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.
Charistoph wrote: 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.
Why are you acting like "ignore balance updates" is a good thing?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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?
Do you have one? Because the points system in Warhammer 40K sure isn't it. And never has been.
Your argument only holds any water when the points system is actually balanced.
If you're working from the realisation that the points system is full of flaws anyway and also requires players to not abuse it in order to avoid issues, Power Level suddenly becomes a lot less ridiculous.
Charistoph wrote: 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.
Why are you acting like "ignore balance updates" is a good thing?
There was a balance update? When? Where? There was a point change, but with GW, that rarely equals a balanced update.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/13 01:44:20
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
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?
Do you have one? Because the points system in Warhammer 40K sure isn't it. And never has been.
Your argument only holds any water when the points system is actually balanced.
If you're working from the realisation that the points system is full of flaws anyway and also requires players to not abuse it in order to avoid issues, Power Level suddenly becomes a lot less ridiculous.
It is like getting a boat with a hole in it only one lets in a cup of water every hour and the other one lets in 10 gallons every hour. Sure they are both flawed but you might as well minimize the issue.
Charistoph wrote: 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.
Why are you acting like "ignore balance updates" is a good thing?
There was a balance update? When? Where? There was a point change, but with GW, that rarely equals a balanced update.
It's generally agreed that the points updates are a step in the right direction. Even if a couple of the point tweaks aren't great, most of them are a move towards better balance rather than away from it.
Meanwhile, Power Level-based units are stuck with costs that are sometimes years old.
The balance of Power Level is also hugely army dependent. Sisters of Battle, for example, are an army where a five-sister squad can generally cost anywhere from 50ish to 100+ points, with both ends of the spectrum being viable. Five Dominions with five Storm Bolters is great, cheap anti-infantry chaff that costs 60pts. Five Dominions with Meltaguns is great, expensive anti-tank firepower that costs 121+ points. Both regularly end up in my lists, and both cost 5 PL.
In fact, Sisters of Battle in general are regularly screwed by Power Level because our best asset is high-volume access to Storm Bolters, which are only good because they're so incredibly cheap. In Power Level, our best asset becomes a weakness and an already-struggling army also suddenly is putting way fewer bodies on the field than an equivalent similar force from another codex.
I personally have never understood the premise of power levels. It's essentially the same thing as points but vaguer allowing for there to be a larger power gap between armies. Especially with apps like Battle Scribe you don't even save any meaningful amount of time making a list and in a game that takes 2-3 hours whats the big deal spending an extra 5min writing your list. If a game of 40k took 20 minutes per round and you changed around your army after each game maybe I could see the appeal but right now I just don't.
I vastly prefer points. I like the granularity but more importantly the balance is better*.
*Relatively
malcontent999 wrote: I can't stand the vagueness of power level. It seems that war gear and options are fading out, so it may eventually not matter, but I still prefer the granularity of points.
It is like getting a boat with a hole in it only one lets in a cup of water every hour and the other one lets in 10 gallons every hour. Sure they are both flawed but you might as well minimize the issue.
Unless, of course, you don't care if you get wet, in which case you might as well use the boat that is easier to handle.
This is the stumbling block that we keep running into in these discussions. We have the one side insisting that we should all use points because power levels are less balanced, and the other side insisting that they couldn't care less about balance and using power levels is preferable because it is easier.
It's well and truly obvious by this point that neither is going side is going to convince the other that their way is 'right', because both are approaching the game from very different viewpoints. Well, that and the fact that one side isn't trying to claim their way is 'the right one', just that it's not a wrong one...
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: I personally have never understood the premise of power levels. It's essentially the same thing as points but vaguer allowing for there to be a larger power gap between armies. Especially with apps like Battle Scribe you don't even save any meaningful amount of time making a list and in a game that takes 2-3 hours whats the big deal spending an extra 5min writing your list. If a game of 40k took 20 minutes per round and you changed around your army after each game maybe I could see the appeal but right now I just don't.
It will make more sense once they've finished stripping most of the unit options out of the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/13 02:19:51
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
That's... Not exactly true. Games Workshop is hardly as pragmatic as they could be, and if they think they can get away with removing a system because it's not popular enough to justify supporting it, they will.
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
That's... Not exactly true. Games Workshop is hardly as pragmatic as they could be, and if they think they can get away with removing a system because it's not popular enough to justify supporting it, they will.
They're already not supporting Power Levels. Otherwise Chapter Approved would mention their new values when they change points values.
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
That's... Not exactly true. Games Workshop is hardly as pragmatic as they could be, and if they think they can get away with removing a system because it's not popular enough to justify supporting it, they will.
They're already not supporting Power Levels. Otherwise Chapter Approved would mention their new values when they change points values.
Exactly. Speaking as someone who thinks Power Level has its uses but prefers points, I am very frustrated that:
1, Games Workshop isn't updating Power Level
2, Games Workshop isn't giving any sort of points value for Narrative-only units
My LGS won't use Power Level because of the balance issues, even when running friendly narrative campaigns. (Even in a friendly game, it's frustrating to show up with a poorly matched premade list and get stomped.) Because of this, custom Land Raiders and Looted Wagons are effectively off-limits.
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
That's... Not exactly true. Games Workshop is hardly as pragmatic as they could be, and if they think they can get away with removing a system because it's not popular enough to justify supporting it, they will.
A few people insisting on message boards that people are having fun the wrong way won't change that.
Regardless of how many people prefer points, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them gone next edition, or at least removed from the core rules and included in a supplement as an optional way to play. And even that will only last until they get the options all stripped down to the point where it no longer makes a difference. So certainly by the edition after next, I would expect that it will be power levels or nothing, because options by them will be minimal or non-existent, so balance between different builds simply won't be an issue.
It is like getting a boat with a hole in it only one lets in a cup of water every hour and the other one lets in 10 gallons every hour. Sure they are both flawed but you might as well minimize the issue.
Unless, of course, you don't care if you get wet, in which case you might as well use the boat that is easier to handle.
This is the stumbling block that we keep running into in these discussions. We have the one side insisting that we should all use points because power levels are less balanced, and the other side insisting that they couldn't care less about balance and using power levels is preferable because it is easier.
It's well and truly obvious by this point that neither is going side is going to convince the other that their way is 'right', because both are approaching the game from very different viewpoints. Well, that and the fact that one side isn't trying to claim their way is 'the right one', just that it's not a wrong one...
The awesome thing is that neither side actually has to convince the other of anything. All we really need to do is accept that different people play the game in different ways, and for different reasons. And even if you really, really, really think that the other guy is doing it wrong, that ultimately matters not a jot if he and his opponents are having fun.
The thing is your not getting an easier time handling the boat you gotta make a list anyways that fits with in the point/PL limit of the game I can make a 2k point list in 4:41min if I did it in PL I might have saved 1 min at pretty great sacrifice to balance and unit variety.
The thing is your not getting an easier time handling the boat you gotta make a list anyways that fits with in the point/PL limit of the game I can make a 2k point list in 4:41min if I did it in PL I might have saved 1 min at pretty great sacrifice to balance and unit variety.
I'm not really sure what you're expecting to achieve with this line of argument, to be honest. The people using power levels say they're quicker and easier to use than points. If you disagree, that's fine... but that doesn't make their experience somehow invalid. If they find it quicker and easier, then for those people it is quicker and easier.
Continuing the boat analogy, it's like me saying 'I like boats' and having some random person on the internet say 'No, you don't, because boats are inherently inferior to jetskis!'
It may or may not be true, but it doesn't change my preference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/13 03:18:21
There is no balance in 40k. Points or Power Level you're left with the same false choices and the same traps.
"points = more balance" is still lol. GW Points or Power Level is both abysmal in "balance". You don't get balance in 40k. Or AOS. You get listbuilding exercises.
You can't have real balance in a game that emphasizes List Building as its primary skill because the entire point of List Building is to imbalance the game in your favor.
Charistoph wrote: 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.
Why are you acting like "ignore balance updates" is a good thing?
There was a balance update? When? Where? There was a point change, but with GW, that rarely equals a balanced update.
It's generally agreed that the points updates are a step in the right direction. Even if a couple of the point tweaks aren't great, most of them are a move towards better balance rather than away from it.
Who agrees to that? Those whose unit efficiency increases with the update. You just WANT it to be a step in the right direction, so you think it is in the right direction. Yet, they don't all balance to the same degree.
Waaaghpower wrote:Meanwhile, Power Level-based units are stuck with costs that are sometimes years old.
Like that hasn't happened with the point-system before and there is no guarantee it won't happen again. How long did the Dark Eldar and Necron codex get any kind of update that didn't involve making their rules compatible with the current edition? No Index army has even come close to that, yet.
Waaaghpower wrote:The balance of Power Level is also hugely army dependent. Sisters of Battle, for example, are an army where a five-sister squad can generally cost anywhere from 50ish to 100+ points, with both ends of the spectrum being viable. Five Dominions with five Storm Bolters is great, cheap anti-infantry chaff that costs 60pts. Five Dominions with Meltaguns is great, expensive anti-tank firepower that costs 121+ points. Both regularly end up in my lists, and both cost 5 PL.
In fact, Sisters of Battle in general are regularly screwed by Power Level because our best asset is high-volume access to Storm Bolters, which are only good because they're so incredibly cheap. In Power Level, our best asset becomes a weakness and an already-struggling army also suddenly is putting way fewer bodies on the field than an equivalent similar force from another codex.
The balance of point level is even more extreme and has been. With Power Level, you take what you need to face what you're facing instead of trying to fit certain expensive weapons in to the list that may work better against certain targets, but minimize your model count. And aside from Necrons, whose majority of units do not have any upgrades whatsoever, everyone has access to that same scheme of working their upgrades to address the army that is there as opposed to the point value that is there. So, there is as much balance there as there is with points. It's not like GW unit purchasing has ever been truly balanced.
auticus wrote:Points = balance is lol.
There is no balance in 40k. Points or Power Level you're left with the same false choices and the same traps.
"points = more balance" is still lol. GW Points or Power Level is both abysmal in "balance". You don't get balance in 40k. Or AOS. You get listbuilding exercises.
You can't have real balance in a game that emphasizes List Building as its primary skill because the entire point of List Building is to imbalance the game in your favor.
You can, but it is very hard to do, and GW developers do not feel any importance on having strong balance in their games.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
They're already not supporting Power Levels. Otherwise Chapter Approved would mention their new values when they change points values.
Have you read white dwarf lately? Have a look at the battle reports.... How many use points? If GW are not supporting PL, someone should be telling WD that. Why would CA change Power Levels when points change, it's 2 different mechenisms that do not have to be connected beyond using the same figures and core rules.
Asmodios wrote:I personally have never understood the premise of power levels. It's essentially the same thing as points but vaguer allowing for there to be a larger power gap between armies. Especially with apps like Battle Scribe you don't even save any meaningful amount of time making a list and in a game that takes 2-3 hours whats the big deal spending an extra 5min writing your list. If a game of 40k took 20 minutes per round and you changed around your army after each game maybe I could see the appeal but right now I just don't.
There is no power gap, if both have the same PL where is the gap? You are comparing points to PL, not PL to PL. Write a list once, change the load out of individual figures for each game. The PL stays the same as long as the figure count is the same.
You can not seriously compare points and PL. It's like comparing water colour and oil paint, they both give a pleasing result, but mix them together.......... It's a mess
Asmodios wrote:I personally have never understood the premise of power levels. It's essentially the same thing as points but vaguer allowing for there to be a larger power gap between armies. Especially with apps like Battle Scribe you don't even save any meaningful amount of time making a list and in a game that takes 2-3 hours whats the big deal spending an extra 5min writing your list. If a game of 40k took 20 minutes per round and you changed around your army after each game maybe I could see the appeal but right now I just don't.
There is no power gap, if both have the same PL where is the gap? You are comparing points to PL, not PL to PL. Write a list once, change the load out of individual figures for each game. The PL stays the same as long as the figure count is the same.
You can not seriously compare points and PL. It's like comparing water colour and oil paint, they both give a pleasing result, but mix them together.......... It's a mess
The gap is in the actual strength of the unit. Like my example with the baneblade... a Baneblade with 12 more heavy bolters and 4 more lascannons is obviously more powerful than one without. Yet the both have the same power level value.
A Command Squad with 4 plasma guns is inherently more powerful than one without... but costs the same power level.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
(sarcasm mode engaged)No you just proxy them and dont care about how it looks.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
I guess most of the people around where I play then just consider list building a part of the game, I don't think I've encountered someone who doesn't consider the effectiveness of a model before buying or painting it.
PL and Points are two different ways to measure the same thing. Like measuring in Centimetres or Inches.
Except, the people using the measuring devices are unskilled. So a board that is actually 30.0 cm long is measured at 25 cm and then measured at 13 inches. Neither measurement is right. But one is measured with a smaller unit, so it must be better!
If the measurers were skilled, one method might be better than the other. But that's not the case.
I've never had the pleasure of playing a PL game. I've built a few lists and compared the points vs PL and find it's typically within 10% of each other. Often less.
To me, PL lets people play with suboptimal upgrades. Like, Vox casters on Guardsmen. I would never pay points for it, but if it was folded into the cost of the unit? I'd be all over it. Just to put them on the table again. One of my favourite models is a Master-Vox that I converted many moons ago. It has a large comm-set built on the base, with the Vox carrier. It's a fun, characterful model (Very well composed, if I say so myself!) but it sits in the bin because It's not worth 5 points. Bummer.
Same thing with sub-optimal units load-outs like Death Company, all with Thunder Hammers. Most of those Hammerers are going to die before they make it to combat. That's why in points you only take one or two per X number of squaddies. But with PL, you can gear them out however and aren't penalized for it. You're still only going to make contact with two guys... but you got to put the other dudes down with cool gear, and that was fun. The game still played out the same.
I used to be quite competitive about 40k. These days, it's a fun night out. I take my collection, build a list from it, occasionally buy something new but mostly it's a fun night out. PL would be more liberating for me, to just throw down minis without having to worry about the minutiae. While I still play to win, I have much less ego invested, and PL kind of caters to that.
For me, when I grab out the lads with Lasguns, I have to NOT grab the guys with Voxes. Whereas with PL I could use them again, and not worry about it. I dunno, just seems like it would be nice to do that and not be "over points".
I prefer points, but power level isn't the worst thing in the world. They share the same problem, 40k doesn't work unless all the players in the game have the same expectations and general agreement about how hard your going to go into list building. Either system doesn't really fix that core problem.
If one player has a different idea of what they want the game to be or how close to the background they want to keep it, neither system is really gives a good fix. Points might get a little closer, but if you want to break 40k wide open, not that hard to either way
And feel free to playtest this, I'd love the feedback.
Playing a narrative mission, and using one type of guy from the squad. Like "Movie Marines" games. We used this method to determine 'challenge rating' of enemy groups we encountered and it was quite fun.
Would actually like to hear anyone else's thougths on this.
Everyone I have ever played against in this game would like to win. They want a good game, but they want to win. Nobody plays to lose. So you do things to maximize your chance to win. Taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no brainer.
This comes back to the different ways people play the game.
You're seeing effective list building as one of those steps in 'playing to win the game'. Other players use the army that they have, and try to win with that.
If I were to put together a Guard list right now, my command squads wouldn't have multiple plasma guns in them regardless of whether I was using points, power levels or building a force for a scenario... because I don't have the appropriate models to do that. Many players out there build the models the way they want to build them, and then write a list around that. So while those free upgrades might be a no-brainer for those who have the models set up like that, for others that upgrade is completely irrelevant. Yes, the unit might be better with four plasma guns... but if you don't have four plasma guns, you don't take them.
I guess most of the people around where I play then just consider list building a part of the game, I don't think I've encountered someone who doesn't consider the effectiveness of a model before buying or painting it.
I think we can chalk that up to you having an experience of the game different to other people. And that's fine, as long as understand that other people have had very different ones to you.
In my experience, the people I play care about what looks good and fits the theme they want to reflect in their collection. Gaming effectiveness is less important to them.
Just because you've never met anyone who plays like that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I once spent ages going back and forth checking default gear, options and so on, totting up the points to try work out a 2k list using my models as I had assembled them.
Out of curiosity I quicklyadded up my PL and it came to exactly 100.
It was at this moment I discovered I don't like tweaking and fine tuning lists to fit in a limit anymore, and rather pay lump sums for groups of troops as is.
greatbigtree wrote: PL and Points are two different ways to measure the same thing. Like measuring in Centimetres or Inches.
Except, the people using the measuring devices are unskilled. So a board that is actually 30.0 cm long is measured at 25 cm and then measured at 13 inches. Neither measurement is right. But one is measured with a smaller unit, so it must be better!
If the measurers were skilled, one method might be better than the other. But that's not the case.
That's a bad comparison because even an unskilled user is not going to be measuring completely at random. And even GW's rule authors, as incompetent as they are, are not so utterly hopeless that they're just throwing out random numbers for everything. A more correct statement would be that if we have two people with equal skill in measuring stuff measure 100 of those 30.0cm tables the one using a ruler marked in 1mm increments will have a lower average error than the one using a ruler marked in 1" increments. Same thing with normal points vs. less accurate points, the same GW authors are assigning both point costs so we can assume that the average point cost error will be smaller when using the more accurate system. Except two factors make it even more in favor of the normal point system:
1) The two systems are not used with equal skill. PL points are assigned once at publication and never updated. Normal points are assigned at publication and then updated regularly so any balance issues that appear can be fixed. It's like if your example people measured that 30.0cm table, but the one who measured 25cm sees that the 30cm thing they want to put on it doesn't fit and revises their obviously incorrect measurement, while the one who measured 13" ignores the mistake.
2) PL vs. normal points isn't just about measuring a single static item, it's about being able to cope with changes. PL assigns a fixed cost to a unit regardless of how it is equipped, which means that (in a game where competing upgrades are more or less powerful) at least some of its configurations will have an incorrect point cost. Normal points account for variation in upgrades, making it more likely that all of the possible configurations will have an accurate point cost. It's like if the 30cm table had an optional extension section to make it 45cm, and the person measuring in cm revised their measurement to 47cm when they added the extension while the one measuring in inches stubbornly insists that the table is still 13".
In short: both PL and normal points can have individual errors in assigning costs, but PL will also have systemic errors that normal points do not suffer from. PL is a worse system, period.
To me, PL lets people play with suboptimal upgrades. Like, Vox casters on Guardsmen. I would never pay points for it, but if it was folded into the cost of the unit? I'd be all over it. Just to put them on the table again. One of my favourite models is a Master-Vox that I converted many moons ago. It has a large comm-set built on the base, with the Vox carrier. It's a fun, characterful model (Very well composed, if I say so myself!) but it sits in the bin because It's not worth 5 points. Bummer.
Same thing with sub-optimal units load-outs like Death Company, all with Thunder Hammers. Most of those Hammerers are going to die before they make it to combat. That's why in points you only take one or two per X number of squaddies. But with PL, you can gear them out however and aren't penalized for it. You're still only going to make contact with two guys... but you got to put the other dudes down with cool gear, and that was fun. The game still played out the same.
IOW, "I want to make my units more powerful but I don't want to have to pay for it". You're introducing a measurement error that favors you over your opponent, and you're doing it deliberately! Under PL if I decide that my units shouldn't have that vox (radios are expensive, guardsmen are expendable) I'm punished for not taking one. You get to take your vox without feeling bad about it, but I don't get to take my no-vox squad without feeling bad about it. The only fair solution is to use the system that evaluates the units more accurately and doesn't favor either of us: the normal point system.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
