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 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

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.

Yeah, stop having fun wrong! Peregrine, you do realise different people enjoy different things, right? You also realise concepts like fun and enjoyment are subjective? If somebody is enjoying playing the game a certain way then it's succeeded in one of its primary goals, regardless of whether or not you understand how they're able to have fun.

I vastly prefer to play points games. I think I've played a grand total of maybe 3 games using PL. In each of those 3 games both me and my opponent had fun. The game worked. Of those 3 different opponents 2 of them now use points all the time while 1 continues to play mainly PL games and continues to enjoy those games, probably because he's playing with like-minded people. They're not doing it to "virtue signal" about how casual they are, they've just found a system that works for them.

The fact that a system "worked" does not mean it has any reason to exist. In any situation where PL "works" the conventional point system works just as well, if not better.

I am playing a real game. And enjoying it too. If I have to cut my list in half, or double it in less than three minutes, I can do it mentally with power level. If I need to substitute models because my friend's army has no answer to what I have on the table, I can swap in something else in seconds. My list changes, it's just that my model's load out doesn't.

Our games often involve no-win scenarios or different power levels. I find taking on 50% more power to be a fun and challenging way to play. What would I care if they had me bested by 370 or 425 points when all I want to do is see if my eldar can hold the only objective in the middle of the table for 5 turns? If I am at a handicap, but have a tactical advantage, then the points cannot possibly cope with that difference anyway. So, power level does the job just fine.

Also, your condescension is unwarranted. You seemed to be interested in what people enjoyed about matched play, and I answered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My last game was against a necron army with 30 more power than my harlequins. We played meat grinder which meant I got secret deployment and my opponent got to drop orbital strikes on me and their models returned to play on a 4+ (2+ for troops)

How much should my two fusion pistols cost in that scenario to ensure balance? How about the zephyrglaives?

My warlord had a powersword, a relic, and was a great harlequin. If he was within 6" of a troupe in melee, how much are their kisses worth?

An average of a unit's combat effectiveness is fine in these scenarios. Since I almost exclusively play these scenarios, power level is perfectly fine for me and my group.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If I need to substitute models because my friend's army has no answer to what I have on the table, I can swap in something else in seconds. My list changes, it's just that my model's load out doesn't.

Points can do that too. Swapping out a 300 point X for a 100 point Y and a 200 point Z is the same as swapping out a PL 10 X for a PL 4 Y and PL 6 Z.

But the points will be more accurate a measure of the power of the units/models. Just tot up the points for each unit you have with you and you can perform that kind of sub with points just as easily.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I am playing a real game. And enjoying it too. If I have to cut my list in half, or double it in less than three minutes, I can do it mentally with power level.

You can also do this with conventional points. In fact, if you're like most players, you already have 500/1000/1500/etc point lists made and ready to go, so all you have to do is pull out the appropriate point level and start putting models on the table.

If I need to substitute models because my friend's army has no answer to what I have on the table, I can swap in something else in seconds. My list changes, it's just that my model's load out doesn't.

Again, works just fine with conventional points. Adding/removing 20 power points instead of 400 normal points is not a meaningful difference.

Our games often involve no-win scenarios or different power levels. I find taking on 50% more power to be a fun and challenging way to play. What would I care if they had me bested by 370 or 425 points when all I want to do is see if my eldar can hold the only objective in the middle of the table for 5 turns? If I am at a handicap, but have a tactical advantage, then the points cannot possibly cope with that difference anyway. So, power level does the job just fine.

More accurate evaluation of a unit's strength allows you to do a better job with this kind of mission. With normal points you can play 1000 points vs. 1500 points and have more confidence that you did in fact give a 50% advantage. With PL you might play 100 PL vs. 150 PL, but because PL is not an accurate evaluation the two sides might actually be equal in strength (and in conventional point totals) and the no-win scenario becomes an effortless win for the defender. Or maybe the reverse happens, and instead of a 50% advantage the attacker has a 100% advantage and the defender is wiped off the table immediately, before anything interesting can happen.

You seemed to be interested in what people enjoyed about matched play, and I answered.

You answered by confirming my impression: that PL does not offer any advantages over normal points in your games, you've just very attached to the idea that PL is somehow "more casual".

Pererine, are you a tournament only/focused player by any chance?
Is that format how you exclusively play games?

Because all I see is a counter argument of 'stop being a casual' and that's unfair to these guys.

As for why PL is better: that's subjective, but if I want a game using a funky or narrative scenario I don't want to spend time optimising how many squads of tactical are allowed upgrades. I've also, anecdote I know, been on the receiving end of waiting upwards of 30mins for someone to math hammer there list just to test a new codex. PL would have made that faster

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Pererine, are you a tournament only/focused player by any chance?

Nope, not at all. Conventional points are not just for tournaments, it's also the superior system for narrative/casual/whatever games. PL never offers any meaningful advantage, other than the virtue signalling aspect of deliberately unbalancing your game to prove how "casual" you are.

As for why PL is better: that's subjective, but if I want a game using a funky or narrative scenario I don't want to spend time optimising how many squads of tactical are allowed upgrades.

Then don't optimze, just make your choices and add up the points. If you get it wrong then why do you care if your list is less effective? In fact, conventional points are even better here because you no longer feel pressured to load up on every possible upgrade regardless of the narrative value. You don't pay points for the upgrades you don't take, so feel free not to take them.

I've also, anecdote I know, been on the receiving end of waiting upwards of 30mins for someone to math hammer there list just to test a new codex. PL would have made that faster

PL does no such thing. Math optimization and ideal list choices still exist in PL games, if a person is going to spend 30 minutes figuring out a list with conventional points they'll do the same with PL.

hobojebus wrote: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.

You got proof for that? Because my Grey Knight Paladins are mostly armed with halberds and regular storm bolters. I've only got one hammer on the entire list, and that's on my Apothecary.
Why? Because not all people care about "advantage" and "downside" if they don't take the most optimal loadout.

You might have an issue not taking everything you possibly can, but I don't. PL works fine for me.

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

If your only issue with PL is "people will exploit the system because there's no rules to stop them", have you thought that maybe the fault, hobojebus, is not in the system, but in people who abuse it?

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.

Because easier maths, model choices, and less sensitivity about balance are things that some people find appealing?

Something that you've also fallen into the trap of is assuming that not wanting points-level balance = wanting no balance at all.
Peregrine himself says that balance is a scale, not a binary yes/no. You can have less balance than the points system, but you can still have a degree of balance. A rough estimation of a unit's "power level", as it were.

Peregrine, my comments are all in a spoiler tag.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If I need to substitute models because my friend's army has no answer to what I have on the table, I can swap in something else in seconds. My list changes, it's just that my model's load out doesn't.

Points can do that too. Swapping out a 300 point X for a 100 point Y and a 200 point Z is the same as swapping out a PL 10 X for a PL 4 Y and PL 6 Z.

But the points will be more accurate a measure of the power of the units/models. Just tot up the points for each unit you have with you and you can perform that kind of sub with points just as easily.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Pererine, are you a tournament only/focused player by any chance?

Nope, not at all. Conventional points are not just for tournaments, it's also the superior system for narrative/casual/whatever games. PL never offers any meaningful advantage, other than the virtue signalling aspect of deliberately unbalancing your game to prove how "casual" you are.

There are advantages. If you can't see them, that doesn't make it a fact.

As for why PL is better: that's subjective, but if I want a game using a funky or narrative scenario I don't want to spend time optimising how many squads of tactical are allowed upgrades.

Then don't optimze, just make your choices and add up the points. If you get it wrong then why do you care if your list is less effective? In fact, conventional points are even better here because you no longer feel pressured to load up on every possible upgrade regardless of the narrative value. You don't pay points for the upgrades you don't take, so feel free not to take them.

And what if the issue is other people list optimising?

I don't want to waste my time playing a game I won't enjoy. Just as I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy playing me. You're welcome not to play me, just as I am not to play you, for whatever reason.

I've also, anecdote I know, been on the receiving end of waiting upwards of 30mins for someone to math hammer there list just to test a new codex. PL would have made that faster

PL does no such thing. Math optimization and ideal list choices still exist in PL games, if a person is going to spend 30 minutes figuring out a list with conventional points they'll do the same with PL.

Untrue. It is mathematically easier for single digit numbers to be calculated than triple digit ones.

Is adding 100+100 really so difficult but adding 10+10 is easier?

I think 'couple of minutes saved' is underestimation of PLs ease of use. I mostly play with points, but frankly, with them being scattered across several books they're a bit of a pain, and I completely understand if everyone doesn't want to deal with that, at least not every time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Is adding 100+100 really so difficult but adding 10+10 is easier?

No. However in the point system the number of calculations is far greater. There might be the same amount of calculations for a single unit than there are for an entire army under PL.

100 + 100 is exceptionally easy for some people. 11 - 6 is exceptionally difficult for some people, but smaller numbers can help those that struggle with mental arithmetic.

75 + 6 + 3 + 25 + 13 + 18*5 +5 + 6 + 25 + 17*5 + 'Did i just go over the 1500pts, oh I'm 3 pts over, right what can I swap out to go under but still use up the most pts I can' is what takes time*

It's a barrier for some, PL reduces that barrier.




*yes I know the numbers used don't add up to 1500, but the point is you're not just adding 100 + 100, you're doing multiple smaller calculations to make a list as opposed to going 10 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 6 = 51PL army with WYSIWYG

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Is adding 100+100 really so difficult but adding 10+10 is easier?

Sarcasm aside, 10+5 is trivially easier than 178+76, just like 2x5+6 is easier than 86+102+115, which might be same units with different point systems. Sure, the absolute amount of time and calorie consumption in either isn't earth shattering, but it is still a thing for many people and shouldn't be looked down on as entirely worthless, because it can very well be good enough for rough estimations. As that is good enough for some, more power to them on getting more quickly to the good stuff, even if I prefer points on personal level in gamees that do not involve more narrative elements, in which case the whole balance argument swings out of the window in favour of more unorthodox ways of resolving victory conditions (like flavour or strategic considerations on the big picture).

 Sherrypie wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Is adding 100+100 really so difficult but adding 10+10 is easier?

Sarcasm aside, 10+5 is trivially easier than 178+76, just like 2x5+6 is easier than 86+102+115, which might be same units with different point systems. Sure, the absolute amount of time and calorie consumption in either isn't earth shattering, but it is still a thing for many people and shouldn't be looked down on as entirely worthless, because it can very well be good enough for rough estimations. As that is good enough for some, more power to them on getting more quickly to the good stuff, even if I prefer points on personal level in gamees that do not involve more narrative elements, in which case the whole balance argument swings out of the window in favour of more unorthodox ways of resolving victory conditions (like flavour or strategic considerations on the big picture).

Sorry, but games like this and D&D and etc. aren't for you if you can't do that basic math. I certainly wouldn't want an opponent that can't do math, because they likely couldn't strategize well and actually give me a good game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

hobojebus wrote: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.

You got proof for that? Because my Grey Knight Paladins are mostly armed with halberds and regular storm bolters. I've only got one hammer on the entire list, and that's on my Apothecary.
Why? Because not all people care about "advantage" and "downside" if they don't take the most optimal loadout.

You might have an issue not taking everything you possibly can, but I don't. PL works fine for me.

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

If your only issue with PL is "people will exploit the system because there's no rules to stop them", have you thought that maybe the fault, hobojebus, is not in the system, but in people who abuse it?

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.

Because easier maths, model choices, and less sensitivity about balance are things that some people find appealing?

Something that you've also fallen into the trap of is assuming that not wanting points-level balance = wanting no balance at all.
Peregrine himself says that balance is a scale, not a binary yes/no. You can have less balance than the points system, but you can still have a degree of balance. A rough estimation of a unit's "power level", as it were.

Peregrine, my comments are all in a spoiler tag.

Spoiler:

Peregrine wrote: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.

I have given my justification for how PL works better. It is not my fault that you are unable to recognise that I, and other people, have preferences and likes that you disagree with.

Just because you are unable to fathom how someone might prefer fast list building, more relaxed gameplay, and less emphasis on a still-broken kind of "balance" does not mean that your ignorance is truthful.

If your entire justification for bullying and disrepecting users on this site is "I can't understand, and therefore don't recognise their opinions", then I really must bring to attention what a severe breach of both personal, human respect and Rule 1 this is. I expected better of you.

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.

How on EARTH does calculating a list from single, and at most, double digit values become SLOWER than adding up double, triple, and sometimes quadruple values. This is blatant misinformation.

And frankly, saving a minute or two is good enough for me. I feel that it has a positive effect on me.

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".

And is that a problem? Is asking for a game without list optimization, something that I dislike in my games, a problem?

We both know that you dislike games that are not full of, as you put it, "correct strategic choices", and as such, dislike non-optimized games (correct me if I'm wrong). That's fine, and you can decline those players as appropriate. As long as you're not insulting the people who do like to play those games (which, incidentally, you are in this thread), that's just your preference on what to play.

However, I don't think it's too much to expect for someone who thinks the opposite (disliking optimized games and "correct strategic choices") should be able to refuse a game based on that too.

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.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't want to play against someone like that. Not to say that they can't play that way, but I wouldn't personally play against them.

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...

No, I think you are so unable to understand that people value things you don't that your only way of understanding it is to put a derogatory label on them.

Peregrine wrote:

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.

Could. But you could also use the existing, pre-generated power levels. And what if you don't know what you've got with you?

Yet again, you mention "accurately represent strength" and "more balanced" - what if that's not a concern for someone? Stop trying to imply that the only way to play is your way.

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.

Lythrandire can play how the hell he wants to.
"Stop wasting your time on matched play and play a real game." Does that give you an idea how disrespectful you sound?
You're not critiquing the game any more. You're insulting people now.

Peregrine wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I am playing a real game. And enjoying it too. If I have to cut my list in half, or double it in less than three minutes, I can do it mentally with power level.

You can also do this with conventional points. In fact, if you're like most players, you already have 500/1000/1500/etc point lists made and ready to go, so all you have to do is pull out the appropriate point level and start putting models on the table.

If you used points as much as you say, you'd know that points are rarely in such neat brackets in multiples of 10.
If someone calculates on a squad by squad basis, not a "pregenerated army size" basis, or wants to have flexible list creation (say, do an all-Terminator list, or a fluffy 10th Company taskforce), then power level would be more than adequate.
However, calculating squad by squad with points would be longer, because of the irregular point sizes of certain units (being 2 or 3 points off a multiple of five, or example).

If I need to substitute models because my friend's army has no answer to what I have on the table, I can swap in something else in seconds. My list changes, it's just that my model's load out doesn't.

Again, works just fine with conventional points. Adding/removing 20 power points instead of 400 normal points is not a meaningful difference.

Also works fine with PL too. What's your point?
Is your point that PL and Matched Play can do similar things? If so, wonderful! That must also mean that we can abolish Matched Play because PL does the same thing!

I mean, that's what you're saying, right? /sarcasm/

Our games often involve no-win scenarios or different power levels. I find taking on 50% more power to be a fun and challenging way to play. What would I care if they had me bested by 370 or 425 points when all I want to do is see if my eldar can hold the only objective in the middle of the table for 5 turns? If I am at a handicap, but have a tactical advantage, then the points cannot possibly cope with that difference anyway. So, power level does the job just fine.

More accurate evaluation of a unit's strength allows you to do a better job with this kind of mission. With normal points you can play 1000 points vs. 1500 points and have more confidence that you did in fact give a 50% advantage. With PL you might play 100 PL vs. 150 PL, but because PL is not an accurate evaluation the two sides might actually be equal in strength (and in conventional point totals) and the no-win scenario becomes an effortless win for the defender. Or maybe the reverse happens, and instead of a 50% advantage the attacker has a 100% advantage and the defender is wiped off the table immediately, before anything interesting can happen.

Maybe. Or maybe I don't care about that, and the game might still be infinitely more enjoyable than a "balanced" one.

Hyper balanced is not the only way to play.

You seemed to be interested in what people enjoyed about matched play, and I answered.

You answered by confirming my impression: that PL does not offer any advantages over normal points in your games, you've just very attached to the idea that PL is somehow "more casual".

You said yourself PL has advantages. Faster list creation, less emphasis on list optimisation, and less micro-management of squad wargear.

PL has advantages. Just because you cannot see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
You're welcome to your opinion, and it's completely valid. If someone has an opinion you disagree with? That's also a valid opinion. If you want to act as this arbiter of "valid and invalid opinions", maybe you should take that up with a moderator.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If I need to substitute models because my friend's army has no answer to what I have on the table, I can swap in something else in seconds. My list changes, it's just that my model's load out doesn't.

Points can do that too. Swapping out a 300 point X for a 100 point Y and a 200 point Z is the same as swapping out a PL 10 X for a PL 4 Y and PL 6 Z.

But the points will be more accurate a measure of the power of the units/models. Just tot up the points for each unit you have with you and you can perform that kind of sub with points just as easily.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Pererine, are you a tournament only/focused player by any chance?

Nope, not at all. Conventional points are not just for tournaments, it's also the superior system for narrative/casual/whatever games. PL never offers any meaningful advantage, other than the virtue signalling aspect of deliberately unbalancing your game to prove how "casual" you are.

There are advantages. If you can't see them, that doesn't make it a fact.

As for why PL is better: that's subjective, but if I want a game using a funky or narrative scenario I don't want to spend time optimising how many squads of tactical are allowed upgrades.

Then don't optimze, just make your choices and add up the points. If you get it wrong then why do you care if your list is less effective? In fact, conventional points are even better here because you no longer feel pressured to load up on every possible upgrade regardless of the narrative value. You don't pay points for the upgrades you don't take, so feel free not to take them.

And what if the issue is other people list optimising?

I don't want to waste my time playing a game I won't enjoy. Just as I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy playing me. You're welcome not to play me, just as I am not to play you, for whatever reason.

I've also, anecdote I know, been on the receiving end of waiting upwards of 30mins for someone to math hammer there list just to test a new codex. PL would have made that faster

PL does no such thing. Math optimization and ideal list choices still exist in PL games, if a person is going to spend 30 minutes figuring out a list with conventional points they'll do the same with PL.

Untrue. It is mathematically easier for single digit numbers to be calculated than triple digit ones.

Your Paladins are ONLY loaded like that because you already have the models as though you were playing with points, when you can't JUST give them every upgrade ever because you actually had to make some decisions in the list building process.

PL says do whatever you want with no consequences. Regular points let you do the same thing with consequences (eggs in one basket syndrome). That makes it clear why PL is bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
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.

Except one weapon is clearly worth more in value, which is the Lascannon, due to it fulfilling more of a needed role compared to the Flamer, when you already have anti-infantry covered with your own Infantry and various other weapons. They CAN'T be priced the same because of that.

I can't imagine planning a game of 40k, or a pick-up game, and only allowing 3 minutes to make a list. If you have that little time, then 40k isn't the game you should be playing. Rush playing always sucks. Use points, or just eyeball it. Power Level is mostly useless anyways.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Is adding 100+100 really so difficult but adding 10+10 is easier?

Sarcasm aside, 10+5 is trivially easier than 178+76, just like 2x5+6 is easier than 86+102+115, which might be same units with different point systems. Sure, the absolute amount of time and calorie consumption in either isn't earth shattering, but it is still a thing for many people and shouldn't be looked down on as entirely worthless, because it can very well be good enough for rough estimations. As that is good enough for some, more power to them on getting more quickly to the good stuff, even if I prefer points on personal level in gamees that do not involve more narrative elements, in which case the whole balance argument swings out of the window in favour of more unorthodox ways of resolving victory conditions (like flavour or strategic considerations on the big picture).

You might have a point if calculators didn't exist and are freely available on all modern phones or cost a couple of quid/bucks from any shop selling office supplies. At that point, all addition is equally trivial.

I think PL could work if players were essentially "kit limited". Basically, limiting players to bringing the stuff that's available on the sprue the unit comes in. That kind of seems where the system is coming from at least.

 Galef wrote:
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

-

Personally OP I think this is how it should have been done in the first place. I've never understood why "points" need to be so absurdly high and convoluted. Calculating 2K in points seems to cause more problems, especially at the events I've traveled to than anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Is adding 100+100 really so difficult but adding 10+10 is easier?

Sarcasm aside, 10+5 is trivially easier than 178+76, just like 2x5+6 is easier than 86+102+115, which might be same units with different point systems. Sure, the absolute amount of time and calorie consumption in either isn't earth shattering, but it is still a thing for many people and shouldn't be looked down on as entirely worthless, because it can very well be good enough for rough estimations. As that is good enough for some, more power to them on getting more quickly to the good stuff, even if I prefer points on personal level in gamees that do not involve more narrative elements, in which case the whole balance argument swings out of the window in favour of more unorthodox ways of resolving victory conditions (like flavour or strategic considerations on the big picture).

You might have a point if calculators didn't exist and are freely available on all modern phones or cost a couple of quid/bucks from any shop selling office supplies. At that point, all addition is equally trivial.

Haha, no. People still make massive mistakes, even with their special magic phones. I've seen it 100's of times this year alone. A miss-tapped button and boom, all of a sudden your tank is 59 points instead of 95.

Yeah I'm not buying that. The 5 is nowhere near the 9.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Is adding 100+100 really so difficult but adding 10+10 is easier?

Sarcasm aside, 10+5 is trivially easier than 178+76, just like 2x5+6 is easier than 86+102+115, which might be same units with different point systems. Sure, the absolute amount of time and calorie consumption in either isn't earth shattering, but it is still a thing for many people and shouldn't be looked down on as entirely worthless, because it can very well be good enough for rough estimations. As that is good enough for some, more power to them on getting more quickly to the good stuff, even if I prefer points on personal level in gamees that do not involve more narrative elements, in which case the whole balance argument swings out of the window in favour of more unorthodox ways of resolving victory conditions (like flavour or strategic considerations on the big picture).

You might have a point if calculators didn't exist and are freely available on all modern phones or cost a couple of quid/bucks from any shop selling office supplies. At that point, all addition is equally trivial.

PLs are easier, not because the numbers are smaller, but because numbers do not exist for some things at all.
If you want 5 Marines, take 5 Marines and equip them as you see fit. You do not even need to look up how much a Plasma gun or Power fist cost.
Everything you need is on the datasheet. THAT is the point of Power Levels

But that, of course, leads to players taking EVERYTHING they can, which is not balanced it their opponent does not also have that option.
So if taking wargear costed PLs, but the same PLs regardless of what wargear, you achieve closer balance, while still having everything on the datasheet

-

 Galef wrote:

But that, of course, leads to players taking EVERYTHING they can, which is not balanced it their opponent does not also have that option.


-

Well I don't feel that for many casual players this is the case.
I have my squads painted and kitted out a certain way, with squad number markings and coherent colour schemes - I'm not about to rip off the special and heavy weapons and change them for something else, and repaint new models to match, depending on my opponent. So I'll often be putting down a sub-optimal list. And I'm ok with that, its my guys and I enjoy playing them the way they are.
I suspect many PL players, are putting down more 'fluffy' lists than going all out WAAC with their choices - yes someone could do that, but assuming that they always will is probably farther from the truth, in most occurrences.


We may also find in the future that the no model/no rules thing leads to future editions having fewer unit upgrade options, and Power Levels become more of the standard as units become more homogenized. Old players might not like it, but it certainly lowers the barrier of entry for newer players by reducing the complexity of unit upgrade choices.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah I'm not buying that. The 5 is nowhere near the 9.

Its not about whether the 5 is near the 9 or not. See you are trying to type 95. So you are hitting a 9 and a 5. If your timing is off, especially if you are typing fast, the 9 key stroke might come down an instant before the 5 key stroke through no intentional malice. It would be like me typing 'batrer' instead of 'barter'. 'r' and 't' are nowhere near each other yet I still made a typo. Fortunately for me, there is a red underline under my mis-spelling. I would have no such luck if I was playing my numpad too quickly.

people make mistakes, especially when they are working quickly, and our brain doesn't always send the correct signals to our fingers with respect to when buttons need to be pushed and in what order. Sometimes it misfires. The other issue with points is that often times players forget to pay for base wargear. Its easy to do. I've been playing since 5th edition. I don't immediately think I need to look over my units base equipment and double check to make sure none of that has a points value attached to that. Thats why you see so many people put together lists not paying for random stuff like Storm Bolters or Power Fists on Terminators. Its really easy to miss, especially if your list itself only notates equipment that deviates from the norm.

Add to that there are tons of mistakes to make if a player doesn't know *where* to find the most updated point values. First check your codex, then check Chapter Approved 2017, then check the Chapter Approved 2017 FAQ for any errata to the initial changes, but the Big FAQ from September doesn't have point modifications. GW has not been consistent with where it includes point changes. Honestly GW needs to have one document that keeps track of any and all deviations in points, and keep it updated. Power level by contrast by and large has not been adjusted. Thus regressing fixed balance changes, but at the same time also making it easier for players to quickly see the cost of their unit. It gets even more fun if the player is using the index for options. Okay, so your Autarch wants to take a Reaper Launcher. Well the option to take it is in the index, so refer there, but when you pay points for it you use the codex points! But for a Chaos Lord on a Steed of Slaanesh you would use the index points for the model (Lord on Steed), but would use the codex points for all of his wargear! As modified by Chapter Approved!) By the end of it you are pulling points from so many different areas you need to be very careful to make sure you aren't making a mistake while list building. It can be daunting for a newer player.

but akaean! I hear you cry, why can't they just use software to build the list. The answer is they can, but the software isn't necessarily always acurate, it has really wierd jerry rigged solutions for adding things like Forgeworld models (if a player is inclined), and the software isn't typically marketed towards the players who need it most (aka new players). What I mean, is its not really easily accessable, often its not mobile friendly, and a new player hanging out at a local GW is less likely to have quick access to it on his phone.

To give you a good example, its very easy for a new Eldar player to pay the *wrong* points for Dark Reapers for instance. First they have the pitfall of not realizing the stock Reaper Missile Launchers are not included in the base price of the model (seriously, how many times have you seen a new player on the army list sub forum post a stock dreadnaught and not realize that they need to pay for the multi melta and Dread Fist?), then there is a second pitfall of needing to check the April Big FAQ / Chapter Approved Eratta to see the point changes (even if they had purchased and reviewed Chapter Approved 2017 they would still miss that particular balance fix!)

I guess my point is that the over simplified power level does shave a *lot* of time list building and cross referencing, especially for newer players. Further it goes without saying that if you are the type of player who would abuse the power level system and take overloaded choices to get the most bang for your power level, you are exactly the type of player who should not be playing power level in the first place! In the end I prefer points because while it is a far from perfect system, it gives a more accurate portrayal of what the given strength of a force is. And while I did just complain about all of the different sources of points, my only criticism is that its not all found in a continuously updated document. I actually really appreciate GW's willingness to hot fix the game and patch over powered or under powered units. I know I personally really enjoy the changes they made to the Defiler. These hot fixes are meaningless when playing with power level though, as everything by and large still has the same power level as it was when first introduced with very few changes

BaconCatBug wrote:Is adding 100+100 really so difficult but adding 10+10 is easier?

Sure, but you're telling me that 5+6 is easier than 134+388? No way.

You'd have a point if points were always in multiples of 5 or 10, but seldom is that the case.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Sorry, but games like this and D&D and etc. aren't for you if you can't do that basic math. I certainly wouldn't want an opponent that can't do math, because they likely couldn't strategize well and actually give me a good game.

I enjoy D&D just fine - I've never really had an issue with maths in that game, but then again, I usually play low level characters and games, and when I DM, I'm usually of the handwavy type.
I can do basic math, I can do advanced math just fine according to my records, but I don't like doing it. If I can avoid doing long sums, I absolutely will. I don't think my preference for reducing how much maths I have to do affects my strategic play, but if that's an issue for you, you're more than welcome to decline games based on how you think that I might not be a good match for you.
Of course, I'd probably decline you instead for your insults to people's intelligence, but that's fair enough.

Instead of jumping straight to insulting people's intelligence, have you considered that people might actually want to do something other than maths?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

hobojebus wrote: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.

You got proof for that? Because my Grey Knight Paladins are mostly armed with halberds and regular storm bolters. I've only got one hammer on the entire list, and that's on my Apothecary.
Why? Because not all people care about "advantage" and "downside" if they don't take the most optimal loadout.

You might have an issue not taking everything you possibly can, but I don't. PL works fine for me.

Your Paladins are ONLY loaded like that because you already have the models as though you were playing with points, when you can't JUST give them every upgrade ever because you actually had to make some decisions in the list building process.

Actually, I started my Grey Knights in 8th, long after I'd actually given up on points.

I took halberds because they look awesome, and a combat medic with a hammer makes him stand out more.
U mad?

PL says do whatever you want with no consequences. Regular points let you do the same thing with consequences (eggs in one basket syndrome). That makes it clear why PL is bad.

Implying that consequences matter to me? I want a fun game. My idea of fun is different to you. You're welcome to think that PL is less fun because of a lack of consequences, and I don't have an issue with that. At the same time, all I ask of you is to respect that I find that fun.
That is LITERALLY all I'm asking of you. I don't care that you don't like PL. You're 100% entitled to that belief. I'm asking that you recognise that there's more than one way to have fun, and that if people find PL more fun, their opinions are just as valid as yours.

Do you agree with that?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
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.

Except one weapon is clearly worth more in value, which is the Lascannon, due to it fulfilling more of a needed role compared to the Flamer, when you already have anti-infantry covered with your own Infantry and various other weapons. They CAN'T be priced the same because of that.

Unless you don't have anti-infantry - say, because you've taken an army of Devastators all with lascannons - a fluffy 9th Company build. Or how about if the enemy has taken no tanks, or there are simply no suitable targets for that lascannon - in that situation, the flamer should always be worth more.

The lascannon is only more valuable than the flamer if it has targets, and if the flamer has competition for it's own targets. If not, then why should the lascannon be more?

You're assuming that an army has a balanced choice of units - if that was compulsory for the game, you'd have a point, but because the game gives you so much choice in list building, you cannot guarantee a balanced value every time.

A Town Called Malus wrote:You might have a point if calculators didn't exist and are freely available on all modern phones or cost a couple of quid/bucks from any shop selling office supplies. At that point, all addition is equally trivial.

I should have to rely on a calculator to play a pickup game? What next, I should have to have a working knowledge of ballistics and physics to make a shooting attack?

I shouldn't HAVE to use a calculator or get out my phone to make a list to play the game. They're welcome additions, but if your reason is "you should have a maths aid in order to play", then that should speak volumes to how convoluted points can be.

It's also not just the maths that takes time - flipping from the unit entry, to the wargear, and so on so forth for every unit takes up time. Having the value right there on the datasheet for the unit is a blessing for myself.

You're also paying for the range on the Lascannon on top of it benefitting more from various orders and aura buffs. They're worth more and you know that.

Also you can make that same argument when it comes to Power Mauls vs Fists. In PL they have the same exact value. Wanna defend that? Or are you going to deny Power Fists have more targets?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you would be the worst kind of DM to just hand wave whatever.

Question: How did a thread about possible modifications to PL devolve into arguing whether PL is good or not?

PL's merits and lack thereof has already been argued elsewhere, there's really no point in continuing. Pro-PL people have made up their minds as have Ant-PL people, so can we give it a rest? Seriously, all the arguments presented here are just recycled from the last thread and no one has changed their mind yet.

It always goes to that?

Just so everyone has a technical check on terminology, the Points system is more precise. That does not make it more accurate.

Points cost may assign a value of 123 points, and PL may equal 7 (approx 140 points) but if a unit’s true worth is 150... then PL is not accurate, but it would be more accurate than the point value.

You can more precisely measure a unit’s value with points, but accuracy is a quality determined by how close to true value something is measured at. In that case, PL may or may not be more accurate when considering a given true value.

Accuracy, reflecting true value, is what people seek for balance. Changing unit of measure (points vs PL) changes the accuracy compared to true value. This may or may not change the “undercosted” unit’s for two different meta games.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You're also paying for the range on the Lascannon on top of it benefitting more from various orders and aura buffs. They're worth more and you know that.

They have a wider target variety. That's useless if there are none of those targets on the table.

Points pay attention to the *potential* value of a unit or weapon. Those potentials can still be flawed, just as much as Power Level. Yes, I won't lie that lascannons DO have more potential in the widest variety of situations. Doesn't mean for a second that a lascannon is always priced corrected compared to the flamer.

Also you can make that same argument when it comes to Power Mauls vs Fists. In PL they have the same exact value. Wanna defend that? Or are you going to deny Power Fists have more targets?

Power fists are worse when you're Strength 4 attacking a T3 enemy with no armour save, due to the -1 to hit. Want to dispute that?

Also you would be the worst kind of DM to just hand wave whatever.

Good thing that you're not part of my group then.
Again, I would point out that, again, "worst" is a matter of opinion, not a fact. Can you confirm please that you ARE just expressing your opinion and not implying that it's a fact?

Dandelion wrote:Question: How did a thread about possible modifications to PL devolve into arguing whether PL is good or not?

Happened on the 3rd, 5th, and 7th comments. Funnily enough, Slayer-Fan123 here was the first to say "power level is a terrible point system and regular points are the best way to go", and sparked this whole tangent.

Great job Slayer. Glad to know you're still filling your quota of telling people their opinions are wrong and they're not having fun right.

PL's merits and lack thereof has already been argued elsewhere, there's really no point in continuing. Pro-PL people have made up their minds as have Ant-PL people, so can we give it a rest? Seriously, all the arguments presented here are just recycled from the last thread and no one has changed their mind yet.

Until people stop making personal attacks and insulting people who *dare* to have fun in a different way, I'm not going let that be treated as an acceptable thing to do.

From what I can see, no-one (at least on the Pro-PL side) is trying to convert the other side over. Rather, a few individuals on the Anti-PL side are just insulting anyone who does like PL. I don't think that's something Dakka condones.

Dandelion wrote:
Question: How did a thread about possible modifications to PL devolve into arguing whether PL is good or not?

Because the proposed change to PL made PL into points, thus defeating any possible reason to have PL in the first place.

Ok, how much is the range on a lascannon worth on a city fight board? How about if you are starting play with the enemy surrounding you at 12" away versus having the hammer and anvil deployment?

Power mauls and fists can each only kill to be model per hit, but the mail hits more often. There may not be more types of unit the mail is better at killing, but I am willing to bet there are more models on the average table the maul kills more efficiently.

Horde? I'd be happier with the maul. Got a character or big model out there? Glad I grabbed the fist. Paying triple the points for a fist that may end up only ever swinging at one wound models at toughness three seems like a weird way to value things.

People simply aren't maxing out every list with all available options and wargear. Most kits don't have them on the sprue, and anyone who would buy 5 of the same kit to field 5 models with the best weapon is probably not looking at power level anyway (that's a lot of money to toss out if you aren't going to tournaments to win stuff)

Since tournaments have restrictions on terrain set up, mission options, and list building, the points start to become more accurate.

A base power level system, with small add ons to represent better gear would be fine. It would help necrons immensely and was already done with several forgeworld models (the wraithseer comes to mind) so the original idea has merit.

I can't believe we're really at the point of arguing that adding 521+118 is meaningfully difficult, especially in an age where everyone has a calculator on their phone. And yes, you could accidentally type 181 instead of 118, but you can also do that when adding up PL points.