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.

Not requiring a hard limit =/= not having a hard limit. GW gives no guidance on whether to treat the point limit in a PL game as a hard limit, a rough guideline, or anywhere in between. You just compare point totals, something that happens the same way in a hard-limit game as it does in a soft-limit game.

Another thing to remember is that in many of the missions (pretty much all of Open and Narrative) you get to know the mission before you pick your army. Selecting your army is after you determine the mission being played.

I guess you could pre build your army to a specific points value with a set 1000 or 2000 points but you don't have to. And if you're going to be building an army on the fly, then a faster system like PL is very useful.

Also, the idea that you could not compare point totals until after you've deployed just doesn't match with reality. Even when treating the point limit as a soft limit you're still going to say "let's play a 50 point game" so you each know roughly how much stuff to bring. You're not going to have nonsense scenarios where nobody has any idea how big the game is, you end up with a 10-point skirmish army against a 500-point Apocalypse army and the game is over in one shooting phase.

 Peregrine wrote:
Not requiring a hard limit =/= not having a hard limit.

Non required hard limits. LOL. I'm sure all the married bachelors play 40k that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, the idea that you could not compare point totals until after you've deployed just doesn't match with reality. Even when treating the point limit as a soft limit you're still going to say "let's play a 50 point game" so you each know roughly how much stuff to bring. You're not going to have nonsense scenarios where nobody has any idea how big the game is, you end up with a 10-point skirmish army against a 500-point Apocalypse army and the game is over in one shooting phase.

Wargaming is a group activity involving people. So of course you talk about things. And you get your ball pack set when you do the army selection part of the mission. If Only War says you need "roughly equal" then why would you bring a 10 PL skirmish vs a 500 PL apocalypse army?

I don't know why you don't want to even see it in the text that Open and Narrative play simply don't have the points limit of matched play. None, as in zero, of the scenarios talk about power levels as any sort of limit. They're always in very general comparative terms and differences are assumed to the point that they are used to determine other parts of the scenario like who is the defender or underdog or whatever.

You've spent this entire thread and how many months since 8th came out critiquing, complaining about and advocating for the scrapping of a power level system that you don't even know the basics of how to use. Stop and think about that.

 Chamberlain wrote:
Non required hard limits. LOL. I'm sure all the married bachelors play 40k that way.

Try reading again? "GW does not require a hard limit" is not the same thing as "don't use a hard limit". The actual situation is that GW does not specify that you treat the point limit as a hard limit in a PL game, but they don't say not to either. They give no guidance at all on how much, if at all, you should exceed the agreed-on point total by and all of their "lower player gets a bonus" mechanics are perfectly compatible with an X-Wing style system with a hard limit and a bid for the preferred side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chamberlain wrote:
If Only War says you need "roughly equal" then why would you bring a 10 points skirmish vs a 500 point apocalypse army?

You wouldn't. But you're the one who said that you wouldn't add up points until after deployment. If you genuinely don't add up points until after deployment then you won't know how uneven the forces are because you'll have no idea how many points you're deploying. The obvious fact is that you're adding up points during list construction, and both players know exactly what point totals they have before putting a single model on the table.

I don't know why you don't want to even see it in the text that Open and Narrative play simply don't have the points limit of matched play. None, as in zero, of the scenarios talk about power levels as any sort of limit. They're always in very general comparative terms and differences are assumed to the point that they are used to determine other parts of the scenario like who is the defender or underdog or whatever.

They don't talk about it, presumably because it's such an obvious thing that it doesn't need to be stated explicitly. Before the game you agree on a point total, whether you're using PL or conventional points. Whether to treat the agreed-on point total as a hard limit or a soft limit is an entirely separate question. The missions themselves don't care, they just assign the lower-point advantages to a player regardless of whether your 50-point game is 48 points vs. 52 points with a soft limit or 49 points vs. 50 points with a hard limit (and a bid for underdog status).

You've spent this entire thread and how many months since 8th came out complaining about a power level system that you don't even know the basics of how to use. Stop and think about that.

I'm not sure why you're so stubborn on this. "PL doesn't work the way you think, it's even worse" is hardly a compelling defense of the concept.

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.

This, maybe Peregrine should try out a PL game without any of their preconceived notions. But probably couldn't lower themselves to not play with points.

That's fine, the rest of us (and GW) will continue to use PL and have fun.

Racerguy180 wrote:

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.

This, maybe Peregrine should try out a PL game without any of their preconceived notions. But probably couldn't lower themselves to not play with points.

That's fine, the rest of us (and GW) will continue to use PL and have fun.

I don't use PL.

Racerguy180 wrote:
This, maybe Peregrine should try out a PL game without any of their preconceived notions. But probably couldn't lower themselves to not play with points.

That's fine, the rest of us (and GW) will continue to use PL and have fun.

I could try playing a game without points, but that wouldn't prove anything about PL. PL is a point system, calling your points "power levels" instead of "points" doesn't change what it is. And making upgrades cost zero points does not change how the game is played. Nor does re-scaling the point system by dividing everything by 20.

At this point, I'm praying for a thread lock. Not sure what has been accomplished other than me realizing I probably just "ignore" another poster. We're also pretty far off-topic from the OP. We went from "Do power levels need to be updated?" to "Does power level even exist" to " blah, blah, blah, virtue signaling, blah, blah". Time for me to bow out of this one.

Peregrine is militant in all of his opinions. You're never going to get a concession out of him. Regardless of how well the argument is constructed. He is incapable of seeing any other opinion than his own, as valid.

"He's more machine now than man."

Well im officially just leaving this thread, ty Peregrine you naff.

 Peregrine wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
This, maybe Peregrine should try out a PL game without any of their preconceived notions. But probably couldn't lower themselves to not play with points.
That's fine, the rest of us (and GW) will continue to use PL and have fun.

I could try playing a game without points, but that wouldn't prove anything about PL. PL is a point system, calling your points "power levels" instead of "points" doesn't change what it is. And making upgrades cost zero points does not change how the game is played. Nor does re-scaling the point system by dividing everything by 20.

Power levels do not guarantee "fun".
It is just another means of "matching up" to armies for play.
It will not prevent someone from taking way less or way more upgrades to the unit than "normal".
I really hate it when someone brings a really plain / weak army with no real tactical thought for it and suddenly I am the bad guy even though I use the same power levels.
That seems to be a lesser issue with full points, it does not remove it completely but it sure helps.

If the points were money and we were shopping for something, we would shop around and try to get the most bang for our buck.
It feels like how companies want you to buy their tokens/credits to make the money you spend even more abstract so you are less inclined to do the math of how much the thing you are getting really costs.
Somehow by abstracting the real "worth" of the units makes it all the more "casual".

Just trying to wrap my brain around the need for two systems.
Power Levels seem the easiest to Min/Max so they seem rather useless pointing to the OP.
I think that is why you do not see tournaments made to PL's: it is like shooting fish in a barrel.
As to justification of fluff: there are quite a few armies that can easily justify getting all the toys because they REALLY need them all!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Non required hard limits. LOL. I'm sure all the married bachelors play 40k that way.

Try reading again? "GW does not require a hard limit" is not the same thing as "don't use a hard limit". The actual situation is that GW does not specify that you treat the point limit as a hard limit in a PL game, but they don't say not to either. They give no guidance at all on how much, if at all, you should exceed the agreed-on point total by and all of their "lower player gets a bonus" mechanics are perfectly compatible with an X-Wing style system with a hard limit and a bid for the preferred side.

GW does in fact treat points as having a hard limit; neither player may exceed their chosen points limit. No such rule exists for PL. Therefore GW does not require a hard limit in PL.

For the giggles, one more shout out.

Point levels do not accurately indicate a unit's capabilities. Particularly when it comes to upgrades.

While one could, hypothetically, load up units like Vanguard Vets and Death Company and the like with expensive upgrades, you very quickly run into diminishing returns. Look at a 10 man unit with 2 Power Fists vs a 10 man unit with 10 power fists... how many models will likely make it to combat?

Yes, they could drop and charge something and absolutely murderate it. To death. And then to removed from the Game. Then to the really removed from even the removed from the game zone.

But... it's probably going to be a screening unit, at the competitive level. You probably could have done the same with 2 fists. So you then get shot up. A lot. Because getting hit by that again on something valuable would be one of those things you'd like to avoid. So you wind up with maybe 4 guys left over?

The "point" of this, is that the True Value of that unit never really gets higher than 10 dudes with 2, maybe 3 fists. Points invested beyond that are "wasted" because you get little to no return on them. Hence, using the PL approach can (and does) create a more realistic True Value, regardless of the upgrades taken on such a unit. Presuming you were going to take a handful anyway, and you were.

Points in that case gives you a potential value, but not a true value. How often would you get to harness that full potential? Seldom, if ever. The PL equivalent gives you a more accurate relative value for that unit.

That only really holds in those extreme examples though. What about a devestator squad with 2 lascannons Vs 4. which gives a more accurate representation. Because few upgrades effect durability in this game it is reasonable to say that if you have to pay for the upgrades maxing out on squads that can take a ton of upgrades is never worth it, but might be if you don't pay for it.

In the end powerlevel (if taken competitively) just shifts the meta toward units with effective or no upgrades as it hurts those units with marginal upgrades that never get taken but that you "pay for" in power level.

Take a squad of vanguard veterans. They are 8 powerlevel for 5 with jump packs, the equivalent of 160 points. Their base point cost for this is 90 points. So unless you invest 70 points into wargear that is effective for this squad, they are not very good in powerlevel. Essentially if in points you aren't willing to invest 70 points because they are too fragile, then they probably are never good in power level regardless of what you equip them with even if you can load them down with enough wargear to get them to 210 points (all thunder hammer and plasma pistol, and melta bombs) so you Ne 50 free points. The squad while it hits harder, still dies as easily. Just the Thunder hammers comes close to the 160 mark, at 170 points so if you wouln't run a squad of Venguard vets with 5 thunderhammers in points, you are likely never to do so in power (assuming you care about efficiency at all).

The real beneficiaries are armies where you already want equipment that puts them over their PL cost. So devestators with 4 lascannons and a cherub, benefit a bit because you save ~10 points.

So it just changes the meta and what is good.

Personally I prefer points, but I have used power and see situations where I would prefer to do so.

I keep hearing upgrades are "free" for PL.
I look at it as cup half full: you are allowed full use of any upgrades you feel you need, taking anything less is a "loss" of what points you paid for.

The Sternguard example seems a bit strange with power fists, the devastator squad is better since from turn one you have full use of your 4 lascannons.

As mentioned, it changes the "meta" where if you like your upgrades, say maybe it brings 'character" to your squads, then this is the points system for you.

 deviantduck wrote:

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.

Thanks!

Why wouldn't you let people swap stuff out? Its for cheaper stuff. Just sticking to the example if Player A wants his guys with a Heavy Bolter over a Lascannon with his Tac, isn't that a benifit to you even though he is just going to use the Hellfire strategem on you all the time?

I have really felt the issues with PL have been people feeling that it provides too many options where people can min/max and get more than they should. If you corrected that with some simple verbiage, the problem goes away. The most expensive option is the base purchase. Its only where someone wants to take a perceived cheaper option would they be making the bargains that make the game interesting.

Min/maxing with Power Levels just isn’t in the spirit of what they’re intended for. TFG-ing Power is just silly. It’s a pick up and play mechanic, not an environment for min-maxers. Looking at it with that philosophy is all kinds of wrong and explains why some folk can’t see the point in Power Levels.

Myself, I found they generated imbalances too often as my opponent does proxy-min-max and I don’t, so Points gave us a more level playing field. It in no way makes Power invalid, just not for me very often.

So say you take the last 2000 point army you played and then play it against the winning lists of either the LVO or Adeptiicon.

Take a 100 PL army where you just take what's cool to you and then take it against a 100 PL army built by the same people who come up with the top tournament lists.

Is anyone really under the illusion that a given points or PL list will be equal to another? What about the illusion that they should be? Or can be? Maybe those are more appealing illusions.

If the goal is a system where every combination of things at a given points or power level produces a game where only player skill and luck decide the outcome, then both points and power level are useless.

Fortunately though, that's not the goal of those systems. They're just tools to set up games and they're supposed to produce different results when people use them for different purposes.

The key is to make sure you and your opponent are looking for the same thing. Like when you go to a tournament you agree that the system should be used to make the most powerful thing possible.

Perhaps there is a range of expectations and the real key to making 40k work for people is to communicate with one another, stop insulting their approach to a game and just work on finding people who want the same thing and being flexible enough when you find people who want what is close enough to what you want from the experience.

The original post was more about the 20:1 ratio for points:power ratings. With points getting updated, that is no longer as universal as it once was. Does that make power level useless? No, because it was never about being a 20:1 conversion of points. That might be how it was originally calculated, but that's not what gives it validity or utility.

Can you use it to set up games? Yes.
Does it offer something other systems don't? Yes.
Do you personally like it or not? Irrelevant.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Does it offer something other systems don't? Yes.

What though? What can exclusively be done by power levels that can't be done with points?

 Blacksails wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

Does it offer something other systems don't? Yes.

What though? What can exclusively be done by power levels that can't be done with points?

Daemonic summoning. Thats all I know of personally.

 Blacksails wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

Does it offer something other systems don't? Yes.

What though? What can exclusively be done by power levels that can't be done with points?

Power level is a points system. It's just a simpler one. So it offers the benefits of that simplicity. Apparently people like that.

 Blacksails wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

Does it offer something other systems don't? Yes.

What though? What can exclusively be done by power levels that can't be done with points?

More relaxed army building which is blessing for those who are interested in more of modeling so they can build models without too much worry. Also great for those who want to build armies cheaper in money wise.


Also good way to ensure you avoid tfg's!

tneva82 wrote:
More relaxed army building which is blessing for those who are interested in more of modeling so they can build models without too much worry.

Ignoring the cost of upgrades is not "more relaxed" and doesn't save you from worrying. Better and worse upgrade choices still exist, and a poorly optimized PL list is still weak. And any player attitudes about playing with lower-power lists and not optimizing everything happen exactly the same way under the conventional point system.

Also great for those who want to build armies cheaper in money wise.

PL does nothing to change the financial cost of an army.

Also good way to ensure you avoid tfg's!

Or just give TFG a clear message that you're a "casual" player with a bad list and therefore easy prey for their optimized PL list.

tneva82 wrote:

More relaxed army building which is blessing for those who are interested in more of modeling so they can build models without too much worry.

Gaming buddy of mine put hunter killer missiles on his rhinos.

In a points game, this would make his overall list worse.

In a PL game, this would not make his overall list worse.

Seems really strange to say PL doesn't do anything points doesn't.

Regardless of which people think is better, I know he'll enjoy shooting those missiles, so it's working for him.

Also great for those who want to build armies cheaper in money wise.

Lots of ebay and 2nd hand miniatures sold don't have the optimum load out and go for very cheap because of it.

-

 frozenwastes wrote:
Gaming buddy of mine put hunter killer missiles on his rhinos.

In a points game, this would make his overall list worse.

In a PL game, this would not make his overall list worse.

Gaming buddy of mine didn't put hunter killer missiles on his rhinos.

In a points game, this would make his overall list better.

In a PL game, this would make his overall list worse.

Changing which units are the best choice is not an improvement, it's just change.

Lots of ebay and 2nd hand miniatures sold don't have the optimum load out and go for very cheap because of it.

Lots of cheap miniatures don't have the optimum loadout for PL games and are a bad way to build a list.

frozenwastes wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

Does it offer something other systems don't? Yes.

What though? What can exclusively be done by power levels that can't be done with points?

Power level is a points system. It's just a simpler one. So it offers the benefits of that simplicity. Apparently people like that.

Which isn't something points doesn't also offer, unless you're going to claim points are complicated. We both they're not.

tneva82 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

Does it offer something other systems don't? Yes.

What though? What can exclusively be done by power levels that can't be done with points?

More relaxed army building which is blessing for those who are interested in more of modeling so they can build models without too much worry. Also great for those who want to build armies cheaper in money wise.


Also good way to ensure you avoid tfg's!

How does power levels help modellers over points? Model what you want, and then just pay the points for that model. I also can't fathom a reason power levels make your army cheaper.

*Edit* I also scratch my head whenever people say power levels are great for when you don't care about min-maxing or making optimal choices, but then are bothered that certain builds using points is not optimal (like the HK missile example above). If you don't care about optimization, then at least have the consistency to not care about optimization in both systems.

 Peregrine wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
Gaming buddy of mine put hunter killer missiles on his rhinos.

In a points game, this would make his overall list worse.

In a PL game, this would not make his overall list worse.

Gaming buddy of mine didn't put hunter killer missiles on his rhinos.

In a points game, this would make his overall list better.

In a PL game, this would make his overall list worse.

Changing which units are the best choice is not an improvement, it's just change.

This is actually a good point, but in a different way. I agree with your posts so far, that PL is just sacrificing granularity for an illusion of casualness and a minuscule amount of extra simplicity.

But what PL does offer is a different meta. Consider a competitive player who might want to use different armies and fight different armies than the current FOTM without intentionally gimping themselves. PL allows you to do that, since PL is not a direct translation from points and free upgrades also affect different units to varying degrees.

It would hardly be more balanced, or offer more choice than points, but it would offer different choice, and let's be honest, the current 40k ruleset with points doesn't offer that many options anyway if you want to be optimal.

PL isn’t concerned with you upgrades so you aren’t punished for putting cool gear on a model for appearance in points you are. As such if you don’t want to worry about upgrade efficiency in points I pay for those suboptimal choices.

Breng77 wrote:
PL isn’t concerned with you upgrades so you aren’t punished for putting cool gear on a model for appearance in points you are. As such if you don’t want to worry about upgrade efficiency in points I pay for those suboptimal choices.

Of course PL is concerned with upgrades. You are punished for NOT putting upgrades on models. Like the look of LRBTs without sponsons? Too bad, sucks to be you, your list is going to be bad if you don't glue those sponsons on.