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 don't think they can ever work, the idea seemed to be the same as the drive that meant Flames of War went from 1,500 - 2,000 point games to 75 - 100 point games, a drive to 'simplify' which works when the game is built around a smaller number of units.

40k is too granular for such a "low point" system to work, this is a game where you have Gretchen and Titans, plus weapons the worth of which is less than a Gretchen, no "low points" system is every going to work well to represent that.

even if you buy your models in groups of five, unless all equipment is fixed its never going to work, and even if it is there simply isn't the granularity to represent the diverse range of stuff in 40k.

GW get points wrong all the time, the solution isn't to bring the numbers smaller to try and hide the errors int the rounding.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...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.

There are already upgrades that have a PL cost in the profile (ex. jump packs), all you'd need to do is say something like "PL 1 per Deathwatch Veteran, 0-4 Veterans may be upgraded to Veteran Gunners for +1 PL each, who may take heavy weapons/thunderhammers/whatever". (It doesn't quite match up to points but they're grotesquely overcosted models anyway.)

I lot of good discuss in here, Thanx everyone.

I think one of my main goals was to combine the systems so that Min-Maxing wouldn'f have so much of a downside like in PL and different options could be taken for the same value.

Using my original Tactical example vs Necron Warriors, The Marine have options, the Warriors do not. So the Marine unit in PL has an advantage if you add plenty of upgrades.
On the flip side, if using points, a lot of options available to the Tacticals aren't ever considered because they aren't as cost effective as other options.

But if upgrades cost additional PL, you fix the first problem.
If all upgrades cost the same, you fix the second problem.

But our current systems of PLs (which hardly anyone uses) and Points (which most people seem to complain about not being correct) will have to do, I guess

GW could publish a system of standard loadouts for units with power levels. Each would look like x number of base models, 1 with heavy weapon y and 1 sergeant with option z, all for n power.

They could list 5 to 10 pre-balanced loadouts for each unit, no mess, no fuss, just grab and go.

AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...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.

There are already upgrades that have a PL cost in the profile (ex. jump packs), all you'd need to do is say something like "PL 1 per Deathwatch Veteran, 0-4 Veterans may be upgraded to Veteran Gunners for +1 PL each, who may take heavy weapons/thunderhammers/whatever". (It doesn't quite match up to points but they're grotesquely overcosted models anyway.)

So, almost like the Kill Team system for making models Gunners or Fighters? That's not a bad idea at all - Gunners get the things like frag cannons and infernus heavy bolters, Fighters get HTHs. Or for Plague Marines, Gunners get plasma guns/blight launchers and Fighters get flails of corruption etc etc.

That can certainly work. And that doesn't need to affect points, because we can allocate that the Gunner/Fighter is the same individual points cost as the regular model.

 Galef wrote:
If all upgrades cost the same, you fist the second problem.

You really don't fix it. You just change what the most cost-effective upgrade is. If a flamer and a plasma gun both cost 1 point then you obviously take the plasma gun. Same thing under standard PL where both cost zero points. The only way to even attempt to fix this problem is by using conventional points, where stronger options have higher costs, and playtesting enough to get the costs right.

But really, improving PL is missing the point. Its entire purpose is virtue signaling about how "casual" you are because you deliberately hurt your game experience by using a less balanced (and therefore worse for the hated competitive play) point system. Makkng PL more balanced makes it worse at this job.

 Peregrine wrote:
Its entire purpose is virtue signaling about how "casual" you are

I've reported you for this before. Don't make me do it again.

You do not know why people play power level. Stop assuming why people do things, and stop suggesting other people are virtue signalling because you can't understand why they choose to play the game differently.

you deliberately hurt your game experience by using a less balanced (and therefore worse for the hated competitive play) point system.

No, they hurt YOUR (Peregrine's) experience. They don't hurt mine. In fact, I find it greatly enhances my experience of the game.

You're welcome to your opinion that you don't like PL. That's cool. Under Dakka's first rule, I'd expect you to respect mine.

You can have your opinion. Your opinion is wrong. And criticizing your opinion is not against forum rules. Abusing the reporting system to attempt to remove criticism you don't like, however...

It is indisputable fact that balance is always a good thing, and making a game poorly balanced does not improve it. So that leaves virtue signaling, as reinforced by PL advocates saying things like "if you try to optimize your list PL is not for you". They are openly stating that PL is about declaring and maintaining an anti-competitive style of play.

The nice thing about virtue signaling is that people who bring up virtue signaling signal to me that I should probably just ignore them and move on.

So, question. If the ardent adherents to PL's and those that only use that system, what happens when you run into someone who only uses points? What happens if you go to a store and the store is points only? Also, for the points people (myself) what would you do in the same scenario?

I think a lot of the fighting is spurred on by the two systems vying for play time in a PuG setting. Thankfully, in my area, PL's are never used. But im sure some stores are PL only.

I myself think that PL's should not be part of matched play. Not in there current form. Matched play should be the "universal" standard for games. Its the closest to balanced (and yes, PL's are more busted than points) and it should be standard. Because a game needs a standard system in a PuG/Tourney setting.

If closed groups or friends want to use PL's, im all for that. 40k is best played between like minded people. And here we have two very different mindsets vying for the same space. This is why we get the general bad feels in these threads and snide remarks are soon to fly by both parties.

Table wrote:
So,, for the points people (myself) what would you do in the same scenario?

"No thanks, not wanting my time on that" and go do something else. Someone strongly insisting on less accurately evaluating the power of their units is almost certainly either a virtue signaller telling everyone how "casual" they are and going to make the game a miserable slog through all their self-serving unwritten rules about the "right" way to play the game, or someone who figured out an overpowered list under PL and wants to exploit it without a better point system balancing it.

2/3 of the described ways to play listed in the rulebook are based around PL. Narritive Play does say that it can work with points, but it's written as if discussing PL.

Why then would Matched Play, only one of the ways to play, be considered the standard? Simply because previous versions of the game used it? Maybe PL has a place and people are simply too tangled up in "the game has always worked this way, it's the right way" thinking to give it a chance.

Peregrine, why do you even post in PL threads? You just derail them.

 Peregrine wrote:
You can have your opinion. Your opinion is wrong. And criticizing your opinion is not against forum rules. Abusing the reporting system to attempt to remove criticism you don't like, however...

It is indisputable fact that balance is always a good thing, and making a game poorly balanced does not improve it. So that leaves virtue signaling, as reinforced by PL advocates saying things like "if you try to optimize your list PL is not for you". They are openly stating that PL is about declaring and maintaining an anti-competitive style of play.

This is a very odd way of looking at a simple statement. There are two “points” systems in the game. Power level and points. One is for casual games and the other meant to balance for more competetive match play games. The system exist. Choosing one isn’t saying you are better or worse than another person. It’s saying which is most suitable to the game you are playing. It’s says a lot about you that you would assume a slight against you by someone else choosing to do something you disagree with.

I personally don’t use a toy soldier game to show my virtues or lack there of. I don’t let it define me in any way. It’s a game I like to play and a hobby I enjoy.

The purpose of power levels is as stated by the creators of it is to make games simple and easy and allow comparison between armies and units. If you want to read more in to it than that then that’s on you and no one else.

Powerlevels work in AoS because there the upgrades are all horizontal, unlike 40k where you have some weapons that are clearly designed to be more powerfull but more expensive than others.

Of course in AoS you have problems with some options being just inferior to others, but that has nothing to do with how the points work there, because these weapons where designed to be equivalent but they failed at it, so the solution is not with different point costs but by changing the rules.

 Blndmage wrote:
2/3 of the described ways to play listed in the rulebook are based around PL. Narritive Play does say that it can work with points, but it's written as if discussing PL.

Why then would Matched Play, only one of the ways to play, be considered the standard? Simply because previous versions of the game used it? Maybe PL has a place and people are simply too tangled up in "the game has always worked this way, it's the right way" thinking to give it a chance.

It was the standard for 7 editions, it's still the standard now. Also, where are you getting 2/3? 1/3 is Open Play, that doesn't use either PL or Points. 1/3 is Narrative Play, that uses PL. And then 1/3 is Matched Play, which uses points. 2/3 play modes DON'T use Power Level. By your own logic, it is thus worthless and should be eliminated.

Peregrine wrote:You can have your opinion. Your opinion is wrong. And criticizing your opinion is not against forum rules. Abusing the reporting system to attempt to remove criticism you don't like, however...

I'm not reporting you because you disagree. Disagreement is good. I disagree with you. You're welcome to your opinions, just as I should be welcome to mine.
I'm not reporting you because you are criticizing my opinion. Critique is good. I criticize you. You're welcome to critique me, just as I should be welcome to critique you.

I'm reporting you because you say things like "Your opinion is wrong" as if it were some kind of fact. It is not. It is your opinion. I do not call your opinions wrong. Your opinions are valid, even if I disagree with them. You are entitled to them, and you can believe what you want.

I'm reporting you because you make moral judgement based on something you physically cannot know, and morally devalue other people by claiming that they are "virtue signalling". Where is your proof? If you have none, this is a direct attack, and not a fact.

I'm reporting you because you do not respect the opinion of others, and that is against Rule 1.

It is indisputable fact that balance is always a good thing

For you, maybe. If not, [Citation Needed].
I don't doubt balance is good, but there are better things. Like, I personally prefer narratives, I prefer aesthetic, and I prefer speed and simplicity. Power Level gives me that, which points do not. That's my personal preference, I'm not saying it applies to everyone, but clearly balance is a lower priority to myself.

So that leaves virtue signaling, as reinforced by PL advocates saying things like "if you try to optimize your list PL is not for you".

And I'd say to someone who was more bothered about just pushing units around the table and having a narrative game instead of worrying about the cost of weapons on the 3rd Tactical Sergeant that "points is not for you".

The game modes have different target audiences. I don't go around calling people who play Matched "virtue signalling" or "WAAC TFGs", do I? It's not too hard to know that people are allowed to like different things, have multiple reasons for liking them, and things can be designed for different people's likes.

They are openly stating that PL is about declaring and maintaining an anti-competitive style of play.

Or maybe it's just because they find it more fun??

Is there only one way to have fun in your head? Is there the Peregrine Standard, the standard by which all fun must be measured, and if you don't, you're having fun the wrong way?

You think points are good. Cool. I disagree, but more power to you.
I think power level is good. You disagree. Instead of accepting that I have a different idea of enjoyment to you though, you say my opinion is "wrong", and that I must be "virtue signalling".

Is that the kind of respect Rule 1 asks for?

Table wrote:So, question. If the ardent adherents to PL's and those that only use that system, what happens when you run into someone who only uses points? What happens if you go to a store and the store is points only? Also, for the points people (myself) what would you do in the same scenario?

Well, I don't have a massive issue playing with points (been doing it for years before 8th), but after asking about power level, and if people refused, I'd either:
Change and play points with them, and maybe later on ask if they'd reconsider power level, relying on a mutual level of respect and tolerance for eachother to facilitate this
or
Not play them, and go elsewhere.

The choice really depends on how much I want a game, and how the reaction to me wanting to play power level is.
If they react like yourself, Table, who respects that people want to use PL if they prefer it, but personally does not use it, then I'd probably accept a points game. Maybe you might be more open to a PL game later down the line.

If they react like Peregrine, who claims to be abiding by Rule 1 and in the same breath calls someone's opinion "wrong", then I'd just leave.

I myself think that PL's should not be part of matched play. Not in there current form. Matched play should be the "universal" standard for games. Its the closest to balanced (and yes, PL's are more busted than points) and it should be standard. Because a game needs a standard system in a PuG/Tourney setting.

For matched play, absolutely. 40k having a tournament format isn't a bad thing.

However, it is 1 of 3 formats, and 2 of those use Power Level. To claim that PL is useless, unplayed, and not valid of being a game system (which are all things that people on Dakka have said) is simply not true, or at the very most, just personal opinions, and therefore cannot be called right or wrong.

If closed groups or friends want to use PL's, im all for that. 40k is best played between like minded people. And here we have two very different mindsets vying for the same space. This is why we get the general bad feels in these threads and snide remarks are soon to fly by both parties.

I think so. However, it is worth remembering and reiterating that Matched Play is not the only way to play 40k, and this space, this forum, is a place for both Matched Players and Narrative/Open Players.
I don't think I'm asking too much of that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It was the standard for 7 editions, it's still the standard now.

Well, that might be because there was only points for 3rd - 7th, and I imagine 1st and 2nd did too.

Power Level only existed in 8th, and it's used in more game modes.

Also, where are you getting 2/3? 1/3 is Open Play, that doesn't use either PL or Points. 1/3 is Narrative Play, that uses PL. And then 1/3 is Matched Play, which uses points. 2/3 play modes DON'T use Power Level. By your own logic, it is thus worthless and should be eliminated.

By that same logic though, 2/3 play modes don't use points, and is thus worthless and should be eliminated. In fact, all game modes should be eliminated by that logic.

And actually, I was under the impression that PL was used in Open Play. Could be wrong, but that's what I thought.

 Blndmage wrote:
2/3 of the described ways to play listed in the rulebook are based around PL. Narritive Play does say that it can work with points, but it's written as if discussing PL.

Why then would Matched Play, only one of the ways to play, be considered the standard? Simply because previous versions of the game used it? Maybe PL has a place and people are simply too tangled up in "the game has always worked this way, it's the right way" thinking to give it a chance.

40k does not have three ways to play. It has matched play with either points or a worse point system. "Narrative" is just matched play missions for pickup games, not a real narrative system, and open play is a joke that nobody uses.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
2/3 of the described ways to play listed in the rulebook are based around PL. Narritive Play does say that it can work with points, but it's written as if discussing PL.

Why then would Matched Play, only one of the ways to play, be considered the standard? Simply because previous versions of the game used it? Maybe PL has a place and people are simply too tangled up in "the game has always worked this way, it's the right way" thinking to give it a chance.

40k does not have three ways to play. It has matched play with either points or a worse point system. "Narrative" is just matched play missions for pickup games, not a real narrative system, and open play is a joke that nobody uses.

The rulebook begs to differ.

 Peregrine wrote:
You can have your opinion. Your opinion is wrong.

That's not how opinions work. You can disagree. That doesn't make a different opinion wrong, just one that you disagree with.

It is indisputable fact that balance is always a good thing, .

No, it isn't. Again, it might be your preference. That doesn't make it an absolute. Just your preference.

You've made your point. You don't understand why people choose to use Power Levels, and that's fine. You can choose to not use them.

But if you're not interested in using Power Levels, you really don't have anything constructive to add to this discussion. Accept that some people play the game differently to you, and move on.

I usually play with points, but there are a few things I like about PL. I like that PL gives me an excuse to try out sub-optimal gear options that would be "wasted points" in a points-based game. I like that PL can be tied in to scoring. "Kill points" based on PL rather than on the number of units destroyed is a big upgrade.

The only things I dislike about PL are that the lack of granularity regarding unit size and the assumption that I'm fielding the most expensive gear on every model causes it to measure the potency/value of my units poorly sometimes.

So with that in mind, I kind of like Galef's proposed idea, but with some tweaks. I don't really want to pay X PL for each missile launcher or every Y bodies in a unit. Instead, I kind of want to see tiered PL costs.

So for a given unit, you can take...
A.) The bare basics where your unit can cost no more than X points.

B.) The moderate option where your unit can cost no more than Y points (where Y is greater than X)

or...
C.) The expensive option where you're taking all the gizmos and gadgets and bodies and thus paying Z (where Z is greater than Y and roughly reflects the most expensive unit you can build divided by 20.)

The intended result is to end up with "fuzzier" values for units that are more representative than the current PL system.

So if I want to put power blades on my warp spiders exarch, I'm not being charged for the power blades (and thus being discouraged from taking them at all). I can take whatever I want so long as the overall points cost of the unit remains below a certain threshold.

 Galas wrote:
Powerlevels work in AoS because there the upgrades are all horizontal, unlike 40k where you have some weapons that are clearly designed to be more powerfull but more expensive than others.

Of course in AoS you have problems with some options being just inferior to others, but that has nothing to do with how the points work there, because these weapons where designed to be equivalent but they failed at it, so the solution is not with different point costs but by changing the rules.

It really doesn't work in AOS either. In that game you're just gimping yourself if you're not taking the best option. It is really blatant. Many times the options are not just situationally better, they're flat out better. For example, whilst the shield and sigmarite weapon is clearly the best option for a Freeguild General, I guess you could make an argument that there are some (rare) situations where the pistol or great weapon options are better. However, it doesn't stop there. Your Freeguild General can choose to have a horse... or nor... and have a banner... or not. Both of these are just straight up upgrades with no downsides or opportunity costs. As flawed as 40K point system may be, AOS one is way worse.

There's really no point in playing with Power Levels. People talk about "Just making a quick list and slapping models on the table" type of deal, but really, in 40k, if you don't have the time or patience to build a basic list, then I'm shocked you have it for playing the game itself. Really, it's just points with smaller numbers and less granularity and many upgrades kinda forgotten. But none of that really matters, as those who prefer it can play it, and that's fine by me. The reality, though, is that most players stick by points games, and 40k really won't be able to go far without sticking to the points-based system. If Games Workshop could get away without it, they would do it in a heartbeat.

In theory yes, in practice no. Its simply not granular enough to account for the minor differences between different weapons which would ostensibly be the same tier. At which point, why not use points?

 Crimson wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Powerlevels work in AoS because there the upgrades are all horizontal, unlike 40k where you have some weapons that are clearly designed to be more powerfull but more expensive than others.

Of course in AoS you have problems with some options being just inferior to others, but that has nothing to do with how the points work there, because these weapons where designed to be equivalent but they failed at it, so the solution is not with different point costs but by changing the rules.

It really doesn't work in AOS either. In that game you're just gimping yourself if you're not taking the best option. It is really blatant. Many times the options are not just situationally better, they're flat out better. For example, whilst the shield and sigmarite weapon is clearly the best option for a Freeguild General, I guess you could make an argument that there are some (rare) situations where the pistol or great weapon options are better. However, it doesn't stop there. Your Freeguild General can choose to have a horse... or nor... and have a banner... or not. Both of these are just straight up upgrades with no downsides or opportunity costs. As flawed as 40K point system may be, AOS one is way worse.

Yes, is not a system that I like, and the case of the old generals with mount/not mount option are the most obvious ones. But is not like those are a mayority of the cases in the game.

 Elbows wrote:
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.

True. In power level you can have all the options for free. 'Building accordingly' is realizing you're being told that you can take it all.

If you want limits and restrictions and fair play, you need points. If you just want more exploits, that's what PL is for.

If the argument is 'you just shouldn't do that,' the PL system is inherently flawed.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Its entire purpose is virtue signaling about how "casual" you are

I've reported you for this before. Don't make me do it again.

You do not know why people play power level. Stop assuming why people do things, and stop suggesting other people are virtue signalling because you can't understand why they choose to play the game differently.

you deliberately hurt your game experience by using a less balanced (and therefore worse for the hated competitive play) point system.

No, they hurt YOUR (Peregrine's) experience. They don't hurt mine. In fact, I find it greatly enhances my experience of the game.

You're welcome to your opinion that you don't like PL. That's cool. Under Dakka's first rule, I'd expect you to respect mine.

You tried to report him for describing exactly what power level is? Don't you have better things to do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You can have your opinion. Your opinion is wrong.

That's not how opinions work. You can disagree. That doesn't make a different opinion wrong, just one that you disagree with.

It is indisputable fact that balance is always a good thing, .

No, it isn't. Again, it might be your preference. That doesn't make it an absolute. Just your preference.

You've made your point. You don't understand why people choose to use Power Levels, and that's fine. You can choose to not use them.

But if you're not interested in using Power Levels, you really don't have anything constructive to add to this discussion. Accept that some people play the game differently to you, and move on.

Balance is only something that can be preferred? Are you serious?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
2/3 of the described ways to play listed in the rulebook are based around PL. Narritive Play does say that it can work with points, but it's written as if discussing PL.

Why then would Matched Play, only one of the ways to play, be considered the standard? Simply because previous versions of the game used it? Maybe PL has a place and people are simply too tangled up in "the game has always worked this way, it's the right way" thinking to give it a chance.

40k does not have three ways to play. It has matched play with either points or a worse point system. "Narrative" is just matched play missions for pickup games, not a real narrative system, and open play is a joke that nobody uses.

Peregrine describes exactly how the "three ways to play" works. Matched is default and anything else is just do whatever. In that case you don't even need points.

Or you can suck it up and not be afraid to do a little math. It ain't hard.




-edited by insaniak-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Balance is only something that can be preferred? Are you serious?

Yes, of course it is. There are plenty of players out there who don't give a hoot about balance, they just want something that gives a rough, ballpark idea of equivalency as a starting point. For those players Power Levels are sufficient.

If you're of the mindset that sees Power Levels as something that can be abused, then you're not the intended audience for it. And that's fine... you can pretend that the points system offers balance, and use that instead.



Given that we've spent the last 15 years complaining about the inherent imbalances in 40K's points system, I find it a little amusing that people are so vehemently opposed to Power Levels on the grounds that they're not balanced... Sure, they're not perfect, but they're arguably no worse than the rampant imbalaces between armies in every previous edition.

Voss wrote:If you want limits and restrictions and fair play, you need points. If you just want more exploits, that's what PL is for.

I personally disagree.

If the argument is 'you just shouldn't do that,' the PL system is inherently flawed.

Alternatively, why are we blaming the system because people want to exploit it? Are we implicitly supporting attempting to abuse the game system?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You tried to report him for describing exactly what power level is? Don't you have better things to do?

No. If you read my comment, you'd know that I report him for failing to recognize any opinion except his own, for insulting the morals of other people, and for attempting to claim that my opinion is "wrong".

He, and you, may disagree with it. You're welcome to do that. But I am just as entitled to my opinion as you are.

And no, power level isn't how Peregrine describes it. It may be how you also see it, but that's not what it factually is.

Also, there's no "tried" about it. I did.

Balance is only something that can be preferred? Are you serious?

Absolutely. Just like how you can have a different idea of fun to me, or to anyone else on this forum.
Or, let's look at it like condiments:
Say you always put mayo on stuff. You've ALWAYS put mayo on everything you eat. Then, you cook for someone else, and they don't like mayo. They don't have the same preference of mayo you do. Perhaps they prefer ketchup, mustard, or maybe even nothing at all.

Are you telling me that you'd react with the same incredulity? "Mayo is only something that can be preferred? Are you serious?"
People like different things. It's 2018.

Peregrine describes exactly how the "three ways to play" works. Matched is default and anything else is just do whatever. In that case you don't even need points.

Why is Matched default? It is for you. It might be for a lot of you. But it's not MY default. It's not even the default of the Warhammer TV stream teams. And funnily enough, I see Power Levels on the datasheets of models, not the points. So can you actually confirm that Matched is the official default gamemode, or is that something you've just come up with?

And no, Open and Narrative clearly aren't "just do whatever". Your sheer ignorance on the fact that maybe there's more to the game than just Matched is outstanding.
The world doesn't just exist in your own bubble. Other people have different likes, different ways to play the game, and guess what? All of those are VALID. Games Workshop say so. This forum seems to suggest so. The only people I've seen here suggesting that Narrative and Open aren't valid ways to play the game (not that you have to if you don't want to, it's for those mythical other people you keep forgetting about) are you and Peregrine.

Or you can suck it up and not be afraid to do a little math. It ain't hard.

(And no, as I've already told you in previous threads, and this one - I've played 40k for years before 8th, and I've done all the micro-managing of points before. I don't want to keep doing that. I don't have to suck it up because people like you can't grasp that there's more to the game than what you choose to enjoy).

People over think power points. It's meant for two people to just show up with some units and plop them on the board for a quick game without having to stress over making a competitive list. Just play your model wysiwyg and have some fun. Not every match has to be played like a cutthroat tournament finals.