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.

A key point of PL is that you can only use it with people you trust won't abuse it and immediately try to take every upgrade possible just because it's free. Those are the types of people that you don't play PL with since they miss the point.

To put it another way it looks like GW themselves use mostly PL (very few battle reports in White Dwarf have used points; the vast majority have been rough power level) and seem to get along fine, so it's certainly viable if a subpar choice to points. It just requires a very different approach to the game than most people seem to have.

For me, it's power level. If 40k points were an accurate statement on 'value', then that would be fair enough. For me, power level being 'more broken than 40k' quickly becomes nothing more than academic as points based 40k is already one of the most broken and easily abused systems out there. '

Funnily enough, my preference for power level stems almost entirely from my experience playing warmachine/hordes. I simply prefer a less granular accounting system. More granularity doesn't necessarily make things 'more accurate' or 'better' in my experience, especially as table top wargames are very limited systems to begin with. For me, 40k requires a collaborative approach to ensure both people are getting what they want out of it (I put a lot of importance on the social contract aspect) anyway, so I would be doing this for points or power level regardless, so then it becomes simply a matter of preference, and as stated, I prefer a less granular system.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Points for pickup games and anything remotely serious
Power level for non-serious stuff like Apocalypse, Narrative games, etc.

Hmm, with respect, calling narrative games 'non-serious' is a bit cheeky if you ask me. Internet and tone, hopefully? If by 'serious' you mean 'tournament', that's fair enough and I'll more of less agree, but for what it's worth, narrative games are anything but 'casual' in my experience - they take a lot of work and can be quite involved, quite serious affairs.

I prefer Power Levels but I do admit that the current rules have poor support for it.

As I can see, the point of Power Levels is to do away with min-maxing and offer a much bigger degree of freedom for army building while retaining a fair performance-cost ratio. So for example, a 10-strong Tactical Squad is worth 10 Power and it has the same 10-Power-worth performance regardless of the upgrades it has, it will just manifest differently: a Tactical Squad with a flamer and a heavy bolter is 10 Power worth of anti-infantry, while a Tactical Squad with a meltagun and a lascannon is 10 Power worth of anti-vehicle. The question should be not "what is the most point efficient for your list" but "what do you want in your army" - within the Power Rating of the unit, every option should be equal and meaningful.

The way Power Level army building is sonicfast and super-flexible also hits close to my heart.

Deadnight wrote:


Hmm, with respect, calling narrative games 'non-serious' is a bit cheeky if you ask me. Internet and tone, hopefully? If by 'serious' you mean 'tournament', that's fair enough and I'll more of less agree, but for what it's worth, narrative games are anything but 'casual' in my experience - they take a lot of work and can be quite involved, quite serious affairs.

Haven't you heard, that (in the eyes of some extremely prejudiced folks out there) narrative is equal to pushing your minis making pew pew noises because you don't care about anything and could as well throw all of the rules out the window?

nou wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Hmm, with respect, calling narrative games 'non-serious' is a bit cheeky if you ask me. Internet and tone, hopefully? If by 'serious' you mean 'tournament', that's fair enough and I'll more of less agree, but for what it's worth, narrative games are anything but 'casual' in my experience - they take a lot of work and can be quite involved, quite serious affairs.

Haven't you heard, that (in the eyes of some extremely prejudiced folks out there) narrative is equal to pushing your minis making pew pew noises because you don't care about anything and could as well throw all of the rules out the window?

Haha, Don't forget the virtue-signalling Nou.

Deadnight wrote:

nou wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Hmm, with respect, calling narrative games 'non-serious' is a bit cheeky if you ask me. Internet and tone, hopefully? If by 'serious' you mean 'tournament', that's fair enough and I'll more of less agree, but for what it's worth, narrative games are anything but 'casual' in my experience - they take a lot of work and can be quite involved, quite serious affairs.

Haven't you heard, that (in the eyes of some extremely prejudiced folks out there) narrative is equal to pushing your minis making pew pew noises because you don't care about anything and could as well throw all of the rules out the window?

Haha, Don't forget the virtue-signalling Nou.

How could I, I proudly wield the banner of being one of the original CAACs.

I prefer power levels. I don't see Warhammer 40k being anywhere close to balanced enough to bother with the granularity of points often. Especially since I tend to run a lot of different wargear options, not necessarily good, where it would be easier to just grab groups 5 or 10 marines/terminators and just play. Even with Battlescribe, Chosen and especially Fallen are a bit of a nightmare to point out.

I don't enjoy building army lists anymore. So when it comes to points games my armies are less dynamic than anything I would run via Power Levels. I basically just pointed out blocks of units (example: Terminator Squad 1: 241 points, Terminator Squad 2: 231 points) and add them in to a legal Battalion plus maybe a patrol if I want to run Cypher+Fallen. Any left over points get turned into Icons. So my points lists are far more static than my Power Level ones.

Now to be constructive for a change:

PLs have one inherent advantage over points in a suboptimal setting. Neither points or PLs can be used as a sole balancing factor to ensure close matches - neither of which is bulletproof and internal and external imbalance of codices allows for totally skewed matches as often at 2000pts as at 100PLs. With Matched Play and min-maxed goals of list building, this flaw of point system is somehow countered by "as optimized as humanly possible" goal. But in suboptimal world of narrative or casual gaming no such additional passive balancing mechanism exist, and this is where the intended roughness of PLs becomes crucial - when using PLs people are usually aware that they are roughly measuring game size, not "exact and fair" side vs side balance, and don't rely on PLs to do all the necessary balancing work for them. Cross tailoring, asymmetrical mission goals and terrain layout are all important balancing factors in narrative/open/casual and it is better done when people do not treat point systems as holy grail of game balance.

text removed.

Reds8n

One of the reasons I enjoy PL is the way it changes your list building. When you really stop to think it over, it really changes how you see your models and lists.

I also really enjoy the PL based missions in the BRB.

How those the thinking over does not happen? The units have the same weapons and stats, only the difference in efficiency between different armies and the point costs used to build the army are bigger then with power levels then it is with points.

A GK player will not want to take upgrades, specially as he won't have all them in the box of models, but he will know that the opposing army now got cheaper and more efficient.

So a GK player would have to think even more about the validity of his list durning the list building part.

Karol wrote:
How those the thinking over does not happen?

With Power Level, everything you want to really think over is already included o you don't have to feel extensive angst over how Plasma Guns are really cheap but you want the Meltaguns. It literally doesn't matter, you slap whatever you want onto the unit, all cost-efficiency troubles are (supposedly) already accounted for your convenience.

The problem is more around that 'supposedly' that in turn roots in unbalanced units and options (something that persists even in the points system) rather than Power Levels being bad.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Karol wrote:
How those the thinking over does not happen?

With Power Level, everything you want to really think over is already included o you don't have to feel extensive angst over how Plasma Guns are really cheap but you want the Meltaguns. It literally doesn't matter, you slap whatever you want onto the unit, all cost-efficiency troubles are (supposedly) already accounted for your convenience.

The problem is more around that 'supposedly' that in turn roots in unbalanced units and options (something that persists even in the points system) rather than Power Levels being bad.

I think it's more a lot of people can't seem to fathom that you WOULDN'T just take the best/all options just because nothing stops you from doing it. As I said, using power level requires a certain mindset that it's clear a lot of people posting here don't have It's no less balanced than points, it just requires you to not treat everything as "X versus Y" comparisons for choices.

Wayniac wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Karol wrote:
How those the thinking over does not happen?

With Power Level, everything you want to really think over is already included o you don't have to feel extensive angst over how Plasma Guns are really cheap but you want the Meltaguns. It literally doesn't matter, you slap whatever you want onto the unit, all cost-efficiency troubles are (supposedly) already accounted for your convenience.

The problem is more around that 'supposedly' that in turn roots in unbalanced units and options (something that persists even in the points system) rather than Power Levels being bad.

I think it's more a lot of people can't seem to fathom that you WOULDN'T just take the best/all options just because nothing stops you from doing it.

Power Level assumes that there no "best options" and taking "all" options is really just giving the unit its full potential.

I prefer Power Level.

Preference is all it comes down to. Neither is objectively better than another. It all comes down to what you value, and what you want to get from the game.

Nithaniel wrote:When you have any measurement sytem that both players agree to there is an implied balance. Power levels vary too much for that balance to be maintained. If you want a chill game with firneds then its fine but for Power level to work you need to play true WYSIWYG which doesn't always apply in casual games so you'll end up with players just tricking out their units with every upgrade available because it costs nothing to do it.

40k isn't balanced even with points but it will get you closer to balance than PL will.

Points also let you chop and change unit size without penalty. If you run a squad of 10 but actually find that 8 is what you need to squeeze a couple of buff characters into that rhino you can't do it with PL.

If you experiement with Battlescribe and build a few lists you can see the variance in power level compared to points.

Points is the prefferred option almost everywhere so unless you're playing with a select few buddies that all play power level I would start as you mean to go on and just get used to points.

Spoletta wrote:Power levels are necessary for the game, since they are not updated in CA.

You use those for those games where you just want to be able to play with your models just the way you built them, and with only your index or codex in hand without checking 40 FAQs or CA.

Sure it can be gamed, but if you do that then you weren't going to use PL the right way in any case.

nou wrote:Now to be constructive for a change:

PLs have one inherent advantage over points in a suboptimal setting. Neither points or PLs can be used as a sole balancing factor to ensure close matches - neither of which is bulletproof and internal and external imbalance of codices allows for totally skewed matches as often at 2000pts as at 100PLs. With Matched Play and min-maxed goals of list building, this flaw of point system is somehow countered by "as optimized as humanly possible" goal. But in suboptimal world of narrative or casual gaming no such additional passive balancing mechanism exist, and this is where the intended roughness of PLs becomes crucial - when using PLs people are usually aware that they are roughly measuring game size, not "exact and fair" side vs side balance, and don't rely on PLs to do all the necessary balancing work for them. Cross tailoring, asymmetrical mission goals and terrain layout are all important balancing factors in narrative/open/casual and it is better done when people do not treat point systems as holy grail of game balance.

Mindset is key, war is not balanced/fair/equal. I rather enjoy Alamo type scenarios either defender or attacker, Stalingrad, DDay, Hastings, etc same thing. just take any famous real life battle & 40k it up.
I play 100% Fully painted wysiwyg, so maybe if you proxy everything, have same model representing diff units, only care about winning, minmax, then PL might not be for you . Luckily there is a system of "balancing" just for you !

I have no problem playing points lists against everyone(non wysiwyg, painted, etc) but always prefer PL with like minded people.

Points always. Power level is just too open to abuse. Every explanation I've seen for its use can be countered quite easily.

"It's for making army lists on the fly"- what are you doing showing up at your store without an army list?

"It's easier"- and simple maths isn't?

"You don't need to worry about minute upgrades"- I don't. Because I make multiple army lists in advance of the most common sized games I expect to play.

Wayniac wrote:
A key point of PL is that you can only use it with people you trust won't abuse it and immediately try to take every upgrade possible just because it's free.

And this is why PL is a trash system. If you have to refrain from abusing the broken things then why not just use a system that isn't broken in that way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AtoMaki wrote:
As I can see, the point of Power Levels is to do away with min-maxing and offer a much bigger degree of freedom for army building while retaining a fair performance-cost ratio.

PL doesn't do this at all, it just changes what the best min-maxed configuration for a unit is. There are still better and worse options for the point cost and taking the less-efficient choice will still make your unit weaker. The only difference is that normally this will be the most expensive (in the normal points system) upgrades in every possible slot, while in the normal point system it tends to be a bit more complicated than "take lascannons and plasma and power fists everywhere you can".

(It does also enable the virtue signalling aspect, where saying "PL game" can translate to "I am sacrificing balance in my game to prove how little I care about it and how unwelcome min-maxing players are", but that's a social thing not a part of the written rules.)

So for example, a 10-strong Tactical Squad is worth 10 Power and it has the same 10-Power-worth performance regardless of the upgrades it has, it will just manifest differently: a Tactical Squad with a flamer and a heavy bolter is 10 Power worth of anti-infantry, while a Tactical Squad with a meltagun and a lascannon is 10 Power worth of anti-vehicle. The question should be not "what is the most point efficient for your list" but "what do you want in your army" - within the Power Rating of the unit, every option should be equal and meaningful.

Too bad it doesn't work this way, and you don't get the same 10-point performance out of all of those units. The 10-point squad with a lascannon, power fist, and plasma gun will be better against the majority of targets and has way better point efficiency. By taking anything else you're making your army weaker.

Now, it technically could work this way, and in that case PL would in fact be a good system, but 40k has too many upgrade options where there's a wide range of power. A plasma gun is a way more powerful weapon than a flamer, which is fine as long as the flamer is cheaper. But if they cost the same zero points then the plasma gun is always the correct choice. To change this you'd have to give up on the idea of weapons of varying strength and either massively buff the flamer (with a corresponding point increase in the normal point system) or massively nerf the plasma gun to the level of a flamer. And you'd have to commit to doing this everywhere, removing all cases of "weak but cheap" and "expensive but you get what you pay for".

I prefer points, IMO it's much more balanced. For example:
My 2000pt Deathwatch army is 154 Power.
My 2000pt Aeldari lists range from 93 to 98 Power.
And they are currently both pretty close to even when it comes to competitiveness on the tabletop.

If my two armies were to play against each other right now, using only Power levels, then I'd be taking over 50% more Aeldari than would be allowed using points (meaning I'd have to add 50PL more units to my Aeldari list to get up to the 150ish level). Can you imagine playing against Eldar now, except they get 50% more than they already do?

Get ready for the entire thread to be Peregrine’s opinions on PL, because that’s how these always go (until thread lock).

FWIW I prefer points but PL is awesome for a casual pickup game or certain scenarios. It’s 100% incompatible with a unit optimising mindset... it’s just for relaxed games where you don’t care about balancing too much.

Grimtuff wrote: "It's for making army lists on the fly"- what are you doing showing up at your store without an army list?

Because I play Power Level, and I don't need to have an army list written days in advance. I like to plan my collections around preplanned lists, but my games? Not so.

"It's easier"- and simple maths isn't?

Exactly, simple maths. 6+5 is fundamentally easier than 154+289. Sure, it's basic addition, but one is far faster to do.

"You don't need to worry about minute upgrades"- I don't. Because I make multiple army lists in advance of the most common sized games I expect to play.

And other people don't do that.

This brings me back to the real determining factor is how You (the general You, not Grimtuff specifically) play the game, and what you want to get out of it.

Happy with both, but for different things, have started locally to play APOC scale games where each player brings a points based army, and then has as a team a power level budget to bring in lords of war.

reasonably happy with power level as long as WYSIWYG is in effect and for other scenarios, but in general use points.

given the two are basically the same except PL is less granular PL is better for larger games - the only reason we don't use it more for the army is the lack of WYSIWYG among a few armies

 Peregrine wrote:
Now, it technically could work this way, and in that case PL would in fact be a good system, but 40k has too many upgrade options where there's a wide range of power.

Yes, as I said, this is kinda like the pooper of the whole idea. The lasca+plasma Tactical Squad should be equal in power to the hb+flamer one, but as of now, it isn't.

Either of them, but must be WYSIWYG.

There is little point in comparing points to PL, they are two different games. Like apples and pears. Points is out and out restricive power gaming, trying to get the smallest advantage from each point paid for a weapon It is also the system most are familiar with.

PL is a totally different system with different style. It's also newer, which is peoples main issue. They don't want to change how they play.. You pay for the figures in your force, not the weapon it carries, which means a better a mix and balance.

Agree with your opponent(s) on a system, and get some plastic on the table.

PL is a dumpster fire of a system IMO. It is way to easy to abuse and offers nothing in return. Perigin is right about it the only thing it is good for is saying "I want to play a poorly made army and don't want to play with people who can make a decent list."

Or it's good for those times where you want to just toss some plastic on the table real quick and have a couple armies bash their head real quick.

Honestly, when everyone ignores upgrade pricing, and the point costs of everything are as (if not more) arbitrary as PL, I don't see the big stink so long as your opponent is agreeable.

Points and Power levels... they're the exact same thing with different names... they're numbers you add up to make an equal game balanced game vs your opponent.

 Charistoph wrote:
Or it's good for those times where you want to just toss some plastic on the table real quick and have a couple armies bash their head real quick.

Honestly, when everyone ignores upgrade pricing, and the point costs of everything are as (if not more) arbitrary as PL, I don't see the big stink so long as your opponent is agreeable.

The issue is points is still better for that, at the cost of maybe 1 min every 500 points you can have alot better unit variety, EG Do you want sponsons on your predator, do you want a heavy on your terminators, with power levels the answer is always yes and if your models are not set up that way your just crippling your list.

mew28 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Or it's good for those times where you want to just toss some plastic on the table real quick and have a couple armies bash their head real quick.

Honestly, when everyone ignores upgrade pricing, and the point costs of everything are as (if not more) arbitrary as PL, I don't see the big stink so long as your opponent is agreeable.

The issue is points is still better for that, at the cost of maybe 1 min every 500 points you can have alot better unit variety, EG Do you want sponsons on your predator, do you want a heavy on your terminators, with power levels the answer is always yes and if your models are not set up that way your just crippling your list.

Really?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:... simple maths. 6+5 is fundamentally easier than 154+289. Sure, it's basic addition, but one is far faster to do.

Add on that I was visiting my LGS and they took time to look up the new pricing with the CA (which literally reduced someone's pre-made list by 1/4 in point value, so he bought and built a Primarch to pad his points), instead of just getting in to the game with PL, and we start seeing an economy of time.

 Dr Coconut wrote:
Either of them, but must be WYSIWYG.

There is little point in comparing points to PL, they are two different games. Like apples and pears. Points is out and out restricive power gaming, trying to get the smallest advantage from each point paid for a weapon It is also the system most are familiar with.

PL is a totally different system with different style. It's also newer, which is peoples main issue. They don't want to change how they play.. You pay for the figures in your force, not the weapon it carries, which means a better a mix and balance.

Agree with your opponent(s) on a system, and get some plastic on the table.

My issue isn't that it's newer. It's that PL rates a baneblade with an extra 4 lascannons and 12 heavy bolters the same as a baneblade without any of them. One of those is obviously got a TON more firepower than the other... so any system that doesn't recognize that IMO is inherently flawed. The game is most fun when both teams stand a chance of winning. If one team takes all the extras that PL allow and the other doesn't it becomes more imbalanced than normal, and it becomes a lot less fun. So I'll stick with points. Now that you can have Battlescribe as an app on your phone, there is no reason to not use points.