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.
SHUPPET wrote: 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.
I don't understand how it's the "only measure of PL"? Power level is just a different way you could build your list. Nothing more than that.
Changes to the wider game don't have to be related, and in my view are not, to power level.
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
I believe I have. If you don't find that sufficient, fair enough.
If you want to fix Matched Play, I don't see what Power Level has to do with that. Power Level can be used in Matched. Points can be used for Narrative.
Talinsin wrote: If casual fun list building breaks the game, that's part of the reason PL needs more support.
PL needs support, but I don't think it's as broken as normal points. I'd be open to a potential split value for units - one if they have no upgrades, one if they do take any. The barebones one is a few PL less, and the "upgrades" one is the same (changed for balance) as the current ones.
The only thing we have to measure PLs success as a system against is matched play. The fact that it's just a new way to build your list is exactly the point, and has been the driving focus of every post I've made.
I don't "just want to fix matched play". I want to improve both matched and PL at the same time, by having PL get more focused support from GW. Jesus, it's like you're not even reading.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/10/09 14:50:21
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
SHUPPET wrote: The only thing we have to measure PLs success as a system against is matched play.
This is where I lose you. How is matched play all we have? The only thing we have to compare PL to is the standard points system. That's not "Matched Play". The other aspects of "Matched Play" (so Tactical Restrain, Battle Brothers, etc etc) have no bearing on Power Level.
I swear I'm having de ja vu about posting in a thread about this .. Hmmm
anyways
I'd love if Power Level was an appropriate option to play 40K .. to be able to just pick up models and throw them on a table really quick.
But my chosen factions are at polar opposites of the spectrum.
Necrons - zero choice for gear ... Gauss or Tesla is the hardest choice.
Raven Guard - on the other hand every single model has a choice of several dozen guns and knives and grenades and moist towlettes.
and that's the problem... where so much choice exists when up against an unknown opponent where you want to offer a fun experience as well as take a fun time..
how do you 'KNOW' when too much is too much
one heavy bolter ? ..3 Las cannons .. quad las stormraven or the bolters ...
when nothing has a price ... nothing has a value, so take all the things ... I don't think I'm an awful person for taking a few plasma hell blasters ... they're the only Primaris models I own ... but now I'm suddenly the incarnation of Horus himself for putting them on the table in a power level game ...
But if you weren't compelled to put EVERY possible upgrade on every possible unit, then Power Level work just fine.
PL is based on the average points cost for a unit that is neither un-upgraded, not fully decked out, but rather has the "medium" wargear options.
In short, Power Level will never work for Power gamers, which from those terms alone is ironic.
Not saying anyone in particular is a Power gamer, but if you compulsion is to always take max upgrades "because you can" than of course PLs wouldn't work for you.
If, however, your units were built in a specific way that only adds a few upgrades without the bells and whistles, then PLS work out pretty balanced regardless of playing Necrons or Ravenguard.
Field an army you would be fine playing against and you'll be fine. If you don't want to use power level that's fine too. You don't need to rationalize it's awful to not use it.
Not saying anyone in particular is a Power gamer, but if you compulsion is to always take max upgrades "because you can" than of course PLs wouldn't work for you.
If, however, your units were built in a specific way that only adds a few upgrades without the bells and whistles, then PLS work out pretty balanced regardless of playing Necrons or Ravenguard.
-
that's my entire point though ... my models aren't all built to a competitive standard ... but nowhere is it explained in the book ... that in a 5 man dev squad
3 HBs = good ... but woe betide the man whom taketh a 4th heavy bolter ... and plasma is right out !
so it's left up to me to GUESS if I'm suddenly a power gamer by proxy. and the only measure I have at my disposal is .. how many POINTS are these upgrades ? ... right .. yeah I'm at 200 points of models compared to my mate 120points of necrons ... so I should tone it back a bit.
Power gives Zero indication of where the line is for any inexperienced player to do ... which is the true irony that Narrative is aimed at new players
I will add that I only ever use PLs to make lists for BOTH players, i.e. using my models to play against my other models in games at home against my kids.
This kind of game, and those in which 2 players that always seem to only play against each other, are where PLs are ideal.
Army A consistently beating Army B? Give Army B more upgrades and Army A less. PL stays the same. done.
This is a game designed for players to have fun.
Balanced army lists are equal and fair, resulting in more fun for both players.
Using [Power Level] is a points based system.
Using [Points] is a points based system.
[Power Level] is less granular points than [Points].
Less granularity leads to more imbalance.
More imbalance is less fun for both players.
Less fun is the opposite of the game's intentions.
[Power Level] filled a hole that didn't exist to accomplish a task worse than a system that already existed.
Crimson Devil wrote: I pay 12 points for a powerfist and I get 3 attacks with it. I also pay 12 points for a servo-arm and get 1 attack with it.
Granular points are certainly more fun.
For me, this is part of the appeal with PL. Different wargear options essentially cost the same, so I can take what makes the most sense. In a decent sized army, PL should even out between units that are more or less cost efficient. And armies that are "overcosted" can be somewhat closer to those that are "undercosted" when using PL. GKs, for example are horrible right now when using points, while Eldar are great. If you use PLs instead, the GKs are able to get better wargear to compensate.
Eldar will still be better, but the disparity is not so great, thus the GK player is more likely to have fun. That is the intended purpose of PL. Does it always work out this way? Obviously not, but it CAN and that is my point. With effort, Power Levels CAN be a way to balance 2 armies to be more equal. But likewise it can specifically be abused to increase the disparity. It is always up to the players which direction this goes.
When you have no say in your opponent's list (like in a tourney) than points will be much better.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/09 17:56:46
SHUPPET wrote: The only thing we have to measure PLs success as a system against is matched play.
This is where I lose you. How is matched play all we have? The only thing we have to compare PL to is the standard points system. That's not "Matched Play". The other aspects of "Matched Play" (so Tactical Restrain, Battle Brothers, etc etc) have no bearing on Power Level.
I don't understand what you mean.
This part is not super important to what I was saying, but when everyone, including the people PL is designed for, have been using a different system for decades, the point of reference we have is the original system. Matched Play is not an off topic factor in a thread about why do/dont people play PL. Not that it was the focus of what i was saying. Which is that PL deserves more separate focus if it's own to properly take off, especially if it's in a state already now where some are able to play it, it's time to sharpen that up
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
GKs, for example are horrible right now when using points, while Eldar are great.
If you use PLs instead, the GKs are able to get better wargear to compensate.
only GK do not have any good upgrades to take. Unlike eldar who suddenly are running every bell and whistle their lists. In normal games they may not be running star engines, matrix etc on everything. In a power points game they will, they would be stupid to not to.
What is even more gross, is that the power points of GK units scale just as wack as the points. In power points a unit of paladins or termintors still costs as much as a knight etc
Eldar will still be better, but the disparity is not so great, thus the GK player is more likely to have fun.
no it does not. I tried in 3 games, it changes nothing vs eldar opponents other then them having access to more vehicle upgrades
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/09 21:54:37
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
deviantduck wrote:This is a game designed for players to have fun.
Balanced army lists are equal and fair, resulting in more fun for both players.
Using [Power Level] is a points based system.
Using [Points] is a points based system.
[Power Level] is less granular points than [Points].
Less granularity leads to more imbalance.
More imbalance is less fun for both players.
Less fun is the opposite of the game's intentions.
[Power Level] filled a hole that didn't exist to accomplish a task worse than a system that already existed.
See, I agreed up until you assumed that Power Level being slightly less balanced (I wouldn't say imbalanced) than points made it less fun.
Toiling over lists with a fine-tooth comb and being unable to take aesthetic wargear on models which I so wanted to wasn't fun. Throwing down a random Tactical Squad, and eyeballing based on the weapons that squad is armed with is far more fun for myself.
YMMV.
Karol wrote:
GKs, for example are horrible right now when using points, while Eldar are great.
If you use PLs instead, the GKs are able to get better wargear to compensate.
only GK do not have any good upgrades to take. Unlike eldar who suddenly are running every bell and whistle their lists. In normal games they may not be running star engines, matrix etc on everything. In a power points game they will, they would be stupid to not to.
And right there is why you, or the hypothetical Eldar player, shouldn't play Power Level.
You don't play Power Level to field every possible upgrade and max out on every tiny advantage (meltabombs on my characters! plasma pistols and power fists on all my sergeants! hunter killers for daaaaaaaaaays!). You take it as a fast method of getting your guys on table, and not worrying about the minutia of trying to skimp on that power sword to afford a minor sidegrade. You take it because you're more interested in playing a faster, more loose, game. I understand that's not for everyone, and some people say that their fun comes from believing the game to be as balanced as possible. Which is why they use points. Leave power to the rest.
What is even more gross, is that the power points of GK units scale just as wack as the points. In power points a unit of paladins or termintors still costs as much as a knight etc
Isn't that because it assumes that every Terminator could be armed with a Daemon Hammer? Or maybe that's simply not even a power level issue?
Except that's how Power Level works. If you aren't taking every single possible upgrade you can, you're automatically at a disadvantage. Whereas a more granular system makes you make actual choices when building a list. Of course you aren't going to take a Combi-Weapon, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bomb, and Power Fist on every Sergeant with points, because you actually need to choose whether or not you put all your eggs in one basket.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except that's how Power Level works. If you aren't taking every single possible upgrade you can, you're automatically at a disadvantage. Whereas a more granular system makes you make actual choices when building a list. Of course you aren't going to take a Combi-Weapon, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bomb, and Power Fist on every Sergeant with points, because you actually need to choose whether or not you put all your eggs in one basket.
If you play strictly WYSIWYG and with only (well) painted miniatures, PL is superior to points.
If you are the person that must squeze out every little advantage and consider winning the ultimate goal then you can perhaps not really understand the advantage of PL?
I only use power level simply because both points and power levels lead to the same gaming experience for me in 40k. That being a very imbalanced broken one that requires like-minded people to have a good time with.
Points being more granular means nothing to me when the end result is still a broken imbalanced mess. Its just a more granular broken imbalanced mess.
deviantduck wrote:This is a game designed for players to have fun.
Balanced army lists are equal and fair, resulting in more fun for both players.
Using [Power Level] is a points based system.
Using [Points] is a points based system.
[Power Level] is less granular points than [Points].
Less granularity leads to more imbalance.
More imbalance is less fun for both players.
Less fun is the opposite of the game's intentions.
[Power Level] filled a hole that didn't exist to accomplish a task worse than a system that already existed.
See, I agreed up until you assumed that Power Level being slightly less balanced (I wouldn't say imbalanced) than points made it less fun.
I won't get into the nitty gritty because there's been a dozen threads hashing this out before. Some armies have close balance using power levels, some armies are way off. Overall, all armies are more balanced when you use points over PL.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Toiling over lists with a fine-tooth comb and being unable to take aesthetic wargear on models which I so wanted to wasn't fun. Throwing down a random Tactical Squad, and eyeballing based on the weapons that squad is armed with is far more fun for myself. YMMV.
You can still slap a squad a tacs down loaded however you want with points, too. Just because it's points doesn't mean you have to nitpick/optimize your list. It only means when you are both at the same points level it will be closer to balanced. I get the appeal of slap it down and move on, but I've spent too much time and money to sit down and play a game where one player is at a stark disadvantage versus the other. It makes the game less enjoyable for both parties.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Except that's how Power Level works. If you aren't taking every single possible upgrade you can, you're automatically at a disadvantage. Whereas a more granular system makes you make actual choices when building a list. Of course you aren't going to take a Combi-Weapon, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bomb, and Power Fist on every Sergeant with points, because you actually need to choose whether or not you put all your eggs in one basket.
Only if you treat it like it's a disadvantage. As far as I see it, it's freedom to take whatever I think looks cool or fluffy or simply how I've modelled it. I wouldn't, nor would my opponents, take wargear that wasn't modelled on the model, because that would be abusing the intent of the game we're playing.
A more granular system discourages me from taking equipment because I like the look of it. I love the look of Sergeants tooled up with exotic melee weapons, pistols, etc etc. Devastator Sergeant with plasma pistol and thunder hammer? Sign me up! In points, that would be hamstringing myself, because why would I pay points for equipment I'm hardly ever going to use?
If you're going in to Power Level with the mentality of "I must take everything to maximise combat potential", then that's exactly why you shouldn't play Power Level.
deviantduck wrote:I won't get into the nitty gritty because there's been a dozen threads hashing this out before. Some armies have close balance using power levels, some armies are way off. Overall, all armies are more balanced when you use points over PL.
Those armies will still be imbalanced when using points. A Grey Knight Terminator-fest list will still be imbalanced compared to a tooled up Cadian/BA/Knight soup. A list of 30 Tactical Marines will still be imbalanced to a Guard gunline with Leman Russes and Basilisks for days.
Using points won't change that imbalance. In my experience, take with salt, power level hasn't been imbalanced at all.
You can still slap a squad a tacs down loaded however you want with points, too.
But spending points on upgrades which won't be used (hi thunder hammer Devastator Sergeant!) is handicapping myself. Yes, I say above that "you shouldn't go in with the mentality of being 100% efficient", but that's for Power Level. Points, by it's very design, encourages efficiency.
Just because it's points doesn't mean you have to nitpick/optimize your list. It only means when you are both at the same points level it will be closer to balanced. I get the appeal of slap it down and move on, but I've spent too much time and money to sit down and play a game where one player is at a stark disadvantage versus the other.
"That's like, your opinion, man."
All I can say is that in my experience (salt required), none of my PL games have had a stark disadvantage that wouldn't have been there if we'd played points.
It makes the game less enjoyable for both parties.
[Citation Needed] Power Level doesn't automatically mean less fun. Balanced doesn't automatically mean more fun. If it does to you, great. That doesn't make it a fact that applies to everyone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/10 17:36:32
deviantduck wrote:I won't get into the nitty gritty because there's been a dozen threads hashing this out before. Some armies have close balance using power levels, some armies are way off. Overall, all armies are more balanced when you use points over PL.
Those armies will still be imbalanced when using points. A Grey Knight Terminator-fest list will still be imbalanced compared to a tooled up Cadian/BA/Knight soup. A list of 30 Tactical Marines will still be imbalanced to a Guard gunline with Leman Russes and Basilisks for days.
Using points won't change that imbalance. In my experience, take with salt, power level hasn't been imbalanced at all.
You're comparing the balance of unit effectiveness not points. That's every other thread on this forum except this one. Grey Knights actually benefit from PL because they have a lot of expensive wargear they can take free.
deviantduck wrote:You can still slap a squad a tacs down loaded however you want with points, too.
But spending points on upgrades which won't be used (hi thunder hammer Devastator Sergeant!) is handicapping myself. Yes, I say above that "you shouldn't go in with the mentality of being 100% efficient", but that's for Power Level. Points, by it's very design, encourages efficiency.
You said you like PL because you can just slap down units. I said you can slap down units in points, too. And you replied with but that's handicapping yourself. We've come full circle.
deviantduck wrote:Just because it's points doesn't mean you have to nitpick/optimize your list. It only means when you are both at the same points level it will be closer to balanced. I get the appeal of slap it down and move on, but I've spent too much time and money to sit down and play a game where one player is at a stark disadvantage versus the other.
"That's like, your opinion, man."
All I can say is that in my experience (salt required), none of my PL games have had a stark disadvantage that wouldn't have been there if we'd played points.
It's not opinion. PL is less balanced than Points. You can refer to the 600pt deficit referenced earlier in this thread or the PL v Points breakdown threads that have popped up over the last 1.5 years.
deviantduck wrote:It makes the game less enjoyable for both parties.
[Citation Needed]
Power Level doesn't automatically mean less fun. Balanced doesn't automatically mean more fun. If it does to you, great. That doesn't make it a fact that applies to everyone.
True. Fun is subjective. But I'm speaking in terms of the vast majority of players, not the outliers. Go to a game store and try and find a pickup game. Tell them you're playing 2000 points and they're playing 1400. I'd like to see the number of takers.
deviantduck wrote:I won't get into the nitty gritty because there's been a dozen threads hashing this out before. Some armies have close balance using power levels, some armies are way off. Overall, all armies are more balanced when you use points over PL.
Those armies will still be imbalanced when using points. A Grey Knight Terminator-fest list will still be imbalanced compared to a tooled up Cadian/BA/Knight soup. A list of 30 Tactical Marines will still be imbalanced to a Guard gunline with Leman Russes and Basilisks for days.
Using points won't change that imbalance. In my experience, take with salt, power level hasn't been imbalanced at all.
You're comparing the balance of unit effectiveness not points. That's every other thread on this forum except this one. Grey Knights actually benefit from PL because they have a lot of expensive wargear they can take free.
Units are compared via points. A unit is as effective as it's cost allows. Power Level, being roughly based on the standard points, is affected by this.
deviantduck wrote:You can still slap a squad a tacs down loaded however you want with points, too.
But spending points on upgrades which won't be used (hi thunder hammer Devastator Sergeant!) is handicapping myself. Yes, I say above that "you shouldn't go in with the mentality of being 100% efficient", but that's for Power Level. Points, by it's very design, encourages efficiency.
You said you like PL because you can just slap down units. I said you can slap down units in points, too. And you replied with but that's handicapping yourself. We've come full circle.
No, slapping units down isn't handicapping in and of itself. Slapping units down and having to pay for upgrades which will make my list more expensive is a handicap.
In power level, the costs come baked into the units. It wouldn't matter what they were armed with, as it was just the flat price. When points come in, that means aesthetic upgrades have a tangible effect on what I can actually take in my army.
If I agree to play a 50PL game, I can slap down any models with any upgrades. If I agree to play a 1000 point game, I need to make sure that I don't go overboard because I thought a thunder hammer looked cool.
deviantduck wrote:Just because it's points doesn't mean you have to nitpick/optimize your list. It only means when you are both at the same points level it will be closer to balanced. I get the appeal of slap it down and move on, but I've spent too much time and money to sit down and play a game where one player is at a stark disadvantage versus the other.
"That's like, your opinion, man."
All I can say is that in my experience (salt required), none of my PL games have had a stark disadvantage that wouldn't have been there if we'd played points.
It's not opinion. PL is less balanced than Points. You can refer to the 600pt deficit referenced earlier in this thread or the PL v Points breakdown threads that have popped up over the last 1.5 years.
No, it has the POTENTIAL to be less balanced. It doesn't mean that every PL game will be less balanced. Unless you mean to tell me that a points game for all-GK Terminators vs Souperium is more balanced than a Power Level mirror match game.
I admit PL has the potential to be less balanced. That doesn't make it guarenteed.
deviantduck wrote:It makes the game less enjoyable for both parties.
[Citation Needed]
Power Level doesn't automatically mean less fun. Balanced doesn't automatically mean more fun. If it does to you, great. That doesn't make it a fact that applies to everyone.
True. Fun is subjective. But I'm speaking in terms of the vast majority of players, not the outliers. Go to a game store and try and find a pickup game. Tell them you're playing 2000 points and they're playing 1400. I'd like to see the number of takers.
And the vast majority is...?
In my community, vast majority are PL players. We go in with the expectation of playing PL, and everything that comes with it.
The way you phrase that question makes it sound like ALL PL games will end up like that, with an imbalance of points. That's rarely been the case in my experience, and sounds a lot like a biased outlook.
I understand you have your experiences, I respect that. At the same time, I have my own experiences. I don't feel that you're recognizing that.
only GK do not have any good upgrades to take. Unlike eldar who suddenly are running every bell and whistle their lists. In normal games they may not be running star engines, matrix etc on everything. In a power points game they will, they would be stupid to not to.
And right there is why you, or the hypothetical Eldar player, shouldn't play Power Level.
You don't play Power Level to field every possible upgrade and max out on every tiny advantage (meltabombs on my characters! plasma pistols and power fists on all my sergeants! hunter killers for daaaaaaaaaays!). You take it as a fast method of getting your guys on table, and not worrying about the minutia of trying to skimp on that power sword to afford a minor sidegrade. You take it because you're more interested in playing a faster, more loose, game. I understand that's not for everyone, and some people say that their fun comes from believing the game to be as balanced as possible. Which is why they use points. Leave power to the rest.
Isn't that because it assumes that every Terminator could be armed with a Daemon Hammer? Or maybe that's simply not even a power level issue?
two things. First upgrades like melta bombs or vehicle upgrades are free in money you don't have to model them. So people will take them while they can, why would they not take them when they are free. Guess how many hammers are there in a 5 man termintor box? zero in the metal one, and one in the plastic box. By the way this is another fun fact about power differences between armies in w40k. the eldar army costs less to make in optimal version, then the most optimal GK one.
And you are right I don't understand the faster and loose argument. If someone has an option to take an upgrade for free, they will not ponder for days if they should or should not take them. They just will do it.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
two things. First upgrades like melta bombs or vehicle upgrades are free in money you don't have to model them. So people will take them while they can, why would they not take them when they are free. Guess how many hammers are there in a 5 man termintor box? zero in the metal one, and one in the plastic box. By the way this is another fun fact about power differences between armies in w40k. the eldar army costs less to make in optimal version, then the most optimal GK one.
And you are right I don't understand the faster and loose argument. If someone has an option to take an upgrade for free, they will not ponder for days if they should or should not take them. They just will do it.
Your looking through the lenses of the only reason to take an unit, option or upgrade is win da GAME. Rather than, let me take something because it looks cool or fits the background. PL is for quickly having a fun friendly game or trying something new. Like every other version 40k, the game works better if both players hold back from breaking the game wide open.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And right there is why you, or the hypothetical Eldar player, shouldn't play Power Level.
You don't play Power Level to field every possible upgrade and max out on every tiny advantage (meltabombs on my characters! plasma pistols and power fists on all my sergeants! hunter killers for daaaaaaaaaays!). You take it as a fast method of getting your guys on table, and not worrying about the minutia of trying to skimp on that power sword to afford a minor sidegrade. You take it because you're more interested in playing a faster, more loose, game. I understand that's not for everyone, and some people say that their fun comes from believing the game to be as balanced as possible. Which is why they use points. Leave power to the rest.
Isn't that because it assumes that every Terminator could be armed with a Daemon Hammer? Or maybe that's simply not even a power level issue?
two things. First upgrades like melta bombs or vehicle upgrades are free in money you don't have to model them. So people will take them while they can, why would they not take them when they are free.
Meltabombs absolutely do have models. Vehicles upgrades also. Not all upgrades, mind, but there is a soft limit where you realise if a person is making up upgrades to milk the system, or if they genuinely want that item.
Guess how many hammers are there in a 5 man termintor box? zero in the metal one, and one in the plastic box.
What's in the box doesn't change the fact you can equip the squad that way. If your argument is "I wish GW gave us what the unit can be equipped with in the box/GW shouldn't let GK take hammers", that's fair. If not, I don't see what Power Level has to do with that.
By the way this is another fun fact about power differences between armies in w40k. the eldar army costs less to make in optimal version, then the most optimal GK one.
By cost, do you mean cost in money or points? If money, that's got nothing to do with this. If points - that's just poor balance across the entire game, for GK.
And you are right I don't understand the faster and loose argument. If someone has an option to take an upgrade for free, they will not ponder for days if they should or should not take them. They just will do it.
And that person isn't someone who Power Level is aimed at.
It would be like saying "what's the point in kicking the ball in football when I could just pick it up and run with it to the goal?"
HoundsofDemos wrote: Your looking through the lenses of the only reason to take an unit, option or upgrade is win da GAME. Rather than, let me take something because it looks cool or fits the background. PL is for quickly having a fun friendly game or trying something new. Like every other version 40k, the game works better if both players hold back from breaking the game wide open.
This is 100% wrong.
With PL as your point system you are punished for taking anything but the most powerful upgrade options. If you take a flamer instead of a plasma gun because it looks cool you are still paying the point cost of the more powerful (and more expensive) plasma gun and making your army worse. Or if you decide not to take a power weapon on your sergeant because you don't think a mere sergeant should have such a priceless relic in your fluff, well, you had to pay the points for a power fist and plasma pistol even if you're not going to use them. This means the powerful incentive is to take every possible upgrade, always taking the best ones.
With the conventional point system this isn't a problem. Flamer looks cool? Pay the lower point cost for it. Don't want that power weapon? Don't pay for it. You have a lot more room to take things that look cool or fit your fluff or whatever because you're only paying for the upgrades you're actually taking, not some theoretical maximum power set of upgrades. This puts the fluff/model-focused player at less of a disadvantage, making the conventional point system far superior for the goal of having a balanced game.
The real reason PL exists is for virtue signalling about how "casual" a player you are. By sabotaging your own experience you get to show off how little you care about good game design or balance or anything even vaguely related to the hated competitive play, establishing your "casual" credentials. This is why PL advocates will constantly talk about how great PL is for "casual" games without ever proving the claim, and treat "it isn't worse than conventional points sometimes" as equivalent to "it works better". They know there's no advantage from a pure game design point of view, it's all about smug moral superiority about their chosen approach to the game.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Your looking through the lenses of the only reason to take an unit, option or upgrade is win da GAME. Rather than, let me take something because it looks cool or fits the background. PL is for quickly having a fun friendly game or trying something new. Like every other version 40k, the game works better if both players hold back from breaking the game wide open.
in that case why do you need power levels at all? Why not just ignore points and PL altogether and just place models on the table and then play
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/10 20:07:17
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except that's how Power Level works. If you aren't taking every single possible upgrade you can, you're automatically at a disadvantage. Whereas a more granular system makes you make actual choices when building a list. Of course you aren't going to take a Combi-Weapon, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bomb, and Power Fist on every Sergeant with points, because you actually need to choose whether or not you put all your eggs in one basket.
If you play strictly WYSIWYG and with only (well) painted miniatures, PL is superior to points.
If you are the person that must squeze out every little advantage and consider winning the ultimate goal then you can perhaps not really understand the advantage of PL?
You clearly haven't seen these supposed "WAAC" armies being entered into tournaments. They look better than most people's armies that play casual. Sorry but that's how it is. So I don't get this supposed generalization that only people who paint well and play WYSIWYG have an easier time with points.
It isn't hard to add points and create a list as long as you have an elementary understanding of math. Sorry but that's a pathetic excuse.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Except that's how Power Level works. If you aren't taking every single possible upgrade you can, you're automatically at a disadvantage. Whereas a more granular system makes you make actual choices when building a list. Of course you aren't going to take a Combi-Weapon, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bomb, and Power Fist on every Sergeant with points, because you actually need to choose whether or not you put all your eggs in one basket.
Only if you treat it like it's a disadvantage. As far as I see it, it's freedom to take whatever I think looks cool or fluffy or simply how I've modelled it. I wouldn't, nor would my opponents, take wargear that wasn't modelled on the model, because that would be abusing the intent of the game we're playing.
A more granular system discourages me from taking equipment because I like the look of it. I love the look of Sergeants tooled up with exotic melee weapons, pistols, etc etc. Devastator Sergeant with plasma pistol and thunder hammer? Sign me up! In points, that would be hamstringing myself, because why would I pay points for equipment I'm hardly ever going to use?
If you're going in to Power Level with the mentality of "I must take everything to maximise combat potential", then that's exactly why you shouldn't play Power Level.
deviantduck wrote:I won't get into the nitty gritty because there's been a dozen threads hashing this out before. Some armies have close balance using power levels, some armies are way off. Overall, all armies are more balanced when you use points over PL.
Those armies will still be imbalanced when using points. A Grey Knight Terminator-fest list will still be imbalanced compared to a tooled up Cadian/BA/Knight soup. A list of 30 Tactical Marines will still be imbalanced to a Guard gunline with Leman Russes and Basilisks for days.
Using points won't change that imbalance. In my experience, take with salt, power level hasn't been imbalanced at all.
You can still slap a squad a tacs down loaded however you want with points, too.
But spending points on upgrades which won't be used (hi thunder hammer Devastator Sergeant!) is handicapping myself. Yes, I say above that "you shouldn't go in with the mentality of being 100% efficient", but that's for Power Level. Points, by it's very design, encourages efficiency.
Just because it's points doesn't mean you have to nitpick/optimize your list. It only means when you are both at the same points level it will be closer to balanced. I get the appeal of slap it down and move on, but I've spent too much time and money to sit down and play a game where one player is at a stark disadvantage versus the other.
"That's like, your opinion, man."
All I can say is that in my experience (salt required), none of my PL games have had a stark disadvantage that wouldn't have been there if we'd played points.
It makes the game less enjoyable for both parties.
[Citation Needed]
Power Level doesn't automatically mean less fun. Balanced doesn't automatically mean more fun. If it does to you, great. That doesn't make it a fact that applies to everyone.
Then if you want to make the model that way, pay the points for it. I'm sure every Imperial Guard Sergeant would look cool with a Power Fist, but you don't do it for a reason. With Power Level, you haven't a reason NOT to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/10 20:15:21
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Aside from aesthetic - I don't give my Guard sergeants fists because they don't appeal to me. On the other hand, I don't care about ever getting to use the plasma pistol on my Devastator Sergeant, but in points systems, even if I didn't want to use it, I'd have to pay for it.
I don't care about my list being unoptimised for PL. I don't care that I'm not maxing out what I could take. I do take issue with being discouraged from taking aesthetic upgrades in points system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/10 20:36:43
Your looking through the lenses of the only reason to take an unit, option or upgrade is win da GAME. Rather than, let me take something because it looks cool or fits the background. PL is for quickly having a fun friendly game or trying something new. Like every other version 40k, the game works better if both players hold back from breaking the game wide open.
in that case why do you need power levels at all? Why not just ignore points and PL altogether and just place models on the table and then play
Because even in a "who cares let's just roll dice" game you want at least SOME measure that 2 opposing armies are roughly equal. 50 GK terminators vs 100 Ork Boys probably isn't going to be a fun game for the Orks. But if you use PLs, you'll see that 25 GKTs vs 200 Ork Boys is probably more fair for both sides and therefore more fun.
Points are used when more "nit-picking" is required
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/10 20:52:03
We've come full circle.
