Points or Power Level?

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.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

You know what I’d be interested in?

Seeing the army lists that do ‘okay’ in any given Tournament. Some may be Smash Captain and Chums. Some might be ‘well, it’s what I’ve got’.

I think that would be far more interesting, and a better judge of the game’s balance, than focusing on what we know properly breaks the game.

**nou**

Deadnight wrote:
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,

From a narrative players point of view, in some ways, we are no different. We 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.

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. 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. Once you have the scenario set, then you have a go and then play your hardest for the win.

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 list-building manifests differently and it occupies a different space in game-building than in 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. Rather than thinking 'it's not point-optimised or overpowered, so therefore 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 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 allcosts.

Hopefully this explains the narrative position a bit better, not that there is anything wrong with competitive.

All good points all around. The only point I would add to this is that in the realities of high involvement narrative circles people actually have to know their balance inside out, because one simple mistake at scenario preparation stage can cost you (plural you as in all participants) an entire game that go sideways because you screwed the preparation stage and nobody has a good time.

I wrote earlier, that competitive mindset can utilize points with some success as a sole balance tool because of natural goal of maximizing wining power of both lists involved. In more abstract terms you basically contemplate only an outer surface (the furthest you can get from the neutral center of mass) of an entire volume of hyperspace of possible unit parameters and army lists choices and measure only such a linear distance and desire it to be the greatest, with mission goals like ITC pointing you in a specific direction of such "optimal solution". But narrative players deliberately seek to explore the entire volume of said hyperspace and there are no easy ways to reduce the complexity of said hyperspace and rely solely on a linear metrics and blind luck of separate listbuilding. In other words - linear point systems of any kind are only a rough measure of game size - they may tell you how far from the neutral center of mass of this space are you in, but they do not inform you of anything else without direct consideration of units specific abilities, strengths, weaknesses and possible performance considering all other existing parameters of the game like terrain, mission goals, both armies composition and models availability.

To stress this beyond any doubt: I'm not saying that competitive mindset is wrong and narrative is king. I'm merely stating that you cannot judge one through the prism of the other and call the other "wrong" or "without merit", "could as well make pew pew noises and throw out any rules because you are not serious about the game" or that there are obvious power choices that will always be used regardless of wider context.

**Dr Coconut**

Peregrine wrote:
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.

Points measures a 30cm table, PL measures 1 table

By next edition GW will have dropped points, they have already pushed them to the back of the codex, they are no longer included in unit profiles or in the sheets in boxes. Your 'normal point system' will become abnormal with publications giving 'normal power level sytem', WD are already doing so for battle reports....grabbing the two nearest copies ( May & Nov) PL 154 V PL 152 in May's edition and PL 145 V PL 143 in November's. Not a single mention of points.

I predict that points will stop being published in codex soon, and either be published in a separate book, or dropped altogether, leaving tournaments to publish their own or use PL

**Crimson**

The argument that points are only trivially more difficult to use than PL us utter bollocks. In earlier threads people used to argue that it only takes couple of minutes more to make point list, in this thread that dropped to one minute and then to ten seconds. This is obviously a blatant lie. How points are scattered among several publications definitely make them considerably harder to use, and of course making many calculations with larger numbers always takes more time than fewer calculations on smaller numbers. And Battlescrible helps, but it it is still annoying to use and has clunky UI and ugly layout. And of course if we are using apps, there is the official PL calculator one can use to make PL even easier.

On the other side the argument that because the points are not perfect they're no better than PL is utter bogus too. Point system allows differentiating between various loadouts; it should be blindingly obvious that a system where four guys with plasma guns cost more than four guys with lasguns is doing better job with balance. And of course the point system is constantly tested and updated in an attempt to improve the balance.

So as I always say in these threads: points are more balanced, PL are easier to use; whether you feel that sacrificing some balance for the ease of use is worth it is matter of personal preference.

**AtoMaki**

Crimson wrote:
Point system allows differentiating between various loadouts; it should be blindingly obvious that a system where four guys with plasma guns cost more than four guys with lasguns is doing better job with balance.

That's a pretty controverted way to miss the point of Power Levels. The example here only applies to Power Levels if those four guys are the entire unit, in which case the apparent difference in cost efficiency is, in fact, the rules telling you that you should really take those plasma guns because that's how the unit works - them having the option to run around with lasguns is more about convenience in case you don't have four plasma gun models laying around. Power Levels assume that all available options are equally worth it for one reason or another and all relevant costs are already included in the unit's Power Rating. It is kinda like the 5th edition Tactical Squads with their free special/heavy weapons.

**Crimson**

AtoMaki wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Point system allows differentiating between various loadouts; it should be blindingly obvious that a system where four guys with plasma guns cost more than four guys with lasguns is doing better job with balance.

That's a pretty controverted way to miss the point of Power Levels. The example here only applies to Power Levels if those four guys are the entire unit, in which case the apparent difference in cost efficiency is, in fact, the rules telling you that you should really take those plasma guns because that's how the unit works - them having the option to run around with lasguns is more about convenience in case you don't have four plasma gun models laying around. Power Levels assume that all available options are equally worth it for one reason or another and all relevant costs are already included in the unit's Power Rating. It is kinda like the 5th edition Tactical Squads with their free special/heavy weapons.

But all options are definitely not worth it. And my IG command squads do not have plasma guns. Pretending that a system where all options (including not taking the options at all) are priced the same is just as well balanced than a system where those options have individual costs is just lunacy. As I said, I have no problem with people using the PL, the ease of use is a perfectly valid justification. I however have a problem when people make completely misguided claims.

**AtoMaki**

Crimson wrote:
AtoMaki wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Point system allows differentiating between various loadouts; it should be blindingly obvious that a system where four guys with plasma guns cost more than four guys with lasguns is doing better job with balance.

That's a pretty controverted way to miss the point of Power Levels. The example here only applies to Power Levels if those four guys are the entire unit, in which case the apparent difference in cost efficiency is, in fact, the rules telling you that you should really take those plasma guns because that's how the unit works - them having the option to run around with lasguns is more about convenience in case you don't have four plasma gun models laying around. Power Levels assume that all available options are equally worth it for one reason or another and all relevant costs are already included in the unit's Power Rating. It is kinda like the 5th edition Tactical Squads with their free special/heavy weapons.

But all options are definitely not worth it.

That's more of a problem with the option balancing rather than the concept of Power Levels.

And my IG command squads do not have plasma guns.

That shouldn't be a problem. As per the assumption behind Power Levels, your Command Squad should be just as good with four flamers (death to hordes) as with four plasma guns (death to heavy infantry) or with four sniper rifles (death to characters), or with any kind of combination of any option available to them but not taking these options is considered unreasonable and thus not encouraged.

**Crimson**

AtoMaki wrote:

That's more of a problem with the option balancing rather than the concept of Power Levels.

So you're saying that you need to completely redesign the game and then PL would be balanced? That if every possible option would be of equal value they would work? Certainly true, but also doesn't matter as we are playing the game as it is. Furthermore, if we look at situations where the designer tried to balance several options to be equally good (warlord traits, subfaction traits, relics) it is obvious that some of these options are just blatantly better than others. The designers are just not capable of making a large selection of things equally good (and I don't blame them, it is much harder than making bunch of options and just assigning higher point costs to the better ones.) Repeating the similar imbalance in options of every unit in the game would not make the game better.

That shouldn't be a problem. As per the assumption behind Power Levels, your Command Squad should be just as good with four flamers (death to hordes) as with four plasma guns (death to heavy infantry) or with four sniper rifles (death to characters), or with any kind of combination of any option available to them but not taking these options is considered unreasonable and thus not encouraged.

But all these options are not equally good. And my command squad has lasguns.

**AtoMaki**

Crimson wrote:
AtoMaki wrote:

That's more of a problem with the option balancing rather than the concept of Power Levels.

So you're saying that you need to completely redesign the game and then PL would be balanced?

I'm saying that we need to completely redesign the game and then it would be balanced.

But all these options are not equally good. And my command squad has lasguns.

They should be. And even if you have zero special weapons at your disposal, you can have a combat medic and a vox caster and have a nice support unit. You have to be, like, 200% adamant on taking only lasgun dudes for whatever reason at which point you are not really using the unit as you are supposed to so don't be surprised when it stops working correctly.

**Charistoph**

greatbigtree wrote: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!

One nagging point about this. The people using the measuring device are not unskilled, it was unskilled people who made the measuring devices in the first place. And it would be closer to stating that one is using a meter stick versus another using a yard stick. Both can measure fine for certain distances, but one is finely gradated and the other one is not as fine. For those who are used to using a meter stick, a yard stick seems confusing with its sub-demarcations in 3, then 12, then 4 rather than consistent 10s.

Even worse is that people are trying to justify using these sticks when they haven't ever been properly calibrated. It would be like having a first grader set the length of the sticks and set the demarkations, and then when a new codex comes out they create another pair of sticks.

Points have never been balanced in Warhammer. So saying they are more balanced than the less gradated Power Level is preposterous. That it has the capacity to be more balanced isn't really in question, but the facts simply are that GW has never been bothered with creating proper balance in army building, and I doubt they ever will.

**Crimson**

AtoMaki wrote:

I'm saying that we need to completely redesign the game and then it would be balanced.

Right. Let me know when you're done, I'm very interested in seeing the results.

**AtoMaki**

Crimson wrote:
AtoMaki wrote:

I'm saying that we need to completely redesign the game and then it would be balanced.

Right. Let me know when you're done, I'm very interested in seeing the results.

Stay tuned, then

!

**Crimson**

AtoMaki wrote:
Crimson wrote:
AtoMaki wrote:

I'm saying that we need to completely redesign the game and then it would be balanced.

Right. Let me know when you're done, I'm very interested in seeing the results.

Stay tuned, then !

I applaud your enthusiasm!

**Deadnight**

Crimson wrote:

On the other side the argument that because the points are not perfect they're no better than PL is utter bogus too. Point system allows differentiating between various loadouts; it should be blindingly obvious that a system where four guys with plasma guns cost more than four guys with lasguns is doing better job with balance.

I understand your point Crimson. I have my preferences, but also acknowledge your points here.

Regarding what you say -The question needs to be asked then: is the 40k point system differentiating between various load outs good enough and accurate enough to be worth it? I'm not entirely convinced though. Plasmas versus lasguns - fair enough. Other options though become far more nebulous. And points costs are not always accurate either, especially when we consider we are trying to do is hammer a flat, 'universal' value onto something whose real value is in reality, almost entirely context-dependent rather than 'universal'.

I've said previously that I like a less granular system. That comes primarily from my experience with warmachine/hordes. I think less granular accounting works better for table top games as they are generally 'rough' systems anyway. That said, It could be argued that it works better in WMH as an iron fang is always an iron fang, for example. There are no loadout swaps. In the last thread on this, there was an idea floated for 'specialists' (i.e. guys with a heavy/special weapon type thing) to have a PL cost on top of the squad PL cost (though this 'specialist' could be any of the heavy/special weapon things). I considered it to be a decent middle ground. And it's generally how PP 'integrate' special weapons into. WMH squads (e.g. Winter guard rocketeer is 'attached' to winter guard infantry squads.)

Crimson wrote:

And of course the point system is constantly tested and updated in an attempt to change the balance.

Fixed that for you.

these things are often sold about 'improving' things, but the reality is that it's less about 'improving' and more about 'changing' things. That's Not necessarily for the better.

**Crimson**

Considering the bloody battles fought over whether guardsmen should cost four or five points, which is a difference of half a PL for the whole squad, I really don't think less granular point system is a good idea. I understand the appeal on the idea level, but I am afraid that in practice it would not work so well. I actually like how GW has been using the granularity of the points in this edition; in previous editions most point costs used to be divisible by five, but not any more.

**greatbigtree**

Regarding the granularity of points vs power level.

If we were to take a (currently) 40 point Infantry squad, and give the Sergeant a bolt pistol, instead of the default las pistol, is the unit actually worth 2.5 % more?

Please consider, that as a tar pit unit, the value has decreased by 2.5 %. The unit still dies as quickly.

The unit is 2.5% less effective as an objective holder.

That extra 2.5% points investment is only valuable while a target is within 12”. Vs another Guardsman, the laspistol has a 1/6 chance to inflict a casualty. The bolt pistol has a 2/9 chance to inflict a casualty. A 1/18 improvement one that attack, or 0.06 more casualties.

Hold with me.

19 las attacks inflict an average of 3.17 casualties. 18 las attacks plus a bolt shot inflict 3.23 casualties. The offensive output vs other Guardsmen increases by less than 2%. (0.06 / 3.17) which indicates circumstantially that not only is that 1 point an inaccurate account of its worth, but doesn’t factor the decreased value the unit now possesses in its other battlefield functions.

A plasma gun is widely considered superior to a melta gun. Why? Because a melta gun is incorrectly costed, or is it the plasma gun? Which measurement is incorrect? Are they both wrong?

The points system is an inaccurate. It is more precisely inaccurate, but still inaccurate. Sometimes points are less inaccurate, sometimes PL is less inaccurate. I find that over the spread of a 1500 / 75 PL the difference is negligible, to the point I’m not convinced that either system is more accurate.

I would prefer, for the sake of balance, that units were priced as a whole, rather than per model. It is much easier to balance a unit’s performance in a relatively defined role, rather than being as open as they are, which is one reason I like PL. It (should) assumes you’re using the maximum load out and options for a unit. If you take an upgrade that has a more specialized role, like a Flamer, it will be less valuable in general than a Plasmagun but maybe you’re planning to put the unit in harms way where the melee deterrent is more valuable to the role you have in mind... or they could buff the Flamer rules to a fixed 5 hits instead of d6... I’d say that’s a better idea.

For example, Upgradeless Guardsmen are a fantastic value at 40 points / 2 PL. But if they were required to take the available upgrades (with costs) they become 81 points / 4 PL.

For balance’s sake, I’d prefer to see Guardsmen as a more expensive base cost unit. It would halve their board control value / screening value. It would ensure they can participate at the scale 40k has focussed to (Knights and Tanks). So I’d rather see Infantry Squads as a 4 PL unit that’s overcosted without upgrades, rather than a 40 pt unit that’s undercosted that you can add good-value upgrades to. I think that would be best for 40k’s balance, and could be likewise extended to other armies.

A 10 man Tactical squad with full gear at 140 points is about right. Maybe 150, I don’t care enough to worry about it. That would include Sarge with CCW, Combi, a special weapon and heavy. At that point, if a Tactical squad was 7 PL, I’d call that pretty balanced, might need tweaking.

**Peregrine**

greatbigtree wrote:
The points system is an inaccurate. It is more precisely inaccurate, but still inaccurate. Sometimes points are less inaccurate, sometimes PL is less inaccurate. I find that over the spread of a 1500 / 75 PL the difference is negligible, to the point I’m not convinced that either system is more accurate.

Only because you're making a biased comparison. You're making a list with normal points (or at least one like it) and then asking how well PL evaluates it, not making an optimized PL list. IOW, you're deliberately avoiding the flaws of PL so of course it looks ok. Build a list designed to optimize PL options and then compare to normal points. You'll find that PL has huge accuracy issues.

**HoundsofDemos**

Peregrine wrote:
greatbigtree wrote:
The points system is an inaccurate. It is more precisely inaccurate, but still inaccurate. Sometimes points are less inaccurate, sometimes PL is less inaccurate. I find that over the spread of a 1500 / 75 PL the difference is negligible, to the point I’m not convinced that either system is more accurate.

Only because you're making a biased comparison. You're making a list with normal points (or at least one like it) and then asking how well PL evaluates it, not making an optimized PL list. IOW, you're deliberately avoiding the flaws of PL so of course it looks ok. Build a list designed to optimize PL options and then compare to normal points. You'll find that PL has huge accuracy issues.

You consistently seem to miss the point of power levels and non cut throat play in general. Yes power level is easier to break, but really it's not hard to break 40k in general. You seem incapable of separating to points. There is a difference between trying to win once the game has started and only taking the most bleeding edge competitive list and only caring about smashing face.

**MrMoustaffa**

Power level was good to start with because it let you just slap some models down and go for it. Thing is after say 3-4 games youve got a good enough grasp of the rules to realize it's not very balanced as older armies with tons of options just take their best gear while newer armies with few options are stuck locked into only a couple options. Essentially it allows one player to get "free" points over the other

Also, as GW has updated points and done balance tweaks, PL was never touched, which means if you've got an older codex like admech you're going to be playing at a major disadvantage to a newer codex.

**Wayniac**

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
greatbigtree wrote:
The points system is an inaccurate. It is more precisely inaccurate, but still inaccurate. Sometimes points are less inaccurate, sometimes PL is less inaccurate. I find that over the spread of a 1500 / 75 PL the difference is negligible, to the point I’m not convinced that either system is more accurate.

Only because you're making a biased comparison. You're making a list with normal points (or at least one like it) and then asking how well PL evaluates it, not making an optimized PL list. IOW, you're deliberately avoiding the flaws of PL so of course it looks ok. Build a list designed to optimize PL options and then compare to normal points. You'll find that PL has huge accuracy issues.

You consistently seem to miss the point of power levels and non cut throat play in general. Yes power level is easier to break, but really it's not hard to break 40k in general. You seem incapable of separating to points. There is a difference between trying to win once the game has started and only taking the most bleeding edge competitive list and only caring about smashing face.

This. Yes OF COURSE if you optimize then PL falls flat compared to points. But people using PL usually aren't doing that. Someone who wants to use PL is not usually going to look at it and think "Gee, all these options are free I'll just take the best/all of them". The fact that some people do just means that those people should stick to points because they can't be trusted to use PL.

**greatbigtree**

Peregrine wrote:
greatbigtree wrote:
The points system is an inaccurate. It is more precisely inaccurate, but still inaccurate. Sometimes points are less inaccurate, sometimes PL is less inaccurate. I find that over the spread of a 1500 / 75 PL the difference is negligible, to the point I’m not convinced that either system is more accurate.

Only because you're making a biased comparison. You're making a list with normal points (or at least one like it) and then asking how well PL evaluates it, not making an optimized PL list. IOW, you're deliberately avoiding the flaws of PL so of course it looks ok. Build a list designed to optimize PL options and then compare to normal points. You'll find that PL has huge accuracy issues.

Were I to build an optimized PL list, and compare it to points, I’d find the points-cost version to be uncompetitive. In the PL list I would take Voxes because they’re included in the cost of the unit. I would upgrade my Sargeants with PW’s because, why not? Adding those upgrades doesn’t actually add 9 points of value to a unit. Maybe 3 points. Vox rules are virtually worthless. A power sword is worth 2 in optimal situations and less vs most situations.

You believe that the “points” method is more accurate because it accounts (incorrectly) for the minutiae. I believe unit pricing based on the unit’s expected loadout / capability is more accurate. While a unit can be overvalued if it does not use upgrades, it is hard to undervalue it. Consider a Terminator unit where the owner chose to remove models that rolled 2 on their saves. Weird, possibly cheating, but let’s say they chose to do that. They’d be failing to take advantage of the full capability of their unit. That is their (unusual) decision. Same deal when building a unit in PL.

I’m not attempting to justify PL as a simpler list building thing. I just don’t see a measurable difference at the “point level” between a 10 man Tactical squad with all the goodies (with Lascannon) and the same squad with all the goodies and a Missile Launcher instead. Does the unit’s performance change by 2 to 3%? Does anyone take the ML, even if it’s 5 points cheaper?

So, in our subjective perspectives, I feel that the sum of the whole unit is what matters. Units should be priced based on their optimal potential, as that rewards the skill of extracting maximum value in-game. Making the best tactical decisions. Your perspective seems to value maximizing the minutiae of list building, which is a strategic element before the game. The better list builder gets an in-game advantage by “trimming the fat” from their list. I used to feel similarly, but no longer find that as important to my enjoyment of the game.

Continuing my analogy, there’s flavour in the fat. 40k is truly insane from a modern military perspective. Chainswords? Power fists? Ridiculous. And in-game, low value to the overall function of most units. But they’re cool looking and fun to build. Why not bridge the gap between fluff and crunch, and factor those upgrades into an overall cost?

Modifying the upgrade profiles to be closer to universal is easy. More shots to the Heavy Bolter. Make the frag profile more useful on the ML to make the versatility attractive. Same gig for flamers and grenade launchers. I genuinely don’t believe unit variety will degrade.

This still rewards, to a lesser degree, list building strategy. You can still make bad armies from good unit choices. I don’t see a move towards PL as bad for the game. I would enjoy making lists that can interchange upgrades. This could even allow undervalued upgrades to be chosen as “better value” vs certain opponents. An auto cannon is mathematically better in select situations when compared to a Lascannon... but those situations are few, hence the lower point cost. But in a PL balance model, the specific upgrade could be chosen at the table, tailoring to that opponent. So the typically inferior AC might see play against Orks and Dark Eldar (?) instead of sitting the edition out.

**Peregrine**

If you have to resort to "but people won't break it" or "it isn't for you" when flaws are pointed out then it's a concession that the system is trash. Good point systems don't break just because you try to build a good list.

**AnomanderRake**

Peregrine wrote:
If you have to resort to "but people won't break it" or "it isn't for you" when flaws are pointed out then it's a concession that the system is trash. Good point systems don't break just because you try to build a good list.

...Exactly. It isn't a good points system. It isn't a suitable replacement for real points. It's a convenient shorthand for if you showed up at the game store for a casual pick-up game and forgot to build a list ahead of time.

**Bosskelot**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

I was writing army lists back when I was a teenager with a piece of paper and a calculator. It's really not very difficult. Battlescribe just takes out that extra medium and most people I see who play PL still use Battlescribe anyway

**AtoMaki**

Peregrine wrote:
Good point systems don't break just because you try to build a good list.

Welp. Are we opening the angle that neither Points nor Power Levels are good?

**Peregrine**

AtoMaki wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Good point systems don't break just because you try to build a good list.

Welp. Are we opening the angle that neither Points nor Power Levels are good?

Of course both are flawed. But PL has systemic flaws in addition to the same individual cost mistakes that the normal system has, and breaks more often. It's a clearly worse system.

**Charistoph**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
If you have to resort to "but people won't break it" or "it isn't for you" when flaws are pointed out then it's a concession that the system is trash. Good point systems don't break just because you try to build a good list.

...Exactly. It isn't a good points system. It isn't a suitable replacement for real points. It's a convenient shorthand for if you showed up at the game store for a casual pick-up game and forgot to build a list ahead of time.

The sad part is that both of you are trying to support a bad point implementation with these comments.

Keep in mind the only thing that makes PL a bad system is the internal options of Wargear. Oddly enough, you wouldn't notice that much of a difference between most Necron units in this case because of that, and it is only those units without internal Wargear options which loose out since they can't pad their system like a Tactical or Infantry Squad. Warmachine also operates on the equiavlent of a PL system since they just don't have the internal options like Warhammer has.

**Peregrine**

Charistoph wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
If you have to resort to "but people won't break it" or "it isn't for you" when flaws are pointed out then it's a concession that the system is trash. Good point systems don't break just because you try to build a good list.

...Exactly. It isn't a good points system. It isn't a suitable replacement for real points. It's a convenient shorthand for if you showed up at the game store for a casual pick-up game and forgot to build a list ahead of time.

The sad part is that both of you are trying to support a bad point implementation with these comments.

Keep in mind the only thing that makes PL a bad system is the internal options of Wargear. Oddly enough, you wouldn't notice that much of a difference between most Necron units in this case because of that, and it is only those units without internal Wargear options which loose out since they can't pad their system like a Tactical or Infantry Squad. Warmachine also operates on the equiavlent of a PL system since they just don't have the internal options like Warhammer has.

Well yes, if you remove all options having a fixed cost does work. But most units have options.

**greatbigtree**

Again, factoring that upgrade option into the base cost so it is no longer really an “option” is easy. By allowing tailoring at the table, you can ensure the upgrade is optimal to the situation, rather than cheaper due to fewer ideal situations.

Vs Knights? Lascannons, thanks, and Meltas. Vs Marines? Plasma and more Plasma. Vs Guard? Missile Launchers and flamers. Unless the unit sits back then... Grav Gun? Higher ROF? I don’t remember.

PL can be balanced more easily than points. Because it’s a holistic view of the unit, rather than per model. I’ll point out that the current flaw with PL is that it was built around an “average” rather than “potential”. Were the system based on *potential* of the unit, it is less prone to errors of minutiae.

**vipoid**

So, here's an idea, how about we all take some of our recent lists and convert them from points to PL (or vice versa).

Let's assume that 20pts = 1PL. So a 1500pt list would be the equivalent of 75PL, 2000pts would be 100PL etc.

- If you convert your lists directly (not changing any gear), do they end up more or less expensive with the alternate system?

- If you're converting from PL to points, is there a lot of gear you'd choose to remove? Do you think it will make much difference?

- If you're converting from points to PL, is there a lot of gear you'd choose to add? Do you think it will make much difference, or is mostly just stuff you'd add for the sake of it?