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.

 Melissia wrote:
While I disagree with his extremism, I find the pro-points arguments led by Peregrine to be a bit more logically sound than the pro-powerlevel arguments.

Even for someone who's relatively new to it, I can't really see why power level is somehow easier than points.

It's not really that it's easier, although it is; as well as faster. The main benefits of powerlevels over points are A) It reinforces the idea that the game you are playing is not meant to be taken seriously and B) offers a different meta than points.

Because let's be real, points do not, have not, will not ever equal balance. The ONLY thing points do is reduce variance between lists in terms of efficacy and dictate the metagame. Playing powerlevels offers a different metagame with (slightly) higher variance that will let players do something different if the points meta gets stale.

It's options and giving players MORE options is never a bad thing.

(Side note:All of the pro points arguments revolve around the assumption that points are more balanced than powerlevels because of the granularity. Do we know this is true? I mean it seems like it should be but have we actually done any significant testing?)

ERJAK wrote:


(Side note:All of the pro points arguments revolve around the assumption that points are more balanced than powerlevels because of the granularity. Do we know this is true? I mean it seems like it should be but have we actually done any significant testing?)

All fair points, but this in particular. It'll be interesting to see if enough people who are really into pushing the game hard enough to potentially break it look at power levels enough to see how this shakes out.

I was against power levels, and had many of the same ....reservations....that others mention here.

HOWEVER - after actually making lists and playing games (and reading a LOT more) - THEY ARE FINE.

in fact, they are awesome.

It radically shifts how you construct lists - you are more taking units that you want to take, as opposed to number crunching and worrying about and trying to maximize every little point.

I cannot stress this more : PLAY ACTUAL GAMES with them.

you deserve the experience.

[mod: please delete.]

 Peregrine wrote:

Trollsmyth wrote:
The further you get from the ideal case, the worse your margin of error gets. GW's ideal case is the twelve missions and six deployment charts that are approved for Matched Play. Deviating from those increases your margin of error. And since every measure is relative, that deviation is unequal across the vast range of things that have been given points. In other words, not only do the points become less and less accurate, the lack-of-accuracy is different for each unit, weapon, etc.

Yes, I agree that points may be less accurate outside of the official matched play missions, but that doesn't provide any evidence that power levels are more accurate. You can't just assume that a failure of points means that power levels must win by default, all of your criticism here applies just as much to power levels.

Of course, this is all assuming GW got some folks with strong backgrounds in statistics and quantitative analysis to derive their point values.

This is almost certainly an incorrect assumption.

This seems like a good post to quote for a contention I've been thinking about making for the past few pages:

Points-based granularity is ideally-suited for balancing units. Keyword: <IDEALLY>

Power levels are potentially more PRACTICAL for producing balance (or the closest semblance we'll get).

If you accept that the designers aren't getting deep into the math to determine points (as you seem to) then isn't it completely possible that the ideal balance offered by points is being squandered and that the simplicity of power levels would actually produce a more balanced game?

Designing a point-based system requires thousands more decisions on the part of the designer, and therefore thousands more opportunities to get those points wrong. If you accept that hundreds of those thousands of decisions are made wrong then the overall amount of "bad balance" in the system seems to scale up much more aggressively than it would in the power level format.

For example, it seems unlikely that the power level of a unit would be off by more than one or two power points in either direction. Meanwhile, it seemed to be commonly accepted that some things in 7th edition were improperly costed by, like, 100 points or more. Disclaimer: I quit 7th after one game on release day, so my understanding may be flawed, but I feel like I've seen many arguments to that effect (ie. that the Wraithknight was at least 100 points undercosted).

100 points equates to 0.07% of "bad balance" in a 1500 point game.
2 power points of "bad balance" in a 75 power point list is only 0.03%

Furthermore, maxing out upgrades in power level games also seems to erode the effects of bad balance decisions in design. You're always paying for the best version of a unit instead of exposing yourself to design mistakes.

Lastly, assuming the designers aren't doing the math, it just seems way easier to balance small-integer costs (even if it's half-accidental).

ERJAK wrote:
It's not really that it's easier, although it is; as well as faster.

It's actually harder and slower, given the lack of granularity in choices.

ERJAK wrote:
The main benefits of powerlevels over points are A) It reinforces the idea that the game you are playing is not meant to be taken seriously

Well you convinced me. I hate power levels now.

ERJAK wrote:
offers a different meta than points.

"It's different therefor it's good" is no better an argument than "it's different therefor it's bad".

ERJAK wrote:
giving players MORE options

Compared to points, power levels takes options away, from my perspective.

ERJAK wrote:
(Side note:All of the pro points arguments revolve around the assumption that points are more balanced than powerlevels because of the granularity. Do we know this is true? I mean it seems like it should be but have we actually done any significant testing?)

My arguments are about ease of use, honestly. I think points are easier to use than power levels, for the simple reason that it's easier to adjust points to meet a goal without changing which units you're bringing, than it is to adjust power levels without changing what units you're bringing.

But aside from that-- from my perspective, points actually are more balanced. Because each upgrade option is costed individually, you pay for them. This means factions like Sisters of Battle who have almost no upgrade options worth taking simply pay for those that are worth taking and then save points on not taking the rest. In power levels... upgrades aren't accounted for. A space marine captain with chainsword and bolt pistol is just as costly as a space marine captain with combiplasma and thunder hammer. This really adds up for armies that have lots of good upgrade options. And really hurts armies that don't. But points? These upgrade choices have a cost. You can argue the cost is too high, or too low. But they HAVE a cost. In power level, there is no cost.

tl;dr: If all upgrades were equally valuable, power levels might have an argument about balance. But they're NOT all equally powerful.

 Melissia wrote:

My arguments are about ease of use, honestly. I think points are easier to use than power levels, for the simple reason that it's easier to adjust points to meet a goal without changing which units you're bringing, than it is to adjust power levels without changing what units you're bringing.

I don't think you're being fair-minded/imaginative about what those goals might be, though.

For example, "I want to use at least two tactical squads with transports, one squad each of devastators and assault marines, and three tanks" is a perfectly legitimate goal, especially for a new player. With power points you can slap that list together in seconds and determine how many leftover points you have for other stuff, and everything will be maximally efficient. With traditional points you might calculate the cost of fully-upgraded versions of your core units, then see you have 167 points leftover, and maybe there's a 184 HQ you could include, but then you'd have to drop some tacticals, etc.

And this last bit is 100% personal aesthetics, but I'm excited that power points will be able to produce a table full of loaded squads. I'm sick of the rag-tag min-maxed vibe. It has it's place, but there will still be something cool about seeing full-size squads with all the weapons options filled.

 Altruizine wrote:
For example, "I want to use at least two tactical squads with transports, one squad each of devastators and assault marines, and three tanks" is a perfectly legitimate goal, especially for a new player. With power points you can slap that list together in seconds

Unless that list exceeds the agreed upon powerlevel points. In which case they can't. Because unlike points, powerlevel doesn't adjust easily to small changes.

 Melissia wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
It's not really that it's easier, although it is; as well as faster.

It's actually harder and slower, given the lack of granularity in choices.

ERJAK wrote:
The main benefits of powerlevels over points are A) It reinforces the idea that the game you are playing is not meant to be taken seriously

Well you convinced me. I hate power levels now.

ERJAK wrote:
offers a different meta than points.

"It's different therefor it's good" is no better an argument than "it's different therefor it's bad".

ERJAK wrote:
giving players MORE options

Compared to points, power levels takes options away, from my perspective.

ERJAK wrote:
(Side note:All of the pro points arguments revolve around the assumption that points are more balanced than powerlevels because of the granularity. Do we know this is true? I mean it seems like it should be but have we actually done any significant testing?)

My arguments are about ease of use, honestly. I think points are easier to use than power levels, for the simple reason that it's easier to adjust points to meet a goal without changing which units you're bringing, than it is to adjust power levels without changing what units you're bringing.

But aside from that-- from my perspective, points actually are more balanced. Because each upgrade option is costed individually, you pay for them. This means factions like Sisters of Battle who have almost no upgrade options worth taking simply pay for those that are worth taking and then save points on not taking the rest. In power levels... upgrades aren't accounted for. A space marine captain with chainsword and bolt pistol is just as costly as a space marine captain with combiplasma and thunder hammer. This really adds up for armies that have lots of good upgrade options. And really hurts armies that don't. But points? These upgrade choices have a cost. You can argue the cost is too high, or too low. But they HAVE a cost. In power level, there is no cost.

tl;dr: If all upgrades were equally valuable, power levels might have an argument about balance. But they're NOT all equally powerful.

Your 'perspective' means doggak without actual relevant play experience to back it up. You would honestly be more convincing if you said a gypsy woman told you points were more balanced. At least then I'd be getting the opinion of someone who has a chance of knowing what they're talking about.

But as for the rest of the tripe lets just take it one by one shall we? 1. You're completely making stuff up here, powerlevel list take 20seconds to do points take a few minutes. Not a huge difference but obviously in favor of powerlevels. 2. No one cares if you use power levels or not really. 3. Different is different, if it's something you're looking for it's good, if it's not, meh doesn't matter. Some people will be looking for it though so good for them. 4. Powerlevels can't possibly take anything away from points because they're totally different systems. What, are you worried that powerlevels will rise up off the book and force you to play them like a people puppet or are you just deliberately missing the point to be unpleasant?


And to cap it all off, points do not, will not, have not ever made a balanced game. Even warmachine, a game whose only purpose for even existing is balance, still has units and options that are significantly better or worse than others. Points create META and that is all they do.

Well, if you're going to be rude and obnoxious, I'm just gonna block you. I'm not in the mood for more confrontational nonsense, literally saying "your opinion is worth dog droppings" because I disagree with you. Christ, man, this is a freaking dice game about moving plastic soldiers around a four foot by four foot board. Calm the feth down!

RULE #1 - NOT OPTIONAL.

As MANY of you should know by now...

davethepak wrote:

It radically shifts how you construct lists - you are more taking units that you want to take, as opposed to number crunching and worrying about and trying to maximize every little point.

I don't see that, honestly.

When a system allows you to take options for free, the end result is going to be that there is no logical reason to not take the best available options. That doesn't encourage taking the units you want to take (certainly not as well as a reasonably balanced points system would)... it just encourages taking the most powerful available options.

 insaniak wrote:

davethepak wrote:

It radically shifts how you construct lists - you are more taking units that you want to take, as opposed to number crunching and worrying about and trying to maximize every little point.

I don't see that, honestly.

When a system allows you to take options for free, the end result is going to be that there is no logical reason to not take the best available options. That doesn't encourage taking the units you want to take (certainly not as well as a reasonably balanced points system would)... it just encourages taking the most powerful available options.

How many concepts have you tossed out the window because they cost to many points that might be fun to do. Has you even seen anyone ever take a Shrike List with his Fluffy Vanguard Body Guard with Paired Lighting Claws and Jump Packs? I did once (Using Proxies of course) and found them to be quite effective, though a huge points sink. Most people would just look at the points and just say no, because either they were 'To Expensive To Use' or you would not spend the day hearing people say 'How Cool' it was, but 'How Could You Waist Points Like That'.
I have had people call me a Scrub for playing what I want to play. Power Levels take some of the Stigma away from just playing what you want, good or bad.

 Anpu42 wrote:
How many concepts have you tossed out the window because they cost to many points that might be fun to do.

Honestly? None. But I have had to adjust my list to match. Granted, I also play three armies that don't have many options to customize characters to begin with-- which is exactly the kind of army that would be hurt the most by not having to pay points for upgrades.

Yours isn't a good argument for power levels being more balanced, however. The only way having zero cost for upgrades is balanced, is if upgrades are equally valuable.

If a barebones Space Marine captain with chainsword and bolt pistol is worse off than a Space Marine captain with a relic power sword of killingyouness, a forcefield of invincibility, and a combiweapon of blastingyourfaceoff-- all while both options cost the exact same-- then quite odd to argue it's balanced. What's your definition of balance?

 Melissia wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
How many concepts have you tossed out the window because they cost to many points that might be fun to do.

Honestly? None. But I have had to adjust my list to match. Granted, I also play three armies that don't have many options to customize characters to begin with-- which is exactly the kind of army that would be hurt the most by not having to pay points for upgrades.

Yours isn't a good argument for power levels being more balanced, however. The only way having zero cost for upgrades is balanced, is if upgrades are equally valuable.

If a barebones Space Marine captain with chainsword and bolt pistol is worse off than a Space Marine captain with a relic power sword of killingyouness, a forcefield of invincibility, and a combiweapon of blastingyourfaceoff-- all while both options cost the exact same-- then quite odd to argue it's balanced. What's your definition of balance?

I am not arguing they are more balanced or less balanced or anything like that.

What power Lets let you do is just play what you want and have an idea of how close the armies Might Be. There are many of us out there that like that idea. Yes some people will just take everything they can and I see nothing wrong with that.
I also have no problems with the Points/Matched Play crowd, I fact I hope everyone who plays that way has a great time. How ever even under Points you will still have WAAC and TFG showing up. Point will not stop that and never will.
With Power Levels, we know that is what is going to happen and accept that and moved on. From what I can see us PLP (Power Level People) will have WAAC/TFG showing up from day one. However seeing that most of us PLP are causal players who just want to have fun WAAC/TFG will probably just leave and go back to points.

I know this might seem offensive to some how I am putting this, I don't mean to. But if you look back it is the same pattern just about every time. Someone says they like Power Levels and then the a number of post saying how bad they are and even calling us 'To Stupid' to be able to deal with Points. Again sorry for seeming Whiny, but we want to have fun like you and it seems many can not be happy unless...well we conform. And yes I know this is the internet...

 insaniak wrote:

davethepak wrote:

It radically shifts how you construct lists - you are more taking units that you want to take, as opposed to number crunching and worrying about and trying to maximize every little point.

I don't see that, honestly.

When a system allows you to take options for free, the end result is going to be that there is no logical reason to not take the best available options. That doesn't encourage taking the units you want to take (certainly not as well as a reasonably balanced points system would)... it just encourages taking the most powerful available options.

Have you done it? Have you actually made the lists and played the game with power levels?

No?

The end result is you are taking the units configured in ways you want to explore - to see what works best, or with your playstyle.

The new system is brilliant - so many upgrades don't always have a better weapon (some do) - most are just...different.

With power levels, you just take the unit - you can figure out the wargear when you are unpacking the army.

"hmmm....you know, I usually don't take that...why don't I".

Yes, if a player is the WAACC type, sure, maybe they will 100% of the time take the maxed unit (not always an obvious choice) - but if they have any creativity - they will recognize the freedom to explore the options.

And finally - gw has said repeatedly, the power levels are based upon taking upgrades.

Try it, you might just like it....

 Melissia wrote:
What's your definition of balance?

Our definition doesn't matter. Dakka's concept of balance is alien to GW. And they have a proven track record of failing to understand it. GW's definition is; a close enough game to have a laugh with a mate. Power Levels might work better simply because it matches GW's mind set better. The rough point values in AoS work like that and I think for the most part they work well.

I would like to point out that my statement that people only take bare bones units in order to shoehorn more points efficient models into their army has not been invalidated.

Also, taking the most expensive upgrades on a unit because they are free will leave you at a severe tactical disadvantage. A lascannon will do you very little compared to a heavy bolter when fighting Tyranids. A grav gun will not do much against guardsmen compared to a plasma gun. Power levels provide incentive for you to take what you think you'll need in the game, not simply choose the most cost effective option.

Hell, choosing a bare bones unit has a tactical advantage of its own. If all you want the unit to do is screen you from enemies, then a lack of gear would make your opponent not want to shoot at them because the other units provide more of a threat.

That option is purely a tactical one. It has less to do with ensuring a points efficient list and more to do with building your list towards a tactical goal on the tabletop. Anyone who is just maxing out regular points in a powerlevel list is actually putting themselves at a disadvantage, not creating an imbalance.

Load up on multimelta and grav guns in every unit, enjoy losing most games against a list built towards synergy with an eye towards possible threat occurrence.

Edit: because my phone hates me...

 Melissia wrote:


If a barebones Space Marine captain with chainsword and bolt pistol is worse off than a Space Marine captain with a relic power sword of killingyouness, a forcefield of invincibility, and a combiweapon of blastingyourfaceoff-- all while both options cost the exact same-- then quite odd to argue it's balanced. What's your definition of balance?

It's really easy to prove that neither points nor power levels are perfectly balanced. Yes, these two captains have the same PL and one is obviously better. There are also several threads in this forum talking anout all the units and options that are under or over priced. Look at Dire Avengers, Razorbacks, or Ork ranged weapons. The points are a mess.

So when there are plenty of counter examples proving neither system is balanced, how should we choose? You could try to evaluate which is more or less balanced. One system just having more numbers than the other doesn't mean much to me.

I'd like to see the worst abuses. What does an efficient PL list look like? An efficient points list?

My opinion is that efficient PL lists will be more obvious. If you want a better PL army, take relic blades instead of chainswords, plasma pistols instead of bolt pistols, etc. Sure, it's possible to make a weaker list, but as long as it is obvious how to make a strong list, actual games are more likely to be between strong lists, and they might even be balanced. If you have to leave your plain captain home, it's a small loss. There's still a xhance 100 PL of Space Marines grinds 100 PL of Orks into the ground. I don't believe everyone will be equal.

Points are going to take more work to min/max. This is the real list building cost, not arithmetic. Net lists don't just materialize out of the Warp. Once the meta game settles in, how much balance will matched play have? Who wants to bet that matched play won't result in over half the models being useless in a short amount of time? That half the armies won't be trash tier? Will more armies be viable with points, or with PL? Do you think that there won't be tons of list-building traps for people to accidentally give themselves huge handicaps? Will the traps be more avoidable with points, or with PL?

I have absolutely no confidence in that second system resulting in more balanced than the first one. I've played games with granular points all my life. A handful of them felt balanced. I don't see how PL could possibly be worse.

But hey, I understand, if it's really obvious how to make a powerful PL army, you don't get to feel superior to your opponent for winning in the list-building stage. For this reason, I can see the appeal of points.

That sounds like a very long-winded way to distract from the simple fact-- and no matter how much people scream "BUT EXPERIENCE!", it remains a fact, not an opinion-- that power levels still don't take in to account most upgrades on units.

Whatever you might complain about the points system, at least it takes upgrades in to account. That's seriously not something that should just be handwaved away, it is, to me, the primary drawback of the powerlevel system.

Simply put, a system that takes upgrades in to account, even if it does so poorly, is to me still better than one that does not. Unit upgrades often make or break a unit's ability to be strong and competitive.

 Melissia wrote:
That sounds like a very long-winded way to distract from the simple fact-- and no matter how much people scream "BUT EXPERIENCE!", it remains a fact, not an opinion-- that power levels still don't take in to account most upgrades on units.

Whatever you might complain about the points system, at least it takes upgrades in to account. That's seriously not something that should just be handwaved away, it is, to me, the primary drawback of the powerlevel system.

Simply put, a system that takes upgrades in to account, even if it does so poorly, is to me still better than one that does not. Unit upgrades often make or break a unit's ability to be strong and competitive.

Games workshop said specifically that the power level is based on an average in regards to gear options and upgrades. It gives you a general sense of how capable the unit is on the table.

It does NOT ignore upgrades, it just assumed you will choose a variety of options among your units to ensure your army can handle whatever your opponent brings to the table.

davethepak wrote:


The end result is you are taking the units configured in ways you want to explore - to see what works best, or with your playstyle.

I've been doing that for the last 20 years with the points system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Also, taking the most expensive upgrades on a unit because they are free will leave you at a severe tactical disadvantage

There are no expensive upgrades in a system that doesn't charge for upgrades...

Taking the most powerful options doesn't mean just spamming a single upgrade, unless it's an upgrade that is particularly outstanding regardless of what you're facing.

The thing is, in a points based system, you can take your experimental army and have it be at least theoretically viable because the points are the balancer. Want to take an army of all Tactical Squads with flamers and missile launchers? In a points based set up this will be matched against something of a more or less even power level (assuming, of course, that the points system had been made relatively balanced).

Remove the points, and you wind up at a disadvantage against an identical army that chose more upgrades.

Power levels don't make a more level playing field, and they're not going to encourage diversity. They'll encourage people to spam the most powerful options, because there's no reason not to, as there is with points.

Except those marines' power level includes some of their upgrades in the total. When you see a marine unit, you don't need to know how much the missile launchers costs. You just need to have a gauge of how much impact the unit will have on the battlefield.

So whether it's an army of Leman Russ tanks, an army of tactical Marines or an army of imperial knights, they will have about the same capability to inflict harm and survive so long as they took some options they have available because their overall power level in the game has been measured.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except those marines' power level includes some of their upgrades in the total.

Yes, that's exactly the problem. A marine force with minimal upgrades, or less effective upgrades is therefore at a disadvantage against a better-equipped but otherwise identical marine force in a way that they wouldn't be in a points-based game, because the better-equipped force would in that case be smaller to compensate for their better gear.

So whether it's an army of Leman Russ tanks, an army of tactical Marines or an army of imperial knights, they will have about the same capability to inflict harm and survive so long as they took some options they have available because their overall power level in the game has been measured.

Right. So the power level system isn't encouraging you to use something 'different'... it's encouraging you to use builds that make the most of their free upgrades in order to avoid being handicapped.

Or, rather, it may be encouraging you to do something different, but only if that 'different' thing you want to do is build armies comprised of squads with every available upgrade. Which you could already do in a points-based system...

Power levels don't make a more level playing field, and they're not going to encourage diversity. They'll encourage people to spam the most powerful options, because there's no reason not to, as there is with points.

If power levels are really for narrative campaign games, then I don't see this as an issue, as the "why would I never do this" crowd tend to be competitive, not narrative campaign players.

So, after getting rid of "free points formation", free point are back in the form of power levels...

Because either you fill all the slots and you get free points, or you don't, and you give them to your opponent!

I don't understand why GW didn't put the point cost on the units datasheet. This would allow them to give each upgrade a cost based on the squad, and not in a vacuum. And they did the total opposite...

And power levels are not needed for "Narrative play" because either :
* You play an historical scenario : forces are well defined and you don't even need points!
* You play a custom narrative scenario (like escorting a VIP, defending a bridge, ...) : points are necessary, even if one side have less points than the other; the scenario win condition should be balanced around the points difference.
* You don't care at all, and power levels are no more useful than points...

I don't see how your even meant to know what the "average loadout" is honestly not everyone runs units the same.

Average loadout = median between no upgrades at all and full upgrades of most powerful options.

As I said before, people take upgrades they think are cool. Spamming is a horrible idea because weapons have definitive targets now as opposed to one being good at anything.

Points do nothing to offset the obvious and impossible to overcome situations of pure mechanical incompatibility between certain matchups. What power level does is give a general idea of a units capacity to affect the game and allow the player to simply choose whatever they think is cool.

No spam, no scrounging for points to get more upgrades, no need to try and minmax unit for the most power possible. Power levels say "lascannon upgrade is cool, but may not have line of sight, heavy flamer is great up close, but you could end up on planet bowling ball. Average out their total effectiveness and apply that to power level."

The idea that a point system with more granularity will be a more accurate representation of capability on the table could only be true if you received points back if your opponent fielded units that weren't an efficient target and you got points back based on range dependent on terrain saturation.

Barring that, points will never EVER be granular enough to represent what the units and upgrades mean on the table. Powerlevel allows you to field a generalised army list without the feeling of wasting points on things that won't do well.

You have a heavy flamer on one squad, a lascannon on the other. Neither costed more than the other so if you end up in an bad situation for one there isn't any real drawback for having chosen it.

I have enjoyed using power level far more than I expected. After 4 games against 4 different armies and 4 different opponents the games felt balanced and we didn't have to hunt all over for what costs what or be confused on if you pay for standard gear or not (you do). This is not what I expected and I see myself using power levels unless it's for a tournament.