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.

Nothing about AoS was seriously considered.

hobojebus wrote:
Nothing about AoS was seriously considered.

Interestingly enough, this is how I felt with regards to the playerbase's reaction to the system.

There was such an outcry, locally, from the people who in editions past ran the cheesiest and most ridiculous lists that they "didn't know how to build an army now" or "anyone can spam X/Y/Z--where's the tactics?" or "I can't hide my heroes in a unit anymore how am I supposed to win?". Or my personal favorite--"Why are these silly rules even a thing? They're so dumb, you get a bonus for doing something silly!".

These people were the most vocal opponents of a pointsless system and I never really got why at the time, but seeing the reaction to Power and Open Play for 40k from those same people it makes a lot more sense now.

hobojebus wrote:
Nothing about AoS was seriously considered.

I had/have my issues with Aos (which was mainly from what I considered to be the unnecessary decision to nuke the World) but this statement is just not true.

 Hollow wrote:
I think to make this comment is to be blind to what has happened over the last couple of years regarding the launch of AoS. I think the idea of removing individual point costs was seriously considered and was tested with the original launch of AoS. However, such was the outcry, that we soon saw the general's handbook appear and point values reinstated.

Difference here being AOS lacked ANY point system. Power level is actually a point system. Just not very granular one.

So it's not totally comparable. "No points whatsoever failed. Thus less granular point system will also fail"

PL is also getting progressively worse with each point adjustment, it was wonky on release now its widely inaccurate.

The problem with AOS is that GW wanted to push the idea of coming up with your own balance to tell a story, and people wanted a competitive game they could optimize the gak out of and "play to win". Mutually exclusive (not saying one is better than the other, both have places) but GW completely ignored the people who wanted some sort of guide for balancing, which was TOO far in the opposite direction. When your only guide for army building is "do what you want" that leaves it wide open to interpretation. Some of their battle reports in white dwarf were like "I used my entire collection" or "We each took several units and a couple heroes" but what constitutes "several" units? The concept itself I thought was great, but it can't work anymore. It worked fine in the 70s and 80s when you were doing historical gaming and kind of winging games in a club, but in today's culture people may not even have a regular club, so you need some sort of framework however basic to be able to play against a random stranger, and AOS didn't have that.

Power Level is fine for what it is; a rough way to come up with forces that will likely be asymmetrical but give you an idea. They aren't for people who will immediately look at it and say "I'm taking every upgrade possible because it's free", they're for people who build the squad as it comes on the box, or just have some variety in their army and want to just use it. Again, the issue is people seem to want 100% symmetry in armies; same points, same objectives, same deployment, etc. when a big part of playing 40k has been those asymmetric scenarios where you are defending an objective, or you need to spearhead blitz into your enemy's deployment zone, or any other situation where you may not be exactly equal.

The disconnect is that people don't want a casual narrative game they can mold; they want a tabletop e-sport with as close to "perfect" balance as possible and list building to be a core component (I'm pretty sure this mindset comes from Magic, but can't pinpoint it as it's been too many years), if not THE main component, in the game. So GW's approach to the game is just largely incompatible with what a lot (no idea if it's the majority/minority) of people want.

Personally, I like power level for what it is; when I want to play a fun scenario with friends and not care too much about us using the same points, or playing the same mission. Those games have thus far been a lot more fun than equal points, using an Maelstrom or Eternal War mission out of the book.

Wayniac wrote:
Personally, I like power level for what it is; when I want to play a fun scenario with friends and not care too much about us using the same points, or playing the same mission. Those games have thus far been a lot more fun than equal points, using an Maelstrom or Eternal War mission out of the book.

For me it actually works surprisingly similar to what we had BEFORE 8th ed. Roughly eyeballing armies so they would be about same taking into account scenario(more points for attacker if defenders are in entrenched positions or if slow shooty army needs to advance etc). So power levels is actually surprisingly workable system for us. It's bit more organized than just no points whatsoever but still quick&easy. Since we don't try to minmax things(as it is we mutually make BOTH army lists on strict WYSIWYG for anything but grenade, iron halo's etc) no worry about maxing out on expensive wargear. Unit of death company all with power fists looks more boring than mix of weapons anyway!

 Infantryman wrote:
A classic example of a unit that has a context in-universe, and maybe in specific forms of engagements, but doesn't fit the way Warhammer battles are actually played.

I don't think this is true at all. Sentinels could be just fine at the right point cost, the problem is that GW consistently over-values them.

Every game of power level has been roughly the same in terms of "balance" (lol balance in 40k) as games using points. The only thing points do is soothe the desire to pay granular points.

Neither offers true balance.

In fact listbuilding is not about balance at all, its about breaking balance to have an advantage against your opponent. It is a mini-game to beat in and of itself.

The player saying "but power level lets me take all these FREE upgrades so its not balanced" is often the same player running a spreadsheet and figuring out the top of a power coefficient bell curve to squeeze out an extra +1000 points of functionality in their 2000 pt list so that they can have a fairly large advantage over a player not skilled with spreadsheeting (or not caring enough to spreadsheet). If BOTH players can just take power level and get free upgrades, then you have removed the spreadsheetiing skill. *there is the real source of complaint from a lot of people I know that say power level is not balanced* - not the balance - but now Joe and Mike can create abusive lists too but don't need my excel formula to figure out the power coefficient.

As such I use power level pretty much exclusively because I get the same quality of games as I do with points, only its a lot easier to put a list together.

AOS failed in the beginning with no poiints simply because listbuilders can't listbuild without points, and the 40k / whfb community is/was comprised of a huge majority of players that require listbuilding because the game is a competiitive game to them as opposed to a narrative style game that GW was trying to push.

People will say that its because no points = no balance, but often I either don't believe them or believe they are referring to something else, because when I see those people talk about no balance ruining the game turning around and min/max listbuilding when they can to break balance intentionally... I don't believe that they want balance. I believe that they want and need STRUCTURE TO ABUSE AND LISTBUILD AGAINST.

No points = no structure. No structure = no listbuilding. No listbuilding = no meta-game to beat.

Go back to AOS 2015 release. Player disappointed with no points could still break the game with no points as they can with points. It just doesn't feel as clever to do so with no points because they aren't beating a point-structure meta game, and feeling clever about gaining an advantage via listbuilding is the heart and soul of competitive play for many people, and yes dating back to when Magic exploded on ESPN and kick started the listbuilding/deckbuilding soul that is so vibrant and dominant in any game today.

 Hollow wrote:

I think to make this comment is to be blind to what has happened over the last couple of years regarding the launch of AoS. I think the idea of removing individual point costs was seriously considered and was tested with the original launch of AoS. However, such was the outcry, that we soon saw the general's handbook appear and point values reinstated.

I don't know much of anything about AoS. I do remember reading a version of WHFB that did not have points or anything - might have been an early release of AoS - but wasn't aware it was brought back at all. I parted ways with the game in 7th, and did not really feel compelled to go back.

M.

I do think it's funny that people say "OH MAN PL IS SO UNBALANCED" and then GW drops Chapter Approved as if to say "Yeah, points are more balanced than power level. *rolleyes*"

 auticus wrote:
Every game of power level has been roughly the same in terms of "balance" (lol balance in 40k) as games using points. The only thing points do is soothe the desire to pay granular points.

Neither offers true balance.

In fact listbuilding is not about balance at all, its about breaking balance to have an advantage against your opponent. It is a mini-game to beat in and of itself.

The player saying "but power level lets me take all these FREE upgrades so its not balanced" is often the same player running a spreadsheet and figuring out the top of a power coefficient bell curve to squeeze out an extra +1000 points of functionality in their 2000 pt list so that they can have a fairly large advantage over a player not skilled with spreadsheeting (or not caring enough to spreadsheet). If BOTH players can just take power level and get free upgrades, then you have removed the spreadsheetiing skill. *there is the real source of complaint from a lot of people I know that say power level is not balanced* - not the balance - but now Joe and Mike can create abusive lists too but don't need my excel formula to figure out the power coefficient.

As such I use power level pretty much exclusively because I get the same quality of games as I do with points, only its a lot easier to put a list together.

AOS failed in the beginning with no poiints simply because listbuilders can't listbuild without points, and the 40k / whfb community is/was comprised of a huge majority of players that require listbuilding because the game is a competiitive game to them as opposed to a narrative style game that GW was trying to push.

People will say that its because no points = no balance, but often I either don't believe them or believe they are referring to something else, because when I see those people talk about no balance ruining the game turning around and min/max listbuilding when they can to break balance intentionally... I don't believe that they want balance. I believe that they want and need STRUCTURE TO ABUSE AND LISTBUILD AGAINST.

No points = no structure. No structure = no listbuilding. No listbuilding = no meta-game to beat.

Go back to AOS 2015 release. Player disappointed with no points could still break the game with no points as they can with points. It just doesn't feel as clever to do so with no points because they aren't beating a point-structure meta game, and feeling clever about gaining an advantage via listbuilding is the heart and soul of competitive play for many people, and yes dating back to when Magic exploded on ESPN and kick started the listbuilding/deckbuilding soul that is so vibrant and dominant in any game today.

TO some extent this is true, in the end though many people want the ability to have a somewhat balanced game against someone in a quick pick up style, and that is what some sort of points system is designed to allow. With no points you are basically always required to have a detailed discussion if you want any semblance of a balanced pick up game. No points in a small group work fine because those players can play repeated games against one another and decide what is too good, not good enough. I think power level could work, the issue is putting it on top of a system designed for granular points (lots of upgrade options at individual/unit levels). I think PL would best work if all units were like primaris marines where they have a very limited set of options, and those options are pretty close in utility. This seems to be the way most AOS units have gone, where they don't have many options, you just buy units.

 auticus wrote:
Neither offers true balance.

This is an obvious straw man. Nobody is demanding perfect balance, we want better balance. And having point values that more accurately represent a unit's power, because they account for the varying power level of its upgrade options, provides better balance. If it fails to provide that improvement in balance it is only because GW is too incompetent to use the tools they have available. In the hands of a competent developer the more detailed point system is the clear winner.

In fact listbuilding is not about balance at all, its about breaking balance to have an advantage against your opponent. It is a mini-game to beat in and of itself.

Only when the game is fundamentally broken like 40k, and allows list-building to break balance to that degree. In a better game this does not happen.

No points = no structure. No structure = no listbuilding. No listbuilding = no meta-game to beat.

No. No points = whoever spends the most money wins. In the absence of points you put your entire collection on the table, and having more money to spend on a bigger collection means winning. The only reason AoS didn't immediately degenerate into this situation is that the players collectively realized the stupidity of playing without points and created their own point systems, whether explicit and detailed or simply a rough and informal approximation. So your choice becomes using an official point system that is provided by GW and acts as a common standard for the entire community, or dozens of separate point systems where everyone argues about which one should be used. I think the winner here is clear.

It just doesn't feel as clever to do so with no points because they aren't beating a point-structure meta game

You're right, it doesn't feel clever, because it's nothing more than a question of who spends the most money. The game isn't a game anymore, so why play it? That doesn't mean that people are ragequitting because they can't gain a huge advantage through list-building choices, it just means that there's a point where the game is so fundamentally broken that it isn't interesting anymore.

I agree... you need poiints for structure for pick up games. Thats why I don't mind Power Level, and thats why I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS when it first came out.

Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.

 auticus wrote:
Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.

That's an absurd rule because it ignores the fact that some armies have more upgrade options than others. For example, a Tau infantry squad is armed with nothing but its basic guns, but its basic guns are really powerful. An IG veteran squad starts with only its very weak lasguns, because the squad is really its four upgrade weapons (three special and one heavy) with some extra wound counters to keep them alive. The Tau player doesn't have to buy any upgrades to get the basic functioning of their unit, the IG player has to buy four (or more!) upgrades to get theirs. So the IG player is going to run out of upgrade slots and be stuck taking naked units that aren't meant to be used that way, while the Tau player gets to build their whole list at full effectiveness.

And really, what is the point of this rule? Stubborn insistence on using power levels? Just use the more detailed point system where there's no need to put a cap on upgrades.

 auticus wrote:
I agree... you need poiints for structure for pick up games. Thats why I don't mind Power Level, and thats why I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS when it first came out.

Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.

So again it requires agreed to restrictions, to work properly. The reason PL works for most pick up games is that if you play WYSIWYG most people have built things for points, so armies are not using every upgrade, if PL became the common means of balance, unless accompanied by restrictions, people would start to build their units with max upgrades.

Something Something, theory about GW wanting people to use Power Level.

Power level is more fun, more competitive, and removes the silly point optimization game that the ITC encourages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I agree... you need poiints for structure for pick up games. Thats why I don't mind Power Level, and thats why I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS when it first came out.

Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.

So again it requires agreed to restrictions, to work properly. The reason PL works for most pick up games is that if you play WYSIWYG most people have built things for points, so armies are not using every upgrade, if PL became the common means of balance, unless accompanied by restrictions, people would start to build their units with max upgrades.

And this is bad why?

Breng77 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I agree... you need poiints for structure for pick up games. Thats why I don't mind Power Level, and thats why I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS when it first came out.

Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.

So again it requires agreed to restrictions, to work properly. The reason PL works for most pick up games is that if you play WYSIWYG most people have built things for points, so armies are not using every upgrade, if PL became the common means of balance, unless accompanied by restrictions, people would start to build their units with max upgrades.

But people build their models right now with max efficiency upgrades, so I'm not seeing a giant difference overall.

To be fair there are some issues with Power Level, as much as I love it.

E.G. all my Sororitas models with holstered pistols suddenly get Inferno Pistols...

Yaknow, people like peregrine keep claiming 40k as a game is broken as hell and has no balance and give the fact there are a handful of "top builds" as some sort of proof.

This is bull though, show me a single big game that does NOT have a meta of superior strategies.

Even starcraft, who many here seem to hail as the "standard of true balance", is really not.
It has merely 3 armies, who between the three I don't think they match the unit count of codex marines alone.
And it STILL has a few well defined meta with a handful of "build orders" and it boils down to micro level control most of the time (40k equivilat of movement, target selections and when to spend limited use abilities)
Overwatch, the other competetive game by "balance masters blizzard"-if anyone watched the world cup, it was mostly mirror matched of the same 6 heroes on both teams.
Lets not even start with hearthstone and their must-have legionaries.

Anyone else got a better example of "balance done right"? because I don't know a single game that fits your standard of balance.

 sfshilo wrote:
Power level is more fun, more competitive, and removes the silly point optimization game that the ITC encourages.

It does no such thing. Point optimization is still essential in a less-precise point system, it just means optimizing how much you get for each power level point. It isn't inherently any more competitive than a more precise point system, in fact it's less competitive because it has much more opportunity for poor balance. And whether it is fun or not is, I suppose, dependent on your personal definition of fun, but I don't see it at all. The game experience is still the same no matter how you add up your points.

And this is bad why?

Because it reduces diversity. Currently there are reasons to take my IG sergeants with and without power weapons. Taking the power weapon obviously makes the sergeant more powerful, but it also means paying more points and it forces a decision about whether or not the increase in points is justified in each individual case. But with a power level system you just give everyone a power weapon, there's no reason not to.

I wonder if PL would actually support more fluffy armies...doubt it.

The issue I see - to my unpracticed eye - is that you'd be a fool not to go full throttle, since a PL3 unit is PL3 regardless of what upgrades it takes.

M.

Chess, which, while it has 54 to 46% winrate for white when played perfectly due to the first-turn advantage White has even in an alternating-activation system, is rather adequately balanced.

 BoomWolf wrote:
This is bull though, show me a single big game that does NOT have a meta of superior strategies.

That's not the point. The problem is not that 40k has a meta of superior strategies and bad lists lose, it's that 40k's superior strategies are obvious. In a game like MTG or X-Wing you have a meta that evolves over time as people start to understand what does and does not work, and there's no substitute for investing a lot of playtesting time into figuring it out. In 40k the superior strategies are incredibly obvious as soon as the rules are available. Things like pre-nerf conscripts, deep striking plasma, etc, were identified immediately because they were so blatantly overpowered. Similarly, weak units are very often immediately identified as weak and then never see any use because that initial dismissal turns out to be 100% correct. So, rather than a highly competitive meta struggle to figure out that last 5% of strategy power 40k has a few hours of identifying GW's obvious mistakes followed by months/years of exploiting them.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because it reduces diversity. Currently there are reasons to take my IG sergeants with and without power weapons. Taking the power weapon obviously makes the sergeant more powerful, but it also means paying more points and it forces a decision about whether or not the increase in points is justified in each individual case. But with a power level system you just give everyone a power weapon, there's no reason not to.

For me, very causal player, this is one of the thing I love of listbuilding. I don't want to exploit the system but I like to make a plan and choose units and options, and equip my units for the mission. I restared with 8th and I love my Plague Marines because, at least theoretically, you can equip the squads in many way, carry them in many vehicles to accomplish the mission. They are cool, with all different teams! Melee, ranged, anti-horde, anti heavy infantry...
Having the choice within a framework is a minigame by itself but it does not mean that I want to "exploit" it. This is particularly valid for low point games or kill teams. You really have a pleasure in working with few tools and satisfaction in the choice you made.
For sure, when I used to play WHFB, I had a High Elf friend of mine, we always played his elves vs my chaos. Part of the pleasure was to write lists and surprise the enemy with a new strategy (well, more for him, Chaos was quite straightforward but I still had space). I did not want to make a fool of him, or exploit a system, just challenge a friend and have a framework to do it in a fair, sporty way. At least, this is what we used to think because we were naive at the beginning. Also, 6th edition book destroyed the HE. Thank you for ruining this, Jake Thornton.
Finally, having the army divided in HQ, Troops, Heavy or whatever make it feel more "real" (lol) and gives you a direction even as a collector.
Assemble quickly a properly costed army gives you a direction, a structure for the first order for the army. Is an advantage on that level.
I am sorry for those that are burn by system exploiters, but that is more about the design team being mediocre and just choosing better players as adversaries (I admit that is not always possible).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chess, which, while it has 54 to 46% winrate for white when played perfectly due to the first-turn advantage White has even in an alternating-activation system, is rather adequately balanced.

Look, it feels like it's centuries that I am waiting for a Queen nerf. Internal balance of that game is awful.

 Infantryman wrote:
I wonder if PL would actually support more fluffy armies...doubt it.

The issue I see - to my unpracticed eye - is that you'd be a fool not to go full throttle, since a PL3 unit is PL3 regardless of what upgrades it takes.

M.

If you're goiing to min/max all the time anyway, the same issue is in points. Only in points you have the false illusion that its ok because you paid points for it when the army lists come out similar anyway.

Its especially true if both players are min/maxing power level because they both have a min/max list, same as points. You'll get roughly the same quality of game.

Then there's "i''ll always max my list for free if I can with power level, why wouldn't you? I have a CHOICE with points to not do it."

I consider that a good solid majority of the time to be the illusion of choice. Yes technically its a choice, that most people will choose the same result regardless.

It's true. As far as casual vs competitive lists, PL does not encourage one or the other more, I don't think.

Points can still be exploited to break the game (incredibly obviously as Peregrine pointed out) and the type of people who will do that will break Power Level as well, sadly.

 sfshilo wrote:
Something Something, theory about GW wanting people to use Power Level.

Power level is more fun, more competitive, and removes the silly point optimization game that the ITC encourages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I agree... you need poiints for structure for pick up games. Thats why I don't mind Power Level, and thats why I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS when it first came out.

Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.

So again it requires agreed to restrictions, to work properly. The reason PL works for most pick up games is that if you play WYSIWYG most people have built things for points, so armies are not using every upgrade, if PL became the common means of balance, unless accompanied by restrictions, people would start to build their units with max upgrades.

And this is bad why?

Because PL is not balanced around units taking all their possible upgrades. It is poorly designed to handle unit upgrades.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
For me, very causal player, this is one of the thing I love of listbuilding. I don't want to exploit the system but I like to make a plan and choose units and options, and equip my units for the mission. I restared with 8th and I love my Plague Marines because, at least theoretically, you can equip the squads in many way, carry them in many vehicles to accomplish the mission. They are cool, with all different teams! Melee, ranged, anti-horde, anti heavy infantry...

You can do all of this with points. Using the less-accurate point system of power levels adds nothing here.

Have you PLAYED MTG?

The obvious power cards are often detected before the set even out, and so does the bad, to the point of "strictly better" IS actually a thing there (two cards who are completely indentical except one is cheaper, or identical except one has a strict numerical advantage like doing 1 more point of damage)
Other than an odd metabreaker (like lictorshame), the meta soldifies within a week or two from a new release, bad cards never see play outside casual because they are instantly identified as such, etc.

If any, MTG has it far far worse, because at one point WoTC actually admitted to doing that on purpose. at least you can say GW is trying.

The only benefit MTG has, is the "standard rotation" that releases hundrends of new cards every year and then throws them out the game one and a half to two years after they come out, so nothing broken stays forever and the meta shifts constantly and cards go in and out of rotation.
Except, models are far more expensive and requrie some effort to assemble and paint, and if any wargame tried to pull THAT off, nobody would play it.

You know what happens to MTG balance once you take rotation out of the game? try going to a all-cards-allowed turnament (forgot the name).
The meta "evolved" so far that most decks there can with a good draw kill you before they even get a turn, and with a lousy draw, kill by turn 2. (if they are lucky enough that the enemy also draws badly enough to have them live that long)
Without the rotation, MTG is outright unplayable given just how poorly the balance in that game is.

Heck, MTG is so broken and pay=to-win that if EA made it, people would be burning trashcans on the streets.