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.
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.
You still have to look up the PL cost of every single unit, and add up any extra PLs if your squad size is larger.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
If it's the same, why should I bother with points?
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.
OK, then those people can use points. I'm not saying that PL is BETTER than points. I'm just saying that for my purposes PL is sufficient to have a good game, and that it isn't "useless".
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.
You still have to look up the PL cost of every single unit, and add up any extra PLs if your squad size is larger.
That's still a bit more simple than points i'd grant you...But I can also remember most of my codex's point costs off the time of my head, along with point costs of a bunch of other units from other armies. I may just be a math genius or have the memory of a god, or it could be that some people are just more casual than me. I play on a near weekly basis, so I've memorized all that stuff. People who play once a month or less? Forget about it, they'll be looking points up until next edition rolls around.
Also, i'm literally agreeing that power is fine, and my entire point the last few pages has been saying both is fine, but power has bene forgotten by GW. It's not my fault it got hijacked by the war of casual vs competitive gaming.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 17:24:19
Dandelion wrote: 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.
Then PL offers you nothing. All of your units have a fixed price and you can add up the conventional points just as fast as you can add up the power points. The only difference is that one will be a more accurate evaluation than the other.
You say that as if it matters.
Obviously it does, otherwise you wouldn't be adding up point costs at all. You'd just put some models on the table, say "that looks about right", and start rolling dice.
This is the annoying thing about PL advocates, you make these super-narrow special cases where you care about balance precisely enough to add up one kind of points but not enough to use the more accurate points. In 7th edition you never would have thought that PL is what you need, or that the conventional point system is not handling your games well enough. But now in 8th you're starting from the assumption that PL must have a purpose and carefully crafting a scenario specifically to support PL. Instead you should be asking what design need PL fills, what situation exists where PL has a meaningful advantage, and the answer is "nowhere".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: I'm not saying that PL is BETTER than points. I'm just saying that for my purposes PL is sufficient to have a good game, and that it isn't "useless".
That's practically the definition of useless. It isn't better than points, so it is redundant. If PL was removed from the game tomorrow, completely erased from everyone's memory, nobody would notice its absence. It is 100% useless.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 17:26:02
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.
You still have to look up the PL cost of every single unit, and add up any extra PLs if your squad size is larger.
And with points I have to look up the cost of every single unit by finding the cost of every model, weapon and upgrade. Add them up for each unit, then add up each unit for my total. Or I could just skip step 1 and play PL. Because in the games I've played, PL is sufficiently balanced.
Dandelion wrote: 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.
Then PL offers you nothing. All of your units have a fixed price and you can add up the conventional points just as fast as you can add up the power points. The only difference is that one will be a more accurate evaluation than the other.
You say that as if it matters.
Obviously it does, otherwise you wouldn't be adding up point costs at all. You'd just put some models on the table, say "that looks about right", and start rolling dice.
This is the annoying thing about PL advocates, you make these super-narrow special cases where you care about balance precisely enough to add up one kind of points but not enough to use the more accurate points. In 7th edition you never would have thought that PL is what you need, or that the conventional point system is not handling your games well enough. But now in 8th you're starting from the assumption that PL must have a purpose and carefully crafting a scenario specifically to support PL. Instead you should be asking what design need PL fills, what situation exists where PL has a meaningful advantage, and the answer is "nowhere".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: I'm not saying that PL is BETTER than points. I'm just saying that for my purposes PL is sufficient to have a good game, and that it isn't "useless".
That's practically the definition of useless. It isn't better than points, so it is redundant. If PL was removed from the game tomorrow, completely erased from everyone's memory, nobody would notice its absence. It is 100% useless.
WROOOOOOOOOOOOONG!...Nah, not that wrong. My only counter arguement is that last line of text. Daemonic Summoning needs Power levels for an easy baseline to roll dice off of.
Dandelion wrote: 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.
Ok, so you had to add it up. Now every time you pull that unit off your shelf (since you play WYSIWYG it will always be the same) you know that it is 44 points and you add +44 to your total. You're doing the exact same thing with having it cost 2 points, except you're accounting for the fact that your version of the squad is far less effective than the 4x plasma command squad someone else might take (which would still cost the same 2 points under the PL system).
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.
That's still a bit more simple than points i'd grant you...But I can also remember most of my codex's point costs off the time of my head, along with point costs of a bunch of other units from other armies. I may just be a math genius or have the memory of a god, or it could be that some people are just more casual than me. I play on a near weekly basis, so I've memorized all that stuff. People who play once a month or less? Forget about it, they'll be looking points up until next edition rolls around.
I have no problem memorizing a good chunk of the point costs for my army.
Also, i'm literally agreeing that power is fine, and my entire point the last few pages has been saying both is fine, but power has bene forgotten by GW. It's not my fault it got hijacked by the war of casual vs competitive gaming.
There is no war between casual vs competitive here. I'll bet most of the people in here who are 'pro-points' are still fundamentally casual players. Which is part of the issue, where players who prefer power levels seem to paint anyone else has not casual, as though power levels are the only way to be casual.
I'm simply stating its a completely redundant system that offers nothing new or special or noteworthy. It was a waste of space in the rulebook and a waste of the devs time.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Peregrine wrote: This is the annoying thing about PL advocates, you make these super-narrow special cases where you care about balance precisely enough to add up one kind of points but not enough to use the more accurate points.
It's like there's a happy medium or something.
Like all the people doing points in Age of Sigmar. It's the equivalent of 40k power level and it works fine there too.
starting from the assumption that PL must have a purpose and carefully crafting a scenario specifically to support PL. Instead you should be asking what design need PL fills, what situation exists where PL has a meaningful advantage, and the answer is "nowhere".
bs. Power level/AoS Points works in actual practice.
It's not a carefully crafted scenario at all, but the everyday experience of gamers who use these systems.
It isn't better than points, so it is redundant. If PL was removed from the game tomorrow, completely erased from everyone's memory, nobody would notice its absence.
No, I'm pretty sure some people would go "Why is it so much easier to build an army using the AoS points system than in 40k? Maybe they should make a simplified one like AoS has but for 40k."
That massive difference between the points systems in the two games would probably jump out just as starkly as when the general's handbook was first released and people clearly noticed the difference from 40k (some decrying it, others enjoying it).
Ok, so you had to add it up. Now every time you pull that unit off your shelf (since you play WYSIWYG it will always be the same) you know that it is 44 points and you add +44 to your total. You're doing the exact same thing with having it cost 2 points, except you're accounting for the fact that your version of the squad is far less effective than the 4x plasma command squad someone else might take (which would still cost the same 2 points under the PL system).
Well, less effective at what? The plasma team and the flag team have different roles. The plasma team is more killy but the flag team buffs units better. Besides, using plasma as a counterpoint to PL is misleading since it's one of the biggest problem weapons even in point games.
But that's not the question. The question is where PL works better than conventional points, what you need to prove to justify the existence of PL. Merely working in a situation where conventional points would also work is not justification. And to get the situation where PL is better you have to carefully craft very specific terms of the scenario, setting everything up specifically to support the use of PL.
No, I'm pretty sure some people would go "Why is it so much easier to build an army using the AoS points system than in 40k? Maybe they should make a simplified one like AoS has but for 40k."
Now pretend that AoS doesn't exist, because we're talking purely about 40k. If you didn't play some other game and only had 40k to look at you'd never have come up with PL as a system. The conventional point system of previous editions would have worked just fine for your goals.
(Because if we're going to talk about comparing 40k to other games, well, there are a lot of changes that need to be made.)
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.
Dandelion wrote: Well, less effective at what? The plasma team and the flag team have different roles. The plasma team is more killy but the flag team buffs units better. Besides, using plasma as a counterpoint to PL is misleading since it's one of the biggest problem weapons even in point games.
This is IG we're talking about. The buff you take is "buy a second squad". On average, in most situations, the plasma CCS will be better than the buff unit. The flag unit might not be worthless, but it's still less powerful. And it has a higher point cost to reflect this. Making them both cost 2 points does nothing to improve the game.
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.
But that's not the question. The question is where PL works better than conventional points, what you need to prove to justify the existence of PL.
Wow is your bias showing.
Why is it that PL is the system that needs justification?
Wouldn't it make more sense for the utility of a more precise but more time consuming approach to be what needs justifying?
I think points and PL both have their uses and that the only justification either system needs is that people enjoy using them as part of their hobby. That's all the justification you ever need for a gaming pursuit.
Now pretend that AoS doesn't exist, because we're talking purely about 40k.
Now who is constructing artificial situations to support their own position?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 17:53:10
Chamberlain wrote: Why is it that PL is the system that needs justification?
Because the reasons for the conventional point system to exist are clear, and that system is already justified. The question now is, once you have the conventional point system, why PL should exist. And the answer is that it has no purpose, and GW should drop it.
Now who is constructing artificial situations to support their own position?
The question was "if you had never seen PL before would you have come up with the idea and felt a need for it". A response of "yes, because I saw PL already" is not an answer to that question.
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.
But that's not the question. The question is where PL works better than conventional points, what you need to prove to justify the existence of PL.
Wow is your bias showing.
Why is it that PL is the system that needs justification?
Wouldn't it make more sense for the utility of a more precise but more time consuming approach to be what needs justifying?
And the question is not one of which is better, but of whether or not PL is useful. In terms of it's 1:20 ratio with points shifting as points are adjusted and in terms of whether or not people actually do stuff with it that works for them.
I think the 1:20 ratio thing is dead, but that PL is obviously useful as a faster, lower resolution system for setting up games. After all, it hasn't actually been established that the higher resolution of points actually works better than the PL/AoS system.
Now pretend that AoS doesn't exist, because we're talking purely about 40k.
Now who is constructing artificial situations to support their own position?
You realize people don't always have 2 minutes to make an army, right? Part of the fun my playgroup has is planning a match for a weekend, and spending a solid 4 days tailoring a list using points. It's not about tailoring to be OP, it's just tailoring to be the way they want.
Because the reasons for the conventional point system to exist are clear, and that system is already justified. The question now is, once you have the conventional point system, why PL should exist. And the answer is that it has no purpose, and GW should drop it.
How many people need to tell you about how they find PL useful before you accept it? Are you incapable of understanding that other people might like to use systems you don't like? That it might offer them something they want?
The biggest problem with your theories against power level is they are totally demolished by the real world. People are playing AoS and PL games in 40k. So you have real world evidence of people finding the approach useful.
When your theories don't line up with reality, they are bad theories.
The question was "if you had never seen PL before would you have come up with the idea and felt a need for it". A response of "yes, because I saw PL already" is not an answer to that question.
The best thing about other people's ideas is that I don't have to think them up. There are a million inventions that I never would have thought of.
This says nothing about the value of any of those inventions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vaklor4 wrote: You realize people don't always have 2 minutes to make an army, right? Part of the fun my playgroup has is planning a match for a weekend, and spending a solid 4 days tailoring a list using points. It's not about tailoring to be OP, it's just tailoring to be the way they want.
Definitely. List crafting can be an enjoyable hobby in of itself. More power to those who want to do that! It's a good thing there's a detailed points system for those who want to do that.
I don't accept Peregrine's idea of justification. I think it's totally bunk. Systems like power level and points don't need justification when it comes to hobby gaming beyond their enjoyment. If people like something and find it useful, that's enough. My questioning of the justification of points was just an attempt to shed some light on the implications of Peregrine's demands for justification. I do not in any way consider points system useless.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/04/07 18:13:26
Because the reasons for the conventional point system to exist are clear, and that system is already justified. The question now is, once you have the conventional point system, why PL should exist. And the answer is that it has no purpose, and GW should drop it.
How many people need to tell you about how they find PL useful before you accept it? Are you incapable of understanding that other people might like to use systems you don't like? That it might offer them something they want?
The biggest problem with your theories against power level is they are totally demolished by the real world. People are playing AoS and PL games in 40k. So you have real world evidence of people finding the approach useful.
When your theories don't line up with reality, they are bad theories.
The question was "if you had never seen PL before would you have come up with the idea and felt a need for it". A response of "yes, because I saw PL already" is not an answer to that question.
The best thing about other people's ideas is that I don't have to think them up. There are a million inventions that I never would have thought of.
This says nothing about the value of any of those inventions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vaklor4 wrote: You realize people don't always have 2 minutes to make an army, right? Part of the fun my playgroup has is planning a match for a weekend, and spending a solid 4 days tailoring a list using points. It's not about tailoring to be OP, it's just tailoring to be the way they want.
Definitely. List crafting can be an enjoyable hobby in of itself. More power to those who want to do that! It's a good thing there's a detailed points system for those who want to do that.
I don't accept Peregrine's idea of justification. I think it's totally bunk. Systems like power level and points don't need justification when it comes to hobby gaming beyond their enjoyment. If people like something and find it useful, that's enough. My questioning of the justification of points was just an attempt to shed some light on the implications of Peregrine's demands for justification. I do not in any way consider points system useless.
Trust me, do you think I enjoy Peregrine's posts? But he's entitled to his opinion. All of you are. No matter how I disagree or agree, I can't prove any of you guys any less right or wrong, because that's not my goal. We don't have to fight over power or points, because the people who use power will use it, and points people will use points. Be it because they originally played AoS or 7th edition, one person isn't wrong for wanting to choose how they learned. It doesn't make them wrong, because people using points can still play casually, and people playing power don't WANT to play in tournaments, obviously.
At the end of the day, I just want GW to release some sort of power FAQ, or Power changes in the 2018 CA. Some people don't care about the power level and just use it as gospel in the codex or even index, but there is still that shred of grey in the middle that like to use power, but think it could use some tweaking.
I don't think you're wrong, I don't think Peregrine is wrong, or anyone else on this thread. I think GW is wrong.
Chamberlain wrote: How many people need to tell you about how they find PL useful before you accept it?
One, if they have a good reason for it. So far the reasons have been nothing more than "I do it because I can" and "PL is great for virtue signalling about how competitive players aren't invited".
The biggest problem with your theories against power level is they are totally demolished by the real world. People are playing AoS and PL games in 40k. So you have real world evidence of people finding the approach useful.
That doesn't demolish anything. People could be playing those games with the conventional point system and having the same, or even a better, experience. The existence of a less-accurate point system does not improve their experience.
The best thing about other people's ideas is that I don't have to think them up. There are a million inventions that I never would have thought of.
This says nothing about the value of any of those inventions.
You're missing the point here. If PL was a useful system and has all the benefits you claim then people would have noticed these situations in previous editions. You'd have people complaining about how much effort it takes to make a list, or how ridiculous it is to care about which upgrades a unit has. But nobody cared about those things until 8th happened and they needed a reason to justify the existence of PL.
Systems like power level and points don't need justification when it comes to hobby gaming beyond their enjoyment.
Sure they do. GW has to spend effort on writing and maintaining them, and that effort needs justification. And if you're going to claim that PL is a good or useful system then you need to justify your claim with more than "it's good because I use it".
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.
Trust me, do you think I enjoy Peregrine's posts? But he's entitled to his opinion. All of you are. No matter how I disagree or agree, I can't prove any of you guys any less right or wrong, because that's not my goal. We don't have to fight over power or points, because the people who use power will use it, and points people will use points. Be it because they originally played AoS or 7th edition, one person isn't wrong for wanting to choose how they learned. It doesn't make them wrong, because people using points can still play casually, and people playing power don't WANT to play in tournaments, obviously.
I totally agree. I think advocating the scrapping of either PL or Points is a bad position to hold. I'd even like to see points with weapon costs added to Age of Sigmar so those who like that approach can have it there as well.
At the end of the day, I just want GW to release some sort of power FAQ, or Power changes in the 2018 CA. Some people don't care about the power level and just use it as gospel in the codex or even index, but there is still that shred of grey in the middle that like to use power, but think it could use some tweaking.
I don't think you're wrong, I don't think Peregrine is wrong, or anyone else on this thread. I think GW is wrong.
I see merit here. If a low resolution approach to balancing a game can be improved by occasionally revisiting the power level points on data sheets, that would be cool if they did that in CA2018.
That doesn't demolish anything. People could be playing those games with the conventional point system and having the same, or even a better, experience. The existence of a less-accurate point system does not improve their experience.
A "less accurate" point system could be better balanced if that's what the designers used to balance the game. Anyway, it made my games better so I don't know what your problem is.
You're missing the point here. If PL was a useful system and has all the benefits you claim then people would have noticed these situations in previous editions.
Not true. People could easily think that points took too long but never said anything because they assumed it was the only system available/possible.
Chamberlain wrote: How many people need to tell you about how they find PL useful before you accept it?
One, if they have a good reason for it. So far the reasons have been nothing more than "I do it because I can" and "PL is great for virtue signalling about how competitive players aren't invited".
Sorry, but your satisfaction with the reasons of others is not the ultimate standard. Whether or not GW should scrap something isn't ultimately impacted by your inability to accept the decisions and preferences of others.
That doesn't demolish anything. People could be playing those games with the conventional point system and having the same, or even a better, experience. The existence of a less-accurate point system does not improve their experience.
And when they report that it does and give you their reasons, you just dismiss them, ascribe other motivations to them like "virtue signaling."
You have to preemptively dismiss all evidence that falsifies your position in order to continue holding it.
If PL was a useful system and has all the benefits you claim then people would have noticed these situations in previous editions. You'd have people complaining about how much effort it takes to make a list, or how ridiculous it is to care about which upgrades a unit has. But nobody cared about those things until 8th happened and they needed a reason to justify the existence of PL.
This goes against everything we know about innovation. New ideas and ways of doing things don't just show up because they are universally obvious. And people want all sorts of things they could not have thought of on their own.
It says nothing about the utility of a simpler points system that most people would not have thought of it. It's hard to see the need for something before you even conceive of it.
GW has to spend effort on writing and maintaining them, and that effort needs justification.
Well, GW's sales are awesome and their return on this effort has been great. If what they are doing now is working for them, why should they scrap part of what makes 8th different and wildly more successful than previous editions?
Sorry, but the relative success of 8th vs 7th is enough of a reason for GW to keep power levels. Their awesome sales are likely the result of a combination of factors, but there's just no reason to change course here at all. Especially not to take away something people keep saying they like just because you can't accept their reasons for liking it.
Just because no one complained within earshot of you doesn't mean nobody ever complained.
GW also said that 8th edition was the game the customers asked for. If that's true, that would include Power Level. I think it's very likely that people praised the simplicity of the AoS point system and GW decided it was a good idea to listen to their customer base when it came to 8th ed 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 18:51:12
That doesn't demolish anything. People could be playing those games with the conventional point system and having the same, or even a better, experience. The existence of a less-accurate point system does not improve their experience.
A "less accurate" point system could be better balanced if that's what the designers used to balance the game. Anyway, it made my games better so I don't know what your problem is.
You're missing the point here. If PL was a useful system and has all the benefits you claim then people would have noticed these situations in previous editions.
Not true. People could easily think that points took too long but never said anything because they assumed it was the only system available/possible.
But nobody cared about those things until 8th happened and they needed a reason to justify the existence of PL.
I guess i'm nobody.
Just because no one complained within earshot of you doesn't mean nobody ever complained.
I've always disliked points and PL gave me a way to not deal with them.
If you're incapable of accepting a differing viewpoint, then this discussion is moot. I feel both sides should come to an agreement that the others choice is theirs and doesn't effect their gameplay one way or another.
If GW got rid of points how would you guys react? I would assume (given the tone of some posts)tableflipping and pouting about how their granularity is gone. The reason nobody said anything before is they didn't know that there was another option.
If you like points, fine. if you like PL, fine. neither system effects anyone who doesn't use it. I could care less about balance, the only thing I care about is having fun. If points gave me what I'd need, I'd use them. PL does, so I use them.
I just made a 75 / 1500 list for AM and SM, then I made a 93 / 1850 list for both AM and SM. I didn't load up on options I wouldn't normally take, and the lists were 1 PL of the Point target.
PL would allow me to take low value upgrades in places I normally wouldn't, in places were there's no "point" value. Like adding power axes to Infantry sergeants, or taking Voxes because I have the models but there's no "point" justification to doing so.
I normally take expensive upgrades on my Tac squads. Lascannon combi-flamer and Power Sword on my Sarge. Sallies have the reroll for the lascannon on the move, and Vulkan boosts the flamer and ccw if things get close. So the PL gave me a slight advantage, but also made taking a couple extra wounds prohibitively expensive, so I wound up taking extra units instead. It's not that different, but a little bit.
In terms of accuracy (proper definition meaning an accurate measure) both means of list creation seem equal. Roughly a 1% difference in value. While I could have exploited the system to add another 100 "points" of upgrades, they'd be things I wouldn't take because they aren't worth the points... so maybe 50 points of true value at most. Were I to actively milk the system, I might make a 3% difference in true value.
In my very limited experiment here, the SM would have more true value benefit from this, which would more accurately balance them against AM, which is an improvement in game balance. Anecdotal evidence and very limited, so weak evidence at best. Interesting to me that bough.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: There is an ignore button that people can use. Sometimes reading a person's posts aren't worth the aggravation. For example, I may have gotten myself a temporary suspension by failing to let things slide. It is counter productive to come here and get stressed out.
Let the seagulls live in their dumps, picking through the trash. The best-case scenario when you argue with a seagull is that it poops on you. It won't stop squawking, eating garbage and crapping on everything nearby. So just don't worry about them. Ignore them, and enjoy your time here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/07 19:50:26
I wonder, if we only had power levels, what would the tournament lists look like? Would they be any more outrageous than an army of flyrants, mawlocs, and spores?
Tournament play (aggressive, aiming for the top play) is not about balance. It's about squeezing every last ounce of power out of a limited pool of imbalanced choices. PL has the potential to change what is more imbalanced, but it probably is about the same.
If you think about it, people are already paying points for "good" upgrades and options. They aren't paying points for stuff that doesn't do much. Off the top of my head, Voxes from the Guard. They don't do anything worth their points. I could put a Plasma Pistol on the Sarge instead for the same points and that would be good... but most people don't do that either. So if I add a Vox for 5 points, true value MAYBE 2 points, it's not really changing the True Value of my Guard army by much of anything, but spread around on 6 units adds up to something important I would need to cut or downgrade.
Same deal, with PL I could put power fists on each of my characters that could take one. How much difference would it make? Nothing significant. Look out! I'm hitting with one Power Fist attack before I'm slaughtered! Glad I paid 12 points for that! And it might get 2 wounds of damage out. Whoopee! I spent over 60 points to put a fist on each character, just in case they charged something... which would be stupid. They'll probably be killed before they can even attack, if they're charged.
The more I look at it, the more PL is becoming attractive. I've got models from past editions that used to have useful upgrades. I do my best to WYSIWYG with my models, so I haven't been playing my Voxes, or Characters with Upgrades. With PL, I could do that and not worry that I'm screwing myself by taking cool looking models that do SFA. The Commissar with the Book and Power Fist is one of my Favourite models, but it's such a point sink he hasn't seen the table. I'd love to get him back out there. My old "Command Squad" Vox was a custom made, oversized comm unit that was on the ground beside a kneeling Vox dude. There used to be a "Master Vox" upgrade that was useful, so I built it. It became just another Vox for my command squad, but I liked putting it on the table when it was worth it's points. With PL, I miss out on the opportunity to give that duder something else, but I usually keep a couple naked dudes there to soak wounds anyhow. And it's not like the Vox is useful. :(
Pink Horror wrote: I wonder, if we only had power levels, what would the tournament lists look like? Would they be any more outrageous than an army of flyrants, mawlocs, and spores?
You would see an interesting shift: People would load up as many options as possible since taking anything less than the best is "lost" points or opportunity.
It would be a game with a large focus on accessories a form of "Monty Haul" system.
By having to pay for all options in a more detailed points system, people only get what they need and it would appear more "reasonable", except of course anything that has too good a "deal" in points would still be spammed.
BUT people who are only concerned with "casual play" will do what they always do: play whatever they have/want and win/lose according to the same whims of their opponent.
Because I found no matter what system you create, it has little or no affect on casual play other than how much they field, no change of strategy will occur.
That is why a "simpler" points system is wanted since it is looked on as a necessary evil and has little impact on that kind of play other than how much make-work they have to do.
That is why I see the next logical step is just picking a set number of unit types: it would be more in line with the desires of those who appreciate PL's.
Would I be all that far off in this line of thought?
This is why the argument with Peregrine can be so strong: he IS right that it is a terrible system for applying points to "balance" the game BUT it is one step closer for those who do not want to tally points at all and think little about a common/standardized "balance" being achieved.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Bharring wrote: When someone just wants to plop down their collection and fight, yeah, I pull out that many Power POints of my favorite units and fight.
When that one player wants to do Power Points and then proxy all the upgrades because it's insane how awesome his guys are that way, I play Points instead.
"This tank has taken all the upgrades because why not" is not a good use of Power Points.
Have an exalt! I agree with this 100% PL is fine if the intent is to have a quick game or works into the theme (dare I say narrative). It's not good for playing against TFG because he wants to abuse the system and max upgrade everything for free.
the cosmic serpent wrote: It's not good for playing against TFG because he wants to abuse the system and max upgrade everything for free.
I do have to point out that it is not "abuse".
It is allowed by the rules.
Cup half full or half empty?
You paid the points, do you choose to have the upgrades or not?
Do you regularly ask to see your opponent's list and then decide which points system you use?
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
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. )
This is a false syllogism. In your scenario above you can only prove that the more granular system (1kg) is more inaccurate versus the less granular system (20kg) because you have a 3rd system accepted as officially accurate to measure the previous 2. In GW's game, there is no 3rd system to measure what is most 'correct'. So, the more granular system is by default more accurate. If there was a 2nd form of power level that rounding units up to the nearest 10, how would you feel then? Would you use the points system to determine if the base 20 versus base 10 system was the more accurate system? I can already see the arguments comparing the three. 40k is a model based system and so should the points system be. No one should have to pay points for something they don't have on the table, which PL forces you to do.
Chamberlain wrote: How many people need to tell you about how they find PL useful before you accept it? Are you incapable of understanding that other people might like to use systems you don't like? That it might offer them something they want?
The issue isn't whether or not there are people out there that find the non-granular system of points called PL useful, the argument is whether or not the PL points system is useless compared to a more granular points system. Which of course, it is, since it is redundant and inaccurate. If you want to base PL's usefulness on feelings and people liking it, then remember that there's a whole lot of people out there that feel the earth is flat.
As a final note, the people arguing they don't have time to come up with a points based list are currently spending their time arguing on a forum when they could be using that time to come up with points based lists. I for one am not a fan of anyone who shows up at their games store looking for a pickup game without pre-made lists. If you don't have time to grasp how many points your units are worth, why would I assume you spent any time learning any of the rules of the game. I tend to avoid these people. I usually carry a 50 and 100 PL, 1500, and 2k list with my army when I show up anywhere... but maybe I hold myself and fellow 40k'rs to too high of standards.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
