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.
2017/06/14 16:53:49
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
auticus wrote: 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.
Pick up games where I play are in the majority very casual games. Even the competitive games are actually pretty casual. In my last ITC 1850 point 7th edition game, I faced a squad of devastator marines, which amounted to legs glued to bases with no bodies, riding in a half finished water bottle.
We rarely follow tournament standards. Before each game there's usually a moment where we compare lists to make sure that the game is balanced. This is also why power is helpful. We can adjust our lists after comparing them while keeping the cost calculation simple and quick.
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.
2017/06/14 17:02:57
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
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.
The other thing many people miss is that YOUR JOB as a Player (or DM, GM Host) is to make sure everyone has a good time. If one, ONE person did not have a good time you Failed at your Job. I have been playing with that philosophy now for over a decade now and everyone who plays with me is now on board.
I have lost count of how many TFGs players we have gone through with that philosophy and we all agree it is for the better.
Asmodai wrote: 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.
I've had the same experience. It generally ends with someone exasperatedly rolling their eyes.
I'm getting anxious enough about it to the point I might start asking to see people's math. I guess because "Points" lie. They tell you it will be fair. Even thou I know from experience it never is. Maybe that is why I don't find power levels as offensive as some do. That inherent unbalance is baked in.
2017/06/14 18:56:56
Subject: Re:40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Part of the allure of breaking points is that the more granular they are, the more clever the player that breaks them is.
Its easier to break power level. As such, its not as clever to break them. Coming up with a 2000 point granular list that operates as if it were 3000 points is clever. Doing the same with power level... not so much.
Points have never been balanced. They just let you do more granularity and as such are more comforting to those that think they offer greater balance.
By December the forums will be filled with the latest meta busting min/max lists that take advantage of the 8th edition granular point system.
We're doing a form of azyr comp with the new 40k points just to identify where those undercosted units lie.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/14 18:58:27
2017/06/14 18:58:17
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Asmodai wrote: 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.
That's just GW making points WORSE. Because they had it fine before, but they fixed what wasn't broken.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2017/06/14 19:00:24
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
And yet that doesn't make powerlevels good. I've seen just as many complaint threads and heard just as many discussions on how broke the power level assignments are for various units as I have about points since the release of leaks for 8th.
In fact, I'm pretty sure right now, points are still in a better position just on units alone, because of the often tremendous disparity of power between equally costed units in the powerlevel system.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/14 19:01:22
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
2017/06/14 19:05:23
Subject: Re:40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
auticus wrote: 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.
Pick up games where I play are in the majority very casual games. Even the competitive games are actually pretty casual. In my last ITC 1850 point 7th edition game, I faced a squad of devastator marines, which amounted to legs glued to bases with no bodies, riding in a half finished water bottle.
We rarely follow tournament standards. Before each game there's usually a moment where we compare lists to make sure that the game is balanced. This is also why power is helpful. We can adjust our lists after comparing them while keeping the cost calculation simple and quick.
In my area, the 40K players are broken into different groups that tend to stick to their own playstyles:
- the "WAAC-ers", ultra-competitive tournament players, who treat every game as practice for the ITC. They think they are hot stuff, and seem to have all the money they need to buy the most OP units/armies and can afford to chase the meta non stop. They host their own tournament circuit throughout the year and keep track of WLD through the seasons. Ages about 24-30.
- the group that I call the "Old Guard", they have been into Warhammer for decades. Occasionally hosts tournaments and Narrative events for several systems, and are generally really cool guys to play with. They still have and play their Warhammer Fantasy armies with 8th Edition Fantasy, and are willing to try out the latest new wargame to further their knowledge on game design theory. Ages are 40+.
- my group, which consists of players interested in just having furn with the games. We have much more in common with the "Old Guard", and attend their events when we can. We are basically poor, so can barely afford to buy new models, and are unable to "chase the meta" and keep up with the "WAAC-ers", so we stick with relaxed, fun games, and are always planning or looking for Narrative events to participate in. Ages are all over the place, and we are really the only group married with kids (in case you were wondering why we have no money )
With any luck, my group will be perfectly okay with either Power Levels or Points. If I know them half as well as I think I do, then it shouldn't be an issue.
Anpu42 wrote: The other thing many people miss is that YOUR JOB as a Player (or DM, GM Host) is to make sure everyone has a good time. If one, ONE person did not have a good time you Failed at your Job. I have been playing with that philosophy now for over a decade now and everyone who plays with me is now on board.
I have lost count of how many TFGs players we have gone through with that philosophy and we all agree it is for the better.
Indeed! That tactic worked for us once, with one pseudo Kill Team campaign we had once that kinda of started as PVP, but later turned into a PVE or PVGM campaign, with the GM running as one villain for us all to fight. It was a lot of fun! And the WAAC-er player who joined early on left after he realized he couldn't "defeat" anyone with his Tau Kill Team. I mean, I did feel bad that he didn't enjoy the game, but he was/is still placing high in the local tournaments, and hasn't really had anything to do with us since then.
auticus wrote: We're doing a form of azyr comp with the new 40k points just to identify where those undercosted units lie.
I look forward to seeing that!
2017/06/14 19:29:46
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
BunkhouseBuster wrote: And these examples are handled just fine by Power Levels as well when one is not worried about "optimization" or "efficiency" in their army.
Sure... But why bother?
That's the sticking point for me... It's difficult to see how taking development time to design a new system to do an inferior job of something that was already covered by the existing system rather than using that development time to fix the existing system is a good choice.
I'm sure there will be plenty of players who are happy using power levels. From the examples in this thread, in many cases they will be people doing exactly what they've been doing for 20 years previously with points ... Which suggests that if GW hadn't bothered introducing power levels, the only thing that would be different is that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
2017/06/14 19:36:48
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Asmodai wrote: 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.
I've had the same experience. It generally ends with someone exasperatedly rolling their eyes.
I'm getting anxious enough about it to the point I might start asking to see people's math. I guess because "Points" lie. They tell you it will be fair. Even thou I know from experience it never is. Maybe that is why I don't find power levels as offensive as some do. That inherent unbalance is baked in.
That is the "honesty" parameter I mentioned earlier and a reason for many, many threads on dakka about "ideal ballance". Numerical points are generally poor tool for ensuring equality in complex games and very granular point systems create even greater illusion of achievability of ideal ballance.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: 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 play WITH my opponents, not AGAINST them.
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.
Very much this. I would also add, that ensuring "equal fun" or "equal challange" rather than only "fair, 50/50 chance of winning asuming equal skill", that is including actual players, their personalities and skill in the equation is the hardest part of so called "casual at all costs" playstyle and from what I see in this thread the hardest thing to understand for players with "always competetive", skill measuring approach...
2017/06/14 20:48:03
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
BunkhouseBuster wrote: And these examples are handled just fine by Power Levels as well when one is not worried about "optimization" or "efficiency" in their army.
Sure... But why bother?
That's the sticking point for me... It's difficult to see how taking development time to design a new system to do an inferior job of something that was already covered by the existing system rather than using that development time to fix the existing system is a good choice.
I'm sure there will be plenty of players who are happy using power levels. From the examples in this thread, in many cases they will be people doing exactly what they've been doing for 20 years previously with points ... Which suggests that if GW hadn't bothered introducing power levels, the only thing that would be different is that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Bother with what? Using Power Levels? Or using Points? Or not worrying about "optimization" or "efficiency"? Or all of the above?
It's just a different way to build up armies and it works good enough for a relaxed game. I don't have any sort of competitive mindset when it comes to anything, especially wargaming - I refused to use my Thunderwolves in 7th Edition because I didn't want to be overpowered, I played Land Speeders and Meltagun Bike Squads instead, I have been subtle to throw games to let my opponent win if I they were looking stressed or aggravated, and I try to make sure my opponent has a good time. To me, and others on here, Power Levels meet our basic army construction need, and we are excited to give it a shot.
GW is trying something new and trying to innovate. Whether that is successful or not is an entirely different matter. But think about this: No matter how you feel about Points vs. Power Levels vs. no points, GW has us all talking about it and keeping 40K on our minds. You think people are ever going to forget that AoS released without Points values for its units? That was a gutsy move on their part, and it is something that GW is trying to handle better on this Edition of 40K. The Points costs are going to change every year (so we are told), and the Power Levels are more static in that regard, and so if it truly was a time issue on development, then wouldn't it make more sense to work on the version that is less likely to change, especially when planning on changing the other?
And you are right, if GW had not released Power Level as is, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm glad that they did personally, but I can appreciate the fact that others want to stick with what is familiar. In my case, I may not be able to afford the Index books, let alone the Dark Imperium Starter Set, and definitely not any other models any time soon. I am not able to keep up with the rules changes and "meta" changes, and I probably won't be able to buy the upgraded Points values books as they come out. Power Levels being consistent give me a chance at having some consistency through 8th Edition, rather than worrying about the 8.1 and 8.2 Points updates that will come later on.
Asmodai wrote: 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.
I've had the same experience. It generally ends with someone exasperatedly rolling their eyes.
I'm getting anxious enough about it to the point I might start asking to see people's math. I guess because "Points" lie. They tell you it will be fair. Even thou I know from experience it never is. Maybe that is why I don't find power levels as offensive as some do. That inherent unbalance is baked in.
That is the "honesty" parameter I mentioned earlier and a reason for many, many threads on dakka about "ideal ballance". Numerical points are generally poor tool for ensuring equality in complex games and very granular point systems create even greater illusion of achievability of ideal ballance.
Indeed. Especially since the Points Values will be adjusted to "balance" the "meta" later on. Yes, it's great that GW is trying to balance things out and be more involved in the community, but how will I feel if my 1500 Point army is suddenly 1200 Points in value, or even bumped up to 1700 Points?
Unless each player brings the exact same list and plays in a 2-Fort style terrain setup (read: perfectly mirrored), then we won't get "true balance".
2017/06/14 20:52:26
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
BunkhouseBuster wrote: And these examples are handled just fine by Power Levels as well when one is not worried about "optimization" or "efficiency" in their army.
Sure... But why bother?
That's the sticking point for me... It's difficult to see how taking development time to design a new system to do an inferior job of something that was already covered by the existing system rather than using that development time to fix the existing system is a good choice.
I'm sure there will be plenty of players who are happy using power levels. From the examples in this thread, in many cases they will be people doing exactly what they've been doing for 20 years previously with points ... Which suggests that if GW hadn't bothered introducing power levels, the only thing that would be different is that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The answer to "why bother" is most likely "GW reaching new audience". That veteran narrative/casual players got new tool to do old tricks a bit better, bit faster is just a side effect. 6/7th ed has been cursed upon within wargames community so strongly, that there had to be a major shake-up to end bad publicity and "start fresh" to lure new blood. Three ways to play and Power Levels achieve that "broaden audience" goal quite nicely.
2017/06/15 13:55:18
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
BunkhouseBuster wrote: And these examples are handled just fine by Power Levels as well when one is not worried about "optimization" or "efficiency" in their army.
Sure... But why bother?
That's the sticking point for me... It's difficult to see how taking development time to design a new system to do an inferior job of something that was already covered by the existing system rather than using that development time to fix the existing system is a good choice.
I'm sure there will be plenty of players who are happy using power levels. From the examples in this thread, in many cases they will be people doing exactly what they've been doing for 20 years previously with points ... Which suggests that if GW hadn't bothered introducing power levels, the only thing that would be different is that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The answer to "why bother" is most likely "GW reaching new audience". That veteran narrative/casual players got new tool to do old tricks a bit better, bit faster is just a side effect. 6/7th ed has been cursed upon within wargames community so strongly, that there had to be a major shake-up to end bad publicity and "start fresh" to lure new blood. Three ways to play and Power Levels achieve that "broaden audience" goal quite nicely.
You know, I remember a while back about "hardcore gamers" getting upset that Nintendo began advertising the Wii to families, encouraging parents to play with their kids, and increasing their market. In that situation, it came down to "hardcore versus casual gamers". I see the same thing happening here: big company wants to increase its customer base to increase sales and drum up business, and some of the old and reliable customers are feeling threatened by the new changes brought about. They seemingly didn't like the idea of sharing their hobby and experiences with people who don't want the same things as them, and they became vocal in their displeasure with the changes coming.
I have seen many, many posts on various forums and Facebook groups where people are excited with the new changes to the rules coming, and how they haven't played the same since 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th Edition. This big change in the game Edition is arguably the best thing to happen to 40K in several years, good, bad, or indifferent. Anecdotally speaking, it seems that more people are excited about the new Edition than those upset, and there are more people coming back than are leaving the hobby.
2017/06/15 14:10:32
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
Yeah but the Wii did'nt sell any games it was all hardware sales and thats why third party dev's abandoned the platform.
The 360 which did appeal to the hardcore gamer was the big winner of that generation.
Thats before nintendo doubled down on the doomed Wii U which was a massive flop.
Going against your core demographic is stupid, look at marvel comics and how they went for SJW readers and lost everyone else, they can't even sell 20,000 copies of captin marvel anymore.
And in the 90's when the comics market crashed they could sell 100,000 copies at the low point.
2017/06/15 15:03:02
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
I feel like you could replace points, and power levels, with Coke & Dr. Pepper, and many of the arguments would still be the same.
"You can't justify the existence of Dr. Pepper. We have Coke already."
"But Dr. Pepper tastes better."
"You're wrong."
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.
2017/06/15 15:23:51
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
hobojebus wrote: Yeah but the Wii did'nt sell any games it was all hardware sales and thats why third party dev's abandoned the platform.
The 360 which did appeal to the hardcore gamer was the big winner of that generation.
Thats before nintendo doubled down on the doomed Wii U which was a massive flop.
Going against your core demographic is stupid, look at marvel comics and how they went for SJW readers and lost everyone else, they can't even sell 20,000 copies of captin marvel anymore.
And in the 90's when the comics market crashed they could sell 100,000 copies at the low point.
Those are not good analogies, because GW is not abandoning any part of target audience and they are expanding, not deliberately interchanging playerbase. Points are still there, and Matched Play and the ruleset itself has been based on tournament players feedback (at least a large enough group of them) and the whole point of moving point tables to the back of the book is to be able to publish compact updates periodically, specifically for tournament/competetive players. There are already rumors about day one FAQ and rebalance. You may argue, that entire ruleset dumbs down/homogenises experience, but that is what many, many players wanted from GW during 7th ed (myself excluded). Points vs Power Levels is just a side argument in a discussion if 8th is better than 7th, 5th or 2nd. Being witness to 2nd-to-3rd transition (and rage-quit back then) I understand why people may fear/despise changes, but from GW perspective only a total percentage of happy users matters, not any individual who goes away/gets into this hobby. And the whole comparing 8th to 7th will eventually die out when most of the community will adapt to new edition. And the very dispute of points vs Power Levels will naturally settle, probably establishing a nice, up front divide line between "ballance always" and "casual fun" expectations. But if new edition will succeed in drawing new players in, then both of those groups of players might grow sufficiently, that no one will experience drop in games opportunities.
2017/06/15 15:32:17
Subject: 40K - power level vs points... which will you be using?
)
