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.

 techsoldaten wrote:
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.

last time I checked war isn't fair, so why should wargaming be? PL is not for anyone trying to play hardcore or anything other than for fun.

I dont care if it's fair, it's the challenge of being the underdog or specifically picking an objective to deny your opponent. I think most PL players kinda feel the same, at least everyone I've played PL with.

 techsoldaten wrote:
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.

So you're saying 2000 points of CSM are equal to 2000 points of Grey Knights? Wait till Karol hears about that!

Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.

Well then it needs to start being balanced as such. gak like Alpha Legion and Raven Guard was perfectly fine, hell it improved the game, at matched level. If it was ruining casual play it should have been given rules for casual / power level play and not fethed with for matched.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.

Well then it needs to start being balanced as such. gak like Alpha Legion and Raven Guard was perfectly fine, hell it improved the game, at matched level. If it was ruining casual play it should have been given rules for casual / power level play and not fethed with for matched.

I'm not talking about matched play though? I'm talking purely about the different types of points, not the systems they're attached to.

If you're salty about the changes made in the FAQ, that's unrelated to this discussion.

 vaklor4 wrote:

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.)

Making lists is all part of the fun, and point optimization goes with that. Trying to squeeze every last point is pretty fun.

If it helps, have an idea in mind, and separate the sections by 2500. Everything will eventually come together and you'll figure out how to fill in everything.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Making lists is all part of the fun, and point optimization goes with that. Trying to squeeze every last point is pretty fun.

To you. It is fun to you. Not everybody feels that way.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Making lists is all part of the fun, and point optimization goes with that. Trying to squeeze every last point is pretty fun.

To you. It is fun to you. Not everybody feels that way.

I love making lists, but the last bit of points squeezing is my least favorite bit. Mind you, power level has the opposite effect, where it feels like im working with feet when I should really be working with inches.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.

Well then it needs to start being balanced as such. gak like Alpha Legion and Raven Guard was perfectly fine, hell it improved the game, at matched level. If it was ruining casual play it should have been given rules for casual / power level play and not fethed with for matched.

I'm not talking about matched play though? I'm talking purely about the different types of points, not the systems they're attached to.

If you're salty about the changes made in the FAQ, that's unrelated to this discussion.

It's not a separate discussion at all. It's the most important part of this discussion. Its no point having a working ruleset for casual play if they are going throw changes aimed at casual into matched play. I'm not even remotely salty at that part of the FAQ, I don't run either army and it's inclusion is a net buff for own. I just don't like what it means from a game design perspective, and that's why I mentioned it, as it's my number one point of improvement concerning having two separate game modes. Not sure what all this gaslighting is about.

Hi, long time lurker here. I just wanted to add.
My group has played since 8th went live. using only PL.
We have found its great for casual play. I can blam a list out in 10 mins and play.
I have one of the largest collections on figs over 500 PL in Tyranids.
PL requires talking to your opponent about the game. I think we have only seen one real unbalanced game and that was due to a list building error.
PL works great for casual play.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Its no point having a working ruleset for casual play if they are going throw changes aimed at casual into matched play.

This statement depends on the premise that competitive play is more important than "casual". If you discard that premise and assume that "casual" is more important then it's 100% fine to make "casual"-oriented changes as a priority and not care about the side effects on the tiny minority of hardcore tournament players.

Not that there's really any conflict between the two. Good balance and good design are good regardless of who is playing the game, and both "casual" and competitive play can be improved simultaneously. If a change is genuinely good for "casual" games then it's almost certainly also good for competitive play, and we should ignore the whining from tournament players who don't like their meta being changed.

Pl don't work too well for units that have varying gear options that they don't want to take. Like nobz. All the power klawz and stuff is included in their price tag even though you don't generally want to take all the pks. Furthermore, they're calculated on the pre-ca prices.
They are also not evenly distributed among armies. It's a usual situation to get a 100 pl game where one army ends up with 1700 pts and another one with 2300.

Pl are a way to introduce new players to the game. Or to play apoc games where balance is not a consideration.

But generally, just stick to points.

I was watching the Warhammer TV twitch stream with Duncan last night (from Friday the 6th, I think), and they were talking about narrative games. For example, the climax of the Tyranid invasion of Macragge. That was the 1st company's defence of the polar fortress. You know the forces present - only 100 Terminators, Vanguard and Sternguard. Just round up all the appropriate models you have. No point worrying about the points value, since you'll be using the models as they are. Just tot up the PL to see roughly how many Tyranids to start with, and perhaps to use as a victory condition (for example, say the marines need to kill the same PL as themselves in 'nids before being wiped out for them to win, perhaps).

You could use points, but there's no real benefit to doing it. You've already chosen the forces, so you'd just be doing a more fiddly calculation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Its no point having a working ruleset for casual play if they are going throw changes aimed at casual into matched play.

This statement depends on the premise that competitive play is more important than "casual". If you discard that premise and assume that "casual" is more important then it's 100% fine to make "casual"-oriented changes as a priority and not care about the side effects on the tiny minority of hardcore tournament players.

There's zero premise at all for that, in fact my statements are aimed at being to the benefit of the casual scene just as much as the competitive by not having changes aimed at one scene tied to both game modes. But I knew when I saw your quote you were probably going to do your tried and truest strategy of opening with a strawman and then discussing that for the next for next paragraph or two.

The change that I referenced concerning Alpha Legion and Raven Guard for example, are two armies that I'm not sure even have a major win between them. Both were nerfed the hardest of all armies in the competitive scene that I can think of, even GSC are still in a better state I think. They were fine competitively, hell they even add a good dynamic, they were a great meta cop that encouraged people to take screens and screen properly. They rely heavily on going first and are far from OP, and have their place in the game.

This change is almost certainly brought on by whining from casual players that hurrdurr I was hotdropped turn 1 and everything charged and surrounded my ball of dreads that I didn't split and i didn't get to play gw please fix. The armies were very punishing against low skill, or casual players. This is the exact sort of design change that belongs in casual modes were they don't want to have to deal with that sort of stuff, but a change that negatively impacts matched play and removes a great dynamic from the equation.

 Peregrine wrote:
and we should ignore the whining from tournament players who don't like their meta being changed.

I love the meta being changed. I'd hate to have a stale meta. This change particularly is of no negative impact to me and benefits my armies. However what I dislike is this heavy handed touch that has basically removed the unique elements of Alpha Legion and Raven Guard from the competitive discussion. Luckily, at least it's the kinda of change that doesn't invalidate many models, and anyone can just play those armies as whatever faction they want really. I don't think this is a salt influenced discussion at all, it's just aimed at taking a sensible look at how we can improve the game. This just seems like you gaslighting as per usual.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
You've already chosen the forces, so you'd just be doing a more fiddly calculation.

Except you haven't chosen the forces, your own plan says "total up the point costs for the marines and then match them against an appropriate point value of enemies". The only difference between the possible point systems is that the one you propose using is less accurate and less likely to produce the desired game.

You've already chosen the Marine side, in this example. Calculating the exact points cost isn't required.

What I missed out, mind you, is that the Tyranid force is an endless wave. What I'm suggesting is a quick way to determine the Tyranids' starting forces. Doesn't need to even be PL; you could just eyeball it, or drop down all the 'nids you have. You could use points, but I don't see that the extra time spent results in a better experience.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
You've already chosen the Marine side, in this example. Calculating the exact points cost isn't required.

What I missed out, mind you, is that the Tyranid force is an endless wave. What I'm suggesting is a quick way to determine the Tyranids' starting forces. Doesn't need to even be PL; you could just eyeball it, or drop down all the 'nids you have. You could use points, but I don't see that the extra time spent results in a better experience.

Getting a roughly estimated point value instead of "all the nids" would just result in a better turn 1-2. It would generally mean the Marines actually have a chance in hell of surviving until the mid-game, where if you just dumped all your nids out turn 1, even Nid shooting being as meh as it is will still smear the marines across the tabletop.

This change is almost certainly brought on by whining from casual players that hurrdurr I was hotdropped turn 1 and everything charged and surrounded my ball of dreads that I didn't split and i didn't get to play gw please fix. The armies were very punishing against low skill, or casual players. This is the exact sort of design change that belongs in casual modes were they don't want to have to deal with that sort of stuff, but a change that negatively impacts matched play and removes a great dynamic from the equation.

Am almost 100% sure that the changes were not made because of casual players. What they do look like,is as if some dudes at the studio or playtest team played eldar for a long time with great success and suddenly were facing armies that could beat them, not problem yet, but which were so efficient they could be piloted to a win by a scrub like me, HUGE problem for tournament players. No of the casual players problems were adressed in the FAQs, nothing got updated to make the game more fun at a casual level. What was done though, was the nerfing of one specific easy enough to play list that could let players like me beat up a GT champion.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
You've already chosen the Marine side, in this example. Calculating the exact points cost isn't required.

What I missed out, mind you, is that the Tyranid force is an endless wave. What I'm suggesting is a quick way to determine the Tyranids' starting forces. Doesn't need to even be PL; you could just eyeball it, or drop down all the 'nids you have. You could use points, but I don't see that the extra time spent results in a better experience.

Getting a roughly estimated point value ...

The Power Level, perhaps?

Karol wrote:

This change is almost certainly brought on by whining from casual players that hurrdurr I was hotdropped turn 1 and everything charged and surrounded my ball of dreads that I didn't split and i didn't get to play gw please fix. The armies were very punishing against low skill, or casual players. This is the exact sort of design change that belongs in casual modes were they don't want to have to deal with that sort of stuff, but a change that negatively impacts matched play and removes a great dynamic from the equation.

Am almost 100% sure that the changes were not made because of casual players. What they do look like,is as if some dudes at the studio or playtest team played eldar for a long time with great success and suddenly were facing armies that could beat them, not problem yet, but which were so efficient they could be piloted to a win by a scrub like me, HUGE problem for tournament players. No of the casual players problems were adressed in the FAQs, nothing got updated to make the game more fun at a casual level. What was done though, was the nerfing of one specific easy enough to play list that could let players like me beat up a GT champion.

What you say is the opposite of the case. The better a player is, the worse AL and RG were against them. If what you say was true, and any old nobody could beat a GT winner with it - where was the GT wins for either army? You wouldn't have a laughing chance va Nick Nanavatis Eldar with your Raven Guard. The armies were scrub killers, not the other way around, and good players were able to screen them out efficiently. They were a capable army but not OP. That element is gone now.

SHUPPET wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.

Well then it needs to start being balanced as such. gak like Alpha Legion and Raven Guard was perfectly fine, hell it improved the game, at matched level. If it was ruining casual play it should have been given rules for casual / power level play and not fethed with for matched.

I'm not talking about matched play though? I'm talking purely about the different types of points, not the systems they're attached to.

If you're salty about the changes made in the FAQ, that's unrelated to this discussion.

It's not a separate discussion at all. It's the most important part of this discussion. Its no point having a working ruleset for casual play if they are going throw changes aimed at casual into matched play. I'm not even remotely salty at that part of the FAQ, I don't run either army and it's inclusion is a net buff for own. I just don't like what it means from a game design perspective, and that's why I mentioned it, as it's my number one point of improvement concerning having two separate game modes. Not sure what all this gaslighting is about.

What "ruleset" for casual play? It's a different method of organising points, the rest of the system is fine. I use Power Level in Matched Play just fine.
Who says that the changes they've made to Matched Play are purely for the "Casual mode"? Maybe those changes are just changes because GW wanted to change Matched Play? Which is unrelated to this discussion.

This discussion is about Power Level. Not Matched Play. Inherently, one does not affect the other.

Just because there's a different way you *could* calculate your army doesn't change the rest of the game. You can use points in Narrative games. You can use Power Level in Matched. The discussion is about the difference of PL vs Points, which the gamemode has no outcome on.

AndrewGPaul wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
You've already chosen the Marine side, in this example. Calculating the exact points cost isn't required.

What I missed out, mind you, is that the Tyranid force is an endless wave. What I'm suggesting is a quick way to determine the Tyranids' starting forces. Doesn't need to even be PL; you could just eyeball it, or drop down all the 'nids you have. You could use points, but I don't see that the extra time spent results in a better experience.

Getting a roughly estimated point value ...

The Power Level, perhaps?

ZING!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

SHUPPET wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.

Well then it needs to start being balanced as such. gak like Alpha Legion and Raven Guard was perfectly fine, hell it improved the game, at matched level. If it was ruining casual play it should have been given rules for casual / power level play and not fethed with for matched.

I'm not talking about matched play though? I'm talking purely about the different types of points, not the systems they're attached to.

If you're salty about the changes made in the FAQ, that's unrelated to this discussion.

It's not a separate discussion at all. It's the most important part of this discussion. Its no point having a working ruleset for casual play if they are going throw changes aimed at casual into matched play. I'm not even remotely salty at that part of the FAQ, I don't run either army and it's inclusion is a net buff for own. I just don't like what it means from a game design perspective, and that's why I mentioned it, as it's my number one point of improvement concerning having two separate game modes. Not sure what all this gaslighting is about.

What "ruleset" for casual play? It's a different method of organising points, the rest of the system is fine. I use Power Level in Matched Play just fine.
Who says that the changes they've made to Matched Play are purely for the "Casual mode"? Maybe those changes are just changes because GW wanted to change Matched Play? Which is unrelated to this discussion.

This discussion is about Power Level. Not Matched Play. Inherently, one does not affect the other.

Just because there's a different way you *could* calculate your army doesn't change the rest of the game. You can use points in Narrative games. You can use Power Level in Matched. The discussion is about the difference of PL vs Points, which the gamemode has no outcome on.

The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.

 SHUPPET wrote:
The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.

But maybe Games Workshop's vision for what they want Matched Play to be is different from yours. Maybe they still want Matched Play changing, regardless of other factors?

And again, what has this got to do with Power Level?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.

But maybe Games Workshop's vision for what they want Matched Play to be is different from yours. Maybe they still want Matched Play changing, regardless of other factors?

And again, what has this got to do with Power Level?

Maybe their vision is different from mine. And maybe it's different from yours. And maybe they want Knights + IG to dominate the meta forever, and maybe they want GK to be a terrible army. Your line of reasoning is a pointless cop-out that has no place in a forum for discussion. The same response could be given to literally anything said on this forum, this is a place where people can have their own say on issues THEY perceive with the game, or gw's vision.

And if you can't see what this has to do with PL, I don't know what to tell you. The argument literally wouldn't exist without PL. It's what I feel is the most important part of making the system work well, and at the same time is mutually beneficial in the system itself helping to change go smoothly. This has everything to do with PL, and it's the next logical step to improving the fact that they have two tiers of gameplay now.

 SHUPPET wrote:

The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.

There are two (well, 3 but only 2 matter here) rulesets: Narrative and Matched. Narrative uses PL and Matched uses points. All beta rules (and organizes play suggestions) thus far have only applied to matched play. Narrative hasn't changed since CA added new missions and scenario rules/stratagems.

So they're already doing what you want them to do.

Dandelion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.

There are two (well, 3 but only 2 matter here) rulesets: Narrative and Matched. Narrative uses PL and Matched uses points. All beta rules (and organizes play suggestions) thus far have only applied to matched play. Narrative hasn't changed since CA added new missions and scenario rules/stratagems.

So they're already doing what you want them to do.

But they're not. This is pretty well established, in fact I first heard the concept from someone literally on the playtesting staff (and you all can too if interested) who feels that there is no split between casual and competitive rulesets at the moment, and casual players are playing matched with little incentive or direction to play PL, and GW is taking this into account during FAQ season, and as a result the competitive ruleset of matched is making concessions for casual-stomping elements one way or another - some that are fine competitively get left in, some get ruled out, and that's not ideal for anyone. The next logical step is to start specifying casual friendly rules for PL play.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.

But maybe Games Workshop's vision for what they want Matched Play to be is different from yours. Maybe they still want Matched Play changing, regardless of other factors?

And again, what has this got to do with Power Level?

Maybe their vision is different from mine. And maybe it's different from yours. And maybe they want Knights + IG to dominate the meta forever, and maybe they want GK to be a terrible army. Your line of reasoning is a pointless cop-out that has no place in a forum for discussion. The same response could be given to literally anything said on this forum, this is a place where people can have their own say on issues THEY perceive with the game, or gw's vision.

It would be a cop out if this discussion was ABOUT Matched Play. It's not. If you want to talk about Matched Play, you can make a thread on it, which the forum supports. The forum does NOT support talking about anything in a thread which is not related to it.

This thread for discussion is about Power Level. Not a free-for-all.

The reason I'm not engaging with this Matched Play debate is because that's not what I wanted to talk about in this thread. This thread is about Power Levels.

And if you can't see what this has to do with PL, I don't know what to tell you. The argument literally wouldn't exist without PL. It's what I feel is the most important part of making the system work well, and at the same time is mutually beneficial in the system itself helping to change go smoothly. This has everything to do with PL, and it's the next logical step to improving the fact that they have two tiers of gameplay now.

What has it got to do with Power Level? Power Level can be used in Matched and Narrative/Open. It's not exclusive to either.

This honestly sounds like you want to talk about the difference between Matched Play and Open/Narrative Play - unfortunately, Power Level doesn't really have anything to do with that. If you want to talk about Matched/Narrative/Open, have you considered making a thread?

The people saying Power Level is for casual fluffy games and is a good rough estimate of points seem to be willfully ignoring the opposing argument.

When we're playing a 75 PL game and I take my fun GSC list (not competitive, balanced TAC list that adds up to 1250 points) vs my fun 75 PL Tau list (not competitive, silly missile spam list that adds up to 2053 points), we're not getting a roughly even match. We're getting two fun, casual lists that will end in an absolute massacre that will be fun for neither side.

If it was only WAAC list building that breaks the system, I'd admit that it was fine for casual games. When casual, fun list building breaks the game to a point where one side has about 60% more than the other, then there's a problem.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What has it got to do with Power Level? Power Level can be used in Matched and Narrative/Open. It's not exclusive to either.

De Jure, perhaps. De Facto, Matched Play is points and Narrative is Power Level.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
The working ruleset for casual games is the same one for competitive games, just with different list restrictions. It's my opinion that these separate game modes need separate changes that reflect the design vision behind each, and also help each mode in not having potentially good changes held back for the sake of the other game mode that would be a casualty of it. I find it difficult to see how anyone could see this to be a bad thing, it would literally only ever be relevant as another way to improve the game for both casual and competitive players.

But maybe Games Workshop's vision for what they want Matched Play to be is different from yours. Maybe they still want Matched Play changing, regardless of other factors?

And again, what has this got to do with Power Level?

Maybe their vision is different from mine. And maybe it's different from yours. And maybe they want Knights + IG to dominate the meta forever, and maybe they want GK to be a terrible army. Your line of reasoning is a pointless cop-out that has no place in a forum for discussion. The same response could be given to literally anything said on this forum, this is a place where people can have their own say on issues THEY perceive with the game, or gw's vision.

It would be a cop out if this discussion was ABOUT Matched Play. It's not. If you want to talk about Matched Play, you can make a thread on it, which the forum supports. The forum does NOT support talking about anything in a thread which is not related to it.

This thread for discussion is about Power Level. Not a free-for-all.

The reason I'm not engaging with this Matched Play debate is because that's not what I wanted to talk about in this thread. This thread is about Power Levels.

And if you can't see what this has to do with PL, I don't know what to tell you. The argument literally wouldn't exist without PL. It's what I feel is the most important part of making the system work well, and at the same time is mutually beneficial in the system itself helping to change go smoothly. This has everything to do with PL, and it's the next logical step to improving the fact that they have two tiers of gameplay now.

What has it got to do with Power Level? Power Level can be used in Matched and Narrative/Open. It's not exclusive to either.

This honestly sounds like you want to talk about the difference between Matched Play and Open/Narrative Play - unfortunately, Power Level doesn't really have anything to do with that. If you want to talk about Matched/Narrative/Open, have you considered making a thread?

I'm literally talking about something equally relevant to matched play as it is to PL. And both topics are very relevant here anyway, it's literally the only measure we have of PL. My entire point is based around the support that I think PL needs to succeed, yes this also improves matched play equally at the same time, but doesnt make it any less relevant to PL. Disagree by all means if you have any logical reason to do so, but at this point it's clear you are just reaching for cop-outs. If you think what I'm posting isn't relevant to this thread get a mod, because as it stands the only one derailing relevant discussion is you with this nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talinsin wrote:
The people saying Power Level is for casual fluffy games and is a good rough estimate of points seem to be willfully ignoring the opposing argument.

When we're playing a 75 PL game and I take my fun GSC list (not competitive, balanced TAC list that adds up to 1250 points) vs my fun 75 PL Tau list (not competitive, silly missile spam list that adds up to 2053 points), we're not getting a roughly even match. We're getting two fun, casual lists that will end in an absolute massacre that will be fun for neither side.

If it was only WAAC list building that breaks the system, I'd admit that it was fine for casual games. When casual, fun list building breaks the game to a point where one side has about 60% more than the other, then there's a problem.

If casual fun list building breaks the game, that's part of the reason PL needs more support.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
You've already chosen the Marine side, in this example. Calculating the exact points cost isn't required.

What I missed out, mind you, is that the Tyranid force is an endless wave. What I'm suggesting is a quick way to determine the Tyranids' starting forces. Doesn't need to even be PL; you could just eyeball it, or drop down all the 'nids you have. You could use points, but I don't see that the extra time spent results in a better experience.

Getting a roughly estimated point value ...

The Power Level, perhaps?

Sorry, meant to saw Power Level I posted that when I was FAIRLY tired.