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.

Yep. Thats why I've mentioned I use PL because I prefer simpler methods for constructing armies, and it has nothing to do with me trying to signal that my virtue is superior to someone that likes points.

Power levels would have worked out if they had just limited the forces more into more templated version and worded it differently.

If they had said a Tactical squad for a Space Marines was 10 PL and comes with a Sarge with a Power sword, A Lascannon Heavy Weapon, and a Plasma Gun special. If you choose, you can replace the Power sword with a Chain sword, the Lascannon with a ML/ Plasma cannon/ Heavy Bolter/Multi Melta, and the Plasma gun with a Flamer/Melta gun for no cost. You can also bring less than 10 troopers if you choose.

Reemule wrote:
Power levels would have worked out if they had just limited the forces more into more templated version and worded it differently.

If they had said a Tactical squad for a Space Marines was 10 PL and comes with a Sarge with a Power sword, A Lascannon Heavy Weapon, and a Plasma Gun special. If you choose, you can replace the Power sword with a Chain sword, the Lascannon with a ML/ Plasma cannon/ Heavy Bolter/Multi Melta, and the Plasma gun with a Flamer/Melta gun for no cost. You can also bring less than 10 troopers if you choose.

That's the best suggestion I've read. A fast points system for balanced games using Pre-Fab units. That is a useful system that fills the gap between granular points and a pile of models. I wouldn't let them swap out anything though.

 EnTyme wrote:
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.

It's just a rhetorical technique that donkey-caves on the internet have discovered is an effective way to undermine an argument without engaging in a merit-based discussion. Any time someone uses the term, you can immediately and in good conscience ignore or dismiss them, because you can be certain they're not arguing in good faith and will add nothing of value to the conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
Power levels would have worked out if they had just limited the forces more into more templated version and worded it differently.

If they had said a Tactical squad for a Space Marines was 10 PL and comes with a Sarge with a Power sword, A Lascannon Heavy Weapon, and a Plasma Gun special. If you choose, you can replace the Power sword with a Chain sword, the Lascannon with a ML/ Plasma cannon/ Heavy Bolter/Multi Melta, and the Plasma gun with a Flamer/Melta gun for no cost. You can also bring less than 10 troopers if you choose.

Yeah, that would have worked much better. The ideal would have been if they'd managed to deliver on the notion that the members of each class of weapon follow a "separate but equal" idea - that a plasma gun would be equal in "power" (and therefore cost) to a flamer or a meltagun, but with different specialised roles.

Oh man , is it really time to debate points v power level again?

Some people are happy playing PL, some aren't. Simple enough!

 AaronWilson wrote:
Oh man , is it really time to debate points v power level again?

Some people are happy playing PL, some aren't. Simple enough!

No, seemingly it's to simple for some people

 kadeton wrote:
It's just a rhetorical technique that donkey-caves on the internet have discovered is an effective way to undermine an argument without engaging in a merit-based discussion. Any time someone uses the term, you can immediately and in good conscience ignore or dismiss them, because you can be certain they're not arguing in good faith and will add nothing of value to the conversation.

No, it's an entirely accurate way of describing the situation. People are using PL because they believe that "casual" games and players are superior and the use of PL is a statement to more competitive players that they aren't welcome. Their game isn't improved by using a point system that is less balanced, they're just "casual" players so they use the "casual" system and reject the "competitive" system. I'm not sure why this is a controversial claim, people have openly admitted it in this thread.

Yeah, that would have worked much better. The ideal would have been if they'd managed to deliver on the notion that the members of each class of weapon follow a "separate but equal" idea - that a plasma gun would be equal in "power" (and therefore cost) to a flamer or a meltagun, but with different specialised roles.

This would have worked fine, if GW had done it. A system where a unit has a fixed point cost and all of its upgrade options have equal strength on the table would have worked. In fact, it would have been great for a mass-scale game like 40k, where the standard game has effectively become Epic in 28mm. But the system can't work if, as GW did in 8th, the upgrade options have a wide range of strengths and there are unit configurations that are clearly more effective for their point cost than others.

(And of course the system would also have been improved by GW dropping the ridiculous "power level" name and just calling it what it is: a point system.)

You read way too much into the use of power. And it being about players signaling to other players that they are not welcome. The closest it might come to that is people signaling that they are looking for a more casual experience and that is perfectly fine, the competitive player can either play with them or not based on if he wants to play a casual game. You act like these players would play against hardcore competitive lists before because points, and now they won’t and that letting you know is bad. It has nothing to do with superiority over other players it is “I like to play the game less seriously, if you want the same cool, if not then we shouldn’t play each other.” Is it really that hard to understand that people might enjoy the game differently than you do?

Regardless of points vs PL, virtue signalling is a thing and it should be picked up on, and can be legitimately picked up on. Sometimes people use it just to dismiss, but sometimes it's warranted.

Breng77 wrote:
And it being about players signaling to other players that they are not welcome.

Of course it is. Direct quote:

Yeup same here. FLGS uses PL for team tournies, keeps the nonsense at bay for the most part. Hard core players stay away, the Power Levels mean everyone can bring their fun stuff. Fun has been had since we went that route over points.

The closest it might come to that is people signaling that they are looking for a more casual experience and that is perfectly fine, the competitive player can either play with them or not based on if he wants to play a casual game.

IOW, it is virtue signalling. Instead of saying "I'm looking for a game with weak lists" people are using PL as a sign of how "casual" they are.

Is it really that hard to understand that people might enjoy the game differently than you do?

Of course not. But assuming that all upgrades cost zero points is not "enjoying the game differently". It doesn't change the way the game is played, it doesn't work any better for "casual" play, and it just changes the way you build the strongest possible list. PL isn't about improving the game experience, it's about showing off how "casual" you are in front of everyone else.

So you interact with jerks sorry for you, but to take that out on everyone who might enjoy something that you don't is meaningless.

SO it is a problem for you to know how casual someone is? Virtue signaling implies that they somehow feel that they are better than you because of it. That is not my experience mine is that they don't enjoy the same level of list design you do, or level of play and it is easier to avoid both with PL because people like you who want serious competition want points. There is literally no difference between "want a game?" "Sure" "ok 50 power!" "Oh I don't play power", "oh sorry that I don't play points." (or the opposite) than "Want a game?", "sure, 1500 points." "Ok what do you play." "Eldar" "oh I really don't want to play eldar I'll pass." Except in one instance people pass on the game based on expected level of competition, and the other they pass based on faction. Or further along list. I bring lists to games and typically they are points and on the competitive side. If there is only one guy at the store and he wants a casual game I'd much rather play power because then I don't have to re-write a list using points from the ground up, but can instead quickly grab my stuff and get to the table.

PL isn't about building the strongest possible list for most people that use it because they aren't interested in doing that. Which is why they use PL in the first place. This is your disconnect, you cannot seem to fathom an environment where people might build lists on the spot, and/or not try to build the most powerful list possible. In both those cases PL works decently well. Bottom line is there is not "bad, wrong fun." The only justification PL needs is that some people enjoy it more than points. You don't and thats fine, and if your local area is all PL trying to exclude you that sucks, but it might also speak to the need for the system. If those players consistently held events where they got stomped it may well have created the culture that exists.

Breng77 wrote:
PL isn't about building the strongest possible list for most people that use it because they aren't interested in doing that. Which is why they use PL in the first place. This is your disconnect, you cannot seem to fathom an environment where people might build lists on the spot, and/or not try to build the most powerful list possible. In both those cases PL works decently well. Bottom line is there is not "bad, wrong fun." The only justification PL needs is that some people enjoy it more than points. You don't and thats fine, and if your local area is all PL trying to exclude you that sucks, but it might also speak to the need for the system. If those players consistently held events where they got stomped it may well have created the culture that exists.

It's also great for those interested in models as it removes the issue where you have to trim down on gear to stay within points, often adding in stuff that just makes things too expensive to be worth it. And then during army build you have extra hassle shuffling up units around to ensure you didn't go 1 pts up because your sergeant has bolt pistol rather than laspistol.

Makes hobby also cheaper as you don't need tons of alternative models!

And in the end either way game is unbalanced. Points have their good sides but balance is not one of those. If you want to play balanced games you do not use points.

Breng77 wrote:
So you interact with jerks sorry for you, but to take that out on everyone who might enjoy something that you don't is meaningless.

Not true at all. Plenty of people enjoy things I don't enjoy and I have no problem with that. For example, I have zero interest in hardcore competitive 40k tournaments but I don't go around ranting about "WAAC TFGs" or whatever. That's because, unlike a lot of "casual" players, competitive players seem mostly content to organize and play in competitive events and don't have the same smugly condescending attitude towards people who enjoy other things.

There is literally no difference between "want a game?" "Sure" "ok 50 power!" "Oh I don't play power", "oh sorry that I don't play points." (or the opposite) than "Want a game?", "sure, 1500 points." "Ok what do you play." "Eldar" "oh I really don't want to play eldar I'll pass."

Of course there is a difference. Asking for a PL game doesn't really explain what you're looking for, except for the weird virtue signalling aspect where PL is assumed to be "casual" because it is a poorly designed system. And it's absurd to say "I don't play points" when talking about using a point system like PL to play your game.

The correct way to handle the situation is to have a conversation about what kind of list strength everyone is looking to play at, which can be done just fine with the conventional point system, but that doesn't have the same opportunity to show off how "casual" you are because you're using a less-balanced point system and making your game worse.

This is your disconnect, you cannot seem to fathom an environment where people might build lists on the spot

I honestly can't. Do people really bring their entire collections to a game just in case they want to make list changes? Hauling the models for a standard list or two is already enough of a pain, I can't imagine having to carry thousands of points of extra stuff and building lists right before the game.

In both those cases PL works decently well.

It may "work", but so does the conventional point system. The power level point system adds nothing to the situation, other than virtue signalling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
And then during army build you have extra hassle shuffling up units around to ensure you didn't go 1 pts up because your sergeant has bolt pistol rather than laspistol.

No, instead you have the extra hassle of shuffling entire units because you're one point over the limit. PL makes this situation worse because the minimum point increment that you can adjust your list by is a larger percentage of the total. If you're one point over in a conventional points game you can just say "my sergeant has a laspistol" and play the game. If you're one point over in a PL game you have to swap an entire unit and hope that the point costs work out correctly.

Makes hobby also cheaper as you don't need tons of alternative models!

This is hilarious because people will also claim that one of the strengths of PL is that you can swap out upgrades (and therefore alternative models) easily because they all cost zero points. By this argument you need more alternative models if you use PL as your point system.

If you want to play balanced games you do not use points.

Then what do you use?

 Peregrine wrote:
Do people really bring their entire collections to a game just in case they want to make list changes? Hauling the models for a standard list or two is already enough of a pain, I can't imagine having to carry thousands of points of extra stuff and building lists right before the game.

Given I only really get to play with PL, store rules, I can tell you that basically yes, people bring their case, then agree a number of power levels, and given it's so simple the lists are ready to go in 2 or 3 minutes. It's handy for size disconnects. Lets say I brought around 100 PL, and the other person only brought around 50. It's far quicker to make a 50 PL list to match the other guy's than make a new 1000 point list. Then later in the day if someone has 80 PL you can easily make an 80PL list on the spot.

Didn't we have a mod in here earlier saying to lay off on the "virtue signaling" BS?

 Peregrine wrote:
Do people really bring their entire collections to a game just in case they want to make list changes? Hauling the models for a standard list or two is already enough of a pain, I can't imagine having to carry thousands of points of extra stuff and building lists right before the game.

Why do you automatically go to the most ridiculous extreme? That people are hauling around entire collections? Why not assume that they are hauling around the equivalent of the "standard list or two" of a single faction and then just picking from those based on what the other people bring and are interested in doing for a game? Why assume the least reasonable behaviour?

Are weekly games are usually at a particular level as people can come directly from work and transporting more models is annoying. Some still bring like 50% more than what was talked about and then decide on the spot. Others bring a pre written list. Our monthly club days though, people bring more stuff, but never entire collections except for apocalypse type days (which would be discussed in advance). And yes we do arrange our games and pick our forces right on the spot. There might be three people ready to play and the scenario recommends roughly equal armies, so maybe the two imperial players will team up at 25 PL each while the necron player puts down 50 PL or so. Or we might end up playing an attacker and defender scenario where one side is supposed to have half again as much as the other. Lots of the scenarios recommend different army sizes for the attacker and defender, so making our lists in advance and only bringing those would be a very bad idea.

 auticus wrote:
Didn't we have a mod in here earlier saying to lay off on the "virtue signaling" BS?

A mod expressed their personal opinion that they dislike the term. It wasn't in red text, it isn't anything more than their personal opinion.

I do find it funny that people get mad about virtue signaling.

"Hey! Stop being such a good person over there! What's more, stop telling people you're a good person! We don't need your type around here, you good person who is proud to be a good person! We want good people who will shut up and take it lying down!"

 Chamberlain wrote:
Why do you automatically go to the most ridiculous extreme? That people are hauling around entire collections? Why not assume that they are hauling around the equivalent of the "standard list or two" of a single faction and then just picking from those based on what the other people bring and are interested in doing for a game? Why assume the least reasonable behaviour?

Because if you aren't hauling around a standard collection and just have the equivalent of a standard list or two then the "time savings" of PL is meaningless. You just pull out your standard list and play. If you're making adjustments it's usually going to be in the form of fixed unit swaps (trading an infantry squad for a LRBT, etc) from your standard units, because you don't have a ton of spare models to change which units you have. Adding +220 points is not meaningfully faster than adding +11 points for the same unit. The only time you care about saving a few minutes adding up point costs if if you're building a list from scratch out of everything you own and have no idea what you're going to use or how your units are going to be equipped.

Lots of the scenarios recommend different army sizes for the attacker and defender, so making our lists in advance and only bringing those would be a very bad idea.

If you're playing these scenarios so frequently then why not start having standard lists for them? If you bring a collection of lists in 250 point increments you can easily set up those games. Need to play 2v1? Pull out your 1000 point lists and a 2000 point list. Attacker gets 50% more points? 1000 points and 1500 points. Etc. Pulling out a standard list is even faster than adding up power level points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do find it funny that people get mad about virtue signaling.

"Hey! Stop being such a good person over there! What's more, stop telling people you're a good person! We don't need your type around here, you good person who is proud to be a good person! We want good people who will shut up and take it lying down!"

You're missing the point about virtue signalling. It isn't about being a good person, it's about telling people how superior you are. People who use PL as virtue signalling aren't good people (at least no more so than anyone else), they're just smugly condescending about how they are playing "real 40k" and everyone else is "doing it wrong" and "WAAC TFGs".

I must say the only impression I get from this thread is you, Peregrine signalling everyone who is playing with PL that he/she is "doing it wrong" or a "CAAC" player. Your posts come across for me as the kind of "virtue signalling" you're describing the PL-users with. By now everyone here has understood that PL has no use for you, no problem with that. But I don't see the need of trying to convince everybody that they're playing the game wrong when they don't use the point system or die-hard army lists you seem to prefer.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because if you aren't hauling around a standard collection and just have the equivalent of a standard list or two then the "time savings" of PL is meaningless.

I'm not convinced it is because I see it happen every month. If I bring around 150 PL give or take and then play as part of a multiplayer game where we have somewhere around 50 PL each, then I have the equivalent of one and a half 'standard lists' but could make so many different forces. The next game during the day might be at 97 PL. Then maybe a skirmish with like 21. What it will be will depend on what everyone is doing, who's ready to play a game, who's still in the middle of a game and what table space and terrain is available when we want to start.

Lots of the scenarios recommend different army sizes for the attacker and defender, so making our lists in advance and only bringing those would be a very bad idea.

If you're playing these scenarios so frequently then why not start having standard lists for them? If you bring a collection of lists in 250 point increments you can easily set up those games. Need to play 2v1? Pull out your 1000 point lists and a 2000 point list. Attacker gets 50% more points? 1000 points and 1500 points. Etc. Pulling out a standard list is even faster than adding up power level points.

So now I need to have standard lists with set point chunks I play over and over? Why would I give up variety if I don't have to? Why have the same 1000 points I play? Why not put the stuff in my carrying case that I think is cool and just figure it out before the game? It's super fast with PL and I don't have to pre build these rigid chunks.

 Peregrine wrote:


No, instead you have the extra hassle of shuffling entire units because you're one point over the limit. PL makes this situation worse because the minimum point increment that you can adjust your list by is a larger percentage of the total. If you're one point over in a conventional points game you can just say "my sergeant has a laspistol" and play the game. If you're one point over in a PL game you have to swap an entire unit and hope that the point costs work out correctly.

This just shows that you don't know how to use PL. PL does not have a hard cap that you cannot exceed like points usually do. A game of 49 PL vs 52 PL is perfectly fine. And of course the underdog gets a nifty bonus such as winning tie breakers.
The thing is that PL is useful for determining the overall size of the game. 25 PL is a small game, 50 PL is a medium sized game, etc... And since army composition is more important for balance than strict points, having a difference of 3-5 PL won't really change the outcome of the game anyway. So any inconsistencies between points and PL don't matter because the PL wasn't even matched in the first place.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I must say the only impression I get from this thread is you, Peregrine signalling everyone who is playing with PL that he/she is "doing it wrong" or a "CAAC" player. Your posts come across for me as the kind of "virtue signalling" you're describing the PL-users with. By now everyone here has understood that PL has no use for you, no problem with that. But I don't see the need of trying to convince everybody that they're playing the game wrong when they don't use the point system or die-hard army lists you seem to prefer.

The Bird of Prey isn't virtue signaling. He's not saying PL is useless because they're CAAC players, he's saying the PL is a useless system compared to granular points. Several people on here have argued that they use it to keep other players excluded, and they are virtue signalling. From my experience over the last few editions I've seen a lot more WAAC players make dumbed down lists and play fluffy games versus CAAC players than I've seen CAAC players stepping up and appeasing the WAAC crowd. I've definitely gotten the 'it's my ball, i'm going home' vibe from casual players way more than competitive players.

Dandelion wrote:
PL does not have a hard cap that you cannot exceed like points usually do.

Wrong. Tolerance for exceeding the point limit has nothing to do with whether your upgrades cost zero points or not. This may be how some people do it, but it is not a rule provided by GW. You can play with conventional points and treat the point limit as a rough estimate, and you can (as many people seem to do) treat the point limit in a PL game as an absolute limit. Don't give the broken PL system credit for something you can do regardless of which point system you're using.

 Peregrine wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
PL does not have a hard cap that you cannot exceed like points usually do.

Wrong. Tolerance for exceeding the point limit has nothing to do with whether your upgrades cost zero points or not. This may be how some people do it, but it is not a rule provided by GW. You can play with conventional points and treat the point limit as a rough estimate, and you can (as many people seem to do) treat the point limit in a PL game as an absolute limit. Don't give the broken PL system credit for something you can do regardless of which point system you're using.

Actually GW does explicitly permit PL imbalances. Some of the narrative and Open War Card missions even use "the player with the highest power level..." or "the player with the lowest power level..." to determine things instead of the players rolling off. I think the player with the lowest PL even gets to go first.

Not that I would expect you to have read them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Actually GW does explicitly permit PL imbalances. Some of the narrative and Open War Card missions even use "the player with the highest power level..." or "the player with the lowest power level..." to determine things instead of the players rolling off. I think the player with the lowest PL even gets to go first.

Not that I would expect you to have read them.

Permit =/= require. The missions allow armies with different power levels, they do not provide any guidance on how much of a difference is "close enough" or require that at least a 1-point difference in PL be acceptable. Nor do any of GW's rules require that a game with conventional points treat the point total as an absolute limit or have both armies use the same point limit. You are free to treat the point limit in a PL game as a hard limit (and in a 20 PL game with a hard point limit a player who brings 19 PL will still be "the player with the lowest point total" and get the relevant advantages, just like bidding for initiative in X-Wing) and you are free to treat the point limit in a conventional points game as a rough guideline.

Guys, rein it in. You're getting towards the same kind of talk that got a warning from the mod the first time. Keep things civil, for all of our sake.

It's actually right in the very first scenario. The one that comes with the free rules primer pamphlet/PDF.

"Before battle begins, determine each army’s Power Level by adding together the Power Ratings of all the units set up in that army; whichever player has the lowest is the Underdog"

The default expectation of 8th edition 40k right from the beginning is games where the power levels don't have to match.

Then if you go to the main rulebook and start working through the game content you'll find a mix of equal and unequal missions with very few mandating that they have to be equal.

I think I may start another thread about this, but very little of the game content for 8th edition 40k mandates equal power level.

Again, unequal points and having a hard limit are not mutually exclusive concepts. For example, in X-Wing tournaments the 100 point limit is absolute. If your list is 101 points you will be disqualified for cheating. However, the game still gives initiative to the player with the lowest point total. Players bid for initiative by deciding how many points under the limit they will be, and you often get 100-point games with 99 points vs. 97 points or whatever.

Missions:


Warhammer 40k rulebook: Number of missions with a set limit: 12. Number without: 17 And many missions don't even have you compare PL until after deployment is finished. You just need to be in the ballpark like one third to twice as many.

On to Chapter Approved:


Chapter Approved: Number of missions with a set limit: 12. Number without: 15

Total: With limit: 24. Without 32.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Again, unequal points and having a hard limit are not mutually exclusive concepts. For example, in X-Wing tournaments the 100 point limit is absolute. If your list is 101 points you will be disqualified for cheating. However, the game still gives initiative to the player with the lowest point total. Players bid for initiative by deciding how many points under the limit they will be, and you often get 100-point games with 99 points vs. 97 points or whatever.

You're not looking at the actual rulebook and what it says.

There's no limit like that for the majority of the scenarios. Go read them. Go play them. They are fun.

This is from the matched play section of Chapter Approved:

"The total points value of your army is the sum of all the Detachment points values in your army plus any reinforcement points you have chosen to put aside (see below). The points value of your army should not exceed the points limit you are using for the battle."

That is for matched play battleforged with points. This concept just does not apply to the 32 scenarios that don't use limits like that nor the missions generated by the Open War cards.