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.

 Marmatag wrote:
Since there is still some confusion:

Wanting to see fully painted and properly assembled miniatures on the table, because you want a cinematic gaming experience is not WAAC. This has nothing to do with points or power.

Wanting to restrict your opponent's options to get a better advantage, insisting on WYSIWYG because it makes your list stronger relative to theirs, is WAAC. This also has nothing to do with points or power.

If it's a competitive game I want my opponent to have their best list. So, proxying is okay with me, as long as it is done before hand, and not in response to seeing what i brought. Because that's list tailoring, and it makes for a pretty silly experience. I've played ITC games with people who used coke cans for drop pods.

If it's a non-competitive game, and we're playing power, and Johnny Q. Powergamer says, "Oh, it's power, therefore, all my units have all the upgrades," well, that dog won't hunt, because you're trying to game the system and "win at list building," rather than have a good game. Or, if it's a story based game, and someone doesn't have a drop pod, and wants to use the coke can, the answer is no, because it cheapens the experience.

Well its certainly not a casual attitude to take is it, and it definitely does not take the other persons enjoyment into consideration.

Its my way or the highway is a very selfish attitude that would almost certainly end in a NPE.

You can't call someone a power gamer for using upgrades nothing in the rules gives an indication that its unacceptable and again forcing them to use points because they violated your personal views on how a game should be played is inconsiderate in the extreme.

You really need to learn its not just about you and your enjoyment.

Lol, "forcing them to use points".

If someone says "I brought 2000 points today. Who wants to play against it?" And you said "I have 60 power level. Let's fight?" The first has every right to say no to the second, simply because there's no indication that there will be a fair match. And vice versa, for that matter. The two systems are balanced differently (and those trying to argue power levels are more balanced should go read the multiple dozen-page plus threads complaining about the lack of balance of the powerlevel system), and are not IMO compatible for cross-play.

 Melissia wrote:
Lol, "forcing them to use points".

If someone says "I brought 2000 points today. Who wants to play against it?" And you said "I have 60 power level. Let's fight?" The first has every right to say no to the second, simply because there's no indication that there will be a fair match. And vice versa, for that matter. The two systems are balanced differently (and those trying to argue power levels are more balanced should go read the multiple dozen-page plus threads complaining about the lack of balance of the powerlevel system), and are not IMO compatible for cross-play.

And there is a number of us who are sure 2,000 points is about 100 Power Levels and some who would say, Sure Why Not even though we are about 800 points shy or he is 40 Power Levels over.

 Anpu42 wrote:
And there is a number of us who are sure

Good for you.

Irrelevant to the question at hand. The reason you create two separate systems is so that you can measure things in two separate ways. And unlike Meters to Feet, which has a literal mathematical number attached, there is only a at best an experimental rough approximation for points vs.. powerlevels.

Trying to use that to justify whining about people sticking to points as "forcing" players to also play points is just... damn, man.

Hmm.

The way I see it is that points are better suited to constructed events and Power Level is more for casual pick up play.

Having exactly one working measurement system, regardless of which system it is, would be better for casual play. If it was only points, or only powerlevel, it'd be easier for people to show up and play without having to do much work.

Its already happened with the Iron Wolves giving free weapon upgrades to their vehicles, and it didn't stomach right.

All of a sudden people start adding bolters and hunter killers and dozer blades and typhoon missile launchers and assault cannons to everything that they normally would never ever EVER have consider in the first place, and naturally none of it is modelled.

Had to make corrections that youre only allowed 2 weapons on a Land Speeder, not heavy bolters, typhoons, and then an assault cannon. Woohoo! Free stuff! =/

 Melissia wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
And there is a number of us who are sure

Good for you.

Irrelevant to the question at hand. The reason you create two separate systems is so that you can measure things in two separate ways. And unlike Meters to Feet, which has a literal mathematical number attached, there is only a at best an experimental rough approximation for points vs.. powerlevels.

Trying to use that to justify whining about people sticking to points as "forcing" players to also play points is just... damn, man.

I do that all the time with Table Top RPGs, 3 Feet is a Yard is a Meter is a yard is 3 feet, it is close enough to work.

What is know from the 2,000 point list (Call it His) vs. the 60 Power Level List (Call it Mine) is that his Army is more powerful than mine with that rough gauge. No need for complected math there. So simple we set up a scenario where is take a defended fortified position or have to hold a bridge for a set number turns or random turns.

insaniak wrote:

Why would you simply decide to max out upgrades?

If an upgrade is free, and is as good or better in every way than what you start with (as is the case with every other pistol that a Marine Captain has access to as a potential replacement for his bolt pistol) then there is no logical reason to not take it.

To be clear, I'm not talking about simply taking every single available upgrade. There are certainly going to be some upgrades that are better than others for specific army builds. But where something is clearly better than the thing that it replaces, it would be silly to not take it.

That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels. So, yeah, if that's the only way you see things then points probably are the way to go all the time. I said earlier that I had a friend I would never want to play power levels with, because he can't turn off minmaxing/optimizing lists. That's fine, it's his thing and he has fun with it, but it would break power levels. I have another friend that picks out a few units that he wants to play with, adds in a solid backbone of troops for doing the grunt work, and then we're off to socialize while we roll dice. Power levels works just fine for that kind of gaming, as do points, but I suspect we'll have a little more fun using power levels; I won't know until I've tried several games to see what the balance is like.

Melissia wrote:Having exactly one working measurement system, regardless of which system it is, would be better for casual play. If it was only points, or only powerlevel, it'd be easier for people to show up and play without having to do much work.

Right now we don't know that we even have one (accurate) working measurement system. I've been playing since 4th edition and people have *never* felt that the points were consistently well done. 8th could have the best points ever and still be heavily flawed. It's entirely possible that power levels will give us a better tool to determine balanced armies. But we won't know until we have seen a lot of people trying out both systems and seeing how they work out.

 Lansirill wrote:
That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.

Uh, no. That kind of thinking lends itself to powergaming in general. There's absolutely nothing stopping a powergamer from using powerlevels. In fact, with the massive discrepancies shown by powerlevels, it's preetty easy to argue powerlevels are easier to game than points are.

People acting like powergamers won't abuse powerlevels is cute. Also ignorant. Powergamers, by definition, will use whatever they can to abuse the system to get more power, regardless of which system that is. And a system like powerlevels, where all upgrades are free, basically encourages powergaming to begin with.

 Lansirill wrote:
Right now we don't know that we even have one (accurate) working measurement system.

And now we have two that aren't accurate and don't work. So if you had a point, you failed to make it.

 Melissia wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.

Uh, no. That kind of thinking lends itself to powergaming in general. There's absolutely nothing stopping a powergamer from using powerlevels. In fact, with the massive discrepancies shown by powerlevels, it's preetty easy to argue powerlevels are easier to game than points are.

People acting like powergamers won't abuse powerlevels is cute. Also ignorant and self-deceptive. Powergamers, by definition, will use whatever they can to abuse the system to get more power, regardless of which system that is. And a system like powerlevels, where all upgrades are free, basically encourages powergaming to begin with.

No. Power gamers absolutely will abuse power levels. If you or someone you love is playing games with a power gamer, please make sure that they use points so that there is a semblance of balance in their games. Do not continue playing games using power levels with power gamers. Side effects include salt, flipped tables, and general irritability.

 Lansirill wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.

Uh, no. That kind of thinking lends itself to powergaming in general. There's absolutely nothing stopping a powergamer from using powerlevels. In fact, with the massive discrepancies shown by powerlevels, it's preetty easy to argue powerlevels are easier to game than points are.

People acting like powergamers won't abuse powerlevels is cute. Also ignorant and self-deceptive. Powergamers, by definition, will use whatever they can to abuse the system to get more power, regardless of which system that is. And a system like powerlevels, where all upgrades are free, basically encourages powergaming to begin with.

No. Power gamers absolutely will abuse power levels. If you or someone you love is playing games with a power gamer, please make sure that they use points so that there is a semblance of balance in their games. Do not continue playing games using power levels with power gamers. Side effects include salt, flipped tables, and general irritability.

Or they will get tired of you not taking the win seriously and leave. (Has work in the past with us)
Or you design games where trying to kill off your opponent in lue of achieving the objective will cost him to loose the game and they will either change their tune or leave. (Has work in the past with us)

I'd probably use points most of the time, and only use power level if I don't have an appropriate list handy and want to throw something together real quick.

This mostly has to do with how I approach my listbuilding though. I have a relatively small group that doesn't play very often, so I usually have a lot of time to construct my lists in advance, I have a lot of time to get and prepare models specifically to complete a list, and I only play one faction so any new list tends to be 95% models I already have. So points works well for my situation, their extra level of control lends itself to that kind of pre-planning because with so much time between games, I can easily optimize. "Optimizing" power levels would pretty much break them, so it's best to avoid that rabbit hole.

If on the off-chance I got into a pick-up game that I didn't already have an appropriate list for on-hand, that's where power levels would shine. I could throw an army together with a minimal amount of page-flipping, WYSIWYG would be fine because the upgrades don't matter, and having no time to optimize means I have no time to break it so it should be okay.

 Lansirill wrote:

That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.

Yeah, that's kind of the point.


To be clear, I'm not interested in min/maxing. My lists tend to include their fair share of non-optimal unit choices. But those lists are built in the knowledge that there is generally at least some semblance of balance provided by the fact that less powerful options are (for the most part) less costly than more powerful options.

A system where, by default a model armed with a pointy stick is counted as being worth the same amount as an identical model armed with the Death Star removes any possibility of getting a fair game other than completely by accident.


If you want to agree with your opponent to just put together armies that look about right and have at it, then that's fine... It's a game, do whatever floats your boat. I just don't see the point in having a separate army generation system to cater to that style of play, since you can achieve the exact same outcome by just using the existing points costs and not paying for upgrades, or by ignoring the points costs altogether.

The only outcome I see from the power level system is people having wildly imbalanced games. A system like that doesn't work unless all of the available options are of more-or-less equal value, or units just don't have options at all.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:

That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.

Yeah, that's kind of the point.


To be clear, I'm not interested in min/maxing. My lists tend to include their fair share of non-optimal unit choices. But those lists are built in the knowledge that there is generally at least some semblance of balance provided by the fact that less powerful options are (for the most part) less costly than more powerful options.

A system where, by default a model armed with a pointy stick is counted as being worth the same amount as an identical model armed with the Death Star removes any possibility of getting a fair game other than completely by accident.


If you want to agree with your opponent to just put together armies that look about right and have at it, then that's fine... It's a game, do whatever floats your boat. I just don't see the point in having a separate army generation system to cater to that style of play, since you can achieve the exact same outcome by just using the existing points costs and not paying for upgrades, or by ignoring the points costs altogether.

The only outcome I see from the power level system is people having wildly imbalanced games. A system like that doesn't work unless all of the available options are of more-or-less equal value, or units just don't have options at all.

Yeah, that's absolutely right, if you ask me. Getting in here before the inevitable "but some people don't care about balance!" response If you didn't care about balance - then why use either system anyway?

GW didn't really give us much of anything at all with this power level system, IMO, but if some folks like it I guess that's the way she goes.

hobojebus wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Since there is still some confusion:

Wanting to see fully painted and properly assembled miniatures on the table, because you want a cinematic gaming experience is not WAAC. This has nothing to do with points or power.

Wanting to restrict your opponent's options to get a better advantage, insisting on WYSIWYG because it makes your list stronger relative to theirs, is WAAC. This also has nothing to do with points or power.

If it's a competitive game I want my opponent to have their best list. So, proxying is okay with me, as long as it is done before hand, and not in response to seeing what i brought. Because that's list tailoring, and it makes for a pretty silly experience. I've played ITC games with people who used coke cans for drop pods.

If it's a non-competitive game, and we're playing power, and Johnny Q. Powergamer says, "Oh, it's power, therefore, all my units have all the upgrades," well, that dog won't hunt, because you're trying to game the system and "win at list building," rather than have a good game. Or, if it's a story based game, and someone doesn't have a drop pod, and wants to use the coke can, the answer is no, because it cheapens the experience.

Well its certainly not a casual attitude to take is it, and it definitely does not take the other persons enjoyment into consideration.

Its my way or the highway is a very selfish attitude that would almost certainly end in a NPE.

You can't call someone a power gamer for using upgrades nothing in the rules gives an indication that its unacceptable and again forcing them to use points because they violated your personal views on how a game should be played is inconsiderate in the extreme.

You really need to learn its not just about you and your enjoyment.

Good effort champ. Really good effort.

Well its certainly not a casual attitude to take is it, and it definitely does not take the other persons enjoyment into consideration.

Define casual. Then, define cinematic gaming experience. Then, reflect on how you conflated the two.

Its my way or the highway is a very selfish attitude that would almost certainly end in a NPE.

I like how you completely ignore what i'm saying and call me selfish. Very manipulative. Having desires around the many different kinds of games I want makes me selfish. Look at how immediately i'd have to defend myself, and say, "it's not my way, it's the group," or, "these are standards not set by me." But you knew that.

You can't call someone a power gamer for using upgrades nothing in the rules gives an indication that its unacceptable and again forcing them to use points because they violated your personal views on how a game should be played is inconsiderate in the extreme.

Please take a full proxied list to a tournament and see how far that gets you. You could use different colors of goldfish crackers for miniatures. Then use this exact same argument when they tell you no. Also, bear in mind, using an excessive amount of proxies and expecting everyone to be totally fine with it, and if they're not, then you call them selfish, would say a lot about you.

You really need to learn its not just about you and your enjoyment.

He trolled, blithely.

 Jambles wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:

That kind of thinking lends itself to points, not power levels.

Yeah, that's kind of the point.


To be clear, I'm not interested in min/maxing. My lists tend to include their fair share of non-optimal unit choices. But those lists are built in the knowledge that there is generally at least some semblance of balance provided by the fact that less powerful options are (for the most part) less costly than more powerful options.

A system where, by default a model armed with a pointy stick is counted as being worth the same amount as an identical model armed with the Death Star removes any possibility of getting a fair game other than completely by accident.


If you want to agree with your opponent to just put together armies that look about right and have at it, then that's fine... It's a game, do whatever floats your boat. I just don't see the point in having a separate army generation system to cater to that style of play, since you can achieve the exact same outcome by just using the existing points costs and not paying for upgrades, or by ignoring the points costs altogether.

The only outcome I see from the power level system is people having wildly imbalanced games. A system like that doesn't work unless all of the available options are of more-or-less equal value, or units just don't have options at all.

Yeah, that's absolutely right, if you ask me. Getting in here before the inevitable "but some people don't care about balance!" response If you didn't care about balance - then why use either system anyway?

GW didn't really give us much of anything at all with this power level system, IMO, but if some folks like it I guess that's the way she goes.

We like to have some idea of how close we are. That is about it. It goes back to 'Close Enough is Good Enough' for a large number of us.

 Anpu42 wrote:
We like to have some idea of how close we are. That is about it. It goes back to 'Close Enough is Good Enough' for a large number of us.

That's fair enough.

I would propose that a whole new system would have been more interesting. Use 8th as a testing ground, see if it's got traction, then roll it out for the next edition.

The sad thing here is, points have the potential to take in the lore of the game to the benefit a player who wants to play lore-heavy lists-- power levels, however, don't really have this potential, as power levels only care about what units you take, not how they're equipped or what upgrades they have.

In a powerlevel list, competitively there's no reason not to slap every upgrade you can on every unit you have, regardless of whether or not it fits, and this puts at a disadvantage players that equip their units and characters according to the lore instead. Given the nature of random games you find at a store, this gives more advantage to the competitive player over the casual one than a points system would.

Furthermore, no amount of tweaking of power levels will change this-- any upward change in level cost of a character to adjust for the power of an upgraded character will also hurt the same character with fewer upgrades (a problem not faced by the points system, as you can just increase the cost of the powerful upgrades instead). And not only that, even small changes to powerlevel costs will also often require a drastic reshuffling of a list (another problem not faced by the points system), forcing you for example to take fewer or different units in order to account for the increased cost of a character you need to take. But if it were a points system, the lore-friendly player who wasn't taking this powerful upgrade wouldn't be impacted at all by a nerf to the points cost of the upgrade.

The more I look at it, the more I feel it is objectively-- not subjectively-- a worse system for balance, and subjectively I have yet to be convinced that it's really any easier to use for army building, either. Even as a relatively new player I never found it too difficult to throw together a 1000-2000 points list in a few minutes. If I spent more time on it than that, it's because I had more time than that.

No one here is arguing that the way GW has done points is perfect. But that doesn't mean a stripped down, neutered, and paralyzed version of points is automatically better like so many here assume.

 Melissia wrote:
The sad thing here is, points have the potential to take in the lore of the game to the benefit a player who wants to play lore-heavy lists-- power levels, however, don't really have this potential, as power levels only care about what units you take, not how they're equipped or what upgrades they have.

Yes there is, us the Fluffy Players and personal taste of the player.
For me and my Home Brew Chapter, The Imperial Tigers (Using Dark Angels) there are two signature weapons, Lighting Claws and Plasma. I know Melta is better for taking down Tanks/MCs, but even if I know it is going to be a Mech/Godzilla List I still take Plasma. My Deathwing Terminators with have Tactical Loadout with Plasma Cannons and Lighting Claws with the Chain Fist for the Plasma Cannon. The only reason for the chain fist is that the Single Lighting is not an option. I also have in my Fluff that Sargent of the Devastator Squads are new to being a Sargent and have not Earned their Claws so they have only a Chainsword.
Some people my look at this and go I am beefing up because and taking the free stuff because I can with Power Levels. But it has always been this way, the only new thing (and why I went from Space Marine to Dark Angle) is adding Plasma Cannons to my Terminators.

The same goes for my Space Wolves. I have been playing Space Wolves since the Rouge Trader Days. I chose them because I thought they were cool, nothing more nothing less. I have about 14,000 point of them, but I have always been Accused of joining the Space Wolf Band Wagon ever time a new Codex comes out. However I still play the same Grey Hunter Packs I did back in 2nd with the same load-out I always have.

The fact that I always have spent to many points on Wargear has never changed and will never change now that I went from being that WAAC player to a casual player back in 3rd.

Most of my group is the same way, one is Melta Happy, so anytime we get new stuff we exchange Plasma for Melta. It has nothing to do with taking the maximum amout of gear, we always did even when it is not in our best interest.

Why is that so hard to understand.

And yes I know there are those out there who will go WAAC/TFG with Power Levels or Points and nothing will ever stop that.

 Marmatag wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Since there is still some confusion:

Wanting to see fully painted and properly assembled miniatures on the table, because you want a cinematic gaming experience is not WAAC. This has nothing to do with points or power.

Wanting to restrict your opponent's options to get a better advantage, insisting on WYSIWYG because it makes your list stronger relative to theirs, is WAAC. This also has nothing to do with points or power.

If it's a competitive game I want my opponent to have their best list. So, proxying is okay with me, as long as it is done before hand, and not in response to seeing what i brought. Because that's list tailoring, and it makes for a pretty silly experience. I've played ITC games with people who used coke cans for drop pods.

If it's a non-competitive game, and we're playing power, and Johnny Q. Powergamer says, "Oh, it's power, therefore, all my units have all the upgrades," well, that dog won't hunt, because you're trying to game the system and "win at list building," rather than have a good game. Or, if it's a story based game, and someone doesn't have a drop pod, and wants to use the coke can, the answer is no, because it cheapens the experience.

Well its certainly not a casual attitude to take is it, and it definitely does not take the other persons enjoyment into consideration.

Its my way or the highway is a very selfish attitude that would almost certainly end in a NPE.

You can't call someone a power gamer for using upgrades nothing in the rules gives an indication that its unacceptable and again forcing them to use points because they violated your personal views on how a game should be played is inconsiderate in the extreme.

You really need to learn its not just about you and your enjoyment.

Good effort champ. Really good effort.

Well its certainly not a casual attitude to take is it, and it definitely does not take the other persons enjoyment into consideration.

Define casual. Then, define cinematic gaming experience. Then, reflect on how you conflated the two.

Its my way or the highway is a very selfish attitude that would almost certainly end in a NPE.

I like how you completely ignore what i'm saying and call me selfish. Very manipulative. Having desires around the many different kinds of games I want makes me selfish. Look at how immediately i'd have to defend myself, and say, "it's not my way, it's the group," or, "these are standards not set by me." But you knew that.

You can't call someone a power gamer for using upgrades nothing in the rules gives an indication that its unacceptable and again forcing them to use points because they violated your personal views on how a game should be played is inconsiderate in the extreme.

Please take a full proxied list to a tournament and see how far that gets you. You could use different colors of goldfish crackers for miniatures. Then use this exact same argument when they tell you no. Also, bear in mind, using an excessive amount of proxies and expecting everyone to be totally fine with it, and if they're not, then you call them selfish, would say a lot about you.

You really need to learn its not just about you and your enjoyment.

He trolled, blithely.

Multiqoute doesn't like my tablet so I'll go point by point:

1: thanks its nice to have my exalted status recognized.

2:you said you were not a WAAC gamer, I was pointing out your also not a casual one either given your attitude it had no other meaning beyond that.

3:the word your looking for is inferred and it was a general blanket statement that applies universally, having a preferred way to play is fine but you listed demands and that's not it takes more than one person to play and not taking their view into account is not cool.

4: I haven't and never will play in a tournament I only play casual games with my friends so proxying has never been an issue, as long as its a clearly written list they can sub in a rhino for a predator if that like.

And finally a little advice don't start your reply with a condescending statement then act like the injured party its disingenuous.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Being able to impose additional restrictions upon yourself in order to counteract inherent imbalance within the system is hardly a plus point for the system itself!

Just like how tournaments have to limit what players can bring to prevent overpowered lists? I have no problem giving myself less in order to give my opponent a better chance at the game, because I'm not concerned with winning at plastic figures battles. I have purposefully thrown games in pickup environments and tournaments in order to help my opponent have a better time, and I will probably do it again sometime.

I play WITH my opponents, not AGAINST them.

 insaniak wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Unless your Space Marine Captain model does not have modeled on it a particular upgrade, and you are wanting to play WYSIWYG.

Or you are playing for fluff and narrative reasons, and your Space Marine Captain has a preference for Bolt Pistols over Plasma Pistols, or the Chapter has a shortage of Plasma weapons available for whatever reason, or whatever Narrative reason you could think of for why a model would rather take the lesser upgrade.

Or you realize that you put sponsons on your tank, and you want to limit the capabilities that the Captain has, so you leave him with standard equipment to level off your army a bit.

All of these examples are handled better by a system that accounts for options through points costs.

And these examples are handled just fine by Power Levels as well when one is not worried about "optimization" or "efficiency" in their army.

 Anpu42 wrote:

dosiere wrote:
So, we're arguing whether the end result we want is a delicious dessert or an inconsistent spaghetti sauce?

Yes, as some of us like both, just one goes better on pasta.

Probably the best metaphor for the whole situation! Exalted!

Arguing over Points versus Power Level is like arguing over whether to follow a recipe or make something from memory. Both are valid and each has their strengths and weaknesses. But when you look at the goal for the meal, you need to figure out why you are cooking anything: Is the point of the meal just to feed people, or is the goal to bring together family and friends around the table together to socialize and enjoy each other's company while enjoying a home-cooked meal?

 Melissia wrote:
No one here is arguing that the way GW has done points is perfect. But that doesn't mean a stripped down, neutered, and paralyzed version of points is automatically better like so many here assume.

I don't recall any of the Power Level supporters making the claim that Power Level is a better system for measuring army strength, just that it is a good enough approximation for non-competitive gaming. When the goal is to have fun, we are okay with "close enough, let's play!" for our games. Each has strengths and weaknesses over the other, and each are going to be used. I mean, I'll still play with Points at some point ( ) but I am willing to give Power Levels a shot, because it fits my mentality of what kind of game I want.
__________

Don't forget that GW intends to update the Points are going to updated on a regular basis, while the Power Level points are intended to be more static in value. A PL50 army today will be PL50 in three years, while a 2000 Points army today might be worth 2300 Points or 1700 Points in the future depending on how the "meta" changes things around.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
I play WITH my opponents, not AGAINST them.

Don't forget that GW intends to update the Points are going to updated on a regular basis, while the Power Level points are intended to be more static in value. A PL50 army today will be PL50 in three years, while a 2000 Points army today might be worth 2300 Points or 1700 Points in the future depending on how the "meta" changes things around.

Yes all of this.

On the 2,000 point vs Power Level 60, lets say it is 2,000 points vs. Power Level 100, a closer match.
First the two Armies should be relatively close, though I will admit the Power Level army will most likely to be more powerful. This does have an impact. I would have no problems conceding my Power Level Army is the More Powerful Army and would be willing to drop something or a lot of the Missions give some sort of Advantage to the Lower Point/Power Level Army.
Even if the Mission did not have such a thing I would be willing to let him choose things like who deploys where, who goes first and things like that.

Playing *with* your opponent instead of *against* your opponent is probably the biggest divide on the internet regarding wargaming, and why this opinion thread turned into a hostile "you're playing wrong" thread.

 auticus wrote:
Playing *with* your opponent instead of *against* your opponent is probably the biggest divide on the internet regarding wargaming, and why this opinion thread turned into a hostile "you're playing wrong" thread.

This Thread???

It does not even have to be on the internet.
My old D&D Group can not get past the DM vs. Player Mentality. 4th Ed D&D had this great idea where the DM would have each player write down 5 things they would like their character to get, land, specific magic item, just a magic weapon. The point was to give the DM an idea of what the Players wanted. I had one who every time I handed out the sheet to fill out would look at me and say "This Stupid Thing Again" along with a dirty look and most of the rest took all day to write down a list and not from having to many choices, but because they had a choice.

The same when AoS hit. The attitude was 'I should not have to Talk to the guy/girl I am playing with before the game, we should just put the Models on the Table and Play' from a lot of people.

I think these two systems separate the differing mentalities very well. People that want to use power levels are going to do so with an existing group that is a known commodity. Points is and should always be the way to build lists for pick up games and tournaments. Random people that might be WAAC = points every time. Friends you have known for years = power levels if desired.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
I think these two systems separate the differing mentalities very well. People that want to use power levels are going to do so with an existing group that is a known commodity. Points is and should always be the way to build lists for pick up games and tournaments. Random people that might be WAAC = points every time. Friends you have known for years = power levels if desired.

Yes, though I think if the local Meta might also make Power Levels good for pick up games, but YMMV.

I know my local meta will be pretty hostile to power levels for anything except events that will specifically use them.

Pick up games here are typically practice games for tournaments though (often) and those that aren't typically follow tournament standards regardless.

 auticus wrote:
Playing *with* your opponent instead of *against* your opponent is probably the biggest divide on the internet regarding wargaming, and why this opinion thread turned into a hostile "you're playing wrong" thread.

Indeed. And, funnily enough, you can use points to play WITH another player. It's a matter of personality and mindset of what one is wanting to get out of the game.

 Anpu42 wrote:
My old D&D Group can not get past the DM vs. Player Mentality. 4th Ed D&D had this great idea where the DM would have each player write down 5 things they would like their character to get, land, specific magic item, just a magic weapon. The point was to give the DM an idea of what the Players wanted. I had one who every time I handed out the sheet to fill out would look at me and say "This Stupid Thing Again" along with a dirty look and most of the rest took all day to write down a list and not from having to many choices, but because they had a choice.

The same when AoS hit. The attitude was 'I should not have to Talk to the guy/girl I am playing with before the game, we should just put the Models on the Table and Play' from a lot of people.

That sounds like a cool idea! I DMed for 4th Edition throughout my college years and never saw that anywhere. I'm going to have to remember that if I ever get a chance to play D&D again!

But yeah, you are right. The DM (or GM, if you prefer) is not the opponent to be defeated, but rather a user experience facilitator. The DM is in charge of making sure that the players are entertained by the story, the RP sessions are enjoyable, and the combat encounters are sufficiently challenging for the group. RPGs are about 1) the story of the campaign, and 2) getting together with other players to enjoy your time together, that is the point of them. Wargames can fulfill that exact same role, AND it can fulfill the competitive mindset that some players have. The problem with communicating ahead of time is that many players don't realize that others may not want to play the same kind of game as them.

I voted for points originally, but I'm leaning towards Power Level now just because I've had to go through the "You have to pay for your default weapons on top of the base cost for the unit" discussion at least a dozen times and the game isn't even out yet.