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.
2017/06/12 14:03:14
Subject: Re:40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Wow, I need to get the Internet working at my house again. Come in to work, and I have missed on a lot over the weekend!
*reads posts*
Okay, maybe I missed a lot of content, but nothing new was really said. Here we go...
Actinium wrote: 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.
Abuse of a game system is a problem of the players, not the system. Just because players CAN get away with something, doesn't mean that they SHOULD, you know? The Formations of 7th Edition were broken, but they could have been banned by the tournament organizers or not used by the players.
Actinium wrote: 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.
Because something new and different has come out, and some people don't like new and different. I am willing to accept that there are new ways to play the game, and you seem to be as well. Don't contribute to the schism, and help keep the hobby a pleasant experience for everyone.
Peregrine wrote: 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.
No, it isn't. One post from one user is not indicative of the mindset of many people. The appeal of Power Level is that it is an additional way to build army lists that is more simple and abstract, and can cater to more gamers than those used to using traditional Points.
Again, no one complained that the less granular Points system in Warmahordes Mark 2, and that community hailed that game as "super balanced".
Peregrine wrote: 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.
Then you need to try a different approach to Apocalypse, like having some sort of story-driven objective for each army or team, and have a mission set up that encourages different armies. My best gaming experiences were in some Apocalypse-sized Narrative games, and not a single Super-heavy was brought to them (it was basically a whole bunch of regular sized armies, so plenty of Troops and HQs on the field).
Peregrine wrote: You do the exact same thing with the less-accurate point system. You still have to evaluate which upgrades you want to take. You still have to evaluate which units are powerful enough for their point cost to be justifiable. Taking sponsons on your LRBT may not deny the opportunity to take melta vets, but you'd better correctly identify the optimal sponson choice or your LRBT is going to be paying too many points for its guns. Having to add up the point cost of your upgrade choices is trivial once you reach the level of understanding of the game required to identify the correct upgrade choices, even under the assumption that all upgrades cost zero points.
And if we are just playing for fun and not in a competitive scenario, then why is this a problem?
Peregrine wrote: If upgrades cost points they're going to make the wrong choice because they don't understand. If all upgrades are free they're going to make the correct choice because it's no longer legal to take the LRBT without sponsons, but they're still not going to understand which sponsons are best or why they are mandatory.
You sound just like some of the super-competitive tournament players in my local area. Now I understand your unwillingness to accept a new idea and something different from the traditional standard that has been in place for so long. Something new a different has come in, and it doesn't completely mesh with your vision on what 40KSHOULD be. But it meshes with us, and you continue to deride and criticize us?
Why do you keep making this argument? You want something different from the game than those of us who do support Power Levels, and bear in mind that us Power Level users don't dislike points. We aren't saying the same things about Points that you are about Power Levels.
Peregrine wrote: Using a less-accurate point system doesn't make it any easier for the newbie to identify that LRBTs are worse than Hellhounds no matter how you equip the LRBTs.
Emperor forbid we play with a model because we like its aesthetics or fluff...
hobojebus wrote: Its like consoles vs PC's, one system is clearly superior in every way but console fanboys will deny the truth against all evidence.
Yeah consoles are easier to use but you'll be stuck at 30fps while the PC master race is on 120 with all settings on ultra a second screen playing a 4k movie as you pwn noobs on your fully programmable keyboard.
I am reminded of when Nintendo came out with the Wii back in the day, and so many "traditional" gamers were upset that Nintendo was advertising to and developing games for non-gaming adults with their simple, abstracted games that would appeal to larger audiences, including *GASP* kids!
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?)
Exactly, it's more options for players. I don't understand why it is so upsetting to some of the posters that having this additional option is a bad thing. Power Levels are not better or worse for making a list and playing the game, especially in a non-competitive environment with friends and non-powergamers.
And to your side note, Warmahordes had much less granular points in its Mark 2 rules, and no one in the community was saying anything about the game being not balanced at any point. Some individual units were over or undercosted, but that came after that edition was around for several years and PP started to release new models with better rules in order to drive sales (which the community also said PP never did, at least to potential converts from GW games).
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.
It is not empirically a better system, and not one is saying that. What us Power Level supporters are saying is that Power Levels are good enough for us to play our games, because we do not have any interest in "optimizing" our armies, or "finding the most powerful and efficient" units to play our games. We want something different out of the game, and have been wanting it for a long time. Power Levels give another option on HOW TO PLAY THE GAME, and is different from Points, at least in attitude of desired game experience.
I quit playing 40K twice before, at least in trying to find pickup games or tournaments, and both times was because of the tournament players. Not the game, but the PLAYERS, and a handful of them anyways. Even when I had the time to spend hours painting models, hundreds of dollars on new units, and nights and days at my local shops for games, I began to refuse playing with certain players, because I never had a good game with them - the games became a chore to play, not at all fun, as I had every thing I did questioned but no explanation freely given for what they did, or just being steamrolled consistently against these players, or the time I was criticized for not bringing an optimal list to a non-competitive event when the point was not being optimal. The local WAAC players do not consider the values and playstyles of their opponents, only their clique of powergamers that focus on playing the hardest, most competitive lists possible to go to the national tournaments and win games. And you know what? That is fine. This is a game of small soldiers that are being moved around a board with dice being rolled to see what happens. They want a different game than I do, and that is okay.
I will not criticize those WAAC players ever again, because it's not worth it. When I have to deal with some TRULY HORRIBLE people on a regular basis, to the point that I am emotionally drained in dealing with them and have no mood to do anything fun again, I gained perspective that this is just a game. In the grand scheme of things, moving little plastic figures around doesn't have as much significance when you have to console your bawling and screaming in sadness wife and step-daughter about the uncontrollable things going on in our life right now.
Some players want a different kind of game than others. Last I checked, having different ideas on how to do things is encouraged and tends to be viewed as a good thing in the world.
I mean, in the original version of Warhammer 40K, there was a GM to oversee the game, wasn't there? Or have I been misreading all the discussion posts over the past 7 years of being a hobby member? Sounds like a Narrative Game to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/12 14:03:32
2017/06/12 15:49:30
Subject: Re:40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
And to your side note, Warmahordes had much less granular points in its Mark 2 rules, and no one in the community was saying anything about the game being not balanced at any point. Some individual units were over or undercosted, but that came after that edition was around for several years and PP started to release new models with better rules in order to drive sales (which the community also said PP never did, at least to potential converts from GW games).
Side note to your side note to original side note :
Balance in Warmachines/Hordes work with a less granular point system because there is no gear selection! Warjack configurations are fixed, and each one get a different point value, even the ones based on the same chassis.
I really see power levels as a "Casual at all cost" option, that shift the blame of lack of balancing on the players... And I expect more than "good enough" from a company that claims to be the leader of miniature wargaming...
0009/06/12 15:58:09
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Plenty of people used to complain about the lack of granularity in Warmahordes MK2. It was a regular thing on the forums for people to say that something was a 'half-point' overcosted, and that points should be doubled to allow for this.
Powerlevels make no sense compared to points (to me).
They would have made sense if powerlevels had assigned loadouts-as it is, they do nothing to encourage 'casual' play beyond the simplified addition-and that's not a big enough consideration to warrant the seesaw of balance you get from powerlevels.
My $0.02, which since 1992 has rounded to nothing. Take with salt.
Elysian Drop Troops, Dark Angels, 30K
Mercenaries, Retribution
Ten Thunders, Neverborn
2017/06/12 16:07:24
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Power level is for like minded people to play each other without having to stress over wargear points. They even say that in the description. Matched play is what you need points for if you want to play random people or tournaments. Both are fine for what they are intended for. I suggest every player try a few games with power level and see how the game feels, I think you'll be surprised. I know I was.
2017/06/12 16:32:22
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Brotherjanus wrote: Power level is for like minded people to play each other without having to stress over wargear points. They even say that in the description. Matched play is what you need points for if you want to play random people or tournaments. Both are fine for what they are intended for. I suggest every player try a few games with power level and see how the game feels, I think you'll be surprised. I know I was.
This exactly. Try it before you decide if it is for you or not.
I do a lot of RPGs and I used to think I could tell what was good and what is not. When 4th Edition D&D came out and I loved it, but most of my group was dead set against it. One day I found myself saying 'How Would you Know, You have not even tried it?'
So we did and after a summer campaign about half the group found they like it and the other half did not. Now most of the ones who did not like it spent the whole time trying to come up with reasons why is 'Sucked' rather than sitting back and trying to enjoy the game, their loss in my opinion. I don't play with them any more and I have moved to 5th Edition, but I found people who like to play similar to me and am having a better gaming experience than I have had in year.
Anyways, what it came down to is I will no longer judge a game without at least trying it first. I also try to keep and open mind. I tried Fate even though I did not like how it worked. I found I could get exactly what I was looking for using with Iron Claw or Shadowrun 5 and did not have to teach my group a whole new set of rules.
And to your side note, Warmahordes had much less granular points in its Mark 2 rules, and no one in the community was saying anything about the game being not balanced at any point. Some individual units were over or undercosted, but that came after that edition was around for several years and PP started to release new models with better rules in order to drive sales (which the community also said PP never did, at least to potential converts from GW games).
Side note to your side note to original side note :
Balance in Warmachines/Hordes work with a less granular point system because there is no gear selection! Warjack configurations are fixed, and each one get a different point value, even the ones based on the same chassis.
Fair point on the wargear options. Though the lack of customization amongst the units and war-nouns was always something that bugged me. Kind of like in competitive 40K though, where you are expected to bring certain units with certain equipment if you wanted to have a decent chance at winning against the strongest tournament lists.
Brotherjanus wrote: Power level is for like minded people to play each other without having to stress over wargear points. They even say that in the description. Matched play is what you need points for if you want to play random people or tournaments. Both are fine for what they are intended for. I suggest every player try a few games with power level and see how the game feels, I think you'll be surprised. I know I was.
And this statement needs to be perpetuated. Not everyone wants to play competitively in tournaments.
2017/06/12 17:05:19
Subject: Re:40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Brotherjanus wrote: Power level is for like minded people to play each other without having to stress over wargear points. They even say that in the description. Matched play is what you need points for if you want to play random people or tournaments. Both are fine for what they are intended for. I suggest every player try a few games with power level and see how the game feels, I think you'll be surprised. I know I was.
And this statement needs to be perpetuated. Not everyone wants to play competitively in tournaments.
I went out to the local shop to play a few games of 8th edition with my good friend.
A guy who hangs out there asked if we'd like to play a 2v1 game, to which we agreed. Now, I looked at some of the leaks, but i haven't been able to make it out there, so i really didn't know the point totals of units. I suggested that in order to get playing as fast as possible - since we're all still learning 8th edition - we limit ourselves to 1 patrol detachment each, and that we play with power. He would get 100 power, and we'd take 100 total power on our side.
He thrashed, and wailed, against power, but ultimately we convinced him that (a) we didn't know the points, and it would take us a lot of time to reference it, and we wanted to start playing right away to learn the rules, and (b) just don't kit everything out to abuse the system. He graciously acquiesced and we started our game. Knowing nothing about points or lists other than patrol we were done building these lists in 5 minutes.
It was Orks vs BA + GK.
BA: 48 power Scouts /w Sniper Rifles + Camo cloaks Asterath 10 death company, 2 power fists, chainswords + pistols A vindicator A baal predator with HB sponsons + Storm Bolter
GK: 52 power Lord Kaldor Draigo, Straight Boss and Coolest Dude 1 unit of GK terminators, with 1 daemon hammer on the Justy, and a psycannon. 1 land raider crusader, stock 1 nemesis dreadknight with fists + gatling psilencer and heavy psycannon.
Orks: 100 power too much to list, included 30 lootas, 10 tankbustas, 30 boyz, 2 defrollas carrying 20 boyz in 1 and 10 boyz and 10 tankbustas in another, a few HQs, 20 stormboyz. Nobz had power klaws, some other upgrades here and there. Maybe something else, I forget. it was a lot of modelz.
We did an alternating deployment. Because our side featured expensive vehicles (the land raider + Draigo were almost my entire army) with units inside of them, we finished deploying and got to go first, and he didn't seize.
It was a terrain heavy map, making line of sight a challenge against most things, all his units started in cover. The tanks rolled forward and unleashed a salvo of death upon the lootas; the combined fire of the land raider, the baal predator, and the NDK was enough to nearly decimate 2 squads of Lootas. The death company jumped forward and positioned themselves behind a large ruin, and the scouts attempted to snipe ICs with no effect.
The Orks first turn featured a lot of dice flying from the Lootas, slamming into the LRC, NDK, and the Baal Predator, some decent wounds; the Tank Busta transport rolled forward, and being open topped all of the TankBustas shot the LRC. Moving around another set of ruins, the second transport dropped its Boyz, who moved forward and WAAGH charged the NDK and the LRC, along with the Rollas. The TankBusta Rolla charged the LRC, the other charged the NDK.
Meanwhile, the StormBoyz elected to charge the scouts, rather than the baal predator. This proved to be an interesting choice. While it did grant a kill point, and it did protect his ICs, I felt it was the wrong move, considering the Baal Predator is now a points-efficient juggernaut of hatred and destruction in 8th edition.
The NDK barely survived with only 3 wounds remaining, and the Land Raider was degraded into the second tier. What saved the NDK was paying 2 command points to fight after other chargers had fought, and he killed a handful of Boyz and thus reduced their attack output by 25 dice. (20 boyz in a squad = +1 dice, 5 dead = 25 dice)
BAGK turn 2: Kaldor and his First Company dismounted the LRC, while the NDK withdrew from combat, making way for the Death Company to enter the fray; they jumped in between the NDK, Vindicator, and the Boyz + Rolla#1. The predator pivoted and made ready to fire into the stormboyz.
In the psychic phase, Kaldor Draigo recognized that his land raider was in an unwinnable fight against a Rolla that was hitting on 2s and had strength 8, with numerous attacks. So, he channeled his psychic might to Gate the Land Raider out of combat, and dropped it on the other side of the Rolla, blocking LOS from many of the Lootas from Kaldor's squad, and also freeing it from combat, while being in rapid fire range of EVERYTHING. Then, because purge soul is utter trash, he manifested smite with brilliant success, dealing 6 mortal wounds to the transport before him.
In the shooting phase, the Baal Predator put on its hardhat and did work against the Stormboyz. The Land Raider crusader, and the vindicator, were enough to destroy the Defrolla #2, forcing the TankBustas and Boyz to disembark.
Skipping ahead to the charge phase, the Blood Angels charged the surviving rolla + the first squad of boyz with Asterath in tow, the Land Raider charged the TankBustas, and Kaldor + his squad split charged the Boyz + the Tankbustas.
The first unit nominated was the pack of death company. They annihilated the remaining 15 Boyz, and utterly crippled the final Rolla. The Ork player nominated his squad of Boyz to fight next, paying command points to interrupt the charge. Despite rolling well, the Power Klaw was easily deflected by Kaldor's shield, and the remaining attacks were saved by the terminator squad.
It was at this point that Orks conceded, and BAGK were victorious.
In the post game, it was raised that in a points vs points game, this would have been more balanced, because Orks would have had more points.
So, we cracked open the store copy of the index and did the math. In the end, Orks had about 1750, whereas BAGK had about 1630. I do feel a lot of BA is undercosted for how good it is.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/06/12 17:20:36
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2017/06/12 17:12:56
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
I'll say this. Power Levels are inherently less balanced than points, because they take less into consideration. Assuming the same level of balance of both, modified by how effective the systems are, points will always come out ahead.
However-for a game with as loose balance as 40k, Power Levels are probably just fine, and considering it's GW, there's every chance that both are badly balanced anyway.
I've said it before, I'll say it again-Imma be using points. But I don't really have an issue with Power Levels, in practice. In principle, I do, but once you consider real world factors, it's not a big deal.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2017/06/12 17:24:35
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Got a fourth game in today, this one using power levels again. Gotta say, I don't really care at the end of the day which one becomes normal for pick up games. Now that I've made a few lists with each system and used them though, here are my initial takeaways:
Power levels definitely encourage taking upgrades. In fact, they assume that you will take at least a few. This highlights to me both the strength and weakness of the system as-is.
Finally, you can take that plasma pistol and power fist combo you always wanted to! I know I'm not the only person who was always annoyed during 6th/7th with the way sergeant options were priced, and that trend continues to a lesser degree in 8th as well despite rule changes making it at least palatable. No more "I want to use that but it's just clearly overpriced in this situation". Which also leads me to the weakness of PL though.
In a strange twist, I've found it actually discourages many options and builds. With points, you have the ability to field say, 4 tanks that are a little barebones or 3 with all the bling. An extra squad of marines to contest objectives rather than extra upgrades on the 4 squads you already have, etc... if that's what you want to play, and those are the models you want to use. Rather than more cusomization, I think PL actually detracts from your ability to realistically customize your collection the way you want to.
The difference is negligible with some units, but huge with others. Tanks probably highlight it best. We used a bunch of predators and leman russes in our last game, and because of the way I had mine modeled most didn't have sponsons. Because of the way the new rules work in conjunction with the way PL is used with those units, there is a rather huge difference, essentially twice the firepower being thrown around. Using points, I would have been able to afford an extra unit or two, letting me use more of my collection with the trade off that my tanks were individually weaker than the Russes on the other side.
The bottom line for me is that I went from "what reason does this have to even exist?" To "hey, actually this is a good idea in theory, but badly executed".
2017/06/12 17:34:04
Subject: Re:40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
BunkhouseBuster wrote: And this statement needs to be perpetuated. Not everyone wants to play competitively in tournaments.
Yeah. Funny enough there are people who don't give particular interest about being competive and just want to play so take the tournament as 5 day extra games against new players without any concern about whether you are playing competively or not.
As it is I'll be going to tournament next month(first time in like 2 years I think). Army will be decided probably previous night on the principle which units painting I'm most happy about!
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/06/12 17:41:35
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
dosiere wrote: In a strange twist, I've found it actually discourages many options and builds. With points, you have the ability to field say, 4 tanks that are a little barebones or 3 with all the bling. An extra squad of marines to contest objectives rather than extra upgrades on the 4 squads you already have, etc... if that's what you want to play, and those are the models you want to use. Rather than more cusomization, I think PL actually detracts from your ability to realistically customize your collection the way you want to.
I think that will depend on different things and Players
For me it will come in the Model Construction Phase (if you want to call it that)
I have always built my models bast on what I think is cool first. If I think that Wolf Lord looked cool with a Wolf Claw and a Thunder Hammer that is what I did. My Grey Knights are the same way, some were built with Flachons and other with the Halberd and other with the Great Sword. not because of their Effectiveness, but because I though they looked good that way.
I am also harder on myself with WYSIWYG so if I have a Thunder Hammer and a Storm Bolter on my Wolf Guard Terminator, that is what I have.
I know some have 20 Models for each Tactical Squad so they can Mix and Match depending on what he may face. I think he loves Power Levels because he can make sure he has the right tool for the job. I have seen him spend an hour going 'Do I take the Missile Launcher or the Las-Cannon, but what if I face a horde then I will need the Flamer and the Heavy Bolter, but what if there is a flyer on the board, I need the Missile Launcher, but what if...' This allows him to write a list make that quick last minute change removing all of the stress.
Yes I know some call this 'List Tailoring' and 'Cheating', but for us as we are there to just blow up we don't care.
I went out to the local shop to play a few games of 8th edition with my good friend.
Spoiler:
A guy who hangs out there asked if we'd like to play a 2v1 game, to which we agreed. Now, I looked at some of the leaks, but i haven't been able to make it out there, so i really didn't know the point totals of units. I suggested that in order to get playing as fast as possible - since we're all still learning 8th edition - we limit ourselves to 1 patrol detachment each, and that we play with power. He would get 100 power, and we'd take 100 total power on our side.
He thrashed, and wailed, against power, but ultimately we convinced him that (a) we didn't know the points, and it would take us a lot of time to reference it, and we wanted to start playing right away to learn the rules, and (b) just don't kit everything out to abuse the system. He graciously acquiesced and we started our game. Knowing nothing about points or lists other than patrol we were done building these lists in 5 minutes.
It was Orks vs BA + GK.
BA: 48 power
Scouts /w Sniper Rifles + Camo cloaks
Asterath
10 death company, 2 power fists, chainswords + pistols
A vindicator
A baal predator with HB sponsons + Storm Bolter
GK: 52 power
Lord Kaldor Draigo, Straight Boss and Coolest Dude
1 unit of GK terminators, with 1 daemon hammer on the Justy, and a psycannon.
1 land raider crusader, stock
1 nemesis dreadknight with fists + gatling psilencer and heavy psycannon.
Orks: 100 power
too much to list, included 30 lootas, 10 tankbustas, 30 boyz, 2 defrollas carrying 20 boyz in 1 and 10 boyz and 10 tankbustas in another, a few HQs, 20 stormboyz. Nobz had power klaws, some other upgrades here and there. Maybe something else, I forget. it was a lot of modelz.
We did an alternating deployment. Because our side featured expensive vehicles (the land raider + Draigo were almost my entire army) with units inside of them, we finished deploying and got to go first, and he didn't seize.
It was a terrain heavy map, making line of sight a challenge against most things, all his units started in cover. The tanks rolled forward and unleashed a salvo of death upon the lootas; the combined fire of the land raider, the baal predator, and the NDK was enough to nearly decimate 2 squads of Lootas. The death company jumped forward and positioned themselves behind a large ruin, and the scouts attempted to snipe ICs with no effect.
The Orks first turn featured a lot of dice flying from the Lootas, slamming into the LRC, NDK, and the Baal Predator, some decent wounds; the Tank Busta transport rolled forward, and being open topped all of the TankBustas shot the LRC. Moving around another set of ruins, the second transport dropped its Boyz, who moved forward and WAAGH charged the NDK and the LRC, along with the Rollas. The TankBusta Rolla charged the LRC, the other charged the NDK.
Meanwhile, the StormBoyz elected to charge the scouts, rather than the baal predator. This proved to be an interesting choice. While it did grant a kill point, and it did protect his ICs, I felt it was the wrong move, considering the Baal Predator is now a points-efficient juggernaut of hatred and destruction in 8th edition.
The NDK barely survived with only 3 wounds remaining, and the Land Raider was degraded into the second tier. What saved the NDK was paying 2 command points to fight after other chargers had fought, and he killed a handful of Boyz and thus reduced their attack output by 25 dice. (20 boyz in a squad = +1 dice, 5 dead = 25 dice)
BAGK turn 2:
Kaldor and his First Company dismounted the LRC, while the NDK withdrew from combat, making way for the Death Company to enter the fray; they jumped in between the NDK, Vindicator, and the Boyz + Rolla#1. The predator pivoted and made ready to fire into the stormboyz.
In the psychic phase, Kaldor Draigo recognized that his land raider was in an unwinnable fight against a Rolla that was hitting on 2s and had strength 8, with numerous attacks. So, he channeled his psychic might to Gate the Land Raider out of combat, and dropped it on the other side of the Rolla, blocking LOS from many of the Lootas from Kaldor's squad, and also freeing it from combat, while being in rapid fire range of EVERYTHING. Then, because purge soul is utter trash, he manifested smite with brilliant success, dealing 6 mortal wounds to the transport before him.
In the shooting phase, the Baal Predator put on its hardhat and did work against the Stormboyz. The Land Raider crusader, and the vindicator, were enough to destroy the Defrolla #2, forcing the TankBustas and Boyz to disembark.
Skipping ahead to the charge phase, the Blood Angels charged the surviving rolla + the first squad of boyz with Asterath in tow, the Land Raider charged the TankBustas, and Kaldor + his squad split charged the Boyz + the Tankbustas.
The first unit nominated was the pack of death company. They annihilated the remaining 15 Boyz, and utterly crippled the final Rolla. The Ork player nominated his squad of Boyz to fight next, paying command points to interrupt the charge. Despite rolling well, the Power Klaw was easily deflected by Kaldor's shield, and the remaining attacks were saved by the terminator squad.
It was at this point that Orks conceded, and BAGK were victorious.
In the post game, it was raised that in a points vs points game, this would have been more balanced, because Orks would have had more points.
So, we cracked open the store copy of the index and did the math. In the end, Orks had about 1750, whereas BAGK had about 1630. I do feel a lot of BA is undercosted for how good it is.
Cool battle report! It will be a while before I can pick up my copies of everything, so I will be watching with eager eyes on how the game truly plays out.
JNAProductions wrote: But I don't really have an issue with Power Levels, in practice. In principle, I do, but once you consider real world factors, it's not a big deal.
Exactly! It's not a big deal! I'm still going to play with points at some time, I'm just not worrying about something that I don't have to worry about.
dosiere wrote: Got a fourth game in today, this one using power levels again. Gotta say, I don't really care at the end of the day which one becomes normal for pick up games. Now that I've made a few lists with each system and used them though, here are my initial takeaways:
Spoiler:
Power levels definitely encourage taking upgrades. In fact, they assume that you will take at least a few. This highlights to me both the strength and weakness of the system as-is.
Finally, you can take that plasma pistol and power fist combo you always wanted to! I know I'm not the only person who was always annoyed during 6th/7th with the way sergeant options were priced, and that trend continues to a lesser degree in 8th as well despite rule changes making it at least palatable. No more "I want to use that but it's just clearly overpriced in this situation". Which also leads me to the weakness of PL though.
In a strange twist, I've found it actually discourages many options and builds. With points, you have the ability to field say, 4 tanks that are a little barebones or 3 with all the bling. An extra squad of marines to contest objectives rather than extra upgrades on the 4 squads you already have, etc... if that's what you want to play, and those are the models you want to use. Rather than more cusomization, I think PL actually detracts from your ability to realistically customize your collection the way you want to.
The difference is negligible with some units, but huge with others. Tanks probably highlight it best. We used a bunch of predators and leman russes in our last game, and because of the way I had mine modeled most didn't have sponsons. Because of the way the new rules work in conjunction with the way PL is used with those units, there is a rather huge difference, essentially twice the firepower being thrown around. Using points, I would have been able to afford an extra unit or two, letting me use more of my collection with the trade off that my tanks were individually weaker than the Russes on the other side.
The bottom line for me is that I went from "what reason does this have to even exist?" To "hey, actually this is a good idea in theory, but badly executed".
Interesting points, and valid concerns. However, I find the potential benefits of the less granular Power Level system to be preferable to Points, for the exact example you listed of the Sergeant with Power Fist and Plasma Pistol. Yes, the lack of sponsons will hinder you somewhat in your latter example, but if you max out your infantry squads on upgrades, that's kind of the equating factor for Power Levels.
Power Levels don't detract from customizing your collection, but the mindset of bring-all-the-bling-because-you-can is what will affect your collection habits. I like that I won't be hindered now (or criticized) for taking sub-optimal load outs on my tanks, not only for the rules being different, but because those extra Heavy Bolters sponsons don't prevent me from taking those melee weapons for my Sergeants.
tneva82 wrote: As it is I'll be going to tournament next month(first time in like 2 years I think). Army will be decided probably previous night on the principle which units painting I'm most happy about!
Me too! I'm actually considering going to the next 40K tournament in my area, depending on how my local players handle the Edition change. I'm not a fan of some of the players, nor their WAAC mindset, but having every army at a level playing field is encouraging to me. And tournaments are about the only way I can justify to my family (and myself) an opportunity to dedicate a full day to Warhammer.
I may just break out my old Imperial Guard models that haven't been played in over 4 years.
2017/06/12 19:28:19
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
So it doesn't take upgrades in to account.
And nothing you said changes this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/12 19:28:36
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2017/06/12 19:37:27
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
So it doesn't take upgrades in to account.
And nothing you said changes this.
If you play WYSYWG, and you play both power level and points (as I do), you avoid this problem. Because I can't just add on upgrades, and my units are equipped with possible point savings taken into account.
2017/06/12 20:01:20
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
So it doesn't take upgrades in to account.
And nothing you said changes this.
If you play WYSYWG, and you play both power level and points (as I do), you avoid this problem. Because I can't just add on upgrades, and my units are equipped with possible point savings taken into account.
Power is not compatible with certain gaming mentalities. This has been well established.
And to add on to the above, I would not let someone play outside WYSIWYG with power. If the goal of power is more of a casual, narrative based approach, you should have painted, WYSIWYG models (discounting well done conversions.) If i'm facing a grey hoard of proxies, then we're playing points, if we're playing at all.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2017/06/12 20:12:50
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Good for you? Enforcing wysiwyg doesn't really counter the objection I made, though.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2017/06/12 21:07:25
Subject: Re:40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
The local store's league will be using power levels, but it's mostly because it's supposed to be a fun jump start event with the new edition coming out. I think we will move to points once the event is over.
"Death is my meat, terror my wine." - Unknown Dark Eldar Archon
2017/06/12 22:05:45
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
dosiere wrote: To "hey, actually this is a good idea in theory, but badly executed".
This is about how I feel about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with abstracting the points further than "this weapon upgrade is worth 1/1000 of my army to me, while this weapon upgrade is worth 1/200 of my army." I think abstracting all costs to effective increments of 5 or so, and possibly a less-malleable system of unit quantities, would have worked out pretty favorably. I think that the 20 point increments used could have worked fine, if a bit abstracted. Where I have a problem is that most upgrades don't have a cost associated with them. Those sponsons could have cost 2 power, or w/e, and maybe giving your sergeant access to gear costs 1; heavy weapons cost you squad 1; etc. I find the lack of granularity far less of an issue than the lack of any associated price for most upgrades.
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
So it doesn't take upgrades in to account.
And nothing you said changes this.
Yes I can because if you have both in an army you will then have the average of points and be completely balanced.
Considering you should have the model built WYSIWYG, the less upgraded commander could just be there to hand out unit buffs. If you load him up with gear, you want him doing something and your opponent will want to kill him. If he just has a bolt gun and chainsword his whole job will be too march alongside his units and allow rerolls which will change you and your opponent's strategies.
If you pile on the upgrades and he never makes it into combat, they didn't matter. If you don't upgrade him and don't want him in combat, then he is still doing exactly what you want on the table. Meaning his area buffs will mean more since they are the primary reason you brought him and will play accordingly. Smashy face may give the same buff, but you don't want him sitting out the fight.
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
So it doesn't take upgrades in to account.
And nothing you said changes this.
If you play WYSYWG, and you play both power level and points (as I do), you avoid this problem. Because I can't just add on upgrades, and my units are equipped with possible point savings taken into account.
Power is not compatible with certain gaming mentalities. This has been well established.
And to add on to the above, I would not let someone play outside WYSIWYG with power. If the goal of power is more of a casual, narrative based approach, you should have painted, WYSIWYG models (discounting well done conversions.) If i'm facing a grey hoard of proxies, then we're playing points, if we're playing at all.
Me I'm fine with proxies and I recognize not everyone enjoys painting so I've never refused a grey horde.
Odd how a "competitive" player is more willing to accommodate others than the more casual narrative player don't you think.
2017/06/12 23:56:29
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Yes I can because if you have both in an army you will then have the average of points and be completely balanced.
Until you wind up facing the guy with the same two captains, but with both tooled up. Or both not tooled up at all.
Considering you should have the model built WYSIWYG, the less upgraded commander could just be there to hand out unit buffs. If you load him up with gear, you want him doing something and your opponent will want to kill him.
If you load him up with gear, does he stop conveying those same unit buffs?
If he just has a bolt gun and chainsword his whole job will be too march alongside his units and allow rerolls which will change you and your opponent's strategies.
If he has a whole bunch of gear, his job will still be to march alongside his units, because running characters around by themselves is how you lose them in the first round of shooting.
2017/06/13 01:20:41
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Elbows wrote: You're entitled to enjoy whatever the hell you enjoy. Painted, non-painted, competitive, non-competitive.
Just don't pretend to tell someone else what they should enjoy or how they should enjoy it (an overwhelming theme showing up in this thread).
Ah yes, but we still have to acknowledge our opponent's wants as well.
There are some compatibility things to improve the odds of getting a game or having a good one.
I am unsure anyone here would tell someone what they "should" enjoy,
It is a social game despite people inferring that gamers are socially awkward.
These various forms of play may further divide the players a bit.
I figure I would figure out both points values anyway for giggles.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/13 01:21:30
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2017/06/13 03:17:21
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
GW can say all they want. There's no difference in power level cost between Generic Chainsword and Bolt Pistol Space Marine Captain vs. Mr. Killingyouguy McFacestabbing Shootingyourheadoff Reliced Up Captain of Doom.
So it doesn't take upgrades in to account.
And nothing you said changes this.
If you play WYSYWG, and you play both power level and points (as I do), you avoid this problem. Because I can't just add on upgrades, and my units are equipped with possible point savings taken into account.
Power is not compatible with certain gaming mentalities. This has been well established.
And to add on to the above, I would not let someone play outside WYSIWYG with power. If the goal of power is more of a casual, narrative based approach, you should have painted, WYSIWYG models (discounting well done conversions.) If i'm facing a grey hoard of proxies, then we're playing points, if we're playing at all.
Me I'm fine with proxies and I recognize not everyone enjoys painting so I've never refused a grey horde.
Odd how a "competitive" player is more willing to accommodate others than the more casual narrative player don't you think.
No, it's a different mindset.
The look of the models matters to me, and that's not a WAAC mentality. The setting matters. I don't play with coke can drop pods either.
In a competitive game i'm more willing to tolerate that kind of stuff because it's very clear what the goal is. In a narrative or casual game, you really don't have any place saying "these 10 chainswords are power swords, because i want to take advantage of power." I hope you understand the difference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/13 03:18:12
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2017/06/13 03:25:41
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from being both WAAC and strictly enforcing WYSIWYG.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/13 03:25:53
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2017/06/13 05:04:44
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Yes I can because if you have both in an army you will then have the average of points and be completely balanced.
Until you wind up facing the guy with the same two captains, but with both tooled up. Or both not tooled up at all.
Considering you should have the model built WYSIWYG, the less upgraded commander could just be there to hand out unit buffs. If you load him up with gear, you want him doing something and your opponent will want to kill him.
If you load him up with gear, does he stop conveying those same unit buffs?
If he just has a bolt gun and chainsword his whole job will be too march alongside his units and allow rerolls which will change you and your opponent's strategies.
If he has a whole bunch of gear, his job will still be to march alongside his units, because running characters around by themselves is how you lose them in the first round of shooting.
And again, if you load him up with gear you will want him closer to the front in order to bring those weapons to bear, putting him in harm's way. If he spends the entire game encircled by other units and never attempting to close into melee all of his gear is useless and simply makes him a more appealing target for the enemy.
You aren't ever running them around by themselves, but taking a pile of weapons and defensive buffs on a character you don't plan on ever making it into combat is a waste of points, whereas power level doesn't care and you can field him for the buffs while still using the really cool model you made.
Power level let's you get a generalised descriptor of capability while allowing for more wiggle room in regards to capability.
Say the enemy has a way to hit you with a couple mortal wounds a turn, super character will die just s fast as Bob the commander. Now if the character in question had less upgrades, would the opponent still want to throw those wounds on him?
Choosing gear options in power level play is a tactical choices, not a mathematical one.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Yes I can because if you have both in an army you will then have the average of points and be completely balanced.
Until you wind up facing the guy with the same two captains, but with both tooled up. Or both not tooled up at all.
Considering you should have the model built WYSIWYG, the less upgraded commander could just be there to hand out unit buffs. If you load him up with gear, you want him doing something and your opponent will want to kill him.
If you load him up with gear, does he stop conveying those same unit buffs?
If he just has a bolt gun and chainsword his whole job will be too march alongside his units and allow rerolls which will change you and your opponent's strategies.
If he has a whole bunch of gear, his job will still be to march alongside his units, because running characters around by themselves is how you lose them in the first round of shooting.
And again, if you load him up with gear you will want him closer to the front in order to bring those weapons to bear, putting him in harm's way. If he spends the entire game encircled by other units and never attempting to close into melee all of his gear is useless and simply makes him a more appealing target for the enemy.
You aren't ever running them around by themselves, but taking a pile of weapons and defensive buffs on a character you don't plan on ever making it into combat is a waste of points, whereas power level doesn't care and you can field him for the buffs while still using the really cool model you made.
Power level let's you get a generalised descriptor of capability while allowing for more wiggle room in regards to capability.
Say the enemy has a way to hit you with a couple mortal wounds a turn, super character will die just s fast as Bob the commander. Now if the character in question had less upgrades, would the opponent still want to throw those wounds on him?
Choosing gear options in power level play is a tactical choices, not a mathematical one.
In short? Yes. He's not killing the captain because the captain is a CC threat, he's killing him because he has buffs to hand out.
You can make arguments that having OBJECTIVELY less powerful units is a good thing. You'd be wrong, but you can make them.
Now, you can make GOOD arguments that less highly pointed upgrades can still be better. Despite costing more, a lascannon isn't always better than a heavy bolter-such as when dealing with hordes.
But let's say you can have a model with a Storm Shield or without one, simply taken in addition to other things, rather than replacing something. If points are not an issue, when would it EVER be better to not take the Storm Shield?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2017/06/13 07:03:25
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
hobojebus wrote: Odd how a "competitive" player is more willing to accommodate others than the more casual narrative player don't you think.
Funny. I see competive players wanting to get rid of power levels more than casuals are wanting point levels to be removed. So seems it's actually other way around. Competive players want to drill their way of play for others.
Elysian Drop Troops, 
Dark Angels, 30K
up we don't care.
