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.

@Aelyn


He's not saying they're interested in competitive play. You can be a casual player and still use points. I've been doing it for five editions now.


"I know people who are collectors and painters first, and use games almost as an excuse to actually use their models. "

Can still use points.

"I know people who dabble in half a dozen armies, with one or two "mains", but a bunch of small armies meant for silly casual games. "

Can still use points.

" I know people who collect "historical" forces, buioding to very specific designs taken from novels or the theoretical army design provided in other fluff. "

Can still use points, though narrative play would probably be best for this one.

"I know people who like to design for scenarios and narrative games."

Narrative play

"None of the above require perfect balance, and are well-suited for PL to provide a rough balance. The more refined point system simply isn't necessary. "

But points still works better. Particularly if you're trying to achieve a balanced game. Particularly on the part where you only pay for the upgrades and models you actually want to take.

Particularly if you're trying to achieve a balanced game.

Points do zero in 40k to achieve a balanced game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:So because you have fun with power levels means we can’t have a discussion on a forum about which point system is better?

Better is subjective. Which is EXACTLY my point.
We can absolutely discuss why we might think it is better for ourselves, but a lot of people seem to be incapable of understanding that other people's ideas of "better" isn't the same as their own.
Because I have fun with PL means it is better for me. If you want to discuss why you prefer yours without insulting my enjoyment, I'm all ears.

First and foremost, I don't care if people use PL. Enjoy. Have fun. Just don't tell me that it's more balanced than Points. Better is not subjective when you refer to math. Your Fiat might be a better fit for you and you have more fun driving it, but don't try and argue that it'll outpace a Lambo. PL is the less balanced point system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:

Particularly if you're trying to achieve a balanced game.

Points do zero in 40k to achieve a balanced game.

Oh wait, you're serious...

 Mmmpi wrote:
@Aelyn

He's not saying they're interested in competitive play. You can be a casual player and still use points. I've been doing it for five editions now.

He literally said 99% of players tend to put together "serious list[s] meant for competitive play."

And I never said that casual players can't use points - my point was just that for certain types of players, the game types and gaming emphasis means that the granularity provided by points isn't necessary to get the kind of experience they're looking for, and that is almost certainly a much larger portion of the target market than he claimed.

I'm a casual player, and I use points, so I know it's possible. I've been doing it for *six* editions now, so there but people on game forums are generally those who take the games more seriously than average, and it can lead to a skewed view of the demographic - and that's as true here as the various other game forums I go to.

My comment about 99% of players building for a "competitive" list wasn't supposed to mean exclusively tourney player.
Even casual players build list with the intent to win, or at the very least play several turns. You cannot do this if you don't make "competitive" decisions with you list.
The vast majority of players want their lists to perform, otherwise they are just putting stuff on the table to be removed.
Serious, as-in, takes the time to build the list with any measure of care. You always WANT your list to succeed in some way, otherwise what are you trying to accomplish?

I have yet to met a player of ANY game who wants to lose every single game they every play...
...except maybe some Ork players....just kidding

And most players are not in control of their opponent's decisions for their list. Sure you can have that conversation, but the idea of Points or PLs is that you shouldn't need to. Both lists SHOULD be balanced, but we all know that isn't always the case.
So you build with this in mind, regardless of how competitive you are trying to be.
That is what I meant by the 99% of players bing "serious". I didn't mean "hardcore"

-

Oh wait, you're serious...

There is no balance in 40k. If points were balanced you could drop a 2000 point list and take on another 2000 point list and have a good game.

That is as far from reality as one can get in 40k.

 Galef wrote:
My comment about 99% of players building for a "competitive" list wasn't supposed to mean exclusively tourney player.
Even casual players build list with the intent to win, or at the very least play several turns. You cannot do this if you don't make "competitive" decisions with you list.
The vast majority of players want their lists to perform, otherwise they are just putting stuff on the table to be removed.
Serious, as-in, takes the time to build the list with any measure of care. You always WANT your list to succeed, otherwise what are you trying to accomplish?

In my experience, most people want to have fun from their game.

For some people, this just means winning. For some, it means telling a story, or making a story that can be told and retold for time immemorial. For some, it's an excuse to spend time with an old friend, or to bond with their kid. There are lots of reasons people play the game.

The goal of the game is to win, but the point of the game is to have fun.

And I don't recall equating competitive players with tournament players (if I had, it would have been closer to 5% competitive, and I think that's generous.) I like to be competitive, but I've only played in one tournament ever, and that was a doubles event at Warhammer World - hardly the most intensive environment.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Your problem is you don't respect anyone that disagrees with you.

No, I don't respect people that disagree with me for terrible reasons. People who disagree with me and have legitimate reasons to back up their disagreement don't lose any respect. If you're feeling disrespected over your disagreement it's 100% your fault.

How very Tucker Carlson of you.

A big part of the problem is casual players using Match Points.

They would have a happier game if they stuck with PL.

But by using points they fool themselves into thinking they can and should have an opinion in balance and competitive play and they get angry when they don't comprehend they are using something not intended for them in the wrong way.

For the first time I was looking at the back of my codex books and I noticed "points". What are these? I thought the codexes came with Power Levels per unit. These points seem rather incredibly imbalanced. Why would a lascannon cost the same amount of points when fighting an army of a million gaunts, as it seems to be worthless compared to it's utility when fighting an army of vehicles? Conversely why are flamers so cheap when they are devastating to a horde army? Points make zero sense.

Points should really be adjusted based on your opponent's army. It's the only way to make them accurate.

 judgedoug wrote:
For the first time I was looking at the back of my codex books and I noticed "points". What are these? I thought the codexes came with Power Levels per unit. These points seem rather incredibly imbalanced. Why would a lascannon cost the same amount of points when fighting an army of a million gaunts, as it seems to be worthless compared to it's utility when fighting an army of vehicles? Conversely why are flamers so cheap when they are devastating to a horde army? Points make zero sense.

Although I applaud your comical attempt, you're disingenuously misconstruing what balance means. The points reflect the balance between the lascannon vs the flamer vs all enemies, not just cherry picked targets. After all, you're balancing the entire game. All weapons with all armies against all other armies. Your example is a tactical discussion, not a balance one. The game is rock, paper, scissors. Sometimes you pay for the rock and end up fighting the paper. Furthermore, the Power Level points system has you paying for the lascannon weather you take it or not. The Points points system gives the granularity to pick and choose to help you design a better well rounded army. I know which system I'd prefer in every possible scenario.

What should really happen is people should be happy that other people are happy playing the way they like to. Sometimes it feels like people take it as a personal affront for how someone else enjoys their game.

I have never played 8th with points, I love playing with PL though, it helps me organise what I'm going to bring with less fuss. In fact, I would not have returned to 40k if PL did not exist. Everyone I play with also plays PL, none of us worries about winning 40k, but I don't begrudge those who want to play with points or those who don't want to play with points or PL. I don't even begrudge those who want to house rule the game so much it's unrecognizable. Go have fun, that's what's important.

Now if someone wants to do an MDA analysis on PL or points and discuss the differences between the MDA of the two systems that might be interesting.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Points should really be adjusted based on your opponent's army. It's the only way to make them accurate.

I don't know how to respond to this. "Oh? You're playing nids. Well I need another 25% advantage because of my opinion. Deal with it."

 deviantduck wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
For the first time I was looking at the back of my codex books and I noticed "points". What are these? I thought the codexes came with Power Levels per unit. These points seem rather incredibly imbalanced. Why would a lascannon cost the same amount of points when fighting an army of a million gaunts, as it seems to be worthless compared to it's utility when fighting an army of vehicles? Conversely why are flamers so cheap when they are devastating to a horde army? Points make zero sense.

Although I applaud your comical attempt, you're disingenuously misconstruing what balance means. The points reflect the balance between the lascannon vs the flamer vs all enemies, not just cherry picked targets. After all, you're balancing the entire game. All weapons with all armies against all other armies. Your example is a tactical discussion, not a balance one. The game is rock, paper, scissors. Sometimes you pay for the rock and end up fighting the paper. Furthermore, the Power Level points system has you paying for the lascannon weather you take it or not. The Points points system gives the granularity to pick and choose to help you design a better well rounded army. I know which system I'd prefer in every possible scenario.

But that's not how points work at the moment.

If equal points means things are balanced against all armies, why are 2000 points of Primaris White Scars built from the starter box so much worse than the Catachan/Castellan/BA Captains combo of 2000 points?

If these or other mathematically conceivable examples aren't balanced, points cannot claim that advantage over PL.

 deviantduck wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
For the first time I was looking at the back of my codex books and I noticed "points". What are these? I thought the codexes came with Power Levels per unit. These points seem rather incredibly imbalanced. Why would a lascannon cost the same amount of points when fighting an army of a million gaunts, as it seems to be worthless compared to it's utility when fighting an army of vehicles? Conversely why are flamers so cheap when they are devastating to a horde army? Points make zero sense.

Although I applaud your comical attempt, you're disingenuously misconstruing what balance means. The points reflect the balance between the lascannon vs the flamer vs all enemies, not just cherry picked targets. After all, you're balancing the entire game. All weapons with all armies against all other armies. Your example is a tactical discussion, not a balance one. The game is rock, paper, scissors. Sometimes you pay for the rock and end up fighting the paper. Furthermore, the Power Level points system has you paying for the lascannon weather you take it or not. The Points points system gives the granularity to pick and choose to help you design a better well rounded army. I know which system I'd prefer in every possible scenario.

What is comical is a zealous, religious belief in "balance" and that assigning a number to something that has an finite variation of random chance and variables is somehow going to do anything at all.

The problem with the balance argument is that balance has no set or concrete meaning in game design. Really balance in game design boils more down to the players emotional response to a game and the context of that game. Balance in Chess, for example, is not equivalent to balance in Snakes and Ladders. One gives a sense of balance based on player skill and player skill alone, the latter, as it is a game designed for parents to play with children or children to play with other children, gives a sense of balance by being random dominant.

So before we can argue whether PL or points in 40k are balanced we must first come to a mutual definition of what balance means in both of those situations, keeping in mind that player milieu is going to affect that definition.


"Is Chess a balanced game?

That question is impossible to answer if you do not understand what balance means in this context. The concept of balance is a highly “squishy” one—one prone to hand waving instead of definition. A person can mean many things by “balance.” One definition is that players have an even chance to win, all else being equal. However, balance can be tricky. If all players have an equal chance to win, does that speak to the game’s mechanisms or the player’s abilities? What reason does a player ever have to get better at a game if the game’s balance always gives him the same chance of winning?" ~ from Players Making Decisions: Game Design Essentials and the Art of Understanding Your Players

 deviantduck wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Points should really be adjusted based on your opponent's army. It's the only way to make them accurate.

I don't know how to respond to this. "Oh? You're playing nids. Well I need another 25% advantage because of my opinion. Deal with it."

I was building off of Judgedoug's suggestion. A Lascannon should be priced x vs this army and y vs that army. Makes sense if you want real balance. If you want it balanced vs the whole game, then you're going to certain inequities baked in, and that just seems to be counter to the goal.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Points should really be adjusted based on your opponent's army. It's the only way to make them accurate.

I don't know how to respond to this. "Oh? You're playing nids. Well I need another 25% advantage because of my opinion. Deal with it."

I was building off of Judgedoug's suggestion. A Lascannon should be priced x vs this army and y vs that army. Makes sense if you want real balance. If you want it balanced vs the whole game, then you're going to certain inequities baked in, and that just seems to be counter to the goal.

You can't have dynamic pricing based off your opponent. It would be impossible for 2 people to make a list.
A: I built a 2000 point list. (How? You don't know what your opponent has.)
B: Here's my list. It's 2000, too.
A: Oh, well you have this and this and this, so now i'm back down to 1830. I'll add in this and this and this. Back to 2k.
B: Gotcha. Well you adding this and this changed the price of my list. So now i'm at 1750. I'll add in this and this. Ah, back to 2k.
A: Well crap. Now I'm at 2150. Better tweak a couple things...
Repeat forever.
Hence, set points.

That is correct. It is very difficult to perfectly balance a game like 40k.

And that can be fine.

But when people claim points = balance, thats where the arguments will certainly spring forth. Because points do not equal balance.

Points equal structure to build an army within.

 judgedoug wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
For the first time I was looking at the back of my codex books and I noticed "points". What are these? I thought the codexes came with Power Levels per unit. These points seem rather incredibly imbalanced. Why would a lascannon cost the same amount of points when fighting an army of a million gaunts, as it seems to be worthless compared to it's utility when fighting an army of vehicles? Conversely why are flamers so cheap when they are devastating to a horde army? Points make zero sense.

Although I applaud your comical attempt, you're disingenuously misconstruing what balance means. The points reflect the balance between the lascannon vs the flamer vs all enemies, not just cherry picked targets. After all, you're balancing the entire game. All weapons with all armies against all other armies. Your example is a tactical discussion, not a balance one. The game is rock, paper, scissors. Sometimes you pay for the rock and end up fighting the paper. Furthermore, the Power Level points system has you paying for the lascannon weather you take it or not. The Points points system gives the granularity to pick and choose to help you design a better well rounded army. I know which system I'd prefer in every possible scenario.

What is comical is a zealous, religious belief in "balance" and that assigning a number to something that has an finite variation of random chance and variables is somehow going to do anything at all.

I didn't realize a 6 sided die had an infinite number of sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
That is correct. It is very difficult to perfectly balance a game like 40k.

And that can be fine.

But when people claim points = balance, thats where the arguments will certainly spring forth. Because points do not equal balance.

Points equal structure to build an army within.

No one claims points achieve perfect balance. The argument is Points are mathematically more precise than PL and get us closer to balance.

No one is arguing that points are not more precise in theory. Our argument is that kind of precision isn't required to have fun.

Aelyn wrote:

The goal of the game is to win, but the point of the game is to have fun.

Agreed. But that means making conscious choices during your list building step (i.e. your are moderately "serious" about the list) and giving that you wish to actually play (rather than have your opponent just tell you to remove unit after unit), even the most casual of fluffy bunnies is on some level "competitive"
Just because we use the term "competitive" to describe a specific level, does not mean that competition is entire removed in games that are "for fun".

It would be the rare person indeed that had "fun" playing a game of chess in which they are constantly put in check-mate in the first few moves of the game.

And again, I am very "pro" Power levels, but it just seems the situations in which they are even remotely preferable over Points are few and far between....for most players.

-

Sunny Side Up wrote:


But that's not how points work at the moment.

If equal points means things are balanced against all armies, why are 2000 points of Primaris White Scars built from the starter box so much worse than the Catachan/Castellan/BA Captains combo of 2000 points?

If these or other mathematically conceivable examples aren't balanced, points cannot claim that advantage over PL.

That is a complete fallacy. That one system is not perfectly balance doesn't mean it cannot be better balanced than another system. Points are better balanced than PL, that is undeniable. Whether that extra sliver of balance (considering it still far from perfect) is worth the hassle for you is a personal choice.

No one claims points achieve perfect balance. The argument is Points are mathematically more precise than PL and get us closer to balance.

If that was the argument then I wouldnt' say anything. Thats not what I read though.

I read "points are way more balanced" or "granular points are balanced, PL is not" when the game at either mechanism is very far from balanced.

I don't really care either way what people prefer. I only use PL simply because I get tired of min/maxing on a spreadsheet and my interests in 40k have come at the realization that you can never have a balanced game of 40k and that the list will dominate the game more than playing the game will by GW game design and the community's love of that style of game.

If someone says" yeah but granular points are more precise and therefore closer to balance" then I would 100% agree.

But to illustrate visually, this is why I see both as flaming garbage right now:

Power Level balance (left being the most imbalanced, right being totally balanced)
<* * * PL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >

Granular points designed by GW balance
<* * * * * POINTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *>

To me it makes such a minuscule difference in the overall feel of the game that its not even worth the time to debate other than as a personal preference thing.

Either system you use, your army list will largely dictate the outcome of the game before the opening bell.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Perhaps I didn't convey the idea clearly. No two groups of gamers will play the same version of 40K. Between differing metas, interpretations of rules, house rules (even official ones like ITC), terrain usage, armies in use etc... and that's before considering personal playstyles. The only person that I know of actually playing 40k by the rules is BaconCatBug. Even GW isn't playing the 40k they wrote. A such, it is pretty arrogant to presume to know how and why people play the game.

Huh. I played 40K in Western MA in multiple stores, even dipping down into Northern Connecticut. I've played in California. Now I'm playing in Japan. I'm literally playing the same game in all three areas. So, yeah. Don't give me that dung.

OK, do you play any of the narrative games like Cities of Death or Planetstrike? If not the you are playing a significantly different game than those that do. My point about my games being different had a bit of hyperbole to try and drive the point but instead you've gotten hung up on that rather than the main point: which is that you don't know how people are playing the game so why do you get to decide what's fun for them or not?

Then don't be upset when I call out your accusation.

And I don't really know what I'd get out of you knowing I play PL sometimes. I mean, as far as I know you're just a bird and as far as you know I'm just a flower. It's an anonymous site. Were I to quit dakka in the next 5 minutes, your opinion of me would have 0 effect on my life.

There's that passive aggressive again. Seriously. If you don't care, why are you still replying?

How is that passive aggressive? I'm just arguing against his central premise that I only play PL so people know about. Seriously though, why does me playing PL make you upset? Since you entered the thread you've been pretty aggressive and have attacked me personally instead of my points. How else should I take that?

 Galef wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

The goal of the game is to win, but the point of the game is to have fun.

Agreed. But that means making conscious choices during your list building step (i.e. your are moderately "serious" about the list) and giving that you wish to actually play (rather than have your opponent just tell you to remove unit after unit), even the most casual of fluffy bunnies is on some level "competitive"
Just because we use the term "competitive" to describe a specific level, does not mean that competition is entire removed in games that are "for fun".

It would be the rare person indeed that had "fun" playing a game of chess in which they are constantly put in check-mate in the first few moves of the game.

And again, I am very "pro" Power levels, but it just seems the situations in which they are even remotely preferable over Points are few and far between....for most players.

-

Okay, this feels to me like your argument consists of "99% of players are competitive, if you define competitive in such a way that it covers 99% of people".

Sometimes, the level of "conscious choice" in list building is "I want to use my special character, and this new tank I just finished painting, my super-tough terminators, and a couple of other squads. You want to take your big monster, that burrowing guy, and a horde of gribblies? Okay, I'm at 48 power, you're at 41, so you're a bit under. If you take those elite guys of yours, you're up to 46. Sound good?"

Points are a budget that allow you to squeeze out every bit of value. Power levels are a way of approximating balance to ensure it's not a total curbstomp without having to worry too hard about optimization.

Aelyn wrote:
Points are a budget that allow you to squeeze out every bit of value. Power levels are a way of approximating balance to ensure it's not a total curbstomp without having to worry too hard about optimization.

That's probably the best description of either that I have seen, honestly. At least of the intent of either. Have an exalt!

-

Aelyn wrote:


Sometimes, the level of "conscious choice" in list building is "I want to use my special character, and this new tank I just finished painting, my super-tough terminators, and a couple of other squads. You want to take your big monster, that burrowing guy, and a horde of gribblies? Okay, I'm at 48 power, you're at 41, so you're a bit under. If you take those elite guys of yours, you're up to 46. Sound good?"

Points are a budget that allow you to squeeze out every bit of value. Power levels are a way of approximating balance to ensure it's not a total curbstomp without having to worry too hard about optimization.

Well said!

And the rule book even covers what to do if there's a disparity in PL!

 Crimson Devil wrote:
No one is arguing that points are not more precise in theory. Our argument is that kind of precision isn't required to have fun.

So why are you playing points? Why did you go past your section?

Page 212, first paragraph. "Matched play games give you the option to fight battles with armies that are intentionally balanced against one another"

Unless your looking for that specific option, don't go this many pages into the rule book. You need to start playing the game as GW intended for you to play it.