Switch Theme:

Power levels are useless now?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

So what? I don't understand the need for the "points are right and PL is wrong" crowd to point out the obvious. Points and PL are different ways of roughly balancing forces. Both are exploitable.

An assumption is made, that because points appear more granular that they MUST be more accurate as a balancing tool than PL is. I don't expect any of the points is the only way to play folks have experimented in any kind of way to determine the holistic effect of balance between the two systems.

Consider this. One weigh scale reads in 1 kg increments, and another weighs in 20 kg increments. Which one is more accurate?

One can't determine this based on the available data. The 20 kg increment scale could register a true 2040 kg as 2000 kg. But the 1 kg increment scale could register a true 2040 kg as 2087. In that case, although the increments are smaller, you still get a less accurate weight.

Same goes for points vs PL. Anyone care to argue that the points system in 40 k, in its single digit increments, is accurate to the effectiveness on the table top? Anyone?

Nope?

Single digit increments give the illusion of increased accuracy, but really only provides increased granularity. The two are not mutually inclusive.

( Source: Installs and services scale equipment on heavy machinery for the past 12 years. )
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

The idea that PL is less balanced than Points is simultaneously correct and incorrect. To the extent that the Points assigned to a model and wargear item are correctly balanced, Points are more balanced. However, we all know that GW is far from being exactly correct in the point level balance between different wargear options.

* We all know any Tournament Player will tell you that Meltaguns should not cost more than Plasmaguns.
* Similarly, we all know a Flamer has no business being 4 times the points of a Stormbolter.
* And point for point, a Flyrant is much better than a winged Daemon Prince, yet the cost a very similar amount of points. Ironically, The Flyrant cost more in PL

So saying Point is better than PL is not a factual statement. It is an opinion based on the idea that GW has the points more right than the PL.

Additionally, PL does serve other functions that Points do not. While PL does encourage the idea of loading up on upgrades because they are "free" (or already accounted for), it does do other things:
* Constrains List building: PL encourages you to build your list in a particular way. Someone mentioned above that Points "allows" them to buy 9 Marines to leave a space for a character in a Rhino. PL doesn't prevent that except for the perception that you paid for up 10 Marines when you went above 5 and feel compelled to take everything you can for your entry fee. Similarly, you don't want to take 6 marines in a unit because you have to "pay" for 10.
* Allows you to play with your toys: Yes, you can play with the cool model with the less optimized weapon value because your not "overpaying" for it.
* Allows you to get straight to the action: No matter how effective list building apps may be, you will never be able to build a Points-based List as fast as a PL list.

Do these reduce the quality of your game? That's a perceptional question. If you have a fun and challenging game, you had a quality game. Doesn't matter if the Points or PL were not precisely the same. Fun is fun. Not fun is not fun.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Azreal13 wrote:
But you understand PL contributes literally nothing to that scenario that wasn't already covered by points?


It contributes to the scenario because I'm a lazy piece of crap. If I'm willing to let my opponent bring 5 more PL than me for a friendly game, why would I EVER bother counting up the points? I already know the armies are not 1:1. Counting up points would be redundant and a waste of time.
   
Made in ca
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant






 greatbigtree wrote:
So what? I don't understand the need for the "points are right and PL is wrong" crowd to point out the obvious. Points and PL are different ways of roughly balancing forces. Both are exploitable.

An assumption is made, that because points appear more granular that they MUST be more accurate as a balancing tool than PL is. I don't expect any of the points is the only way to play folks have experimented in any kind of way to determine the holistic effect of balance between the two systems.

Consider this. One weigh scale reads in 1 kg increments, and another weighs in 20 kg increments. Which one is more accurate?

One can't determine this based on the available data. The 20 kg increment scale could register a true 2040 kg as 2000 kg. But the 1 kg increment scale could register a true 2040 kg as 2087. In that case, although the increments are smaller, you still get a less accurate weight.

Same goes for points vs PL. Anyone care to argue that the points system in 40 k, in its single digit increments, is accurate to the effectiveness on the table top? Anyone?

Nope?

Single digit increments give the illusion of increased accuracy, but really only provides increased granularity. The two are not mutually inclusive.

( Source: Installs and services scale equipment on heavy machinery for the past 12 years. )


...It doesn't /appear/ more accurate. It literally is more accurate than power. It's a literal fact that increments of 1 are more accurate than increments of 20.
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Don't confuse precision with accuracy. I can make very precise predictions about the future that will be woefully inaccurate.
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 alextroy wrote:
The idea that PL is less balanced than Points is simultaneously correct and incorrect. To the extent that the Points assigned to a model and wargear item are correctly balanced, Points are more balanced. However, we all know that GW is far from being exactly correct in the point level balance between different wargear options.

* We all know any Tournament Player will tell you that Meltaguns should not cost more than Plasmaguns.
* Similarly, we all know a Flamer has no business being 4 times the points of a Stormbolter.
* And point for point, a Flyrant is much better than a winged Daemon Prince, yet the cost a very similar amount of points. Ironically, The Flyrant cost more in PL

So saying Point is better than PL is not a factual statement. It is an opinion based on the idea that GW has the points more right than the PL.

Additionally, PL does serve other functions that Points do not. While PL does encourage the idea of loading up on upgrades because they are "free" (or already accounted for), it does do other things:
* Constrains List building: PL encourages you to build your list in a particular way. Someone mentioned above that Points "allows" them to buy 9 Marines to leave a space for a character in a Rhino. PL doesn't prevent that except for the perception that you paid for up 10 Marines when you went above 5 and feel compelled to take everything you can for your entry fee. Similarly, you don't want to take 6 marines in a unit because you have to "pay" for 10.
* Allows you to play with your toys: Yes, you can play with the cool model with the less optimized weapon value because your not "overpaying" for it.
* Allows you to get straight to the action: No matter how effective list building apps may be, you will never be able to build a Points-based List as fast as a PL list.

Do these reduce the quality of your game? That's a perceptional question. If you have a fun and challenging game, you had a quality game. Doesn't matter if the Points or PL were not precisely the same. Fun is fun. Not fun is not fun.



Mostly true the only thing in favor of accuracy of points is that GW is actively addressing points and have not been doing so with power level. So if both scales are off the one being adjusted will presumably be more accurate at some point. That said we don't know when this point will be, nor does it really matter is people are enjoying using PL. The argument of "I'd rather do less math" is perfectly valid. If a game is meant to be highly competitive stick to points. If not do whatever makes you happy.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




My friend and I play casually and we only use PL. We only need to know roughly how the armies compare, and it's trivial to rearrange units (e.g moving IG heavy weapons teams out of infantry squads to form a heavy weapons squad). What's important is that I already had the armies modelled (from 3rd edition) - I'm not picking units then loading them up with everything to maximize what I get for the PL.

I used to be very picky about making an army exactly 1000 points or whatever.. But I feel like a weight has been lifted. I want the battles I play at home to be asymmetric, we don't need the artificiality - the "gentleman's agreement" between the two armies - of having precisely equal strengths.

So no, PL isn't useless.
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Marasmusine wrote:


I used to be very picky about making an army exactly 1000 points or whatever.. But I feel like a weight has been lifted. I want the battles I play at home to be asymmetric, we don't need the artificiality - the "gentleman's agreement" between the two armies - of having precisely equal strengths.

So no, PL isn't useless.


Are you picky about bringing an exactly 50PL list? Or is 44 okay?

Either way, you do realize you could have just...not taken 1000pts, right? This really isn't a good reason to show off that PL isn't useless because you could have done the exact thing with points.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

 Chamberlain wrote:
Don't confuse precision with accuracy. I can make very precise predictions about the future that will be woefully inaccurate.
Ha! I think the best example given to me on this topic:
Which is more accurate, a sign saying population 10632 or 10600?
Mind you, this is dealing with a birth and death rate but still makes the point of "false precision".
I am inclined to think that power levels do not contain enough precision however.
But again, "useless now", one could argue it was not all that terribly useful to begin with.

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in be
Courageous Beastmaster





I don't think it's more or less usefull now then it was at the start of the edition.




 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Crimson wrote:
 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 are points. Anybody thinking points are anything but illusion of balance are kidding themselves.

Funnily enough my most imbalanced top-100 list is mostly(like 80%+) are points. Then some power level. Most balanced games are without any point system

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

 vaklor4 wrote:


...It doesn't /appear/ more accurate. It literally is more accurate than power. It's a literal fact that increments of 1 are more accurate than increments of 20.


You *literally* could not be using the term "literally" more inaccurately. Which is fun.

Accuracy is a measure of correctness. Point Accuracy is important for competitive play. If a Grunt is worth a true 11 points, and GW says 10 are worth 130 points (no upgrade options) But only worth 6 PL, the PL rating is more accurate at 120 points (difference of 10 true point value) then the points value (20 point difference to true point value).

PL is less precise. It rounds 11 points up and presumably 10 points down.

This does not make it less accurate. GW's "calibration" of their point scale is demonstrably inaccurate. It is entirely possible that PL, even with maxed out upgrades, is a more accurate assessment of a unit's true value. I have made no attempt to determine if this is true.

In diagnostics, one must eliminate possibilities to determine the correct course of action. Since I doubt that much experimentation has been done with n that e regard to determine which system has greater accuracy, holistically, then we can not logically determine which system produces more balanced lists.

Crap. Now I want to try PL to see how it works in my casual group. Inconvenient.


PS: You're in my wheelhouse when we talk about precision, accuracy, repeatability... other scale terms. That's what points and PL are, a scale to describe the value of models, units and upgrades. I will pick at the terms if they're incorrect.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 14:17:38


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Yes, if GW spends a ton of time balancing PL and then ignores all of that data when writing the conventional point costs you could have a situation where PL is more accurate. That is not realistic, especially since GW is actively adjusting point costs but not PL. In any realistic situation conventional point costs are going to be at least as well balanced as PL because playtesting information is going to be shared between the two. Any cases where PL is more accurate are going to be individual outliers, fluke events where a unit was changed at the last minute or similar.

If you want to nitpick the technical definition of "accuracy" then conventional points have greater potential for accuracy than PL, and in real-world use are almost certainly using that potential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 alextroy wrote:
* Allows you to play with your toys: Yes, you can play with the cool model with the less optimized weapon value because your not "overpaying" for it.


No. No. No. This is not how it works. Less-optimized choices still exist with PL, and you are still overpaying for bad choices. If you have a choice between paying 5 points for a squad with a flamer or 5 points for a squad with a plasma gun then you are overpaying for the flamer squad. Moving the point cost from an upgrade cost to a whole-unit cost doesn't change the fact that you are overpaying. In fact it makes it more common to overpay for things. In a PL game your point cost for the unit is fixed regardless of upgrades, so any upgrade (including declining to take an upgrade option) that is not the most powerful choice is overpaying for the unit. In a game with conventional points you at least in theory have the ability to choose between an expensive but powerful option or a weaker option that gets you a cheaper point cost.

The only way that PL lets you play the "cool model" with bad upgrade choices is the virtue signalling aspect: by declaring that you are using PL as your point system you're telling people that you're playing a "casual" game and that careful list optimization is not welcome, so playing with a less-optimized list is ok.

* Allows you to get straight to the action: No matter how effective list building apps may be, you will never be able to build a Points-based List as fast as a PL list.


This only works under the assumption that you are treating the point limit in a PL game as a rough guideline and not a hard limit, but treating the point limit in a conventional points game as a hard limit. If you have a hard point limit with PL it can actually take more time to build a list because the smallest point increment you can add or remove is an entire unit at once. This makes it much harder to get an exact combination of units that reaches the point limit without going over. If you're at 51 points out of 50 and your cheapest unit costs 7 points you're going to have to rebuild your entire list to come up with a combination of units that works out better while still covering your strategic needs. In a game with conventional points if you're at 1505 out of 1500 you can probably drop a single weapon upgrade and play the game.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/07 14:52:58


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. 
   
Made in ca
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant






 greatbigtree wrote:
 vaklor4 wrote:


...It doesn't /appear/ more accurate. It literally is more accurate than power. It's a literal fact that increments of 1 are more accurate than increments of 20.


You *literally* could not be using the term "literally" more inaccurately. Which is fun.

Accuracy is a measure of correctness. Point Accuracy is important for competitive play. If a Grunt is worth a true 11 points, and GW says 10 are worth 130 points (no upgrade options) But only worth 6 PL, the PL rating is more accurate at 120 points (difference of 10 true point value) then the points value (20 point difference to true point value).

PL is less precise. It rounds 11 points up and presumably 10 points down.

This does not make it less accurate. GW's "calibration" of their point scale is demonstrably inaccurate. It is entirely possible that PL, even with maxed out upgrades, is a more accurate assessment of a unit's true value. I have made no attempt to determine if this is true.

In diagnostics, one must eliminate possibilities to determine the correct course of action. Since I doubt that much experimentation has been done with n that e regard to determine which system has greater accuracy, holistically, then we can not logically determine which system produces more balanced lists.

Crap. Now I want to try PL to see how it works in my casual group. Inconvenient.


PS: You're in my wheelhouse when we talk about precision, accuracy, repeatability... other scale terms. That's what points and PL are, a scale to describe the value of models, units and upgrades. I will pick at the terms if they're incorrect.


First off, literally hasn't been literal forever. Authors of high regard like Charles Dickens used it figuratively, so just because people use the word literally a bit too much sometimes, it doesn't make it incorrect. ANYWAYS, back to the real topic. When talking about this, we have to remove any conceptions about being tournament or casual ready. I've done the math comparing dozens of units to eachother (because my work is boring to the point where doing math equations is more fun), and I can safely say there are units that are just strictly better, for the same point cost. With the arrival of CA and Codexes, those weaker units (for the most part) have seen price reductions to compensate for this.

Heck, Codex changes recieved Power changes as well, relative to their cost. A 147 point Skull Cannon was dropped 2 power when it got dropped to 100 points. That's a relative 40 point drop, which falls in line with the math. It's really, really easy to break this game down into raw probability math, but obviously I don't do that for normal games. Despite how much i've talked about math in Warhammer, I do bring weak units knowing they're weak, because I just love their look (An example being the awful, but so nice looking Bloodcrushers).

Either way, I prefer a smaller unit of measurement in most instances. That's just me, I know a lot of people don't care, and that's something I can live with, unlike half the other people here who prefer points and seem to think people are wrong for liking Power. Power is fine, but how GW is handling power is not. They clearly don't care enough about Power, and that was my intentions of the first post.

They started off with a relative and easy to follow math scheme. If something is worth 100, it's 5 power. Find the median of wargear if it has any, and add that on as well. If something has the option of a jetpack or wings, give the option to add a power to relatively increase the cost in line with the points cost. (Daemon Princes are a perfect example, going from 157 to 180, which falls pretty in line with 8 and 9 power, multiplied by 20.)

But after the indexes, and even MORE so after CA? That stuff went out the window fast. Every major list of points changes only vaguely saw Power fall in line, and that was if you're lucky. There's absolutely no reason that some things should cost in Power what they do. And if you want an even more hilarious breaking of the standard, read the CA changes to Forgeworld. Nearly everything in those changes are now off the Power to Points scale. It's awful. It makes using a lot of those Forgeworld models for anything outside of hyper casual or Apocalypse almost impossible if you want a balanced game in Power games.

So, unlike a LOT of posters (And shout outs to the Mod who didn't lock this thread, this is an important topic, you rock.), I don't hate Power, but I REALLY wish GW would love it more.

*EDIT* I also want to point out that although i'm using 100% Chaos units for my information, I also have open access and know the points and power of other armies too. I just know the Chaos books like the back of my hand, so it's easier to type.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 15:12:02


 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

To be fair, you made a claim to "literal fact" both parts of which were incorrect. Spade is a spade.

Regarding the rest, we're mostly in agreement. I haven't followed the trends in PL, as previous to about an hour ago I didn't really care about it at all. But now, upon reflection, it is /possible/ that PL is a more accurate assessment of the true value (on the whole) of units that I hadn't considered. PL may work as intended for all I know. I've never tried it. Maybe units didn't need adjusting as much on the PL scale.

I know from direct experience that Point scale is inaccurate. Regardless of adjustments there are simply too many units that don't work "right" when using that scale. Individual models may be more accurate at the point level, but units certainly aren't and 40k is fundamentally a unit vs unit game, which leaves it unbalanced.

I'm now interested in testing whether or not PL creates more balanced games. Model / unit precision is less precise, but may be more accurate when valuing an entire army.


PS: My meta does not use Forge World. Nothing against it in particular, we've just never felt the need to bring it in. So I wouldn't know anything about FW trends.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 16:18:00


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:

This only works under the assumption that you are treating the point limit in a PL game as a rough guideline and not a hard limit, but treating the point limit in a conventional points game as a hard limit.


The whole point of PL is to play with a soft limit. Just look at the narrative missions, some say "the attacker should take about 1/3 more PL than the defender". They also say that if a player has a lower PL, then they are the underdog and they win ties. As you can see the whole system is based on being flexible. I could very well use points, but PL does the same thing in less time. It's also a refreshing way to get out of the "I need to fit 50 more points in" mentality since you're no longer worried about minutiae.
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Dandelion wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:

This only works under the assumption that you are treating the point limit in a PL game as a rough guideline and not a hard limit, but treating the point limit in a conventional points game as a hard limit.


The whole point of PL is to play with a soft limit. Just look at the narrative missions, some say "the attacker should take about 1/3 more PL than the defender". They also say that if a player has a lower PL, then they are the underdog and they win ties. As you can see the whole system is based on being flexible. I could very well use points, but PL does the same thing in less time. It's also a refreshing way to get out of the "I need to fit 50 more points in" mentality since you're no longer worried about minutiae.


You can do all of those things with points.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Blacksails wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:

This only works under the assumption that you are treating the point limit in a PL game as a rough guideline and not a hard limit, but treating the point limit in a conventional points game as a hard limit.


The whole point of PL is to play with a soft limit. Just look at the narrative missions, some say "the attacker should take about 1/3 more PL than the defender". They also say that if a player has a lower PL, then they are the underdog and they win ties. As you can see the whole system is based on being flexible. I could very well use points, but PL does the same thing in less time. It's also a refreshing way to get out of the "I need to fit 50 more points in" mentality since you're no longer worried about minutiae.


You can do all of those things with points.


Exactly. You can play a game of "1500 points for the defender, 2000 points for the attacker" instead of "15 points for the defender, 20 points for the attacker". Making all upgrades cost zero points and dividing the unit costs by 20 does not enable any alternate gameplay options. It's, again, about virtue signalling and using PL as a way to demonstrate that people who want a strict point limit are not welcome.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 16:24:07


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. 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Right, but since doing those things is about not getting into the minutia, it would make no sense to use a system about tracking every little cost. Using points to accomplish what Dandelion is talking about would be not caring about minutia by diving into minutia.

Makes no sense.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Chamberlain wrote:
Right, but since doing those things is about not getting into the minutia, it would make no sense to use a system about tracking every little cost. Using points to accomplish what Dandelion is talking about would be not caring about minutia by diving into minutia.


If you're so unconcerned about the "minutia" then why use a point system at all? Just put some models on the table and if it's an attacker/defender scenario give the attacker a bigger pile of models. People say they "aren't concerned about the minutia" but then they embrace a point system where the sole purpose is tracking such things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 16:25:26


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. 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





What if it's not the sole purpose? What if it's only the purpose you see? What if a general guideline is good enough for what other people want to do with 40k? Look at examples in the open and narrative scenarios. "this mission works especially well when the Power Level of one army is between a third higher and double that of the other"

And as well, that's a false dicotomy. That either you should care about every little points cost or not care about point systems of any kind. It's okay to be in the middle and care about a low resolution points system that fits within a range like the scenarios talk about.

The games work. Give it a try.

   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

 Chamberlain wrote:
Right, but since doing those things is about not getting into the minutia, it would make no sense to use a system about tracking every little cost. Using points to accomplish what Dandelion is talking about would be not caring about minutia by diving into minutia.

Makes no sense.


The thing is, you're still caring about the minutiae; you still have to decide, or note, the various upgrades and weapons you've decided to take or how many models in your units you've taken using power levels or points. The literal only difference is one system you spend a few extra seconds adding a few more numbers together.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blacksails wrote:

You can do all of those things with points.


You're right I can. But I don't want to. I don't need things to be exact, which (in my case) makes points redundant next to PL. Since PL requires all of 10 seconds to figure out, I'd much rather use it over points.

Like Chamberlain said, a general guideline is nice and is far superior to just throwing models on the table. (which I have also done) PL is sufficiently balanced. It's not as balanced as points (theoretically), but it works well enough. And that's good enough for me.
   
Made in ca
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant






 greatbigtree wrote:
To be fair, you made a claim to "literal fact" both parts of which were incorrect. Spade is a spade.

Regarding the rest, we're mostly in agreement. I haven't followed the trends in PL, as previous to about an hour ago I didn't really care about it at all. But now, upon reflection, it is /possible/ that PL is a more accurate assessment of the true value (on the whole) of units that I hadn't considered. PL may work as intended for all I know. I've never tried it. Maybe units didn't need adjusting as much on the PL scale.

I know from direct experience that Point scale is inaccurate. Regardless of adjustments there are simply too many units that don't work "right" when using that scale. Individual models may be more accurate at the point level, but units certainly aren't and 40k is fundamentally a unit vs unit game, which leaves it unbalanced.

I'm now interested in testing whether or not PL creates more balanced games. Model / unit precision is less precise, but may be more accurate when valuing an entire army.


PS: My meta does not use Forge World. Nothing against it in particular, we've just never felt the need to bring it in. So I wouldn't know anything about FW trends.


I think some models are actually underpowered within the confines of PL. A Vindicator to me is not worth its Power Level, from the few games i've played. Additionally, Possessed and a few other units from the Chaos index i've noticed just have strictly better counterparts within the books if you only use PL, where usually Points is what makes the difference between them.

Also, there's a Forgeworld Daemon that got bumped from around 700 to 1400. With no power change. Its power cost is still the same as the other ones that hover around 700.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Chamberlain wrote:
Look at examples in the open and narrative scenarios. "this mission works especially well when the Power Level of one army is between a third higher and double that of the other"


"This mission works especially well when the point total of one army is between a third higher and double that of the other".

Oh wait, that's exactly what your version is already saying. Calling your points "power" instead of "points" doesn't change the fact that you're adding up point costs to determine the strength of an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote:
Since PL requires all of 10 seconds to figure out, I'd much rather use it over points.


Point cost takes the same time, at least in the situation you're describing. You're assuming WYSIWYG with upgrades (instead of taking every possible upgrade when you use your army in a PL game), and probably fixed unit composition. That makes it easy to list a fixed point cost for every unit in your collection and add them up when you play a game. Adding 5 + 6 + 11 + 3 + 14 + 25 is the same as adding 100 + 125 + 55 + 290 + 480. The only difference is that one is a more accurate evaluation than the other.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 17:10:21


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. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blacksails wrote:

The thing is, you're still caring about the minutiae; you still have to decide, or note, the various upgrades and weapons you've decided to take or how many models in your units you've taken using power levels or points. The literal only difference is one system you spend a few extra seconds adding a few more numbers together.


I really don't note down what I take since I play WYSIWYG. I just take the squads off my shelf, add up the total and remove/add units as needed. We're talking 10 seconds of mental math.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
The only difference is that one is a more accurate evaluation than the other.


You say that as if it matters.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 17:11:22


 
   
Made in ca
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant






You say that as if it matters.


To some people, it does. Not many people around my area play WYSIWYG. It's NICE to have the stuff on the model, but sometimes you can't have that.
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Dandelion wrote:
 Blacksails wrote:

The thing is, you're still caring about the minutiae; you still have to decide, or note, the various upgrades and weapons you've decided to take or how many models in your units you've taken using power levels or points. The literal only difference is one system you spend a few extra seconds adding a few more numbers together.


I really don't note down what I take since I play WYSIWYG. I just take the squads off my shelf, add up the total and remove/add units as needed. We're talking 10 seconds of mental math.



Same thing applies to points.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:

Point cost takes the same time, at least in the situation you're describing.


Not at all. Take a guard command squad: it's 2 PL
If it has a vox, flag and medic: 6*4 + 5 +5 +10= 44 pts

Right there I just spent time looking up the individual costs, and adding them up. Or I could just says its 2 PL and be done with it.
Then I have to do the same thing for every other unit.
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





I think it's totally possible that some units are more accurately costed using points and others using power level. Points are more precise, but that doesn't mean they more accurately represent the power of something on the table top. That would only be true if GW got the individual weapon options correctly costed.

And given that the same weapon held by different units costs the same points, I think it's unlikely that they have. If they're not taking into account the abilities of the wielder of a weapon, how likely is it that the weapon is accurately costed?

Precision for the illusion of accuracy is what points is about.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/07 17:20:02


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: