pseudo-illiterate70 years old person, so I think the kind of people that I normally play with has other kinds of needs.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'm here only to speak for myself, but I have teach how to play both to adults and children, all of them totally newcomers for Wargames, and normally they can grasp the basics of the game without a problem, but put them in front of a codex and tell them to buy a army and they normally have much more problems with that. And others just don't care, they want to play with some units, but don't want to learn all the different weapon profiles and special rules, etc..

Someone who has trouble with those things is going to have the exact same problems with power levels. Replacing a point system with a slightly less accurate point system doesn't change anything here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Typical western double standards I don't explain the dept of the lore to new comers. Ones are the good guys, others are the funny green guys, other are elfs, other are bugs that eat things, etc... Isn't like I expose children to all of the horrors about the Cherubin, Servitors, Slaanesh and all of that, etc...

If you aren't going to explain the lore then why play 40k at all? The lore is the whole point of the game, without it you've just got a terribly written and poorly balanced mess with no redeeming qualities.

Actually, changing big numbers for little numbers has a big impact.

And about the lore... don't everybody has the same tastes as you Peregrine. I do, but not everyone.

Specific does not beat general, this isn't YMDC.

If I once taught a blind paraplegic to play, none of anything I needed to do to accommodate their limitations has any relevance on the broader discussion.

But... what I'm trying to beat? I was just talking about how PL are gonna be usefull for me

At this point everything that could be said has been said. No one has gonna change the minds of the others.

 Galas wrote:
Actually, changing big numbers for little numbers has a big impact.

It really doesn't. If you have the intellectual ability and maturity to play 40k at all you can add up either set of numbers equally well, especially now that everyone is carrying a calculator in their pocket.

And about the lore... don't everybody has the same tastes as you Peregrine. I do, but not everyone.

If someone doesn't have the same tastes as me then why would they play 40k? The rules are pretty clearly a mess by objective standards of game design, the cost is much higher than the competition, and GW shows no apparent interest in fixing these problems. We put up with these problems because the lore is awesome, and we want to keep playing in the 40k universe. But for someone who doesn't care about the lore what's the appeal?

Basically because the miniatures aren't theirs and playing games is a strong social activity that can be fun even if the game is mediocre.

I know, I know, is a filthy casual mentality, but it exist.

 Peregrine wrote:


Asymmetric narrative games are harder to balance with a less-accurate point system. You know there's asymmetry in the game, but it helps to know exactly how much asymmetry is in the army strengths so you can balance it with the scenario rules and give each player a 50/50 chance of winning. And, at best, using the less-accurate point system is saving maybe a minute or two of setup time compared to the better point system, so you're gaining nothing by using it.

Normally, I'd agree with you here. The caveat, unfortunately, is that GW has all but said that their point system doesn't work outside the narrowly defined scope of equally pointed sides operating within the framework of the six Eternal War and Maelstrom of War missions using the six deployment maps.

Granted, they haven't actually said it doesn't work outside that scope, but the way they've laid things out and how we've seen them play very strongly implies it.

Which is a shame because there's all sorts of neat things you can do with point systems in terms of rewards and handicaps in a narrative campaign to keep it exciting (and to prevent one lucky or more skilled player from shutting everyone out early on).

On the other-other hand (oh, hell, I think I'm a genestealer) I don't know that power levels can't be made to serve. And until I know that points don't utterly fall apart outside the narrow use GW has designed them for, I think any campaign I organize will need to use power levels.