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.

PL is purely for casual play...

For a day or so the thread was bumping towards the bottom of the page. Those first people were right, people will use any excuse to soap box their opinions

My experience is that a lot of people returned to GW due to the rules improving. I don’t think the PL really figured into it.

Is your experience that it was PL that brought people back? That was the missing piece for them?

 deviantduck wrote:
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.

You are better than most: you make lists for both PL and points AND two different values of each.
I swear you actually want to play people and not limit yourself.

I do admit, I see that as a similar gauge of "work ethic" where if adding up some points is too much effort, learning the rules is a much bigger challenge in comparison.
I do not mind teaching someone new and it can be fun, the same folk that have been around a for months seems mind numbingly painful to teach even some basic points about the rules (it is the smallest it has EVER been, learn it please! ).
Not bothering to fully assemble models (nevermind paint), the surprising "discussions" of what the rules "should" be in given circumstances certainly demonstrates that there are all kinds that get into the hobby.

It sounds like we get trapped in symptoms of what we like or don't like with a system: what behavior do we want to promote?
If GW constantly updated PL values as they do point cost tweaks, would anyone who uses power levels care? I strongly suspect not.
As long as a PL value is given as new units are released, that is most likely all the support that system needs.
Is it "useless now"? Depends who you ask.

 deviantduck wrote:
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.

Points being more "accurate" (actually it's "precise" since GW is still working through points) doesn't mean a game will be more balanced. In a 500 pt game I can fit a LOW such as a baneblade. If I play against someone who only has a couple anti-tank guns then the game is not balanced whether you use points or PL. There is an external social contract that is required between players before a game begins to determine if the game is fair. Points and PL give players a baseline to work off of when comparing units, but good judgement of which units will skew a game is also required. So as a guideline, PL is just as good as points but is more convenient and flexible.

 deviantduck wrote:

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.

You're making assumptions about how people play. Not everyone goes to a club or store to play every friday. A lot of people have a couple friends that they play with at their own house. The dynamic between players is much different than at a store in the sense that pre-made lists aren't required. People just grab what they feel like playing that day and PL is just easier to add up.

Dandelion wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
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.

Points being more "accurate" (actually it's "precise" since GW is still working through points) doesn't mean a game will be more balanced. In a 500 pt game I can fit a LOW such as a baneblade. If I play against someone who only has a couple anti-tank guns then the game is not balanced whether you use points or PL. There is an external social contract that is required between players before a game begins to determine if the game is fair. Points and PL give players a baseline to work off of when comparing units, but good judgement of which units will skew a game is also required. So as a guideline, PL is just as good as points but is more convenient and flexible.

Except it's not. Accurate is the precise word. Accuracy refers to the closeness of a measured value to a standard or known value. In PL versus Pts, Pts are more granular and therefore more precise becoming the accurate standard to which PL is measured against. So, by definition, points are the accurate scale. Any list using the points scale is both more accurate and more precise than PL. Unless of course you make a 1300 point list for a 2000 point army. Then it would be an accurate list with poor precision.

Dandelion wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

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.

You're making assumptions about how people play. Not everyone goes to a club or store to play every Friday. A lot of people have a couple friends that they play with at their own house. The dynamic between players is much different than at a store in the sense that pre-made lists aren't required. People just grab what they feel like playing that day and PL is just easier to add up.

I get that. My and my army of Budweisers watched my two buddies play a game Saturday night. Although not deployed on the tabletop, my army suffered many casualties. I only referenced pickup games at games stores because most of the PL arguments are about the speed at which they can create a list at games stores using PL vs Points and I feel that is poppycock. This game is expensive and time consuming. Put in the extra 5 minutes worth of effort and get the most out of it. But, if you are playing in your own house, I would think that you would have even more time available to create points based lists.

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?

Well, the Flyrant/Mawloc/Spore build comes out about the same, but you could trade the Mawlocs roughly 1:1 with 30 bug devourer Termagant squads, so there is that....

More importantly, tournament players are going to optimize, because its a tournament.

babelfish wrote:

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?

Well, the Flyrant/Mawloc/Spore build comes out about the same, but you could trade the Mawlocs roughly 1:1 with 30 bug devourer Termagant squads, so there is that....

More importantly, tournament players are going to optimize, because its a tournament.

But to that I would add that when you stop using points and start using PLs, "optimized" becomes less about what options are the most cost effective and more about what weapons are just better tools for what you want to do. Certain choices actually become viable that were not under the points system, and variety is always a good thing.
Make of that what you will.

-

It seems like a lot of people in this thread treat 40k mostly as listbuilding exercise with actual gaming a distant second.

Why not compare lists instead, no need for miniatures or setting up games. 40k is about well painted miniatures on a nice table creating an entertaining game, not who can make the best use of the last 5 points.

 jhnbrg wrote:
Why not compare lists instead, no need for miniatures or setting up games. 40k is about well painted miniatures on a nice table creating an entertaining game, not who can make the best use of the last 5 points.

7th ed actually got to the point that we were basically doing that before everyone in my group decided they were done with it. We realized that we pretty accurately knew how the game was going to turn out before we started.

I can think of more than a couple times we'd pull our stuff out, look at each other's lists, the obvious winner asking the obvious loser if that's something he'd want to spend 3+ hours doing.

Then instead we'd usually just walk down to the local bar to have drinks and talk about how awesome we remembered 5th edition being.

 deviantduck wrote:

Except it's not. Accurate is the precise word. Accuracy refers to the closeness of a measured value to a standard or known value. In PL versus Pts, Pts are more granular and therefore more precise becoming the accurate standard to which PL is measured against. So, by definition, points are the accurate scale. Any list using the points scale is both more accurate and more precise than PL. Unless of course you make a 1300 point list for a 2000 point army. Then it would be an accurate list with poor precision.

Considering that the point values of models and weapons do not always reflect their in game value, I would say that there is a difference. Right now you're comparing points to points and power to points. Of course points will be closer to points and thus more "accurate". But if you want to take a look at the overall balance of the game the difference is minor. Like I said, playing a game requires both players to accept that the match-up as fair. Points and Power help guide this decision but it is only the first part in determining if a particular game is balanced. 500 pts of tanks vs 500 pts of bolter marines is not balanced.

 deviantduck wrote:

I get that. My and my army of Budweisers watched my two buddies play a game Saturday night. Although not deployed on the tabletop, my army suffered many casualties. I only referenced pickup games at games stores because most of the PL arguments are about the speed at which they can create a list at games stores using PL vs Points and I feel that is poppycock. This game is expensive and time consuming. Put in the extra 5 minutes worth of effort and get the most out of it. But, if you are playing in your own house, I would think that you would have even more time available to create points based lists.

It depends on the person's schedule. I have more free time than my buddy so whenever he comes over we try to get a quick game in. PL helps immensely with that.

Dandelion wrote:
Considering that the point values of models and weapons do not always reflect their in game value, I would say that there is a difference.

That may be true on a few scattered items as the meta shifts, but that's a balance issue and not point system debate. Overall, the points reflect the weapons value because that's the only thing to reflect their value. The meta might shift around costs/usefullness of items, but the points are their value. It's like saying Gold isn't worth it's current Dollar value. It is because that's what it's current dollar value is. The argument isn't if gold is worth it's dollar amount, the argument is do you want to pay $10 dollars for $10 worth of gold or round it up to $20 for the sake of speed and laziness.

 deviantduck wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Considering that the point values of models and weapons do not always reflect their in game value, I would say that there is a difference.

That may be true on a few scattered items as the meta shifts, but that's a balance issue and not point system debate. Overall, the points reflect the weapons value because that's the only thing to reflect their value. The meta might shift around costs/usefullness of items, but the points are their value. It's like saying Gold isn't worth it's current Dollar value. It is because that's what it's current dollar value is. The argument isn't if gold is worth it's dollar amount, the argument is do you want to pay $10 dollars for $10 worth of gold or round it up to $20 for the sake of speed and laziness.

Points are a way to quantify the value of weapons, models etc... The actual in game value of something depends on how useful it is. PL also measures this value, but in a less rigorous method. It's a trade off. Do you think the convenience of PL justifies the lack of precision? Well, that depends on who you are and what you want. There's nothing wrong with having a secondary point system that is optional. If someone likes it they use it, if not who cares? It's not like I'm suggesting PL>points, just that under certain circumstances PL is preferable.

In physics, all measurements are rounded to the nearest significant figure because the "exact" number you got isn't the true value of whatever you were measuring, and anything close to it is close enough. I think the same applies to an extent in points. Sure you have an exact point figure, but does that properly measure the exact effectiveness of the list? No, because it's not just about raw independent values. There's the synergies between units also at play as well as what your opponent brings. So points aren't 100% accurate and PL is a close enough approximation (for certain people).

No one wants to do power level when find out what 15 dc with infernus pistols and power weapons are like. And vanguard with all hammers and stormshields.

Martel732 wrote:
No one wants to do power level when find out what 15 dc with infernus pistols and power weapons are like. And vanguard with all hammers and stormshields.

Not...entirely? Deathwatch armies can spend 2PL for an 80-90pt model, but you're still stuck with T4/3+ single-Wound models costing effectively 40pts. It still doesn't really work.

 deviantduck wrote:
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.

Not at all! The default is "we don't know which is more accurate." Without the 3rd system to check things, you can't know if points are more accurate.

Also, the analogous third thing would be actual balance in the game. If you check two scales by using a third system of actual objects with real mass that you know, then the analogue here would be some sort of objective measure of balance in a game.

Until you have that, you don't actually know which is more accurate. The precision of the granular points systems is something people easily conflate with accuracy though.

the argument is whether or not the PL points system is useless compared to a more granular points system.

So this is instantly falsified by a single person saying they find using PL easier. That is a use they find for PL compared to the more granular system. I'm one such individual. As are others in this very thread. Therefore, PL is not useless compared to a more granular system.

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.

All that's left is insulting those that disagree with you? Comparing them to flat earthers?

Perhaps consider the possibility that people who find PL easier to use are honestly reporting their experiences?

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.

So then you admit that PL has a use compared to the more granular points sytem? That people use it to save time so they can have fun on an Internet discussion board?

I don't even use PL for casual. I use battle scribe because it doesn't matter if prices are off.

Dandelion wrote:


Points are a way to quantify the value of weapons, models etc... The actual in game value of something depends on how useful it is. PL also measures this value, but in a less rigorous method. It's a trade off. Do you think the convenience of PL justifies the lack of precision? Well, that depends on who you are and what you want. There's nothing wrong with having a secondary point system that is optional. If someone likes it they use it, if not who cares? It's not like I'm suggesting PL>points, just that under certain circumstances PL is preferable.

In physics, all measurements are rounded to the nearest significant figure because the "exact" number you got isn't the true value of whatever you were measuring, and anything close to it is close enough. I think the same applies to an extent in points. Sure you have an exact point figure, but does that properly measure the exact effectiveness of the list? No, because it's not just about raw independent values. There's the synergies between units also at play as well as what your opponent brings. So points aren't 100% accurate and PL is a close enough approximation (for certain people).

The problem with the secondary PL point system, as peregrine has tirelessly stated, is that it's redundant. It also drives the wedge between casual and competitive communities deeper forcing them even farther apart which is bad for the game and bad for all its players. Before the dumpster fire of 8th, the argument was about internal codex balance, external codex balance, and army composition derived from said balance. Now before we have the army composition discussion we have to decide which point system to even create that army composition from. I've played both and it is crazy how lopsided games can be in the PL point system.

You can keep buying everything using $20 bills when you get no change. I'm going to use $1 bills. Just don't complain when you're broke.

 Chamberlain wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
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.

Not at all! The default is "we don't know which is more accurate." Without the 3rd system to check things, you can't know if points are more accurate.
Also, the analogous third thing would be actual balance in the game. If you check two scales by using a third system of actual objects with real mass that you know, then the analogue here would be some sort of objective measure of balance in a game.
Until you have that, you don't actually know which is more accurate. The precision of the granular points systems is something people easily conflate with accuracy though.

The default is points because that's what's been used for 30 years through 8 editions. PL was suddenly shoe-horned in as a fast, friendly and less accurate way of creating a roster. They created a redundant point system. Balance would be the closest thing to a 3rd party that could exist, but that's a really intangible, subjective yard stick. Points is the scale because GW invented it and said this is the scale. They invented the space men, they wrote the rules, they created the points. We're just opinions. They are the fact. They said this little blue space man is 13 points. Done. You can say 'well, maybe he's really 12, or maybe he's 14', to argue about balance, but you'd be wrong. He's 13. They told us that. Or... you can use power level and go, 'Eh, let's just call it 20 cause addition is hard.' (the public you, not you in particular.)

 Chamberlain wrote:

the argument is whether or not the PL points system is useless compared to a more granular points system.

So this is instantly falsified by a single person saying they find using PL easier. That is a use they find for PL compared to the more granular system. I'm one such individual. As are others in this very thread. Therefore, PL is not useless compared to a more granular system.

99% useless? If PL had never existed we'd never miss it.

 Chamberlain wrote:

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.

All that's left is insulting those that disagree with you? Comparing them to flat earthers? Perhaps consider the possibility that people who find PL easier to use are honestly reporting their experiences?

I was insinuating flat earthers are the end result when people rely on feelings instead of facts.

 Chamberlain wrote:

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.

So then you admit that PL has a use compared to the more granular points sytem? That people use it to save time so they can have fun on an Internet discussion board?

PL is the crutch the human race limps on into the dismal future of the Wall-E situation. PL is the beginning of the end times.

Points costs can go up or down. Power Levels stay the same. This should demonstrate that the two don't equate, so one can't make the other useless/useful. Most of the issues people have seem to come from starting with one system as a basis and showing how the other doesn't match it. They don't match because they aren't meant to.

I love Power Levels. Weapons and upgrades aren't free, they just aren't factored in when calculating a unit's value, and in that system, they don't need to be. I pick my units and give them whatever I feel will be effective or look cool. The trooper grabs his weapon on the way out of the ship, he's not buying it with the company bank account, using whatever is left after Barry shelled out for the Lascannon

With a good scenario, terrain and opponent, you can't go wrong and even asymmetric games can be a lot of fun. If you prefer to focus on efficiency and the intricacies at the list-building stage, have to face randoms or people that min-max, or like to yourself, or worry about losing/gaining an unfair advantage etc. there's a different system called points you might be more comfortable with. That's not virtue-signalling either, everyone plays for their own reasons.

I don't find PL useless because the points change. The points system has no bearing on power levels or my use for them.

 deviantduck wrote:
The default is points because that's what's been used for 30 years through 8 editions.

Kang: "The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again. Tomorrow, when you are sealed in the voting cubicle, vote
for me, Senator Ka... Bob Dole."

You'd think after 3 decades of points systems failing in 40k people wouldn't believe in those so fervently.

They're just a tool for setting up games. They're not perfect and there seems to be no real advantage to making them more and more detailed.

Is there really any difference in the balance of tournament 40k vs tournament Sigmar?

Can any system to balance games really survive the concerted effort to break them? To use the very system to set up balanced games to seek out imbalanced lists in order to win?

Comparing Points to a measurement of Mass is a fair comparison, because we're seeking balance of armies. If I put a mass of 2000 kg on one side of a balance, and a mass of 2000 kg on the other side, it doesn't matter if there are 2000x 1 kg masses on one side, and 100x 20 kg masses on the other. Both sides have 2000 kg.

Both systems can generate balanced games, hypothetically.

The comparison to $1 vs $20 is demonstrably false. By paying in $20 increments I may get a better deal ($109 value for $100) or I may get a worse deal ($99 value for $100) but by the time we get to $2000 we would be out by no more than 1%, or $20. If you think GW's point system is more accurate than 1%, you may not be fairly assessing the situation.

This discussion is using incorrect definitions for specific terms, and is reaching incorrect conclusions by using "common vernacular" in place of specifically defined terms. See y'all in a couple days with a more technical thread.

 deviantduck wrote:
The problem with the secondary PL point system, as peregrine has tirelessly stated, is that it's redundant.

How is optional redundancy in a game a problem?

 deviantduck wrote:

It also drives the wedge between casual and competitive communities deeper forcing them even farther apart which is bad for the game and bad for all its players.

I really don't see this at all. How does using a different point system drive a wedge between communities? I'm sure those competitive players really wish they could play against narrative gamers, but OH NO! that stupid PL got in the way again! If anything it probably reduces chaffing between the groups since casual players won't be getting curbstomped by competitive players on a regular basis.

 deviantduck wrote:

Before the dumpster fire of 8th, the argument was about internal codex balance, external codex balance, and army composition derived from said balance. Now before we have the army composition discussion we have to decide which point system to even create that army composition from. I've played both and it is crazy how lopsided games can be in the PL point system.

It's still about unit balance and composition even in PL. The game plays a little different but it's never been lopsided for me.

 deviantduck wrote:

The default is points because that's what's been used for 30 years through 8 editions. PL was suddenly shoe-horned in as a fast, friendly and less accurate way of creating a roster. They created a redundant point system. Balance would be the closest thing to a 3rd party that could exist, but that's a really intangible, subjective yard stick. Points is the scale because GW invented it and said this is the scale. They invented the space men, they wrote the rules, they created the points. We're just opinions. They are the fact. They said this little blue space man is 13 points. Done. You can say 'well, maybe he's really 12, or maybe he's 14', to argue about balance, but you'd be wrong. He's 13. They told us that. Or... you can use power level and go, 'Eh, let's just call it 20 cause addition is hard.' (the public you, not you in particular.)

Ergo, points are arbitrary and don't necessarily reflect balance. Just like PL.

 deviantduck wrote:
99% useless? If PL had never existed we'd never miss it.

Define "we". Also, PL only needs 1 use to be useful. It's faster than points, therefore it's useful. QED

 deviantduck wrote:

I was insinuating flat earthers are the end result when people rely on feelings instead of facts.

Ahem:

They invented the space men, they wrote the rules, they created the points. We're just opinions. They are the fact.

Said company also made PL. I guess PL values are a true reflection of army strength.

Anyway, PL is basically just a gauge for how big a battle you want. It does it's job well enough if you understand what it's for. Arguing that it's useless is really pointless. It has a use. You don't use it. I use it. End of story.

 deviantduck wrote:
The problem with the secondary PL point system, as peregrine has tirelessly stated, is that it's redundant.

If one group of players likes one system and another likes a different system, is one really redundant? Seems like they are having a use. Giving people the option they want to choose.

Before the dumpster fire of 8th,

https://investor.games-workshop.com/2018/02/05/trading-update-and-dividend/

Make record sales and then the next announcement after that is that they are still growing more than expected?

Are you sure 8th is an actual dumpster fire and not just not meshing with you personally? I think 8th might be what a ton of people have been looking for from a 40k edition for a long time.

The default is points because that's what's been used for 30 years through 8 editions.

Given that data sheets have power level and points are found tucked in the back in an appendix, isn't it more reasonable to say that power level is the default and points are the add on?

Points is the scale because GW invented it and said this is the scale.

If GW saying it makes it so, then I guess Power Level is the new scale. It's the one right on the data sheets and not tucked in the back.

Personally, I'd like both 40k and Age of Sigmar to both have both systems of points and power level as different people like them for different reasons.

They invented the space men, they wrote the rules, they created the points. We're just opinions. They are the fact.

And power levels are right on the data sheets. "They are the fact" as you say.

But actually an argument from authority isn't something you should rely on.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Comparing Points to a measurement of Mass is a fair comparison, because we're seeking balance of armies. If I put a mass of 2000 kg on one side of a balance, and a mass of 2000 kg on the other side, it doesn't matter if there are 2000x 1 kg masses on one side, and 100x 20 kg masses on the other. Both sides have 2000 kg.

Mass is the 3rd party that is considered accurate already, so you're comparing both systems to a 3rd party. We don't have this luxury in our game. We have to compare the systems to each other which leaves PL with the short end of the stick.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Both systems can generate balanced games, hypothetically.

5 SoB Dominions with bolters = 60 pts or 5 PL.
5 SoB Dominions with 4 Meltas, 1 Combi-Melta, and 1 Inferno Pistol = 156 pts, or 5 PL.
It doesn't look like we're both going to end up balanced. In fact, we end up with 3120 pts vs 2000 pts.
This is an extreme example but it suggests PL has way more room for unbalanced games, whether intentional or not.

 greatbigtree wrote:
If you think GW's point system is more accurate than 1%, you may not be fairly assessing the situation.

The 1% was referring to the only argument anyone has said that wasn't feelings based is that PL has simpler addition that lets you calculate the totals faster. So it's 99% useless instead of 100%.

 deviantduck wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Both systems can generate balanced games, hypothetically.

5 SoB Dominions with bolters = 60 pts or 5 PL.
5 SoB Dominions with 4 Meltas, 1 Combi-Melta, and 1 Inferno Pistol = 156 pts, or 5 PL.
It doesn't look like we're both going to end up balanced. In fact, we end up with 3120 pts vs 2000 pts.
This is an extreme example but it suggests PL has way more room for unbalanced games, whether intentional or not.

That's because you're using points as a metric for balance. No matter what you do points will always be the most comparable to...points. It's like saying yards are more accurate than meters because 1 meter is 1.1 yards and 1 yard is....1 yard. Points and PL are different like how meters and yards are different. They do the same thing but not quite in the same way.

For your example: a full on melta army is about the worst idea ever. Even ignoring the fact that meltas are overpriced no one would ever actually play that, other factors such as long ranged support, anti-infantry and your own vehicles dampen any such extremes from actually occurring. That 3000 pts list would be eaten alive by most standard 2000 pt lists (especially Orks or Guard). Which just shows how meaningless that point value is. (the inferno pistol is basically wasted points as well)

I gotta just say power levels are garbage. You get stuff like the traitor knight costing something like 5 power levels less for the knight warden for the exact same thing because the upgrades are averaged out. Also the entire system falls apart in an instant once one guy starts maxing his units for it by just taking all the high cost upgrades.

 mew28 wrote:
I gotta just say power levels are garbage. You get stuff like the traitor knight costing something like 5 power levels less for the knight warden for the exact same thing because the upgrades are averaged out. Also the entire system falls apart in an instant once one guy starts maxing his units for it by just taking all the high cost upgrades.

when I use PL, my opponent and I already have an understanding we're playing for a scenario/specific mission and not cheese/spamming. it's kinda the exact opposite of what those of us who play PL want in a game. usually we play to a scenario, did one back in jan I defended w 75pl against his 100pl. it was unbalanced on purpose. we play all wysiwyg and consistent loadouts.

I had high hopes for the Power Level system.

The primary weakness of points is that it treats everything as having isolated value. A bolter-wielding Space Marine is 13 points regardless of whether he's a Tactical Marine in a Combat Squad or an ablative wound for his unit of Devastators, for example. That doesn't make much sense, since each Marine will contribute differently to the outcome of the game.

Some units become more effective the larger they are - Ork Boyz, for example. Others are more efficient when taken in smaller units.

Similarly, most weapons will be more effective when wielded by a model with higher BS. Short-ranged weapons will be more effective when wielded by units with high Movement or deep-strike capability. Any weapon will be more effective when mounted on a platform that survives long enough to use it. The points system (with a few exceptions) struggles to take this into account.

The points system is basically terrible at accounting for "combined value" - the true value of a unit can be more (or less!) than the sum of its parts.

That's the niche where a PL system could really shine, if it was implemented correctly. Unfortunately, they decided to just go with a less-precise version of the points system, which just compounds the problem.

 mew28 wrote:
I gotta just say power levels are garbage. You get stuff like the traitor knight costing something like 5 power levels less for the knight warden for the exact same thing because the upgrades are averaged out. Also the entire system falls apart in an instant once one guy starts maxing his units for it by just taking all the high cost upgrades.

when I use PL, my opponent and I already have an understanding we're playing for a scenario/specific mission and not cheese/spamming. it's kinda the exact opposite of what those of us who play PL want in a game. usually we play to a scenario, did one back in jan I defended w 75pl against his 100pl. it was unbalanced on purpose. we play all wysiwyg and consistent loadouts.

when I play points I kinda expect a diff game. I play against Primarchs and do decent against them. so I hope for more "balance" and I get it w points.

hell back in the day we used to play no points just run what ya bring. so I guess that's open play.

GW gives me 3 ways to play, and I use them.

I'm disappointed in the number of times I've had to read the phrase "virtue signalling" in this thread. Apparently any expression of opinion must have an ulterior motive now.