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.

I mean, they already do, but in more of an "average" points between minimum and maxed out wargear.

But what if adding "upgrades" was additional PL. Basically a system that is between Points and PL as it is now.
For example:

5 Tactical Marine would be PL4 with no wargear aside from their standard loadout (Bolters)
If you want to add a Special or Heavy weapon: +1PL. Sgt wants to take upgrades: +1PL
Add up to 5 more Marines: +3PL, with another +1PL if you add a Special or Heavy again

That granularity is more than PLs have now and solves the issue between units that have upgrades vs units that do not.

It would also help with wargear options that "aren't worth taking" because X costs less. If X and Y cost the same, you take whichever you need.
After that, you balance said options to be worth taking. Tweak Plasmas, Meltas, Flamers and Grav to all be worth the same cost. but for different roles

Because right now, people complain about points because X shouldn't be less than Y, which makes Y worthless
And people complain about Power Levels because units with tons of options end up getting the better deal than those without.
Could a system that takes the strengths of both work well?



disclaimer: This isn't meant to discuss the merit of Points vs PLs. There are enough threads about that. Nor is this a rules proposal, just a general thought experiment

-

I think that would either make the main benefit of PL redundant by making them too complicated as you couldn't go "10 man units are 3PL and 5 are 1PL" anymore and that being the main advantage of PL (IMO) or it would end up with a broad but really unbalanced system like adding special weapons costs 1PL but one weapon upgrade is far better than others.

Umm, no.

They do, they're called points. I don't know why we need 2 systems to do the exact same thing.

 Toofast wrote:
They do, they're called points. I don't know why we need 2 systems to do the exact same thing.

I guess I am discuss this as a complete substitute for both Points and Power level.
Like what if this was how 8E started and there were no points for anything. Everything was Power level, but taking wargear above your standard loadout cost additional PL, but specific wargear didn't matter

So again, Plasma, Melta, Flamer, Heavy Bolter, Lascannon, etc wouldn't have specific points, you just add +1PL if your 5 Marines want to take any one option.
With points, players do not take X or Y because Z is more "cost efficient". With current Power Levels, players take everything because it's "free", so why not
Combining the systems, in theory, solves both issues

There will obviously always be some options that are better than others, but at least now you can define that by the role you need, not the cost.
Obviously this is just a fever-dream of a madman, which I figured going in, but I though it would be fun to discuss

-

 Toofast wrote:
They do, they're called points. I don't know why we need 2 systems to do the exact same thing.

PL is intended for a quick casual game that can be arranged with minimal fuss by people who just wanna set down their models.

Completely defeats the purpose. As a general rule, someone complaining about Power Level...should just be playing points. If you can't cope with a general "average" cost system...then don't use it. There's the beauty of having two options.

If your brain registers "Man, in power level I can't do..." --- then stop right there. Just don't play power level. You're already in the wrong mindset.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
They do, they're called points. I don't know why we need 2 systems to do the exact same thing.

PL is intended for a quick casual game that can be arranged with minimal fuss by people who just wanna set down their models.

Then...just plop down the models. You don't need any point system if you just want to plop down models. Otherwise power level is a terrible point system and regular points are the best way to go.

Power levels work fine for pickup games and even casual tournaments as is. They'll always be further from actual balance than points for real competitive games but it wouldn't be the end of the world. It's not like points are all that balanced anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
They do, they're called points. I don't know why we need 2 systems to do the exact same thing.

PL is intended for a quick casual game that can be arranged with minimal fuss by people who just wanna set down their models.

Then...just plop down the models. You don't need any point system if you just want to plop down models. Otherwise power level is a terrible point system and regular points are the best way to go.

So what Slayer-Fan123 is saying here is that GWs point system is great and he's super excited about how incredibly precisely GW have balanced the game and will never complain about stuff being OP ever again.

Well there is balance and Balance. If your army has a options for vehicles, squads etc and your opponents doesn't, they you could be playing with a ton of extra points. So even if the argument that GW expects people to max out all options anyway was true, it would still be very bad for someone playing necron. Plus it doesn't even have to be a lack of options for units, it is enough if GW decides to put one pice of the good gear in the entire box. Then the fact that a fully blinged out paladin unit rolls with hammers on everyone, doesn't matter much, if there is one hammer in the whole box to put on your models.
On the other hand someone with upgrades that don't have to be modeled can stack them up like crazy.

Power level is fine as it is. Both it and points produce the same type of gameplay: skewed and busted in the hands of a powergamer.

One is just faster to produce a roster for which is what my interest is, so thats why I use power level.

Neither support any semblance of "balance".

If power levels create a bigger gap, and that is what they do, and give zero fixs in return, then they are a worse system. And in general worse systems should not be used. Just because GW makes unbalanced or bad rules, doesn't mean that picking a worse way to play is the thing to do. I mean may as well play something crazy like open or narrative too. Could use the, game is unbalaned, arguement in favor of those too.

ERJAK wrote:
Power levels work fine for pickup games and even casual tournaments as is. They'll always be further from actual balance than points for real competitive games but it wouldn't be the end of the world. It's not like points are all that balanced anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
They do, they're called points. I don't know why we need 2 systems to do the exact same thing.

PL is intended for a quick casual game that can be arranged with minimal fuss by people who just wanna set down their models.

Then...just plop down the models. You don't need any point system if you just want to plop down models. Otherwise power level is a terrible point system and regular points are the best way to go.

So what Slayer-Fan123 is saying here is that GWs point system is great and he's super excited about how incredibly precisely GW have balanced the game and will never complain about stuff being OP ever again.

So because regular points aren't just balanced yet that's your argument for PL? Seems like you don't actually HAVE a defense for PL at that point.

Depends on your tolerance. For me busted is busted. There is no "more busted". Busted is a negative play experience regardless of the degree of busted.

Power level = busted.
Points = busted.

They are both busted. There is no bigger gap. The level of busted is to me identical. They just achieve that level of busted in different ways.

The play experience using either is identical. The lists dictate the match and you will get squashed in a turn or two in either system if your list isn't min/maxed.

So based on the fact that both systems are busted to me, I go for the one that requires less of my time. Needling through excel to build my list is the last thing I want to do these days. If points were actually balanced, I'd gladly use them. But they arent. They are a burning dumpster fire. The only positive that they give is the illusion that they are "more balanced" because you pay for wargear even though they produce the same game play experience (a negative one if you aren't optimizing and your opponent is).

"Yeah but thats like, that way in every game though"

No its really not as bad as it is in GW games, which is why I largely stopped playing GW games. But when I do play 40k it is 100% always with power level until they get their ****show fixed.

auticus wrote:
Power level is fine as it is. Both it and points produce the same type of gameplay: skewed and busted in the hands of a powergamer.

One is just faster to produce a roster for which is what my interest is, so thats why I use power level.

Neither support any semblance of "balance".

Except one is far easier to bust. That's literally not even up for discussion.

The difference is...if you bust power level, that's on you. It's not that Power Level is broken...it's that people refuse to take two minutes to figure out how it's calculated and build accordingly.

It being easier to bust power level is meaningless because you're going to get to the same destination regardless.

You're just going to spend 10 extra minutes busting points.

There is literally no difference in the play experience after you have finished busting the game in either 30 seconds with power level or 10 minutes with points.

We have that already with points.

PL would only work if every unit had a similar number of options, so long as units exist with no upgrades PL remains unbalanced and worthless.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
They do, they're called points. I don't know why we need 2 systems to do the exact same thing.

PL is intended for a quick casual game that can be arranged with minimal fuss by people who just wanna set down their models.

Exactly, so why do we need to account for wargear and make PL as granular as point values? If you want to account for wargear, play points. It takes me like 1 minute to make a list in Battlescribe with all the upgrades anyway. PL is for super casual play and very new players, so leave PL the way it is.

Power level is great. Gives and idea of power of the armies without going into minute detail. It’s one of the best features of 8th and I exclusively use it.

If your worried about min maxing your army then obviously points are for u. But there’s no need to change either. Slayer fan can keep using points and being grumpy about balance and I will use power level and be happy with life. All good.

Power Level accounting for wargear is called points.

 Toofast wrote:
They do, they're called points. I don't know why we need 2 systems to do the exact same thing.

Because maths is hard apparently...

BrianDavion wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
They do, they're called points. I don't know why we need 2 systems to do the exact same thing.

PL is intended for a quick casual game that can be arranged with minimal fuss by people who just wanna set down their models.

By that logic why have Power Level at all? If it's just for "casual" play why should power level matter?

Because sometimes it’s nice to have an idea of equity between armies without worrying about how many Chainsword tontaken remember AoS when it first came out. It felt lost without any points at all. Power level bridges that gap and is quick and easy. After using it for a year or so I wonder more what is the point of points.

 Galef wrote:

So again, Plasma, Melta, Flamer, Heavy Bolter, Lascannon, etc wouldn't have specific points, you just add +1PL if your 5 Marines want to take any one option.
With points, players do not take X or Y because Z is more "cost efficient". With current Power Levels, players take everything because it's "free", so why not
Combining the systems, in theory, solves both issues

If somebody just takes everything in a Power Level game to they shouldn't be using Power Levels anyway. That's not what they're for. Power Levels are for "I just want to throw my probably sub-optimally equipped WYSIWYG models onto the table and play against my mate with the same sort of sub-optimal setup without worrying about exact points or optimising my list, but would like to know vaguely how close our lists are in strength to know if we'll have a good game or if we want to give one of us a handicap or something". Which is a mouthful. If you want to game the system to take the best list you can you should be paying points. This expansion of power levels I suppose can make PL armies a bit closer to being matched, but it also adds more listbuilding admin which removes one of the attractions of PL in the first place.

However compared with points and cost efficiencies, rather than solving the issue this proposal makes things much worse. Sticking to the marine example, if you can have any upgrade for your tac squad for +1PL. In points a lot of lists take lascannons because they're cost efficient. They're also much more expensive than flamers because they're more effective. So why does giving lascannons and flamers the same cost solve the problem? 1PL is roughly equivalent to 20 points. You've just given a discount to the lascannon - which is popular anyway - and given a massive price hike to the less popular flamer. The whole reason for giving different points costs to these upgrades is to try to balance out the cost-effectiveness ratio. By making them all the same cost you're skewing that ratio in favour of whichever upgrade is objectively most powerful.

Andykp wrote:
Because sometimes it’s nice to have an idea of equity between armies without worrying about how many Chainsword tontaken remember AoS when it first came out. It felt lost without any points at all. Power level bridges that gap and is quick and easy. After using it for a year or so I wonder more what is the point of points.

After looking at what my Tau lists would be in PL vs points, I wonder why anyone would ever play me more than once using PL.

Power Levels work fine unless you're playing Deathwatch (where taking enough wargear on anyone to justify the PL cost of Veterans is a trap that leads to unplayably bad armies), or intentionally trying to game the system. If you dump all the models out of your box and build a power-level list without looking at the points you'll probably end up within 10% of what you'd be using with an army actually built on points, and I bet you the average error in GW's pricing is at least 10%.

(Addendum: This comparison is most applicable to armies built over multiple years and editions by people with a variety of equipment and is intended to describe an "average distribution of models", it doesn't apply in all cases for all collections of models and doesn't apply in the case of models that have typo/inaccurate PL costs.)

 Elbows wrote:

If your brain registers "Man, in power level I can't do..." --- then stop right there. Just don't play power level. You're already in the wrong mindset.

So much this.

If you take wargear into account for Narrative Play (Power Levels), aren't you then playing Matched Play?

Elbows wrote:If your brain registers "Man, in power level I can't do..." --- then stop right there. Just don't play power level. You're already in the wrong mindset.

Agreed. I still prefer PL, even knowing it's shortfalls, because I don't care about what I can't do.

If you think PL is unsuitable, don't play it.
If you think points are unsuitable, don't play it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Then...just plop down the models. You don't need any point system if you just want to plop down models. Otherwise power level is a terrible point system and regular points are the best way to go.

Relative power between armies is nice to have. I might like to slap down a bunch of units, without real care for their wargear, and just see how the battle goes, but I still want a vague approximation of the strength of each force - the level of power, if you will?

In short, plopping down models =/= no comparison of strength at all. Just because it's not as comprehensive as points doesn't mean it's useless.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Except one is far easier to bust. That's literally not even up for discussion.

A powergamer will bust either of them. If they can be busted, they're equal in my eyes.
You can't pretend that points are this paragon of balance when they can be broken if you go in with the intent to break them (or even if you don't).

And again, maybe someone doesn't care if their game is slightly imbalanced? There can be imbalance and the game can be enjoyable.

BaconCatBug wrote:By that logic why have Power Level at all? If it's just for "casual" play why should power level matter?

Because even in a casual game, you might still want some balance (unless you don't). However, micromanaging weapon options isn't the only way to balance the game.

More to the point of the OP: For some units, maybe. Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Sternguard/Vanguard Veterans, Plague Marines, etc etc (units which can essentially take large upgrades on every model) should probably have two values, one for the baseline, and one for maximum (how to work it out, I have no idea).
Tactical Marines or Infantry Squads, units with -50% of the squad with upgrades don't need it.

I'm not bothered by it, but I imagine there's people out there who are - Karol and their Grey Knights.