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.

Peregrine 766203 10217900 wrote:

You think it's a joke. That's cool. What about the people who don't? Are their opinions not valid?

Their opinions are not valid.

Ok, we need to stop and recognize the absolute nature of this statement.

I prefer PL for a very simple reason. The way it's laid out in the book. I'm visually impaired and the large print, high contrast PL value is far far easier for me to see and manage than the points list in the back of the book. It's that simple. Dies that mean that my opinion isn't valid?

 Blndmage wrote:
I prefer PL for a very simple reason. The way it's laid out in the book. I'm visually impaired and the large print, high contrast PL value is far far easier for me to see and manage than the points list in the back of the book. It's that simple. Dies that mean that my opinion isn't valid?

One would think that getting a digital copy and printing the table of point costs with a larger font size would be your ideal solution. And it doesn't change the comparison of the two systems as rules, because text size in the book is not a rule. If GW printed the point lists with a larger font size and used some weird barely-readable "theme" font for the PL numbers you'd have the opposite problem, but the rules would still be the same.

 Peregrine wrote:

"this is a PL game, list optimization is not welcome".

Why is that a problem?

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

"this is a PL game, list optimization is not welcome".

Why is that a problem?

It isn't, as long as you're willing to admit that it's virtue signalling about how "casual" your game is and not any advantage given by the PL rules themselves.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I prefer PL for a very simple reason. The way it's laid out in the book. I'm visually impaired and the large print, high contrast PL value is far far easier for me to see and manage than the points list in the back of the book. It's that simple. Dies that mean that my opinion isn't valid?

One would think that getting a digital copy and printing the table of point costs with a larger font size would be your ideal solution. And it doesn't change the comparison of the two systems as rules, because text size in the book is not a rule. If GW printed the point lists with a larger font size and used some weird barely-readable "theme" font for the PL numbers you'd have the opposite problem, but the rules would still be the same.

Reading PDFs can be quite painful over the course of a game. Physical books are more manageable in that regard. The simplicity of the PL system, including the less that 3 digit math means that I can get playing far far quickly and easily than when I use points. I'm not a tournament focused player. To be quite honest, I'm not a great player and lose far more than I win, but I keep playing because I enjoy using the models I assembled and painted. Winning is a happy bonus. I don't try and squeeze every ounce of efficiency from my modles, I play the army that fits the lore I've been building since 3rd editi.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

"this is a PL game, list optimization is not welcome".

Why is that a problem?

It isn't, as long as you're willing to admit that it's virtue signalling about how "casual" your game is and not any advantage given by the PL rules themselves.

You seem to be obsessed with that concept. I dont give a gak about what other people think about my games with Power levels but it it really is leberating not having to point up every little peice of equipment, the models are strictly WYSIWYG and thats it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Trollbert wrote:
So playing points is wrong because Eldar, Dark Eldar and IG are clearly undercosted? What if each army would be roughly equally strong in power points, did anyone test that?

Each army can't be equally strong in PL because the variations between different upgrade choices are too high. You can't balance a naked infantry squad and an infantry squad with a lascannon, plasma gun, power fist, plasma pistol, and probably another upgrade or two I'm forgetting, not when both have the same PL cost. You might be able to coincidentally find a PL list for each faction that is balanced with every other faction's list, but you can find a set of lists like that in a conventional points game.

And you're making the mistake of confusing individual mistakes (IG being too cheap) with systemic flaws (PL being incapable of giving a correct evaluation for all units). Different flaws, different criticism.

And you're making the mistake of confusing systemic flaws (points being incapable of giving a correct evaluation for all units) with systemic flaws (PL being incapable of giving a correct evaluation for all units). Different flaws, different criticism.

You're right on that, but are plasma weapons and power fists worth 3% of your army? That's about 47 points that you would. If it was worth these 47 points, why does nobody give their CP battery 47 points worth of equipment?

It's more than 47 points, the lascannons alone are 20 points each. Nobody does it in normal games because adding ~100 points to the cost of the CP battery is not desirable for a unit specifically intended to be as cheap as possible. In a PL game though you get ~100 points of free stuff.

To turn this around: How can a Lascannon be worth 25 points on a 1W T4 3+ sv model, when it's worth the same on a 11W T7 3+ sv model? Wouldn't it be more natural to cost equipment according to how effectively a unit cna use it?

Another thing one should notice: If you only take the most expensive equipment (pointwise), then you might be able to kill Knights, tanks etc. a lot better, but you barely have any weapons that can kill hordes in many armies.

Trollbert wrote:
[And you're making the mistake of confusing systemic flaws (points being incapable of giving a correct evaluation for all units) with systemic flaws (PL being incapable of giving a correct evaluation for all units). Different flaws, different criticism.

Uh, no, that's not how it works.

When conventional point costs are wrong it's because of individual mistakes, not systemic flaws. The system is capable of having a more accurate evaluation of a unit's strength, but someone made a mistake in that particular cost. Guardsmen may be overpowered at 4ppm, but it could be fixed by making them 5-6ppm without changing the point system.

PL fails for individual mistakes, but it also fails because of systemic flaws. A naked unit and one with all of the best upgrades will have the same PL cost, and both of them can't be correct. No matter what PL cost you assign at least one of the units will have the wrong cost. You can't fix the error in evaluation without completely changing the PL system.

To turn this around: How can a Lascannon be worth 25 points on a 1W T4 3+ sv model, when it's worth the same on a 11W T7 3+ sv model? Wouldn't it be more natural to cost equipment according to how effectively a unit cna use it?

Yes, upgrades should cost different points for different units. But the current system is better than nothing, and PL only makes it worse.

 Peregrine wrote:

Trollbert wrote:
[And you're making the mistake of confusing systemic flaws (points being incapable of giving a correct evaluation for all units) with systemic flaws (PL being incapable of giving a correct evaluation for all units). Different flaws, different criticism.

Uh, no, that's not how it works.

When conventional point costs are wrong it's because of individual mistakes, not systemic flaws. The system is capable of having a more accurate evaluation of a unit's strength, but someone made a mistake in that particular cost. Guardsmen may be overpowered at 4ppm, but it could be fixed by making them 5-6ppm without changing the point system.

PL fails for individual mistakes, but it also fails because of systemic flaws. A naked unit and one with all of the best upgrades will have the same PL cost, and both of them can't be correct. No matter what PL cost you assign at least one of the units will have the wrong cost. You can't fix the error in evaluation without completely changing the PL system.

To turn this around: How can a Lascannon be worth 25 points on a 1W T4 3+ sv model, when it's worth the same on a 11W T7 3+ sv model? Wouldn't it be more natural to cost equipment according to how effectively a unit cna use it?

Yes, upgrades should cost different points for different units. But the current system is better than nothing, and PL only makes it worse.

But PL does factor in how upgrades performs for certain units. The individual mistake is that a single heavy bolter is worse at doing it's job than a single lascannon.
In order to fix points, you have to come up with a complex formula to determine point costs of units. In order to fix PL, you have to tweak the numbers on some pieces of equipment.

The latter seems a lot more doable for the self-proclaimed GW "game designers".

 Blndmage wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I prefer PL for a very simple reason. The way it's laid out in the book. I'm visually impaired and the large print, high contrast PL value is far far easier for me to see and manage than the points list in the back of the book. It's that simple. Dies that mean that my opinion isn't valid?

One would think that getting a digital copy and printing the table of point costs with a larger font size would be your ideal solution. And it doesn't change the comparison of the two systems as rules, because text size in the book is not a rule. If GW printed the point lists with a larger font size and used some weird barely-readable "theme" font for the PL numbers you'd have the opposite problem, but the rules would still be the same.

Reading PDFs can be quite painful over the course of a game. Physical books are more manageable in that regard. The simplicity of the PL system, including the less that 3 digit math means that I can get playing far far quickly and easily than when I use points. I'm not a tournament focused player. To be quite honest, I'm not a great player and lose far more than I win, but I keep playing because I enjoy using the models I assembled and painted. Winning is a happy bonus. I don't try and squeeze every ounce of efficiency from my modles, I play the army that fits the lore I've been building since 3rd editi.

Enjoy your play then. PL is a great way to play an interesting and diverse game.

Peregrine wrote:Trust me, I have plenty of criticism for GW"s choices in the conventional point system. But PL is indisputably a more abuseable system, and offers essentially nothing in return besides the ability to send a message of "this is a PL game, list optimization is not welcome".

Is that a problem?

List optimisation is not the intended attitude for Power Level, just like how beer-and-pretzels "let's push our models around on a table without strategic care" isn't the intended attitude for points/Matched Play.

You're judging PL by a metric by which PL is not supposed to be judged by.

So yeah, why is list optimization being unwelcome a bad thing?

Furthermore, I'd like to draw emphasis to this phrase: "ridiculous to blame the players for making correct strategtic choices".
Why are they "correct"?

They are correct because they are the choices most likely to win the game. That's why I said correct strategic choices, not correct painting choices or correct story choices or whatever. And of course it's ridiculous to blame the players for playing a game and making the choices that are most likely to win that game. It is not the fault of the players if the game is poorly designed and those choices are too obvious or conflict with your ideas about the "right" way to play the game.

Who cares about winning the game? If that's all you care about, then Power Level probably isn't the game mode you're after.

Winning isn't be-all-end-all for everyone. Sure, you might think it is, but other people don't, and for them, the idea that there's a "correct" strategic choice for them to win the game easier isn't a primary consideration.

This is another example of you taking your own personal ideas about what is right and desirable in a game, and trying to apply it to everyone. Fun fact: not everyone cares the same way as you do.

No-one's calling it a "moral failure" except yourself. There's nothing morally wrong with wanting a competitive game at the peak of your strategic acumen. At the same time, there's also nothing morally wrong about wanting a relaxed, fast and loose game. You can play either, neither, or both, if you want. Both options are valid.

You are calling it a moral failure by using judgemental terms like "abuse" and "exploit" for making good strategic choices in list construction. Taking a plasma gun because it's the best option for winning is not "exploiting" the system. Taking hunter-killer missiles on every vehicle because they cost zero points is not "abuse".

You're using the term abuse as well. In the first quote on this comment, in fact, you say PL is more abusable: why the sudden shift to "taking every option possible isn't abuse!"

I'm not calling it a moral failure. Merely using the words "exploit" and "abuse" (which you've also used) is factual - it IS abuse of the system, because the system is designed for people to NOT "take a plasma gun because it's the best option of winning". You're still looking at PL through the lens of "good strategic choices", which is not how PL is intended to be played. The fact that you yourself use the word "exploit" and "abuse" in your own critique of PL implies that it's clearly not a judgemental term.

TL;DR Taking the "good strategic choices" IS abuse of the PL system because the PL system is not intended to be used as a way to make those "good strategic choices". You are applying a mindset foreign to PL and judging both it, and other people, by a set of standards that do not apply to them.

You think it's a joke. That's cool. What about the people who don't? Are their opinions not valid?

Their opinions are not valid.

If there was any doubt that Peregrine is utterly unable to think beyond his opinions and values, and have decent respect for other people, this is it.

Open play is a terrible "game", and it's absurd that people buy GW's marketing nonsense that "you can use or not use whatever rules you want, and just roll some dice I guess" is an equally-legitimate third way to play instead of just stating the obvious fact that you can use house rules.

Sorry, but it factually is. You can think in your opinion that it is bad, you can hate it with every fibre of your being, but while it's in the rulebook, it is just as legitimate as any other gamemode.

Just because the "you can use whatever you want, just roll some dice" approach is bad doesn't mean everyone else does, and it doesn't make your opinion fact. Some people like Open. Their opinions are just a valid as yours.

But, even if it were true - if people enjoy playing games with no balance, and and were cool with being wiped Turn 1, what does that have to do with you? Let them have their fun. If that's how they enjoy the game, so be it.

This is a discussion forum, not a "everyone have their ideas without criticism" forum. I am not going to someone's house and holding a gun to their head until they add up the point totals for their lists. They are free to play however they like. But I am not going to pretend that open play is anything resembling a good thing.

There's criticism, and then there's "Your opinions are not valid".

I'm not asking you to say that Open Play is good. I'm asking you to recognise that other people think it is, that it has value to other people, and that, much as you disagree with it, their opinions are just as valid as yours.

I can criticize points, I can criticize the stifling attitude of the competitive 40k sphere, but I also recognise that my opinions are just opinions. I don't jump in and insult their intelligence, assume their thoughts, or say that their opinions aren't valid.

You, on the other hand, cannot.
You are not criticizing ideas and opinions. You are stifling them, and imposing your own ideas as fact without considering the opinions contrary to yours.

If you can't have discussions without resorting to that, then I'd have to point out Rule 1 again.

In the same vein, I'd call Matched Play unsuitable for someone who wants to take a fluffy Space Marine Battle Company with power armoured bodies and Inquisitorial allies, or someone who just wants to put down the Tau Riptide, Wraithknight, and Castellan models they just built all together on a battlefield.

It's funny, because the Riptide/Wraithknight/Castellan list is the sort of anti-fluffy garbage that is only acceptable in a highly competitive environment where it's accepted that you're going to be making optimal strategic choices even if it comes at the expense of fluff. If someone tried to bring that list against me in a narrative/casual game I'd give them a WTF look and ask them to bring something more reasonable instead (and decline the game if they refused).

I didn't say anything about Narrative for the Riptide/Wraithknight/Castellan game. That's an example of Open Play, and while it could be done with the intent of "optimal strategic choices", it could very well also be "hi, I love giant mechs. Can we play a game where I get to take some of the giant mechs I love and roll some dice around?"

You would decline the game, cool. You're entitled to. If someone came up with their AM/BA/Castellan soup list, perfectly tailored for Matched Play and razor balanced and optimised, I'd also probably decline it, because that's not the kind of game I want to play.
Playing a "giant mechs vs normal army" game could actually be kinda fun. It wouldn't be my standard, and I wouldn't want to do it all the time, but as a quick one-shot game, which is what Open is perfect for, I'd probably accept.

So we come back to the "I wouldn't play like that, so it's wrong and bad" attitude that you seem to be spouting everywhere, and still fail to realize that the world is bigger than just you.

 insaniak wrote:
Indeed. It's almost like it's designed for people who don't particularly care about balance...

And, as I keep pointing out, everyone benefits from balance even if they don't understand enough game design to be consciously aware of it. PL is letting them down even if they don't realize it.

IOW "Hi, I'm Peregrine, and I know your own likes, dislikes and what you REALLY want better than you yourself do!"

Stop trying to assert your own views on what is good and bad on people. Let them decide for themselves.
I know game design. I also know that some people don't care about certain aspects of a game. What's the point of a brilliantly crafted stealth mechanic in a game if someone doesn't care about stealth?

I'll say it slowly. I. Don't. Care. About. Balance. As. Much. As. You.

Unless, of course, you want to take the position that deliberately making your game less balanced has the useful purpose of signalling to other players that you're looking for a particular attitude towards the game and people who do "too much" list optimization are not welcome...

Again - is that a problem?
You want to optimise? Play Matched. You don't want to optimise? Play anything else.

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If you look down on Narrative for being Matched Lite, why not look down on Matched for simply being Narrative+1? If you're being that cynical, they're two sides of the same coin, and therefore both invalid.

Because Narrative is not narrative. It's a different set of matched play missions, attached to a weird player-created belief that making all upgrades cost zero points is somehow "narrative". Matched play does what it claims, Narrative does not.

(And, again, I'd be happy if GW published a legitimate narrative system and would consider that a genuine second way to play the game. But that is not the game we have.)

Narrative is narrative to me, and does just fine.

Your opinion =/= fact. Your opinion = my opinion.

Peregrine wrote:

Trollbert wrote:
If so, what is wrong with that?

It's wrong because anyone is benefiting from an incorrect evaluation of a unit's strength. Incorrect point costs are bad, period, it doesn't matter which person's pet army is favored by a particular mistake.

And what if you don't care about that?

It's only "bad" because you care about it. If I don't care, then why is it bad to me?

By just clicking the imperial CP battery into battle scribe, it costs 180 points or 13 PL.
1750 points are roughly 100 PL, which means that in points you have to spend 10% of your point limit or 13% of your PL limit.

As I said earlier, that's a really misleading comparison. Nobody is going to be taking that 180 point CP battery in a PL game. The three infantry squads are getting lascannons and plasma guns, the HQs are getting plasma pistols and power fists. Add in the point costs of those additional weapons and see what percentage of your 1750 points you would have spent in a conventional-points game. It's definitely more than 13%, which means the CP battery is a better deal in a PL game.

No, they're not all getting lascannons and plasma guns. They might in yours, but, I'll say it again, what YOU'D do isn't the same as what everyone else would do.

My PL guard are WYSIWYG - I have no heavy weapons in my Infantry Squads, or special weapons, because they are all in dedicated HWTs and SWSs. The only upgrade I put on them is a vox caster per squad.
My Veterans, on the other hand, have as many weapons as they can carry. Squad 1 has 2x plasmas, a lascannon and a sniper rifle. Squad 2 has 2x meltaguns, a heavy flamer and a missile launcher.

So, please tell me how your idea that "the three infantry squads are getting lascannons and plasma guns" is a fact, and not just what you'd personally do, and it exclusive to yourself?

 insaniak wrote:
[You can probably stop pointing it out, as it's completely beside the point.

You don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean it's beside the point. In evaluating the merits of a particular rule we should consider both a person's explicit statements as well as the things they aren't consciously aware of that still contribute to their enjoyment of a game.

So, I can claim that you're not consciously aware of the fact that Narrative is factually more fun, and you don't get a say in the matter?
Is that how this works? You make a claim, say that it's not something you're "consciously aware of" and then treat that as evidence?

Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
When the point is that some people don't particularly care about balance, stating that balance benefits everyone is completely, ahem, pointless.

The point is that they do care, even if they aren't consciously aware of how their game works better when it is more balanced and don't have the level of game design understanding to give an informed opinion. Or if, like some people, they need to make a public statement of rejecting those benefits to keep up a certain appearance...

"Look at me, I'm Peregrine and I know what you really want better than you do!! If you disagree with me, you're just lying to make yourself look special!!"

Surely I don't have to explain how dumb this is. But, because you don't seem to have got it, I'll do the same for you.

"The point is that people DO want to make the whooshy noise when they use flamers and DAKKADAKKA noises when they fire assault cannons, even if they aren't consciously aware of it and don't have an understanding of onomatopoeia and language acquisition to give an informed opinion. Or if, like some people, they need to make a public statement rejecting those beliefs to keep up a certain appearance."
There we are folks, proof that everyone wants to make noises with their models! Don't forget, if you disagree, your opinion is either uniformed and invalid, or you're just lying to make yourself look different!

Seriously, you can stop kicking the horse. You've made your point. We all get that you feel that using points is the only sensible way to play the game. Repeating it ad nauseum isn't going to make the rest of the world suddenly agree with you.

As opposed to your repeating ad nauseum that PL is a valid system and the people advocating it have a point?

And why ISN'T it a valid system? The only reason you've given for why it's not valid is "I don't like it, and I expect that everyone shares the same values as me".

Trollbert wrote:
So playing points is wrong because Eldar, Dark Eldar and IG are clearly undercosted? What if each army would be roughly equally strong in power points, did anyone test that?

Each army can't be equally strong in PL because the variations between different upgrade choices are too high. You can't balance a naked infantry squad and an infantry squad with a lascannon, plasma gun, power fist, plasma pistol, and probably another upgrade or two I'm forgetting, not when both have the same PL cost. You might be able to coincidentally find a PL list for each faction that is balanced with every other faction's list, but you can find a set of lists like that in a conventional points game.

That's cool. Remind me again, why do I want to balance a naked squad and a tooled up one again?

If I don't care about that, why should that bother me?

Trollbert wrote:

But PL does factor in how upgrades performs for certain units. The individual mistake is that a single heavy bolter is worse at doing it's job than a single lascannon.

What ?? A 2 model unit of company veterans has a PL of 3. Adding one more model increases its PL to 8 (which btw is more than a dreadnought, which has 7). Now tell me, is a unit of 3 company veterans with their basic gear more powerful than a dreadnought with its basic gear ? No. Regardless of their gear, 3 company veterans are PL8. How can you put the power of a unit with 21 (!) possible upgrades in one number ? You cant. PL is ridiculous and unbalanced.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I prefer PL for a very simple reason. The way it's laid out in the book. I'm visually impaired and the large print, high contrast PL value is far far easier for me to see and manage than the points list in the back of the book. It's that simple. Dies that mean that my opinion isn't valid?

One would think that getting a digital copy and printing the table of point costs with a larger font size would be your ideal solution. And it doesn't change the comparison of the two systems as rules, because text size in the book is not a rule. If GW printed the point lists with a larger font size and used some weird barely-readable "theme" font for the PL numbers you'd have the opposite problem, but the rules would still be the same.

But is Blindmage's opinion valid?

Yes or no. Shouldn't be hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
How can you put the power of a unit with 21 (!) possible upgrades in one number ? You cant. PL is ridiculous and unbalanced.

How can you judge the value of a flamer, a weapon with varying degrees of effectiveness against multiple units and unit types, and platforms for that weapon, by one number?
You can't
Points are ridiculous and unbalanced.

Flamers are great against hordes of Gretchin, Termagants, etc etc. They're terrible against Knights and Terminators. They're also terrible on a slow moving unit, but brilliant on a fast moving one. Unnecessary for a charging unit, but great for a charged one. The amount of synergies and potential matchups in the game mean that it's nearly impossible to accurately judge the value of ANYTHING. The difference between PL and points is that points are more granular, with triple digit maths, whereas PL is mostly double, or even single digit. That's fundamentally it.

And yes, well done on pointing out one of the only real issues with the PL system I have - adding models to units being too extreme. I dislike how this is done, I fully admit that, and I want it changed, but IMO, that's the only MASSIVE glitch in the system of PL. It's worth bringing it up, and you're right, adding models to units is poorly done with PL, but the positives of the system outweigh that for me, at least.

 p5freak wrote:

Trollbert wrote:

But PL does factor in how upgrades performs for certain units. The individual mistake is that a single heavy bolter is worse at doing it's job than a single lascannon.

What ?? A 2 model unit of company veterans has a PL of 3. Adding one more model increases its PL to 8 (which btw is more than a dreadnought, which has 7). Now tell me, is a unit of 3 company veterans with their basic gear more powerful than a dreadnought with its basic gear ? No. Regardless of their gear, 3 company veterans are PL8. How can you put the power of a unit with 21 (!) possible upgrades in one number ? You cant. PL is ridiculous and unbalanced.

How can the cost of a unit that might synergize with another unit be put in one number?

The system is too complex for the "game designers", they won't be able to fix the point cost of units while fixing the point cost of upgrades. If there are less numbers that can be tweaked, it can be done a lot quicker and better. We get point updates once a year. How long do you want to wait, until the game is in a more or less balanced state? How many Chapter Approved Books will be released until GW decides to release a new edition with so the balance issues get a reset?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I prefer PL for a very simple reason. The way it's laid out in the book. I'm visually impaired and the large print, high contrast PL value is far far easier for me to see and manage than the points list in the back of the book. It's that simple. Dies that mean that my opinion isn't valid?

One would think that getting a digital copy and printing the table of point costs with a larger font size would be your ideal solution. And it doesn't change the comparison of the two systems as rules, because text size in the book is not a rule. If GW printed the point lists with a larger font size and used some weird barely-readable "theme" font for the PL numbers you'd have the opposite problem, but the rules would still be the same.

But is Blindmage's opinion valid?

Yes or no. Shouldn't be hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
How can you put the power of a unit with 21 (!) possible upgrades in one number ? You cant. PL is ridiculous and unbalanced.

How can you judge the value of a flamer, a weapon with varying degrees of effectiveness against multiple units and unit types, and platforms for that weapon, by one number?
You can't
Points are ridiculous and unbalanced.

Flamers are great against hordes of Gretchin, Termagants, etc etc. They're terrible against Knights and Terminators. They're also terrible on a slow moving unit, but brilliant on a fast moving one. Unnecessary for a charging unit, but great for a charged one. The amount of synergies and potential matchups in the game mean that it's nearly impossible to accurately judge the value of ANYTHING. The difference between PL and points is that points are more granular, with triple digit maths, whereas PL is mostly double, or even single digit. That's fundamentally it.

And yes, well done on pointing out one of the only real issues with the PL system I have - adding models to units being too extreme. I dislike how this is done, I fully admit that, and I want it changed, but IMO, that's the only MASSIVE glitch in the system of PL. It's worth bringing it up, and you're right, adding models to units is poorly done with PL, but the positives of the system outweigh that for me, at least.

As a Sisters player, I want a point system that can accurately reflect the value of an Exorcist Tank.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
How can you judge the value of a flamer, a weapon with varying degrees of effectiveness against multiple units and unit types, and platforms for that weapon, by one number?
You can't
Points are ridiculous and unbalanced.

Flamers are great against hordes of Gretchin, Termagants, etc etc. They're terrible against Knights and Terminators. They're also terrible on a slow moving unit, but brilliant on a fast moving one. Unnecessary for a charging unit, but great for a charged one.

Giving a gun its own points is better balanced than PL, where its one number for everything. You can also give flamers different points, this is done with the AM plasmaguns. Its more expensive for scions than it is for basic troops.

Trollbert wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Trollbert wrote:

But PL does factor in how upgrades performs for certain units. The individual mistake is that a single heavy bolter is worse at doing it's job than a single lascannon.

What ?? A 2 model unit of company veterans has a PL of 3. Adding one more model increases its PL to 8 (which btw is more than a dreadnought, which has 7). Now tell me, is a unit of 3 company veterans with their basic gear more powerful than a dreadnought with its basic gear ? No. Regardless of their gear, 3 company veterans are PL8. How can you put the power of a unit with 21 (!) possible upgrades in one number ? You cant. PL is ridiculous and unbalanced.

How can the cost of a unit that might synergize with another unit be put in one number?

The system is too complex for the "game designers", they won't be able to fix the point cost of units while fixing the point cost of upgrades. If there are less numbers that can be tweaked, it can be done a lot quicker and better. We get point updates once a year. How long do you want to wait, until the game is in a more or less balanced state? How many Chapter Approved Books will be released until GW decides to release a new edition with so the balance issues get a reset?

Problem with that is it's only too complicated because that's how they designed it, the devs had a chance to make a decent system and they botched it, codex creep is obvious the lack of attention for armies lagging behind even more so.

Only adjusting points once a year is a cynical cash grab there's no justification for only releasing it in a printed format, they could of easily commissioned an army building program they could alter at will but there's no money in that so they force us to buy CA.

And we all know they will release another edition every two years or so because they have locked themselves into a pattern of constantly churning out new codexes with bare minimum changes.

 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.

Well then GW needs to balance PL better for armies that don't have many wargear options.

Necrons vs. Grey Knights for example: A balanced 50PL Necron force compared to a balanced 50PL Grey Knights force will be points valued something like 500pts less due to GK upgrades and wargear. This is a serious balancing issue on GW's part & has nothing to do with calculating and list building.

 Lord Clinto wrote:

 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.

Well then GW needs to balance PL better for armies that don't have many wargear options.

Necrons vs. Grey Knights for example: A balanced 50PL Necron force compared to a balanced 50PL Grey Knights force will be points valued something like 500pts less due to GK upgrades and wargear. This is a serious balancing issue on GW's part & has nothing to do with calculating and list building.

Howso? PL seems to be calculated on the average cost, not the base cost of a unit.

For example, Grey Knights would be calculated somewhere between having everyone upgrades to the maximum, and barebones - an average. Necrons, having no options, have no average - just a flat value. So, let's assume that a barebones unit should be 5 PL. Then, the unit armed with everything it can is 7 PL. Under the PL system, an average is assumed, so they'd actually be worth 6 PL. If they go up against a unit which has no upgrade potential, and so is at a constant price (let's assume 6 PL), then you can end up with a situation where the upgrade unit, if they took no upgrades, could be worth less in points.

In this case, a barebones unit of Grey Knights would actually have LESS points than a Necron one, because the Grey Knights are under the average assumed for PL.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:

 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.

Well then GW needs to balance PL better for armies that don't have many wargear options.

Necrons vs. Grey Knights for example: A balanced 50PL Necron force compared to a balanced 50PL Grey Knights force will be points valued something like 500pts less due to GK upgrades and wargear. This is a serious balancing issue on GW's part & has nothing to do with calculating and list building.

Howso? PL seems to be calculated on the average cost, not the base cost of a unit.

For example, Grey Knights would be calculated somewhere between having everyone upgrades to the maximum, and barebones - an average. Necrons, having no options, have no average - just a flat value. So, let's assume that a barebones unit should be 5 PL. Then, the unit armed with everything it can is 7 PL. Under the PL system, an average is assumed, so they'd actually be worth 6 PL. If they go up against a unit which has no upgrade potential, and so is at a constant price (let's assume 6 PL), then you can end up with a situation where the upgrade unit, if they took no upgrades, could be worth less in points.

In this case, a barebones unit of Grey Knights would actually have LESS points than a Necron one, because the Grey Knights are under the average assumed for PL.

But no one will take anything less than the max amount of upgrades on the gk units, there's zero downside and every advantage to doing so.

There's no rules against it, the necron player will either have to just take the loss or refuse the game.

I prefer power level, and the main reason is because every piece of wargear has hidden costs that most don't take into account.
Namely, terrain density and appropriate targets.

A lascannon is only worth more than a flamer if there are big models to shoot and an open enough area to draw line of sight.

With power level you have the ability to simply build a list toward your preferred playstyle. The idea in the op is actually an interesting one because it allows you to not feel penalised if you wanted to just put out piles of bodies.

I know I only give one upgrade to any of my players in a troupe, and one without upgrades at all, because my two squads of bikes got loaded up and I have a prism blaster on my tank.

Evens things out a bit without really hindering my preferred playstyle.

There are a great many points-builds that can also result in a player having to either take the loss or refuse the game.

auticus wrote:
There are a great many points-builds that can also result in a player having to either take the loss or refuse the game.

Ah, but that won't matter, because apparently we're all only interested in playing the most powerful lists possible, whether we admit it or not, so nobody would ever take those sub-optimal lists that would auto-lose them a game...

I'm with Peregine on this one, Points does what Power Levels do to a finer degree. PL serves no purpose other than:

A) Less Granular "Balance"
B) Upset people over model choices
and...
C) Easier Maths

As an aside, if the dude or dudette did not care about balance at all then why are they using Power Levels in the first place? PL attracts CAAC and WAAC dudes, both who can easily abuse the system. Not worth touching with a 10 foot pole.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I'm with Peregine on this one, Points does what Power Levels do to a finer degree. PL serves no purpose other than:

A) Less Granular "Balance"
B) Upset people over model choices
and...
C) Easier Maths

As an aside, if the dude or dudette did not care about balance at all then why are they using Power Levels in the first place? PL attracts CAAC and WAAC dudes, both who can easily abuse the system. Not worth touching with a 10 foot pole.

The PL maths is actually a bit different Point maths. WaaC players don't usually play PL...

Lammia wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I'm with Peregine on this one, Points does what Power Levels do to a finer degree. PL serves no purpose other than:

A) Less Granular "Balance"
B) Upset people over model choices
and...
C) Easier Maths

As an aside, if the dude or dudette did not care about balance at all then why are they using Power Levels in the first place? PL attracts CAAC and WAAC dudes, both who can easily abuse the system. Not worth touching with a 10 foot pole.

The PL maths is actually a bit different Point maths. WaaC players don't usually play PL...

A CAAC environment with an easily abused ruleset? That's like WAAC haven.

Trollbert wrote:
If PL are even more unbalanced than Points, who profits from that unbalance?

There's your mistake. You assume one of them is more unbalanced. In practice both are unbalanced but just different units. Either way both are equally unbalanced. And you would have to be silly to use either for balance when neither is meant for that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
stuff

I think it says a lot that the best defense of PL you can come up with is to insist over and over again that you have a right to an opinion and it should be respected. Not a justification for how PL works better than conventional points, just "I have an opinion" and insistence that if GW labels something "narrative" then it must be a legitimate narrative system regardless of whether or not it accomplishes any of the goals of a narrative system. It says very loudly that you may have an opinion, but it doesn't have any substance behind it and shouldn't be given any value.

Setting aside all the insistence that you have an opinion and considering the facts of the situation, the possible advantages that PL has over points, we can find exactly three things:

1) It saves a minute or two of effort in a several-hour game, at most, and quite possibly adds time and work to make a list.

2) It allows the person proposing a PL game to convey a message that list optimization is not welcome, because PL is declared to be "casual".

3) A particular player's list is stronger relative to the opposition than it would be in a conventional points game (for example, the player with an optimized-for-PL "take all the upgrades" list, or someone who uses a Warhound titan as the core of their army) and they want to take advantage of that strength.

Option #3 is blatant WAAC TFG behavior, trying to skew the rules in their favor at the expense of their opponent, so we'll set that one aside. Of the remaining two I think it's pretty obvious what the relative values are. The time issue is so small it's effectively negligible, leaving the "THIS IS A CASUAL GAME" message. And you know what that behavior is called...

Or, it allows me to make a list on the fly in about three minutes with whatever I brought with me. Also, I run open play games about half the time and they tell you to look at power level to determine attacker and defender.

I use power level. My group is a group of friends about a dozen strong that meets about once a month. We often have odd numbers of players, everyone likes modelling a variety of options and we like having a variety of models.

You know what nobody has done, despite the fact that some of us have played for well over a decade? Torn off weapons to make our units more efficient in the new edition. Power level makes it a non issue.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Or, it allows me to make a list on the fly in about three minutes with whatever I brought with me.

So does the conventional point system. In fact, it's the perfect situation for it because you're so committed to using the same models with the same upgrades. You can make a PL-style list of points for each of your units one time and easily build a new list for each game by referencing the point table. The only difference is that the points will more accurately represent the strength of your units, and your game will be more balanced.

Also, I run open play games about half the time and they tell you to look at power level to determine attacker and defender.

Well there's your problem. You're wasting your time on open play instead of playing a real game. If you play normal missions you don't need PL.