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.
The point is your opponent isn’t min maxing either, and it lets you use your figures that might not fit into a points game because you put expensive gear on them.
So are you not min maxing, or are you putting expensive gear on your modes? Which is it? And if one player is doing one thing and one the another, then it probably will have undesirable effects.
Min/maxing is not the same as putting expensive gear on your stuff. It is about putting the most effective gear on your models. Right now in points there are plenty of bad options that are costly. They don’t make units great, and in points are actually bad choices. This is not the case in PL. So games can be more even if people are not making great choices.
vaklor4 wrote: To that last point, yes and no. In the short-long term, probably not. But what if some units DURASTICALLY change? The defiler already has 11 power, making its apparent median 220, which is actually on the high end if not highest possible after the CA point drop. What if they buff the defiler again? Its going to be corner cases if this does slip by undetected, but its such a quick thing to fix that GW just doesnt care about.
Also, Galef, read the above. Defiler is pretty bad, the highest you can get now is around 210. At 11 power, 220 points is NOT the middle.
Yes, as touched on before the sidetrack of fluff vs competitive: I think that completely depends on if GW supplies the occasion PL tweak as well as points changes as FAQs come out.
They are useless now IF changes are drastic enough that it demands a PL change but does not happen.
Yes, arguments of how fine a measurement is not the point, but at some point changes will be demanded if that system is supported.
Has anyone seen any power level changes as they roll out updates?
It would be nice to point to something.
I looked quickly through the updates and do not see PL changes but also points changes have been slight at first glance.
As far as I know, only FAQ and CA point changes arent touched. Any codex from index points ARE reflected. The Skull Cannon sat at 7 power before to reflect its 147 point cost, then went down to 5 to reflect its 100 point cost. So yes, they DO change power to reflect point costs, but just cant be arsed to do it outside of the big books.
vaklor4 wrote: To that last point, yes and no. In the short-long term, probably not. But what if some units DURASTICALLY change? The defiler already has 11 power, making its apparent median 220, which is actually on the high end if not highest possible after the CA point drop. What if they buff the defiler again? Its going to be corner cases if this does slip by undetected, but its such a quick thing to fix that GW just doesnt care about.
Also, Galef, read the above. Defiler is pretty bad, the highest you can get now is around 210. At 11 power, 220 points is NOT the middle.
Yes, as touched on before the sidetrack of fluff vs competitive: I think that completely depends on if GW supplies the occasion PL tweak as well as points changes as FAQs come out.
They are useless now IF changes are drastic enough that it demands a PL change but does not happen.
Yes, arguments of how fine a measurement is not the point, but at some point changes will be demanded if that system is supported.
Has anyone seen any power level changes as they roll out updates?
It would be nice to point to something.
I looked quickly through the updates and do not see PL changes but also points changes have been slight at first glance.
As far as I know, only FAQ and CA point changes arent touched. Any codex from index points ARE reflected. The Skull Cannon sat at 7 power before to reflect its 147 point cost, then went down to 5 to reflect its 100 point cost.
So yes, they DO change power to reflect point costs, but just cant be arsed to do it outside of the big books.
Which is an issue with updating the rules more than it is with the PL system itself. I definitely agree there are some units that need their PLs adjusted, though
topaxygouroun i wrote: I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game.
I really don't understand how PL helps such people, it seems to me it would be worse for them. In points better weapons tend to cost more, so gluing inferior weapons on your models will at least save you some points so you can have more stuff. With PL every option costs the same, so taking anything except the most powerful weapons is just gimping yourself. Now, you of course don't need to care about your weapons being bad, but you can not care about it with points too.
This is why some people will never understand power levels as a method of making a quick and fun game.
topaxygouroun i wrote: I think that GW never really intended to make PL a balanced way of playing the game, just a thing to make lists easier to make and to let people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game.
I really don't understand how PL helps such people, it seems to me it would be worse for them. In points better weapons tend to cost more, so gluing inferior weapons on your models will at least save you some points so you can have more stuff. With PL every option costs the same, so taking anything except the most powerful weapons is just gimping yourself. Now, you of course don't need to care about your weapons being bad, but you can not care about it with points too.
This is why some people will never understand power levels as a method of making a quick and fun game.
I perfectly well understand that you don't need optimise all the time to have fun. I don't. My unit and gear choices are mostly dictated by aesthetics. It is just that the post I quoted was nonsensical. Power levels don't help "people with nicely painted and glued models holding inferior weapons to also enjoy the game." Either you don't care that your weapons are inferior, and you can not care about it under points too, but at least usually get compensated by couple of points which you can use for other stuff (but don't have to, if you really don't care), or you do care, and then the PL system is actively hurting you.
auticus wrote: If you come at the game from an optimization / power gaming standpoint, you'd never want nor understand why people use Power Level.
I don't approach the game from an optimization/power gaming standpoint, and I still don't understand the appeal of power level.
Nor did I until I got frustrated that certain builds hurt my small at home games and were only built at such to fit a points limit. Power levels allowed the freedom to take what we have/wanted without demanding dramatic changes to squeeze into a points limit.
Essentially, once I got to the point at which I thought "screw points limit" for convenience, Power levels started making sense to me. But I still use points for "real" games.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/06 19:50:56
Essentially, once I got to the "screw points limit" for convenience, Power levels started making sense to me.
How? It is just another, less granular point system. You can say "screw points limit" under points too, and agree that the point limits are just approximate and play 1274 Vs. 1340 or whatever.
auticus wrote: If you come at the game from an optimization / power gaming standpoint, you'd never want nor understand why people use Power Level.
I don't approach the game from an optimization/power gaming standpoint, and I still don't understand the appeal of power level.
Because whatever the points system used the "power" gamer will pick what is optimal.
Agree to a rule and they follow it.
I think it IS a problem if anything outside of a book/codex update does not address the PL points.
Like with anything GW, product and rules just quietly stop being mentioned or updated... there is no closure with them, so it is hard to get too set on a given system they trot-out.
The detailed points costs have been supported since the game's inception, so historically has much to support that method.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
auticus wrote: If you come at the game from an optimization / power gaming standpoint, you'd never want nor understand why people use Power Level.
I don't approach the game from an optimization/power gaming standpoint, and I still don't understand the appeal of power level.
Nor did I until I got frustrated that certain builds hurt my small at home games and were only build at such to fit a points limit.
Power levels allowed the freedom to take what we have/wanted without demanding dramatic changes to squeeze into a points limit.
Essentially, once I got to the "screw points limit" for convenience, Power levels started making sense to me.
But I still use points for "real" games.
-
I mean, if you don't care about optimization, what's stopping you from simply accepting a list of points that may not be an exact 1500pts? Why wouldn't a list at 1457 be acceptable if you're not bothered by optimization?
It still seems like a completely redundant, less versatile, less accurate point system that fills a need that doesn't exist. I never once in 4 editions now I've played it someone complain that points were too hard, complicated, a time waste, or such a bother that they wished a newer, less accurate point system of smaller numbers existed.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Anyone who says power isnt the same as points in its core concept is kidding themselves. And honestly, power is less fun to me. I enjoy using points because I can do stuff like 9 Models in a rhino with an Hq as the 10th, or taking combi bolters on my chosen, where in power levels it is a giant waste of points at 7 power. If you want to low ball models for actual strategy reasons, it feels like its just punishing knowing that im REALLY fielding about 5 powers worth, not 7.
I still want the armies to be roughly equal. PLs make this seem closer than using points. It also means that changes to optimize 2 opposing armies against each other do not affect army size.
Galef wrote: I still want the armies to be roughly equal. PLs make this seem closer than using points.
But that is purely illusory!
So is assuming points costs accurately reflect a unit's or wargear's true power. We all have our own illusions that help us get through life.
One person's illusion shouldn't be better than another's.
Galef wrote: I still want the armies to be roughly equal. PLs make this seem closer than using points.
But that is purely illusory!
So is assuming points costs accurately reflect a unit's or wargear's true power. We all have our own illusions that help us get through life.
One person's illusion shouldn't be better than another's.
-
Except no one is under the illusion that points make it perfect.
Galef wrote: I still want the armies to be roughly equal. PLs make this seem closer than using points.
But that is purely illusory!
So is assuming points costs accurately reflect a unit's or wargear's true power. We all have our own illusions that help us get through life.
One person's illusion shouldn't be better than another's.
-
It's fine to think that points aren't a true balance, but I also don't think power level is a good indication of a unit's true nature either. It's the difference between woodworking and metalworking. In woodworking, you'd shrug at being a 32nd of an inch off. In metalworking, being even 5 THOUSANDTHS of an inch off is unreasonable. The difference of a 20 division is massive, and although it makes things simple, I think it makes it too simple to justify in some cases, where wargear options are vast. It doesn't matter when you only have two options for wargear, but when your Veteran unit has about a dozen to choose from of wildly different point costs, the median power conversion starts to become bewildering depending on what wargear you take.
I think power is useful for the newest of the new people, and kids. Because points are dead easy too. They're a little more annoying than they used to be, but that's probably because GW wanted to push power.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: I think power is useful for the newest of the new people, and kids.
Right. My sons are 11 and 13, and while they are very capable of using points, and I am the one making their lists anyway, the variance of power between the armies we are using is high.
The Marines we are using, for example, are not very competitive. Tacs, a Dread and a Razorback. Ya know, "classic" units. Compare to the 4000+pts of Eldar I own, of which there are not that many "uncompetitive" choices. or the CSM options we have that include 3 Oblits and Raptors that can drop in turn 1 and delete a unit or the Necrons we have that include 10 Warriors, Scarabs and Destroyers (again all "classic" choices) that all seem tailor made to kill Marines.
PLs allow us to give the Marines the right tools for the army they are facing and still "appear" equal. If we were to do the same but with points, the Marines might actually appear to have an advantage, even though we all know they actually do not.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/06 21:09:42
JNAProductions wrote: I think power is useful for the newest of the new people, and kids.
Right. My sons are 11 and 13, and while they are very capable of using points, and I am the one making their lists anyway, the variance of power between the armies we are using is high.
The Marines we are using, for example, are not very competitive. Tacs, a Dread and a Razorback. Ya know, "classic" units.
Compare to the 4000+pts of Eldar I own, of which there are not that many "uncompetitive" choices.
or the CSM options we have that include 3 Oblits and Raptors that can drop in turn 1 and delete a unit
or the Necrons we have that include 10 Warriors, Scarabs and Destroyers (again all "classic" choices) that all seem tailor made to kill Marines.
PLs allow us to give the Marines the right tools for the army they are facing and still "appear" equal.
If we were to do the same but with points, the Marines might actually appear to have an advantage, even though we all know they actually do not.
-
Would it not be better to sit down with your kids, explain that the armies aren't very well balanced, and so to make it fair, Marines get a few extra points? You know, be honest with them?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Breng77 wrote: Min/maxing is not the same as putting expensive gear on your stuff. It is about putting the most effective gear on your models. Right now in points there are plenty of bad options that are costly. They don’t make units great, and in points are actually bad choices. This is not the case in PL. So games can be more even if people are not making great choices.
Uh, no, this is not true at all. There are still bad upgrade choices, and in fact there are more bad upgrade choices with PL. In a PL game you'd be insane to pay zero points for a grenade launcher when you can pay zero points for a plasma gun. In a points game you might have an argument for the cheaper but less effective grenade launcher if you need to save points on that unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: PLs allow us to give the Marines the right tools for the army they are facing and still "appear" equal.
If we were to do the same but with points, the Marines might actually appear to have an advantage, even though we all know they actually do not.
But why does it matter that they appear equal? You're the one writing both lists, your kids don't ever add up either the PL points or the conventional points and never know how much each list has. You're essentially saying that we need PL so that you don't have to get out a pen and change the numbers in the codex every time you change lists so that you can keep lying to yourself that the point totals are the same.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/06 21:16:54
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
To be completely honest, I don't even tell my boys we are using points or PLs. They haven't reached that level of interest in 40K yet, sadly My concern is "accidentally" creating an army that is clearly more powerful than the other (because I am accustomed to optimizing lists using points), thus making the player who plays the "inferior" army completely disinterested in 40K. Using PLs gives me a way to do this easily. And yes, I could do so with points, but I want to use PLs. I find PLs preferable to points in this 1 instance only.
Galef wrote: PLs allow us to give the Marines the right tools for the army they are facing and still "appear" equal. If we were to do the same but with points, the Marines might actually appear to have an advantage, even though we all know they actually do not.
But why does it matter that they appear equal? You're the one writing both lists, your kids don't ever add up either the PL points or the conventional points and never know how much each list has. You're essentially saying that we need PL so that you don't have to get out a pen and change the numbers in the codex every time you change lists so that you can keep lying to yourself that the point totals are the same.
No, I am not saying that "we need PLs", just that it is easier for me than points, because when I use points I am intentionally trying to optimize the list to win. Using PLs reminds me that I am trying to write lists that are fun to play against each other, rather than to just win.
Keep in mind that I can often obsess over a list for days to ensure everything I need is in it and gets as close to the points limit as possible PLs are quick and easy and I don't care to be 1PL off, because it's not intended for competitive play. I just can't throw models down without some kind of "limit" or "level" on both sides.
-
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2018/04/06 21:31:01
Uh, no, this is not true at all. There are still bad upgrade choices, and in fact there are more bad upgrade choices with PL. In a PL game you'd be insane to pay zero points for a grenade launcher when you can pay zero points for a plasma gun. In a points game you might have an argument for the cheaper but less effective grenade launcher if you need to save points on that unit.
Indeed. I'm a fluffy player who writes suboptimal lists for aesthetic and thematic reasons. I actually like giving my IG guys grenade launchers, even though it is a gakky weapon. In a points game this is kinda stupid, in a PL game it would be utterly idiotic.
I think it would be handy for pickup games in which a group is down with some degree of list tailoring. You can show up for a game with a PL "x" army, and then sub / swap upgrades to suit your opponent.
You might want flamers in a couple units if your facing hordes of duders or you might want meltaguns if you're facing lots of tanks. With PL, you don't need to rejig your whole army and recalculate points, just swap appropriate models.
Again, not my cup of tea and I've only ever used points, but it could work for some. I don't give a fart in the wind if PL is dropped by GW, but if it works for some people all the power to them.
Breng77 wrote: Min/maxing is not the same as putting expensive gear on your stuff. It is about putting the most effective gear on your models. Right now in points there are plenty of bad options that are costly. They don’t make units great, and in points are actually bad choices. This is not the case in PL. So games can be more even if people are not making great choices.
Uh, no, this is not true at all. There are still bad upgrade choices, and in fact there are more bad upgrade choices with PL. In a PL game you'd be insane to pay zero points for a grenade launcher when you can pay zero points for a plasma gun. In a points game you might have an argument for the cheaper but less effective grenade launcher if you need to save points on that unit
Again only true when you are min maxing. When you are not paying any points for a poor upgrade is a penalty. This penalty does not exist in PL. If you aren't playing points there really isn't a good argument for sub optimal upgrades because taking no upgrades is typically better. Further there are options in points that are worse can cost more than other options. Like I said if you are not min/maxing PL is fine because you don't "pay for stuff that is sub optimal. In points there are times when no upgrades is optimal, and in those cases if you glue upgrades to your models you are at a disadvantage in points.
The issue you have is your mindset always defaults to min/maxing and so for you there is never a reason that playing power level that you would not take the best upgrades. In that case it works poorly.
When I play PL, I don't hold the other person to be exactly at say 50 PL since it's usually narrative based. I'm totally fine with them being at, say, 52 PL. Since I'm so lax with PL, points would change nothing. "Oh you want to take the extra flamer even though it would put you over points? Sure go ahead." Why? Because these are super casual games with close friends.
I'm not saying PL is better than points, but for people who just want to relax and have roughly even armies it's more than sufficient. Heck, one time I literally just threw models on the table and said "looks good", so at least PL is something to go off of.
But you understand PL contributes literally nothing to that scenario that wasn't already covered by points?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
