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.

Is Roboute Guilliman a big or a small model? What about Celestine? If not, what is a carnifex?

How many rippers are one bane blade?

Answer that and - ta-da - you end up with power levels

As I've espoused on numerous other theads, Power Level is different to Points in that you can't just convert one to the other and expect any kind of match up. There is a vague formular behind the power level attribute and it is applied in "blocks". If you take more than thirty second to realize this it becomes incredibly easy to understand how to build a Power Level army which is fine.

As mentioned above you get people complaining because they want to take six models, not five or ten. They then blame this on the system rather than realizing...they should take five or ten. Likewise, using Power Level assumes you're taking "most" of your upgrades. A perfect example is the Space Marine Devastator Squad: 8 Power Level. As listed in the Space Marine codex they start with bolt gun, bolt pistol, frag and krak grenades. That's it. The wargear options state that up to four models "may" take heavy weapons.

The Power Level assigned to the Devastator Squad is based around the assumption that you're going to take four heavy weapons (because it's a Devastator squad). So GW has more or less assigned an average number for the cost of heavy weapons. Now, you could take five men in your Devastator Squad, give them no heavy weapons and then complain about them costing 8 Power Level...but is that the game's fault? Or yours? Taking more than 30 seconds to realize "oh, these are priced at an average cost for carrying X weapons" and it's not a problem. This isn't rocket science.

The "advantage" to Power Level is that for quick game play, you pay 8 power level and you get:

-Five Devastators, one with a missile launcher, three with heavy bolters. Sergeant with combi-plasma.
-Five Devastators, two with missile launchers, one lascannon, and a Sergeant with a power fist and bolt pistol.
-Five Devastators, one with a lascannon, two with heavy bolters, one with a multi-metla, and a Sergeant with a power sword and plasma pistol.

All of the above simply cost 8 Power Level. So if you're just grabbing five models out of your bin, or playing in a large Apocalypse game, and wanting to write up an army list in literally two minutes...then sure, go with Power Level. There's no difference.

Does it fit into all armies particularly well? Nope. I play Nurgle worshiping CSM and Eldar and frequently run squads of 6-7-8 models. So I personally prefer points, but Power Level isn't some impossible/broken system. You just have to not be a complete dolt when you're building your list.

PL is intended for semi balance in narrative play and utilizing non cheaky bull crap.

For example of a unit that completely breaks PL, nids and rubrics.
I take a ten man rubric I can give all of them flamers and bolters for the same power level but it's over like 300 points in gear.

It's the same for points though. Those 300+ points rubrics will not be equal in power to the same amount of points spent on predators, LRBT or ork boyz.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's the same for points though. Those 300+ points rubrics will not be equal in power to the same amount of points spent on predators, LRBT or ork boyz.

That is why I don't mind using power level for campaigns instead of granular points. The granular points are also not balanced, and the power level lets me throw a list together a lot faster than worry about fiddling with exact points for wargear and the like.

My only real problem with PL is that everyone has a different idea of how they’re supposed to be used. There’s always one player who feels like the other side took a few too many lascannons, or shouldn’t have x upgrades on x models, etc... it seems entirely unsuited for pickup games, casual or not.

The one place I think it makes sense is where you are running an actual campaign(narrative, although not what GW thinks is narrative) with a GM, as it takes a load off calculating tracking units with upgrades or perks from the campaign. It works OK when it’s the GM making the lists.

Any time at least one person cares about a fair game with equally powerful armies, you should go for matched play rules, which include points.

Power Level is not intended for tournament style list, were each player is trying to eek out the most effective army within a set about of points.

Power Level is not intended for power-gaming where ever model takes every possible upgrade and there is rampant proxying because "I only own 2 Lascannons, but PL allows me to purchase 4".

Power level is intended for WYSWYG play. You put the models you choose to play with on the field because they look cool or thematic and then calculate the PL of you army for a mostly even play experience.

Power Level is not intended for any semblance of balanced play. If you like mucking about, just do Open Play. Otherwise use Points like a normal person and have a proper game.

 Jidmah wrote:
Is Roboute Guilliman a big or a small model? What about Celestine? If not, what is a carnifex?

How many rippers are one bane blade?

Answer that and - ta-da - you end up with power levels

The answer is "who cares, put some models on the table". Guilliman is kind of big, so match him with a Carnifiex. Celestine looks pretty small but she's a hero, so throw in a handful of whatever small Tyranids you have. A Baneblade is clearly a big model, but I guess you're out of big Tyranids so make a pile of rippers about the size of a Baneblade and call it good enough. If you didn't put enough Tryanids on the table and the Imperial side isn't dying fast enough add some more models to the Tyranid army mid-game until they have enough to win. Power levels are redundant.

 Peregrine wrote:
The answer is "who cares, put some models on the table". Guilliman is kind of big, so match him with a Carnifiex. Celestine looks pretty small but she's a hero, so throw in a handful of whatever small Tyranids you have. A Baneblade is clearly a big model, but I guess you're out of big Tyranids so make a pile of rippers about the size of a Baneblade and call it good enough. If you didn't put enough Tryanids on the table and the Imperial side isn't dying fast enough add some more models to the Tyranid army mid-game until they have enough to win. Power levels are redundant.

Congratulations on inventing "Peregrine's even worse power level". Not even GW has thought about evaluating datasheets based on model size.

If you replace power level with a much more complicated home rule that yields much less of what you're trying to archive, yes it is redundant.

 Jidmah wrote:
Not even GW has thought about evaluating datasheets based on model size.

Of course they have. Their battle reports are full of army pairings that were clearly made based on "that looks about right" and assuming that models of similar size are probably of similar power. Tanks are tanks, infantry are infantry, heroes are heroes, etc, and no effort is made to have equal point levels.

If you replace power level with a much more complicated home rule that yields much less of what you're trying to archive, yes it is redundant.

It isn't more complicated at all. You aren't measuring anything or quantifying "size" in any formal way, you're just grabbing two piles of models that are roughly equal in size and saying "that looks about right". I can build an army by my method much faster than you can add up power levels for an army, so by the reasoning you use to argue for unit-only points over counting the point cost of upgrades you have to admit that my approach is superior and yours is redundant.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course they have. Their battle reports are full of army pairings that were clearly made based on "that looks about right" and assuming that models of similar size are probably of similar power. Tanks are tanks, infantry are infantry, heroes are heroes, etc, and no effort is made to have equal point levels.

And since you obviously think this is a good idea, why are you even complaining about the tau codex? If you don't, why bring it up?
Just curious, have you even read one of the narrative missions? You definitely haven't played one.

It isn't more complicated at all. You aren't measuring anything or quantifying "size" in any formal way, you're just grabbing two piles of models that are roughly equal in size and saying "that looks about right".

Random guy: "Want to play a narrative mission?"
Peregrine: "Sure, just put your army down, I will roughly match the model size of your tyranid models with model from my tau army" *shuffles piles of models around for multiple minutes*
Random guy: "Aren't those missile drones stronger than my homagaunts?"
Peregrine: "Nah, they are the same size"

Random guy: "Want to play a narrative mission?"
Everyone else: "Sure, I got 50 PL of tau"
Random guy: "I have 60 PL of tyranids"
Everyone else: "I guess that makes you the attacker, let's go."

I can build an army by my method much faster than you can add up power levels for an army, so by the reasoning you use to argue for unit-only points over counting the point cost of upgrades you have to admit that my approach is superior and yours is redundant.

Sadly, you have already proven your approach to be inferior a couple of posts back. Your method can lead to a smaller looking army being multiple times both power level and points of the other army, ruining the entire reason to play such a game in the first place. If you pick a typical Gulliman gunline with Celestine for support, matching model size will leave those nids dead in the water, no matter how often you respawn them.

And I would most definitely take the bet that I can add up power levels faster than you are creating a pile of models on any table.

Power level is great for roughly estimating the relative power of two forces. This is what you want for huge games, narrative missions and otherwise unconventional game modes and is widely supported by the rules. Your method is great for absolutely nothing.

 Jidmah wrote:
And since you obviously think this is a good idea, why are you even complaining about the tau codex? If you don't, why bring it up?

WTF does the Tau codex have to do with anything?

Just curious, have you even read one of the narrative missions? You definitely haven't played one.

Of course I have. But GW's "narrative" missions (they aren't really narrative, just regular competitive missions with asymmetrical rules) aren't what we're discussing here, your proposed scenario where power levels are superior is.

Random guy: "Want to play a narrative mission?"
Peregrine: "Sure, just put your army down, I will roughly match the model size of your tyranid models with model from my tau army" *shuffles piles of models around for multiple minutes*
Random guy: "Aren't those missile drones stronger than my homagaunts?"
Peregrine: "Nah, they are the same size"

No, because balance isn't the issue. Nobody is arguing about size because balance is not a factor and it doesn't matter how units match up. The actual exchange:

Random guy: "Want to play a narrative mission?"
Points-are-bad guy: "Sure. Here's my Tau cadre, it has some cool models I like and a fluff story." *puts some models on the table*
Random guy: "Awesome. Here's my space marines." *puts a roughly similar pile of models on the table*
Both: *plays a game without further discussion, because there's no point in trying to negotiate exact force compositions if balance doesn't matter, just take whatever your opponent puts on the table*

Random guy: "Want to play a narrative mission?"
Everyone else: "Sure, I got 50 PL of tau"
Random guy: "I have 60 PL of tyranids"
Everyone else: "I guess that makes you the attacker, let's go."

Wait, now you want to balance forces to ~20% margin of points? Great. There's a point system that accommodates this, and takes a negligible amount of effort to use. So here's the discussion you really have:

Random guy: "Want to play a narrative mission?"
Everyone else: "Sure. 2000 points sound good?"
Both players: *pull out their standard 2000 point lists and start the game*

Your method can lead to a smaller looking army being multiple times both power level and points of the other army, ruining the entire reason to play such a game in the first place.

Wait, I thought balance wasn't a question? If balance matters then use points.

If you pick a typical Gulliman gunline with Celestine for support, matching model size will leave those nids dead in the water, no matter how often you respawn them.

First of all, you aren't playing a tournament list in a game like this. Second, if the Tyranids aren't breaking through then you throw some more Tyranids on the table and call it the hive mind responding to its failure with reinforcements. Add more Tyranids until they overwhelm the defender. Or you decide that the heroes of the Imperium succeeded against all odds and survived the battle. Who cares which you pick, or if the extra models weren't in the army at the start of the game, balance doesn't matter.

And I would most definitely take the bet that I can add up power levels faster than you are creating a pile of models on any table.

No you can't, not if you also consider the time required to take your army out of its boxes once you add up the power levels. There is no way you are going to create a list and add up its points faster than I can throw a pile of random stuff on the table without caring about how many points it costs. Ignoring the point cost of upgrades doesn't change the fact that you're still adding up points and I'm not.

Power level is great for roughly estimating the relative power of two forces.

And points are even better at doing this.

As long as you keep adding arguments that have nothing to do with what I wrote, there is no point in responding to you. You just want to be right no matter what.

So, you win, no one has a reason to ever use power levels because both points and comparing the size of models is superior to power level.

Is that what you wanted? Congratulations, you got it.

It has everything to do with what you wrote, you just don't like it. The only thing you wrote that I've rejected is your absurd straw man where you treat evaluating models by size as if you're getting out a ruler and carefully measuring their dimensions under a formal system of size points, instead of saying "you have a LRBT, I'll grab one of my big Tyranids to match it".

And I don't want to be right, I am right. That's why you acknowledge the use of a point system, you just call it "power" instead of points. If you care about balance you use the full point system, accounting for all units and upgrades you purchase. If you don't give a about balance then there's no need to add up points at all. Throw some models on the table using the rough evaluation of "that looks like about the same kind of army" and start rolling dice, adding or removing models as necessary if the game seems one-sided. I personally don't understand the appeal of that kind of "game", but apparently some people don't give a about balance or army construction and have no need for point systems of any kind.

There is a wide area between "perfect balance" and not giving a damn about it, you know.

Since you are unable to grasp that, this discussion is over.

 Jidmah wrote:
There is a wide area between "perfect balance" and not giving a damn about it, you know.

It would help if you argued the point being made. No one has argued that points are "perfect balance", which is, of course, a near impossible standard for a wargame.

Since you are unable to grasp that, this discussion is over.

Didn't you just respond a post earlier saying there was no point in arguing further?

Oh right, here it is,

As long as you keep adding arguments that have nothing to do with what I wrote, there is no point in responding to you.

Just trying to get the last word in?

 Jidmah wrote:
There is a wide area between "perfect balance" and not giving a damn about it, you know.

That area is nicely occupied by points. Power levels seem to occupy the absurdly tiny niche where you care about balance, but are unwilling to spend a few extra seconds on it.

And don't blame me for the "don't give a damn about it" extreme, you're the one who posted a hypothetical game with a predetermined winner as your justification for power levels.

Since you are unable to grasp that, this discussion is over.

Wait, I thought it was over after your previous "you're wrong and I'm done" post? Should I expect another encore after this one?

 Jidmah wrote:
There is a wide area between "perfect balance" and not giving a damn about it, you know.

Even on the spectrum there is no reason to use Power Level. If you you are somewhere in between the "perfect balance" and "not giving a damn about it" sides of the spectrum then you care about balance on some level in which case you would still be better off using Points over Power Level.