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.

nareik wrote:
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.

I think this works a bit better if you're playing armies with limited loadouts.

Two dudes throwing down Primaris Marines could easily do this pretty fairly.

Dude, for real, get battlescribe.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Crikey... It's almost like one system is intended to provide balanced army lists while the other is intended as a quick and easy way for people to put together roughly equivalent forces where ease of play is more of concern than game balance.

It's astonishing that nobody has ever noticed that before.

 insaniak wrote:
Crikey... It's almost like one system is intended to provide balanced army lists while the other is intended as a quick and easy way for people to put together roughly equivalent forces where ease of play is more of concern than game balance.

It's astonishing that nobody has ever noticed that before.

It's almost like the "easier" system is not meaningfully easier in 2019, where everyone has smartphones with calculators, list building software, etc, and is just less balanced for negligible return. You'd have a point if PL was actually easier to use in any meaningful way, but it isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, nice dishonesty in taking that quote out of its context, which was a reply to someone who claimed that both systems are equivalent from a balance point of view.

 insaniak wrote:
Crikey... It's almost like one system is intended to provide balanced army lists while the other is intended as a quick and easy way for people to put together roughly equivalent forces where ease of play is more of concern than game balance.

On Warhammer nights at our local FLGS, we often use power level with new players that have just bought a battle box or Start Collecting box. It's pretty good as a tool in that respect.

I would never use it in a real matched game, but I'd throw down a few squads of generic marine squads or guard squads to teach a new player with it, or to test out a theory and see how something works.

 Peregrine wrote:
. You'd have a point if PL was actually easier to use in any meaningful way, but it isn't.

.

The people using it say it is. It's kind of hard to argue with that without just looking silly.

 insaniak wrote:
The people using it say it is. It's kind of hard to argue with that without just looking silly.

It's hard to take that claim seriously when it involves "doing basic addition is difficult". Yeah, technically adding up PL points might take a few seconds longer, but is a 10 second difference really significant in a 3 hour game?

It’s Groundhog Day!

Honestly, Peregrine, you’d be happier if you ignored PL threads instead of jumping in again to tell people how they’re allowed to have fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's hard to take that claim seriously when it involves "doing basic addition is difficult". Yeah, technically adding up PL points might take a few seconds longer, but is a 10 second difference really significant in a 3 hour game?

Yes, it's much easier, when we see someone doing something we don't understand, to assume they are too stupid to know any better, than to accept that they like something that we don't.


I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by going over the same old arguments with you again on this. If you don't like power levels, don't use them, and let the people who are happy using the system carry on doing so. If you find that too nauseating, don't look.

Problem solved. By the time Power Levels become mandatory for everyone, I very much suspect that the difference between the two systems will be largely nonexistent due to the removal of unit options, so you should survive the transition.

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, it's much easier, when we see someone doing something we don't understand, to assume they are too stupid to know any better, than to accept that they like something that we don't.

I considered the possibility that there might be a better explanation, that they might have a valid point. And I found that theory to be utterly without merit.

I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by going over the same old arguments with you again on this.

Shrug. You're the one who started the argument with me, I won't hold it against you if you choose to stop disagreeing.

If you don't like power levels, don't use them, and let the people who are happy using the system carry on doing so.

This is a discussion forum, and a thread specifically about PL vs. normal points. The entire purpose is to discuss the merits of each system, "just let people do whatever and stop talking about it" might be a valid point of view on how to run a game club but it sure isn't adding anything to the discussion here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s Groundhog Day!

Honestly, Peregrine, you’d be happier if you ignored PL threads instead of jumping in again to tell people how they’re allowed to have fun.

Honestly JohnnyHell, you'd be happier if you ignored Peregrine posts instead of jumping in again to tell people how expressing opinions is only valid if you agree with them. I'll stop telling people that they're wrong about PL when people stop posting incorrect positive statements about PL.

The removal of unit options sound like the toyfication of 40k though. I don't know if I can survive the transiction I'm already quite pissed that the recent ork codex has limited the options to many units so much.

The problem with PL is its application at competitive levels. Players would use only one single loadout for each unit, the most expensive/competitive one. Each nobz with kombi skorcha and killsaw for example, which is a 32 pts upgrade on a 14ppm model by using points, and such a huge investment should involve some logic/tactics behind that, but a free upgrade by using PL which means autotake, killing all the other options.

Wha't's the point in giving power fists to SM specialists/characters when they can have thunder hammers for the same cost, which is a zero points cost?

At that point the PL system could only work if each unit in the game has a single fixed loadout. But then we will have the complete toyfication of 40k, IMHO the ultimate death of the hobby.

I often wonder what would happen if GW stopped messing around with points and put all that effort into making units and options... y'know... equally good. So there would be no easy escape option like "Oh, is it crap? Let's make it cheap!" but the game designers actually have to put some real thought into how a unit and its options function. Like, geez, it is almost like we would have a better, more balanced game!

Just a random train of thought .

So in summary Peregrine you are telling people how they’re allowed to have fun (“wrong positive statements about PL... utterly without merit...” etc.), so there was nothing for you to disagree with in my post.

I just find it tedious how most forum sections seem to have one poster who will play the contrarian and berate others until the thread gets locked. That isn’t discussion, and doesn’t add any value to a forum. Let people discuss PL, if you hate it say your piece and move on instead of trying to shout last, shout loudest. Or discuss with an open mind and learn what others appreciate about something, whilst politely disagreeing. This combative, you’re-all-stupid-and-wrong stance is fairly silly.

 Blackie wrote:

The problem with PL is its application at competitive levels. Players would use only one single loadout for each unit, the most expensive/competitive one. Each nobz with kombi skorcha and killsaw for example, which is a 32 pts upgrade on a 14ppm model by using points, and such a huge investment should involve some logic/tactics behind that, but a free upgrade by using PL which means autotake, killing all the other options.

Wha't's the point in giving power fists to SM specialists/characters when they can have thunder hammers for the same cost, which is a zero points cost?

At that point the PL system could only work if each unit in the game has a single fixed loadout. But then we will have the complete toyfication of 40k, IMHO the ultimate death of the hobby.

By the time PL is the standard for competitive play, that's likely to be exactly what we have. Although I'm not sure how that ties into 'toyification'... plenty of games out there already have fixed units without options. They simply replace having options within the units with having different loadouts that are selected as different units. See Warmachine, with various different warjacks all based on the same chassis, selected under different names and different costs.

 AtoMaki wrote:
I often wonder what would happen if GW stopped messing around with points and put all that effort into making units and options... y'know... equally good. So there would be no easy escape option like "Oh, is it crap? Let's make it cheap!" but the game designers actually have to put some real thought into how a unit and its options function. Like, geez, it is almost like we would have a better, more balanced game!

Just a random train of thought .

I don't see any plausible scenario where throwing away a useful game design tool improves the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
I often wonder what would happen if GW stopped messing around with points and put all that effort into making units and options... y'know... equally good. So there would be no easy escape option like "Oh, is it crap? Let's make it cheap!" but the game designers actually have to put some real thought into how a unit and its options function. Like, geez, it is almost like we would have a better, more balanced game!

Just a random train of thought .

I don't see any plausible scenario where throwing away a useful game design tool improves the game.

I would say - as of now - points are only useful for the lazy game designer.

 AtoMaki wrote:
I often wonder what would happen if GW stopped messing around with points and put all that effort into making units and options... y'know... equally good. So there would be no easy escape option like "Oh, is it crap? Let's make it cheap!" but the game designers actually have to put some real thought into how a unit and its options function. Like, geez, it is almost like we would have a better, more balanced game! .

The problem they face is that there are just too many variables, and not all of them are known at the time you write your army list.

Take, for example, the difference between a low-strength, high rate of fire weapon (lets call it a 'sprayer'), and a high strength, low rate of fire weapon (let's call it a 'zapper'). The zapper is more likely to kill anything it hits, but is theoretically balanced out by having fewer shots. That's pretty straightforward - on paper, the two options are equally good.

Except... when you find yourself up against an army full of difficult to kill models, suddenly the balance skews towards the zapper, because the sprayer has so much less of a chance of actually doing any damage. Then you find yourself facing a horde of easy to kill models, who regenerate after you kill them... Suddenly, the zapper is next to useless, because although it is guaranteed to kill whatever it hits, you just can't kill enough of the enemy with it to make a difference. And suddenly the sprayer is the far more valuable weapon.


It's really easy to sit here behind the comfort of the computer screen and make snide remarks about how useless games developers are at their job... but the simple fact is that balance in a game with this many variables is next to impossible without putting a hell of a lot more limitations on the game than are currently there. Or have ever been there.

 AtoMaki wrote:
I would say - as of now - points are only useful for the lazy game designer.

Then why do you support the use of PL, which is a point system? Is it lazy game design to acknowledge that a terminator and a guardsman are not equal in power and therefore have different point costs? Is the designer obligated, in your opinion, to find a way to make the guardsman and terminator equal in power so that they don't need to have a point system?

If a points system is a 'lazy' system for a game developer- what is the alternative?

The 'honor system' where players 'determine between themselves if the game is balanced'? Obviously you've never encountered 'that guy': He will leverage every possible advantage to an overwhelming degree, claim what he has is fair and friendly and balanced, tell you that you're just 'using your guys wrong'... and to make matters worse, "That Guy" is a disease that spreads and can completely ruin a gaming community.

The only other option I can think of is "Make everything work the same", which seems about as fun as handcuffing yourself to someone and playing 'tag'.

 insaniak wrote:
Take, for example, the difference between a low-strength, high rate of fire weapon (lets call it a 'sprayer'), and a high strength, low rate of fire weapon (let's call it a 'zapper'). The zapper is more likely to kill anything it hits, but is theoretically balanced out by having fewer shots. That's pretty straightforward - on paper, the two options are equally good.

Yes, and it is now up to the player to make the ultimate decision: do they want their unit to deal with hordes or tackle hard-to-kill models? What should be the ratio across multiple units? Should one arm for mostly hordes or mostly big targets? The tools are given and come at the exact same cost, so the ball is bouncing on the player's half: they can go exclusively sprayers or zappers, or mix them up for some TAC sweetness. It is not like taking a zapper or two will reduce their ability to take sprayers for every other unit, after all.

I expect the game designers to put a lot of thought into balancing units and options, but I also expect the players to put equivalent effort into making up their army composition.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
I would say - as of now - points are only useful for the lazy game designer.

Then why do you support the use of PL, which is a point system? Is it lazy game design to acknowledge that a terminator and a guardsman are not equal in power and therefore have different point costs? Is the designer obligated, in your opinion, to find a way to make the guardsman and terminator equal in power so that they don't need to have a point system?

I was referring to the Points point system with per-model and per-upgrade costs. It is easy to hide imperfections in graduality and just kinda get away with it, or swing around costs randomly and call it "balance" (this is essentially what happens right now in the game, by the way). Now try this with the Power Level system...

 AtoMaki wrote:
Yes, and it is now up to the player to make the ultimate decision: do they want their unit to deal with hordes or tackle hard-to-kill models? What should be the ratio across multiple units? Should one arm for mostly hordes or mostly big targets? The tools are given and come at the exact same cost, so the ball is bouncing on the player's half: they can go exclusively sprayers or zappers, or mix them up for some TAC sweetness. It is not like taking a zapper or two will reduce their ability to take sprayers for every other unit, after all.

Too bad that, in your version of the game where points do not exist and the concept of "cheap and weak vs. expensive and powerful" is rejected, there is no concept of hordes or big targets. Every model is exactly identical, and because of this every weapon is also identical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AtoMaki wrote:
I was referring to the Points point system with per-model and per-upgrade costs. It is easy to hide imperfections in graduality and just kinda get away with it, or swing around costs randomly and call it "balance" (this is essentially what happens right now in the game, by the way). Now try this with the Power Level system...

Oh, I see. So you actually understand the merits of the point system and "cheap and weak vs. expensive and powerful" as a design concept, you just reject it at some arbitrary line between units and upgrades.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
I was referring to the Points point system with per-model and per-upgrade costs. It is easy to hide imperfections in graduality and just kinda get away with it, or swing around costs randomly and call it "balance" (this is essentially what happens right now in the game, by the way). Now try this with the Power Level system...

Oh, I see. So you actually understand the merits of the point system and "cheap and weak vs. expensive and powerful" as a design concept, you just reject it at some arbitrary line between units and upgrades.

Yes, by playing Power Levels, I came to the realization that "encompassing unit cost" should be the thing rather than have the current "models and options make a unit cost" kind of deal. I'm not even against the occasional 'Power Rating +1' for straight upgrades and deliberately "oomphy" options like LR and Baneblade sponsons or Jump Packs and Thunder Hammers for Captains.

At the moment, I’m working to Points. That’s because I’m making a concerted effort to get ‘match fit’ this year, and even attend a tournament or two, maybe even three.

And going into the organised event arena, points are the order of the day.

That being said, I’m also open to attending Narrative Events. And if they call for Power Level, that’s fine and dandy with me. But for getting up to speed, it’s strictly points.

I’ve also discovered BattleScribe. Which is a lot easier than pen and paper!

I always wonder what 40k players expect when they complain about or criticize balance. Even the best competitive videogames/esports in the world see tiers of units/characters/heroes with the playerbase finding out what works the best and shunning other things and never using them. Even a game like Starcraft Brood War, which is probably considered the finest competitive game ever made, had nearly a dozen units that never saw play and required the professional Korean map-maker scene to create new maps when imbalances were slowly discovered in the ones being played. Even Dota 2, for all it's vaunted variety and high pick-rates for many of its 100+ characters has tiers and at top levels of play anywhere from 20-50 of those might never be picked, with a select dozen being picked or banned 100% of the time.

Do 40k players really think Triarch Praetorians should be as common as Guardsmen? I'm not trying to be facetious, this is an honest question because I used to work in Videogames and wrote my University Dissertation on Competitive game balance and it just seems that people see the existence of "good" and "bad" factions/units and instantly think something is unbalanced trash with no competitive merit whatsoever.

I always fear the issue is partly an over reliance on the meta.

When your focus becomes overcoming the last winning list, that naturally colours your view of what you might want to take. This leads to number crunching and analysis the game wasn’t exactly designed for.

Now of course, there very much are awful units in the game. Stuff which just doesn’t do its job, or has a competing choice which just does the job better.

For clarity, I’m not knocking anyone that plays to the meta. If that’s your thing, that’s your thing and good on you. This is just an observation.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Yes, and it is now up to the player to make the ultimate decision: do they want their unit to deal with hordes or tackle hard-to-kill models? What should be the ratio across multiple units? Should one arm for mostly hordes or mostly big targets? The tools are given and come at the exact same cost, so the ball is bouncing on the player's half: they can go exclusively sprayers or zappers, or mix them up for some TAC sweetness. It is not like taking a zapper or two will reduce their ability to take sprayers for every other unit, after all.

Sure... but that's still not giving you balance, unless army composition is strictly limited to the same quantities of the different types of units for each army. You can't set an accurate value on a weapon without knowing how useful it is actually going to be on the table.

When a weapon is worth more or less not because of the chosen target, but because of the army that you might wind up facing, you're never going to achieve anything resembling perfect balance.

For everyone saying that Battlescribe justifies points, and that anyone using PL should use Battlescribe instead (so, not you, Grotsnik!), I can personally say that, at least for me, this is not good advice.

Firstly, if you have to rely on a third party resource to play the game easily, then that should certainly speak as to the complexity of points. Power level needs nothing of the sort.

Secondly, Battlescribe cannot be relied on to be accurate - bugs, incorrect data files, and wrong point values are all there on Battlescribe. You should still check the codex, and that's more time.

Thirdly, and this is the most personal reason - I used to have Battlescribe when I played points. It really didn't work with my phone. It was slow, buggy, and ate up battery and storage. I wouldn't download it again if someone paid me. But that's my personal experience.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Do 40k players really think Triarch Praetorians should be as common as Guardsmen?

It is a lot more complicated than that, obviously. Unit power and cost are just a part of the deal, you have to consider unit role, faction scheme, skill floor/ceiling, etc. For example, Infantry Squads should be common because it is pretty much their role, it fits the faction, they have an okayish power-for-cost ratio, and they are low floor/high ceiling - so in general, people will consider them good; however, Triarch Praetorians are quite the opposite because their role and their place in the faction are a bit complicated, their power-for-cost ratio is somewhat unclear, and they have a high skill floor - most people will likely consider them subpar but the players with the right playstyle and mindset might disagree and say that Triarch Praetorians are actually good.

 insaniak wrote:

When a weapon is worth more or less not because of the chosen target, but because of the army that you might wind up facing, you're never going to achieve anything resembling perfect balance.

I'm not really aiming for perfect balance here just for a more reasonable level where you can equip your unit with a missile launcher and not feel bad about it. The problems you are mentioning are well in with the Points system too, maybe even better because taking the "wrong" weapon would have an actual, tangible cost.

Horst wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Horst wrote:

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.

Hi Horst,

I have played competitive wargames for a long time, and for the past five years, have been heavily involved in playing narrative games. I tend to see myself as more narrative player these days than 'competitive/tournament' but really, I have no bone to pick with either style, and frankly, see both as bringing something's necessary to the greater hobby.

From a narrative players point of view, in some ways, we are no different to 'competitive' players (and when I use that term. I tend to think of more or less the game you play, and how you probably see it - i.e. maxed-out lists, independent list-building, tournaments and pink-up-game culture). The thing is, similarly to you, us narrative players also would like to win. We also want a good game. Nor do we play to lose. Funnily enough, I would also argue that from a narrative players point of view, list-building is also a crucial aspect of the game. That said, it differs from competitive play, which focuses on list-building-for-advantage.

You are obviously approaching this game from somewhere on the competitive spectrum. For me, this spectrum ranges from 'not-competitive' all the way out to 'competitive-at-all-costs'. You are approaching this with the mindset that your listbuilding is a function of your strategic/tactical play. In the same way that 'no race begins on the starting line', you approach this with the POV that building the best list possible (like training to be the best athlete possible) is an important, if not crucial component of playing the game. This is often also tied up with independent-list-building as an aspect of playing a game - i.e. You build a list independent of your opponent, he builds a list independent of you, you select a scenario, deploy and GO! You are not wrong in doing this. Let's be clear. This is fine.

From a narrative players point of view however, things differ here. As I said earlier though, list-building is also crucial. The difference though is that list-building is generally not seen as a function of strategic/tactical play, but rather as a function of the scenario (and for a narrative game scenario, I personally define 'scenario' as a combination the mission(s) in play, the terrain/board set-up and the opposing forces). Similarly, you don't tend to play narrative with 'independent-list-building' as you do in competitive, it tends to be a mutual, collaborative approach (I personally dislike the use of the term 'co-operative' here, that's for a different type/genre of games) with a focus on what fits the 'theme' of the scenario and building forces that 'match' each other, rather than building a 'gotcha!' army. If that means points values/power levels get thrown out the window to put down two 'matching' armies, then there's what happens. Generally speaking, the social contract and your mutual enjoyment of the game tends to take precedence over 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Considering this, to use your words, while 'taking obvious free upgrades that double your firepower is a no-brainier' in tournament circles, it gets much less traction in narrative circles. Because it's not the point of the game. Once you have the scenario set, then you have a go and then play the best game you can and play your hardest for the win. That's a given.

Regarding your second comment, I tend to agree with you when you say 'I guess most of the people around where I play then just consider list building a part of the game', it's just that amongst narrative players, list-building manifests differently and it occupies a different space in game-building than in competitive/tournament play.

An for what it's worth as well, narrative players do tend to consider the effectiveness of models before buying/painting them as well. It's just we tend to have different conversations with ourselves as we do this. Rather than thinking 'it's not point-optimised or overpowered, and can't one-shot a knight on turn 1 while generating 800 CPs, so therefore it's useless and not worth buying/painting in the first place, the thought process tends to be along the lines of 'ok, what kind of scenarios could I build, and fit this into, and what would be good match ups and scenarios for it'. For us, scenario-building (and please see above for how I view 'scenario' In the context of narrative games) and game-buildings is the prime-motivator, rather than competitive at all costs 'going-for-the-win'.

Anyway, I'm not having a go at you. Your post seemed to be a good point to try to explain the perspective of a narrative player. Hope you don't mind.

Oh I can do a list with pen and paper. BattleScribe is just more convenient.

And for those attending an organised event, you can always use BattleScribe first, then ratify its points costs the old fashioned way.

I literally started using it yesterday (in app demo would’ve been nice!), and have used it to create a list, then rework it. It definitely has its place

 Bosskelot wrote:
I always wonder what 40k players expect when they complain about or criticize balance. Even the best competitive videogames/esports in the world see tiers of units/characters/heroes with the playerbase finding out what works the best and shunning other things and never using them. Even a game like Starcraft Brood War, which is probably considered the finest competitive game ever made, had nearly a dozen units that never saw play and required the professional Korean map-maker scene to create new maps when imbalances were slowly discovered in the ones being played. Even Dota 2, for all it's vaunted variety and high pick-rates for many of its 100+ characters has tiers and at top levels of play anywhere from 20-50 of those might never be picked, with a select dozen being picked or banned 100% of the time.

Do 40k players really think Triarch Praetorians should be as common as Guardsmen? I'm not trying to be facetious, this is an honest question because I used to work in Videogames and wrote my University Dissertation on Competitive game balance and it just seems that people see the existence of "good" and "bad" factions/units and instantly think something is unbalanced trash with no competitive merit whatsoever.

That is the result of time and money investment typical for 40K and resulting lack of flexibility in choice. Only dedicated competitive players in 40K treat armies as disposable and switch them on the fly as is true in e-sports you have listed. Add to that, that even if you do research effectiveness before buying a unit, people play this game over years and relative power value changes with every new release, new point update or edition change. On top of that, majority of players do like competition but also have faction preferences and aesthetic preferences and no money or will or time to "chase the meta" and because those are players of all factions and all possible playstyles all you see is desire to make power value throughout the game perfectly flat. But at the same time majority of people also want list building to be a dominant skill, so not perfectly flat, just flat enough so that you can feel smart for dismissing bad codex choices but still take what you like from a faction you like and stay with the same list for a year or two at least, expecting it to perform well enough that your win ratio is not less than 50/50, regardless of your actual tactical prowess...

Yes, I'm perfectly aware, that from game design perspective those are obviously contradictory expectations, but that is the reality of 40K balance discussions since ancient times.