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.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Honestly, Im fine with people using PL, but i'd never use PL myself aside from Apocalypse games (where I can't be asked to count up 10,000+ points of wargear and models.)

The major complaint I have for PL is chapter approved and the major FAQs. GW have done absolutely zip all to amend the power level for the units changed in those FAQs and the book, even though some of them REALLY need it.

If you do PL, Guilliman is still an absolutely undercosted monster, since all of his nerfs were from the FAQs and the CA book.

That's just a radical example, but a really good example none the less.

As someone who *does* use PLs, I’d agree with this. I know it’s a rough metric, but there are still some fairly obvious outliers; it’d be nice to see it tweaked from time to time.

If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?

 KTG17 wrote:
If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?

Nothing, except I get the impression that PL players aren't playing the game like that. Which is why it's not for everyone, and that's fine.

 KTG17 wrote:
If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?

The same thing that doesn't stop people from bringing 5 Terminators with power fists and combi-meltas

 KTG17 wrote:
If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?

PL isn't for people who think like that.

The GSC list I just used in a game (points) was 75 PL and 1250 points on the dot. If i was using PL, I'd be essentially counted as 250 points (20%) higher for the same list. Would you like to play a game of 1250 vs 1500?
A tau list I have sitting around? The same 75 PL, but... 2053 points.
How much would you enjoy playing 1250 vs 2053?

Talinsin wrote:
The GSC list I just used in a game (points) was 75 PL and 1250 points on the dot. If i was using PL, I'd be essentially counted as 250 points (20%) higher for the same list. Would you like to play a game of 1250 vs 1500?
A tau list I have sitting around? The same 75 PL, but... 2053 points.
How much would you enjoy playing 1250 vs 2053?

Hey, i've beat people in a handicap game before!

However, this. This arguement cannot be stated enough. There is a horrible imbalance in Power Level that goes far beyond "just casual" and goes into "just sloppy".

 vaklor4 wrote:

The major complaint I have for PL is chapter approved and the major FAQs. GW have done absolutely zip all to amend the power level for the units changed in those FAQs and the book, even though some of them REALLY need it.

Minor correction: GW did adjust the PL of Knights in the admech codex to match to Knight codex. Now, if only they'd do that for other units...

Power Level and point player here. No there are some bad outliers in balance but as is always said, that is the case with points too.

When people post things like "what's to stop someone abusing it horribly" I really do wonder about the mindset though. Power. Levels. Are. Not. For. Matched. Play.

Ahem, with that off my chest I do get the feeling that many on this forum are more worried about their opponent possibly scamming them in some way or another than actually enjoying the game.

There are many of us out here who could not give two hoots if there is 4 point difference per model or whatever. I mean...beyond making the most efficient list possible who cares?

That's not what power levels are there for. They've given you the tools for that.

If somebody does decide to make sure their army is maxed out to the extreme with power levels without telling their opponent first (honestly I've seen it argued on here that this is the only reason anyone looks to play with PL) then I rather think that they'd be asked to tone it down or play a game with points in future as. That person clearly does not have the maturity to be playing a different type of game.

I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity that makes someone max out on upgrades. That's just a different mindset.

Some people are in it because they just want to throw dice and faff about. Others want everyone involved to try their hardest to win, so they can get a challenging and rewarding game.

And neither side is wrong. It's totally fine to just use the game as an excuse to drink some brews, hang with friends, and have a good time. It's also fine to focus on the game itself.

I've been making some PL based lists and I'm really enjoying it!

You can still do th whole battleforged thing, and detachments, etc, but you don't have to use the matched play rules.

The narrative missions and open war mission in the book are pretty fun!

 JNAProductions wrote:
I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity that makes someone max out on upgrades. That's just a different mindset.

Some people are in it because they just want to throw dice and faff about. Others want everyone involved to try their hardest to win, so they can get a challenging and rewarding game.

And neither side is wrong. It's totally fine to just use the game as an excuse to drink some brews, hang with friends, and have a good time. It's also fine to focus on the game itself.

Forgive me I meant if one is abusing power level in order to get a win in a game mode that is not really about that then I'd consider them a little immature. No offence to people who enjoy making a ruthless list but really that's what points are for, letting you tinker away with the minutia finding the best value.

Dai wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity that makes someone max out on upgrades. That's just a different mindset.

Some people are in it because they just want to throw dice and faff about. Others want everyone involved to try their hardest to win, so they can get a challenging and rewarding game.

And neither side is wrong. It's totally fine to just use the game as an excuse to drink some brews, hang with friends, and have a good time. It's also fine to focus on the game itself.

Forgive me I meant if one is abusing power level in order to get a win in a game mode that is not really about that then I'd consider them a little immature. No offence to people who enjoy making a ruthless list but really that's what points are for, letting you tinker away with the minutia finding the best value.

Well, I guess we interpreted the situation differently.

I saw it as PUG, all that's said is "50 PL game" or whatever. One person brings a very casual, non-competitive list, the other brings a list armed to the teeth.

You saw it as including a decent amount of pre-game talk, where it was made clear this was just a friendly throw-down.

I definitely agree that, if someone says "Hey, let's just have a fun, non-competitive game" and you bring the hardball, you're a jerk.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Oh, I've been playing long enough that I can remember points from several editions ago, for multiple codexes. Remembering isn't a problem.

But frankly, I don't care enough to calculate every weapon, every upgrade, every model, when I'll have a more relaxed game taking a blank unit, paying a flat price, and just playing by what I see on the model.

Of course, YMMV.

this ^---^

If I'm playing a veteran player(RT or 2ed) like me, we play PL, if I'm playing the younger guys in our group I'll play points. I generally prefer PL since I hate cutting or adding to get to a specific point value. it generally works out even and I have no problem facing someone at a handicap.

 KTG17 wrote:
If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?

Nothing? It's just not as powerful as you think - that unit is 7 PL, which translates to about 140 points. It costs 124 points if you bought it using points. Throw a useless powerfist on the champion and it's still cheaper for points than for PL.

In general, PL works fine when you want to quickly write up a list from the models you have, or where piling upgrades onto units doesn't actually do a whole lot like in apoc. No upgrades you can buy for points are going to save you from a castellan (or bigger) shooting you.

 KTG17 wrote:
If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?

Integrity.
Morals.
Sportsmanship.
...oh wait...40k players...gak.
Forget that.

ValentineGames wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
If you were playing Deathguard, what is stopping you from arming everyone with Plasma guns or whatever other option instead of bolsters, using the same PL, so long as you had the models?

Integrity.
Morals.
Sportsmanship.
...oh wait...40k players...gak.
Forget that.

Yes, how dare someone want to build a good list!

Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.

 JNAProductions wrote:


Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.

If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.

If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.

So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?

Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.

If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.

So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?

Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.

Then use points. It's simple.

PL is abusable, if it wasn't then points wouldn't need to exist.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.

If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.

So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?

Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.

I don't think it is a great system, but then again, the aim is not always to build a good list, but simulate a battle in the fictional universe. If your aim is to build as good list as possible than the PL is the wrong system for you.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.

If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.

So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?

Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.

There's a worlds distance of difference between a good list and I took my time to find every loophole and silly rules interaction to break the game open as much as I can. PL is designed to quickly get your models on the table and maybe try some new models for a causal game. It's clear from GW it was not meant to be used during what GW considers a matched play environment.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.

If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.

So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?

Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.

"Good" is relative.

Good doesn't always mean ultra-competitive soup CP farm "if it's 1% less powerful it's trash" lists.

"Good" to someone could be the Ultramarines Second Company, built exactly as shown in the Space Marine Codex (so ten man squads, Devastators using a variety of weapons within the same squad, Sergeants carrying power swords and power fists despite it not being 100% points efficient)
"Good" could be an all Terminators list, with one person's entire TDA collection squaring off against a horde of Tyranids through a narrow pass, a la 300.
"Good" could be simply whatever wargear and units you like to field.

In that respect, Power Level is brilliant at making "Good" lists. If you're going in to make min-maxed competitive lists, you're using the wrong way to make them. It's like using a paint roller to paint a model - the roller is suited for making good painted walls and ceilings, not for making good painted miniatures.

TL;DR Power Level is, IMO, successful in what it is designed to do, and is not designed to fill the role that normal points do.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.

If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.

So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?

Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.

Min/maxxing to get the most points for your PL doesn't always translate to "building a good list". Deathwatch Marines are 2PL/model, which sounds like they should be 40pts/model, but in this thought experiment it is possible for me to build teams loaded with combi-plasmas and heavy thunderhammers that cost upwards of 60pts/model, and still only pay 2PL/model. Does that mean my list is better/more OP, or am I still spending 40pts per single-Wound T4 model?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.

If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.

So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?

Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.

Min/maxxing to get the most points for your PL doesn't always translate to "building a good list". Deathwatch Marines are 2PL/model, which sounds like they should be 40pts/model, but in this thought experiment it is possible for me to build teams loaded with combi-plasmas and heavy thunderhammers that cost upwards of 60pts/model, and still only pay 2PL/model. Does that mean my list is better/more OP, or am I still spending 40pts per single-Wound T4 model?

I mean, it's better to get the most out of your models. No, Veterans don't seem a good choice in PL due to that, but if you're gonna field them, might as well bring them for a bear.

I guess part of why I responded the way I did is that the poster above me said "If I have the models for it"-meaning they're still playing WYSIWYG.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Again, if the pre-game talk includes "Don't bring a hard list, I just want a casual, laid-back experience" then you're a jerk for bringing hardball lists. But if you didn't make that clear, why the hell WOULDN'T someone bring the best list they can? Are they expected to just KNOW that they should play down? Because to me, that seems like poor sportsmanship.

If you're playing with the PL in the first place, then it is implicit that you don't min-max, as the PL break if you do.

So, if you try to build a good list, the system breaks down?

Sounds like a pretty poor system if that's the case.

Min/maxxing to get the most points for your PL doesn't always translate to "building a good list". Deathwatch Marines are 2PL/model, which sounds like they should be 40pts/model, but in this thought experiment it is possible for me to build teams loaded with combi-plasmas and heavy thunderhammers that cost upwards of 60pts/model, and still only pay 2PL/model. Does that mean my list is better/more OP, or am I still spending 40pts per single-Wound T4 model?

I mean, it's better to get the most out of your models. No, Veterans don't seem a good choice in PL due to that, but if you're gonna field them, might as well bring them for a bear.

I guess part of why I responded the way I did is that the poster above me said "If I have the models for it"-meaning they're still playing WYSIWYG.

WYSIWYG is certainly a good control on people trying to min/max PL. I don't know about you but I don't have a lot of Deathwatch Veterans built with combi-plasmas and thunderhammers.

There's a sort of implicit don't-look-at-the-man-behind-the-curtain about PL; it works fine barring some corner cases if you need a quick shortcut to list-building or you're just starting, but if you start to try and explore the corner cases it falls apart. It isn't a "good system" because it's built on top of a system that's already fuzzy and imprecise, it compounds its own errors on top of extant points-cost errors, and you should definitely not use it if you're taking the game seriously or organizing a tournament, but it works reasonably well as the quick/casual shortcut it was designed as.

If power levels were not written into the rules, it would be called cheating.

Here's a fun exercise to try.

Take a 100 PL list and max out each unit. Translate that list into points. Divide the points by the PL and see what number you get.

Then take a 100 PL list from an army you don't like - Grey Knights, for example - and get the points for that. Do the same division and compare them.

In an ideal world, you would get the same number for how points translate to power levels for each Codex. But that's not going to happen, you are going to find each Codex gives a different number.

The problem is it's so unfair. For 100 PL, I can get 2450 points of CSM and 1780 points of Grey Knights. That's never going to be fun.

You should always play WYSIWYG anyway. But yeah, PL weirdly works better if you play using points most of the time, and have your unit's equipped under that assumption. Then it is unlikely that your units actually are decked out with every piece of most expensive gear they in theory could take.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Honestly, Im fine with people using PL, but i'd never use PL myself aside from Apocalypse games (where I can't be asked to count up 10,000+ points of wargear and models.)

The major complaint I have for PL is chapter approved and the major FAQs. GW have done absolutely zip all to amend the power level for the units changed in those FAQs and the book, even though some of them REALLY need it.

If you do PL, Guilliman is still an absolutely undercosted monster, since all of his nerfs were from the FAQs and the CA book.

That's just a radical example, but a really good example none the less.

I mean all Apocalypse are going to be scheduled ahead of time basically. If you have time to make a 2000 point list, it isn't much longer to make a 10000, surprisingly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
Honestly, Im fine with people using PL, but i'd never use PL myself aside from Apocalypse games (where I can't be asked to count up 10,000+ points of wargear and models.)

The major complaint I have for PL is chapter approved and the major FAQs. GW have done absolutely zip all to amend the power level for the units changed in those FAQs and the book, even though some of them REALLY need it.

If you do PL, Guilliman is still an absolutely undercosted monster, since all of his nerfs were from the FAQs and the CA book.

That's just a radical example, but a really good example none the less.

I mean all Apocalypse are going to be scheduled ahead of time basically. If you have time to make a 2000 point list, it isn't much longer to make a 10000, surprisingly.

Oh, believe me I did try. Originally we were gonna bring 10,000 points, but after three days, we decided it was just kinda...Too much to account. I only got half way through army building and I was about two full sized pieces of paper in. (Bare in mind neither of us had a particularly large amount of lords of war.)