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.

Having played a few games with power levels, the games were fun and just as even as the game with points.

I will continue to use power levels for anything except for min/max powergaming tournaments.

 GreaterGood? wrote:
I mean, as a tyranid player I'd love to double or more the cost of all my units and not pay for them. For everyone else though, it's probably unfair.

You can fight 4 point termagaunts, or 10 point termagaunts, all for the cost of 4 point gaunts.

But if the 10 point termagants are actually worth 5 points, is it so bad? The power level just changes the metering, there's no point comparing the points costs to the power level in most cases, as they most likely won't match due to the points values, especially on the higher end usually are very off from the actual effectiveness.

Plasma pistols are an example, of an equipment that in many cases is never worth the points (or at least it used to be so), similarly many of the +x point small upgrades to 1 wound infantry models usually just increase the cost with pretty minor buff and usually it's always more beneficient to take extra bodies. If the upgrades are good, they are always taken and they could very well be included in the base cost. Good example could be extra armour and smoke launchers in 3rd edition, you never saw a rhino without those 8 points of upgrades. With many of upgrades you can get to high point costs, but actually you just get models that are overcosted by quite big margins.

So when looking at power level, the comparison should be what you get with that power level, not how many points you get with it. One unit might be worth a lot of points more, but more important thing is if it's worth more than what you get with the same power level.

 jamopower wrote:

 GreaterGood? wrote:
I mean, as a tyranid player I'd love to double or more the cost of all my units and not pay for them. For everyone else though, it's probably unfair.

You can fight 4 point termagaunts, or 10 point termagaunts, all for the cost of 4 point gaunts.

But if the 10 point termagants are actually worth 5 points, is it so bad? The power level just changes the metering, there's no point comparing the points costs to the power level in most cases, as they most likely won't match due to the points values, especially on the higher end usually are very off from the actual effectiveness.

Plasma pistols are an example, of an equipment that in many cases is never worth the points (or at least it used to be so), similarly many of the +x point small upgrades to 1 wound infantry models usually just increase the cost with pretty minor buff and usually it's always more beneficient to take extra bodies. If the upgrades are good, they are always taken and they could very well be included in the base cost. Good example could be extra armour and smoke launchers in 3rd edition, you never saw a rhino without those 8 points of upgrades. With many of upgrades you can get to high point costs, but actually you just get models that are overcosted by quite big margins.

So when looking at power level, the comparison should be what you get with that power level, not how many points you get with it. One unit might be worth a lot of points more, but more important thing is if it's worth more than what you get with the same power level.

False unless you believe the base models are not worth it at all. It is undeniable that having an upgrade is better than not. So if those upgrades not points efficient and thus not worth it in a regular game, that is because they come with a cost. If they come at no cost, then it is always better to take them than not. Your entire argument hinges on units that come with upgrades never being worth their points unless they take those upgrades, and those upgrades are free. It is undeniable that a Nob with Killsaw and Kombi-skorcha is better than a stock Nob, it is just likely that it is not worth having many (any) of them at 64 PPM. so they would be overcosted, so you might only take one model with those upgrades in a whole squad. Now you can also argue that that squad is still not worth it using power, but if say a squad with no upgrades for cheap is worth it, then power level kills their utility. Or if the sweet spot is 7 models not 10, you have no option to save "points" . In that way power level reduces the number of units that are "worth it" it also allows for units that are "worth it" to be far more powerful than other options.

Power level works great when you are not trying to min-max, it fails hard when you are.

"If we have LESS granularity and LESS balance, things will be BETTER!"

1: 8th edition points is absolutely no more difficult to use than previous editions.

2: Powerlevels are no less easy to use than points, in fact I frankly find them more difficult, they're an obnoxious and poorly balanced mess at best, even compared to points. It's so clunky, with minor changes in your list requiring a massive reshuffling of the entire rest of your list.

3: His argument about the "fallacy of optimal choice" is based on garbage statistics at best and still doesn't properly confront the fact that upgrades are not accounted for at all by the powerlevel system.

Garbage article arguing lazy, half-assed points with a lot of bizarre assumptions.

 Melissia wrote:
"If we have LESS granularity and LESS balance, things will be BETTER!"

1: 8th edition points is absolutely no more difficult to use than previous editions.

2: Powerlevels are no less easy to use than points, in fact I frankly find them more difficult, they're an obnoxious and poorly balanced mess at best, even compared to points. It's so clunky, with minor changes in your list requiring a massive reshuffling of the entire rest of your list.

3: His argument about the "fallacy of optimal choice" is based on garbage statistics at best and still doesn't properly confront the fact that upgrades are not accounted for at all by the powerlevel system.

Garbage article arguing lazy, half-assed points with a lot of bizarre assumptions.

The problem with PL is that upgrades are somewhat accounted for. So this means no cheap bear bones squads to fill points, while at the same time not accounting for the power of a fully upgraded squad.

To say that the Power Levels and Points get you similar units is just plain wrong in many cases. Look at a typical Thousand Sons squad. A 10 man squad with Inferno Bolters and a Reaper is 241 points for Power 14. This set up is what most people probably have from a box set. That same squad can be all warp flamers, with a warp flame pistol for the same Power 14 but is 347 points. That is about a 100 point difference, which is a big deal, especially at 1500 points or lower. Chaos Terminators is even crazier. They are Power 14 and 5 with power axes, combi-bolters and say a reaper is 208 points. However 5 terminators with combi-meltas and power fists is 350 points, which is almost 150 more points!. And that point variance would be even greater at 10 models. Not to mention that both examples are Power 14 and the points are all over the place ranging from 208 points to 350 points. These are not the only examples. A ten man chosen squad is power 13. It can take 4 combi-meltas, a laser cannon, and a champion with a power fist and combi-melta for 275 points. And it is one less than the Power 14 for the cheaper Thousand Son or Terminator option.

The Power level works well for units that don't have wide discrepancies in equipment, but when you have units with options like above, especially when you are talking the difference between a 5 and 20 point weapon like the terminators have, the Power levels don't work. And this is not just a problem because of WAAC players. My collection is older, so my thousand sons squads are 9 man with no special weapons. Under power rules they are the same as a fully kitted out warp flame squad so my model collection is at a disadvantage. I also own some terminators that have power fists. If I show up with them, am I a WAAC player because I bought them 10 years ago with power fists?

My point is the point system is tedious, but I think overall, but better balanced if you are going to play a game where you give a crap if you win, like in a tournament. Power levels are really for when you go to the game store and say, "who wants to play" and you and your opponent just pick some units that are about the same power level and play, without having to craft a list. That is just my two cents.

The big reason the relationship between points and power is important is that they're both trying to measure the same thing: how strong that unit is on the table.

If one says that unit A is twice as strong as unit B, but the other says they're the same, one of them is clearly wrong.

A tournament is too much of a structured, competitive environment for the fast-and-loose, "eh close enough" approach that power levels take.

There's also the fact that, frankly, points are more convenient for a person on a financial budget. You can spend points on upgrades without buying new models, and in some armies this makes the difference between 1000 and 1250 or 1250 and 1500, or even 1500 and 2000! And with a (relative) increase in effectiveness that comes with this increase in points as well. A Points based list can easily change dramatically in points without adding in new models or changing models out at all, allowing a player with limited model count to potentially play multiple types of games just by making different lists, and playing them as upgraded or unupgraded or partially upgraded depending on what their opponent brought pointswise.

Which is a trick I've used quite a lot in the past-- it's not optimal when it comes to competitiveness, but it DOES allow for more flexibility without having to commit to buying, assembling, and painting a large number of new models. Unfortunately, this trick simply doesn't work in powerlevel systems.

Breng77 wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

 GreaterGood? wrote:
I mean, as a tyranid player I'd love to double or more the cost of all my units and not pay for them. For everyone else though, it's probably unfair.

You can fight 4 point termagaunts, or 10 point termagaunts, all for the cost of 4 point gaunts.

But if the 10 point termagants are actually worth 5 points, is it so bad? The power level just changes the metering, there's no point comparing the points costs to the power level in most cases, as they most likely won't match due to the points values, especially on the higher end usually are very off from the actual effectiveness.

Plasma pistols are an example, of an equipment that in many cases is never worth the points (or at least it used to be so), similarly many of the +x point small upgrades to 1 wound infantry models usually just increase the cost with pretty minor buff and usually it's always more beneficient to take extra bodies. If the upgrades are good, they are always taken and they could very well be included in the base cost. Good example could be extra armour and smoke launchers in 3rd edition, you never saw a rhino without those 8 points of upgrades. With many of upgrades you can get to high point costs, but actually you just get models that are overcosted by quite big margins.

So when looking at power level, the comparison should be what you get with that power level, not how many points you get with it. One unit might be worth a lot of points more, but more important thing is if it's worth more than what you get with the same power level.

False unless you believe the base models are not worth it at all. It is undeniable that having an upgrade is better than not. So if those upgrades not points efficient and thus not worth it in a regular game, that is because they come with a cost. If they come at no cost, then it is always better to take them than not. Your entire argument hinges on units that come with upgrades never being worth their points unless they take those upgrades, and those upgrades are free. It is undeniable that a Nob with Killsaw and Kombi-skorcha is better than a stock Nob, it is just likely that it is not worth having many (any) of them at 64 PPM. so they would be overcosted, so you might only take one model with those upgrades in a whole squad. Now you can also argue that that squad is still not worth it using power, but if say a squad with no upgrades for cheap is worth it, then power level kills their utility. Or if the sweet spot is 7 models not 10, you have no option to save "points" . In that way power level reduces the number of units that are "worth it" it also allows for units that are "worth it" to be far more powerful than other options.

Power level works great when you are not trying to min-max, it fails hard when you are.

Of course having an upgrade is better, but with power level the unit you are getting is not the one with the minimum gear, but the one with the maximum gear and as said, the points cost of the maximum gear is usually quite far off, because often the upgrades don't make the unit much survivable and also often make it so "killy" that there isn't often any target where all that "killyness" would be useful. So even if you have that 640 point nob squad, the "real" worth can very well be close to the average cost from the upgrades. Of course there will be units where this dosen't apply, and you end up with undercosted units, but that really isn't any different from the situation with any kind of points. You'll have different metrics, but the end result is the same, just with different pieces (i.e. units). So instead of shaving all those points to maximize the effectiveness of your list, you add up stuff to do the same. This of course in an environment where the optimization is important. In different kind of environemnt, it matters even less which kind of points you decide to use, as there is even more variation.

Powerlevels are also way off. Have you not seen the huge amount of threads where people complained about power level discrepancies between units, both between factions and across factions?

I find the argument "points are off, so powerlevels are great!" to be laughably off the mark. Powerlevels sink on their own merits, without giving a single thought to points at all.

 Melissia wrote:
Powerlevels are also way off. Have you not seen the huge amount of threads where people complained about power level discrepancies between units, both between factions and across factions?

I find the argument "points are off, so powerlevels are great!" to be laughably off the mark. Powerlevels sink on their own merits, without giving a single thought to points at all.

By any means, I'm not saying that power levels wouldn't be off. It just is that the outliers might be different units. But the end result would in both systems be the same, there will be the most effective lists that get crunched out. It's however hard to tell, which system gives out more interesting "meta". I have a feeling that elite units would be better with power levels, which I think wouldn't be too bad, but it's of course hard to tell. In any case, I don't care about which system will be used for tournaments, I'm not so interested on those, but just wanted to point out some things that I think were missed by some.

 jamopower wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

 GreaterGood? wrote:
I mean, as a tyranid player I'd love to double or more the cost of all my units and not pay for them. For everyone else though, it's probably unfair.

You can fight 4 point termagaunts, or 10 point termagaunts, all for the cost of 4 point gaunts.

But if the 10 point termagants are actually worth 5 points, is it so bad? The power level just changes the metering, there's no point comparing the points costs to the power level in most cases, as they most likely won't match due to the points values, especially on the higher end usually are very off from the actual effectiveness.

Plasma pistols are an example, of an equipment that in many cases is never worth the points (or at least it used to be so), similarly many of the +x point small upgrades to 1 wound infantry models usually just increase the cost with pretty minor buff and usually it's always more beneficient to take extra bodies. If the upgrades are good, they are always taken and they could very well be included in the base cost. Good example could be extra armour and smoke launchers in 3rd edition, you never saw a rhino without those 8 points of upgrades. With many of upgrades you can get to high point costs, but actually you just get models that are overcosted by quite big margins.

So when looking at power level, the comparison should be what you get with that power level, not how many points you get with it. One unit might be worth a lot of points more, but more important thing is if it's worth more than what you get with the same power level.

False unless you believe the base models are not worth it at all. It is undeniable that having an upgrade is better than not. So if those upgrades not points efficient and thus not worth it in a regular game, that is because they come with a cost. If they come at no cost, then it is always better to take them than not. Your entire argument hinges on units that come with upgrades never being worth their points unless they take those upgrades, and those upgrades are free. It is undeniable that a Nob with Killsaw and Kombi-skorcha is better than a stock Nob, it is just likely that it is not worth having many (any) of them at 64 PPM. so they would be overcosted, so you might only take one model with those upgrades in a whole squad. Now you can also argue that that squad is still not worth it using power, but if say a squad with no upgrades for cheap is worth it, then power level kills their utility. Or if the sweet spot is 7 models not 10, you have no option to save "points" . In that way power level reduces the number of units that are "worth it" it also allows for units that are "worth it" to be far more powerful than other options.

Power level works great when you are not trying to min-max, it fails hard when you are.

Of course having an upgrade is better, but with power level the unit you are getting is not the one with the minimum gear, but the one with the maximum gear and as said, the points cost of the maximum gear is usually quite far off, because often the upgrades don't make the unit much survivable and also often make it so "killy" that there isn't often any target where all that "killyness" would be useful. So even if you have that 640 point nob squad, the "real" worth can very well be close to the average cost from the upgrades. Of course there will be units where this dosen't apply, and you end up with undercosted units, but that really isn't any different from the situation with any kind of points. You'll have different metrics, but the end result is the same, just with different pieces (i.e. units). So instead of shaving all those points to maximize the effectiveness of your list, you add up stuff to do the same. This of course in an environment where the optimization is important. In different kind of environemnt, it matters even less which kind of points you decide to use, as there is even more variation.

Except some units get upgrades that don't amount to much of an improvement, but PL forces you to buy them. Essentially what you are saying is that in PL everything will be more killy, and so the game will be a murderfest (in a min max environment) where only a few units are any good. Welcome back to 7th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jamopower wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Powerlevels are also way off. Have you not seen the huge amount of threads where people complained about power level discrepancies between units, both between factions and across factions?

I find the argument "points are off, so powerlevels are great!" to be laughably off the mark. Powerlevels sink on their own merits, without giving a single thought to points at all.

By any means, I'm not saying that power levels wouldn't be off. It just is that the outliers might be different units. But the end result would in both systems be the same, there will be the most effective lists that get crunched out. It's however hard to tell, which system gives out more interesting "meta". I have a feeling that elite units would be better with power levels, which I think wouldn't be too bad, but it's of course hard to tell. In any case, I don't care about which system will be used for tournaments, I'm not so interested on those, but just wanted to point out some things that I think were missed by some.

Given the ability to be more granular I would argue that points will allow more units to be close to optimal, vs Power level.

Breng77 wrote:


Given the ability to be more granular I would argue that points will allow more units to be close to optimal, vs Power level.

Might be, it just is good to remember that you'll have different optimum with different point values as the stuff on the other side of the table has a big impact on the actual value of everything.

Powerlevels are just absurdly unblanced, even for units that have no real wargear options. Like Ork Boyz for example:

30 Ork boyz are PL 13, whereas 30 Stormboyz are also PL 13. Why would anyone take boyz, when you can get jump-infantry with the same exact statline for the same cost?

Then there are things like 5 Lootas being PL 8, while a unit of 6 Big Gunz(with grot crew) being PL 7. That is just broken.

I don't mind powerlevels in principle, but the current system is just not useful for anything.

Wayniac wrote:
Came across this: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/06/18/making-the-case-for-using-power-level-points-in-tournaments/

What are your thoughts? I think it's an interesting idea, but a tournament environment is going to bring the worst out of people and it will be prone to huge amounts of abuse, worse than what you normally see. I don't mind power level for casual games (or matched points), but I think using them in a tournament is asking for trouble and asking for people to just immediately take the best options just because nothing stops them.

Its outright unfair for tournaments. Some armies have units with tons of options that aren't really reflected in the PL, others have nearly none.

This is pure crazy talk.

Yeah, internally, I find powerlevels less balanced than points. FAR less balanced. Even ignoring external concerns like upgrades not adding to powerlevels.

The article mentions "The Fallacy of Choice", and I think it's a point that has been overlooked in this thread.

PL restrict your choices by opportunity cost, in that if you choose upgrade X for a unit, it means you cannot have upgrade Y or Z.

Points further restricts your choices by not only presenting an opportunity cost, but whenever you take upgrade X for a unit, it means you cannot take an upgrade (or another unit) elsewhere.

While this seems like a good thing (more impact from choices), the meta strongly favored more units at the expense of gear. The options presented in the unit lists became irrelevant: don't upgrade your sergeant with a CC weapon, because it's better to spend that 10pts elsewhere - better yet, don't pay for a sergeant if you don't have to!

By removing that point cost, you are somewhat forced to take the upgrade for that sergeant, and make the choice between chainsword, power sword, or power fist. Some players will choose the "most expensive" upgrade to maximize the unit's value, but as we've seen, GW has made every attempt to distinguish weapons for different roles. If I had to guess, I would say the meta would initially lean this way and quickly move towards greater unit variety. This is then why I think PL are worth trying out: their use promotes variety over min-maxing, and rewards TAC lists.

strepp wrote:
the meta strongly favored more units at the expense of gear.

That's not at all true.

well if your tourney is using some sort of 'Comp' system, along side pts like in previous editions. You may as well just use power level

pismakron wrote:
Powerlevels are just absurdly unblanced, even for units that have no real wargear options. Like Ork Boyz for example:

30 Ork boyz are PL 13, uwhereas 30 Stormboyz are also PL 13. Why would anyone take boyz, when you can get jump-infantry with the same exact statline for the same cost?

Look at the datasheet, Ork Boyz get a heavy weapon for each 10 models. I don't have the points list handy but now we have an interesting tradeoff... the player is paying for those guns and can't just fall back on min-max principles like "boys before toys". Or they can attempt to max Stormboyz, which are MORE expensive than Boyz under a points model. The Stormboyz aren't getting a discount here from what I see. And isn't there a thread up right now saying "hordes = OP?" Maybe PL is balanced better since you can't optimize a list full of cheap horde models with min upgrades.

These are the unavoidable changes that will affect the game in an interesting way. All the balance inquiry is a boring line of discussion, PL is a derivative of points so both will need to be adjusted regularly.

Quick question that doesn't seem to have been brought up yet that concerns me with power levels (I ask because I haven't seen the codices yet or tried any list building):

Say you had to build an army at a power level of 75. How easy is it to hit this mark whilst still keeping your force synergised and taking the units you actually want?

I am concerned because power levels are always such big chunks. So if you are say 3 PLs under, are you finding that you are having to take out a 7 PL unit and thrust a totally different 10 PL unit in just to make 75 (for example)?

I know you can be under, but 3 PL is a significant chunk. Not a problem with points since you can just take an extra grot or shove a melta bomb on somebody.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Quick question that doesn't seem to have been brought up yet that concerns me with power levels (I ask because I haven't seen the codices yet or tried any list building):

Say you had to build an army at a power level of 75. How easy is it to hit this mark whilst still keeping your force synergised and taking the units you actually want?

I am concerned because power levels are always such big chunks. So if you are say 3 PLs under, are you finding that you are having to take out a 7 PL unit and thrust a totally different 10 PL unit in just to make 75 (for example)?

I know you can be under, but 3 PL is a significant chunk. Not a problem with points since you can just take an extra grot or shove a melta bomb on somebody.

A few power levels make no difference

Make some sample armies under points you have seen fielded that you think are good. They aren't going to come out to the same PL, but they'll be in the same ballpark and you previously thought they were equal under points.

 Crablezworth wrote:
If anyone wants to see the silliness of power levels, look no further than the deathwatch kill team. It's also a good place to look if you think deathstars are gone lol.

Hmm. Yeah, I don't really agree. There's a reason the DW tactica thread is like 3 pages long - they don't look competitive at the moment. I agree that using PL would change that, but probably not as much as people think. A 10 man DW KIll team with 3 Terminators in it is 24PL, versus 26PL for a 10 man Terminator unit. Even given the available weaponry (and DW have more choices than anyone) it still seems about right. Sure, you can spam combis and whatnot, but it's still 24PL for a 10 man unit that's 7/10 T4 with a 3+. That's not hard to kill at all.

It's one of the defining things about 40K that paying for ungraded weaponry and equipment is often, point for point, less efficient than adding more bodies. Personally, I think that while the actual points variance is high in some cases, I suspect that the actual efficiency isn't as skewed as those points might suggest. Points are already unbalanced (although that was inevitable when you change everything all at once IMO).

That said, I'm not advocating for PL in tournaments. I like points. However, I am in favor of some sort of sideboarding. A lot of the worst WAAC lists are predicated on the unlikelihood of playing a list that contains the hard counter in quantities enough to matter. Mass horde lists look good in 8th right now for this very reason - a lot of lists struggle to deal with either massed vehicles or massed infantry with the same list. Allowing some tweaks based on opponent isn't an awful idea, it just needs to be handled in a way that minimizes abuse. Personally, I rather see it look like multiple pre-written lists than actual math being done between rounds. Even just being able to take an A and B version of a list makes it a lot less likely that you hit a spammed WAAC list that you just can't deal with. My two cents anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Spoiler:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Quick question that doesn't seem to have been brought up yet that concerns me with power levels (I ask because I haven't seen the codices yet or tried any list building):

Say you had to build an army at a power level of 75. How easy is it to hit this mark whilst still keeping your force synergised and taking the units you actually want?

I am concerned because power levels are always such big chunks. So if you are say 3 PLs under, are you finding that you are having to take out a 7 PL unit and thrust a totally different 10 PL unit in just to make 75 (for example)?

I know you can be under, but 3 PL is a significant chunk. Not a problem with points since you can just take an extra grot or shove a melta bomb on somebody.

A few power levels make no difference

Make some sample armies under points you have seen fielded that you think are good. They aren't going to come out to the same PL, but they'll be in the same ballpark and you previously thought they were equal under points.

And the opposite is also already true of points. You can two lists that are balanced in terms of points, but not at all in terms of efficiency for those points. I don't really see how PL is really that different in this regard.

I don't like it.

For the simple reason that it doesn't account for the difference in performance of certain weapon combinations and unit upgrades whereas points actually do.

A squad of 10 CSM, barebones is PL 9.
A squad of 10 CSM, with 2 Lascannons and a Combi-plasma Champion is PL 9.
A squad of 10 CSM with pistols and chainswords and nothing else is PL 9.

See where we're going?

And that's before you factor in units that have VASTLY different performances with different loadouts.

A squad of Havocs with 4 flamers will be far less impactful than a squad of Havocs with 4 lascannons or autocannons. And the points will reflect this.

Power Levels are a great system for quick and easy pick up games - show up somewhere new with your army, have a total PL for your army sat in its case and you can swap out upgrades to try something new. They're great for spur of the moment games where you don't really have time to sit down and work out exact numbers.

But for competitive purposes? Way way too open to abuse. The free stuff approach of 7th ed was cancerous. Gladius and Ad-Mech Convocation had free crap in common. And it was bad.

Why are we trying to actively encourage it? Leave it as it is. A simple system for quick pick up games, spur of the moment games or for casual players who don't want to work things out to exact points.

No place in a competitive environment where individual point costs are generally micromanaged....

 Fenris-77 wrote:

Make some sample armies under points you have seen fielded that you think are good. They aren't going to come out to the same PL, but they'll be in the same ballpark and you previously thought they were equal under points.

And the opposite is also already true of points. You can two lists that are balanced in terms of points, but not at all in terms of efficiency for those points. I don't really see how PL is really that different in this regard.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
I don't like it.

For the simple reason that it doesn't account for the difference in performance of certain weapon combinations and unit upgrades whereas points actually do.

A squad of 10 CSM, barebones is PL 9.
A squad of 10 CSM, with 2 Lascannons and a Combi-plasma Champion is PL 9.
A squad of 10 CSM with pistols and chainswords and nothing else is PL 9.

See where we're going?

Yes, we're going down the road of logical fallacy. No one takes two of those options under points, ever.

It's an example of how three units with a very wide spread of points between them come to the same power level going by the PL system

However double plasma and melta are common things.
And the fact still stands that you are effectively getting those upgrades plus whatever you stick on a champion for free - your power level doesn't vary from a base squad with the same number of models but no upgrades.

And that's before you look at Havocs or Chosen who perform vastly different based on what they are armed with.

Once again, my point still stands.

Great system for casual play or spur of the moment pick ups but pretty terrible for any sort of competitive environment as certain armies can abuse the PL system a lot more effectively than others when it comes to character upgrades, special and heavy weapons.

I think the big stickler is that people are thinking all the options are 'free'

I guess it all comes down to how much Proxying is allowed. I always been a WYSI fanatic, and I spent more time converting wargear than I've ever used them in games.

But some things are no brainers in Power levels. Could I ever get my head around... proxying?

I have a PL match this Sunday, and I am dreading what I'm going to be looking at vs what is actually being played.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:

I have a PL match this Sunday, and I am dreading what I'm going to be looking at vs what is actually being played.

See with PL I generally see not real excuse for proxy models..

The one argument I'd make for it is that, if the PL system was really put through the ringer, hopefully GW would be willing to adjust the PLs based on what is too powerful/not powerful enough (in the same way they plan on adjusting regular points).

I'm not inherently opposed to the idea, but I think that, as the PL system is out the gate, it's not feasible as there are already documented discrepancies.