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.
It’s 25. Which seems fine being as how it can a gun wagon or close combat monster and everything in between. Covers all the bases.
And have to agree with insaniak on this one. Most the problems raised about 8th aren’t issues if play like you want to have fun and not like you want to destroy your mates at toy soldie#.
Peregrine wrote: If the system only "works" because the players don't try to build optimized lists and avoid taking "too much" of the best stuff then it doesn't work. Stop excusing GW's failures.
It's only a failure if it doesn't do what it was intended to do. By which metric, the points system, which is actually intended to provide balanced forces without the need for players to self-police their choices, is a far bigger failure.
Yes, the power level system works best when players don't try to abuse it. That works because the vast majority of people using it aren't interested in abusing it. If the system works, and the people using it are happy with the way it functions, further checks and balances only become necessary when abuse of the system actually starts creating an issue.
It doesn't work as intended, because you're required to police not only yourself but your opponent. With points you're simply getting what you pay for. 4 Company Vets with Storm Bolters and Chainswords is 64 points, whereas with Plasma Guns they would be 100 points. That's because one is clearly more valuable than the other in terms of the tools it provides.
They're considered the same amount in the PL system. That isn't a matter of "trying to break the system". Those are legit loadouts you might use in the first place, and they're CLEARLY of different value. If you added one more Vet with nothing but a Bolter (not even a Storm Bolter), in PL it costs the same as adding the last Plasma dude.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
The goal of a point system is the same whether you price upgrades separately or as part of a fixed point cost for the unit. The only difference between PL and normal points is that PL does a worse job of it.
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.
Andykp wrote: It’s 25. Which seems fine being as how it can a gun wagon or close combat monster and everything in between. Covers all the bases.
And have to agree with insaniak on this one. Most the problems raised about 8th aren’t issues if play like you want to have fun and not like you want to destroy your mates at toy soldie#.
So every unit should be costed as if you take its most expensive variant? To cover all the bases.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
It doesn't work as intended, because you're required to police not only yourself but your opponent.
No matter how watertight you try to make a set of rules, some people will try to game the system. People have been abusing the rules of 40K to gain an in-game advantage for a hell of a lot longer than Power Levels have been a thing. The key to making the game work is to have both players looking for a similar experience from the game... as it is with any game ever created. So, yes, you need to 'police' yourself and your opponent. You need to do the same thing if you're playing by points, because the points system has all sorts of exploitable flaws. You need to do the same thing if you are playing Monopoly, because different people approach that game in different ways as well.
Ensuring that you and your opponent are both approaching the game with the same mindset is not something that will ever be dealt with in any set of rules.
Peregrine wrote: The goal of a point system is the same whether you price upgrades separately or as part of a fixed point cost for the unit. The only difference between PL and normal points is that PL does a worse job of it.
Every game needs policing whether that's done by the players as a collective or by a third party. Players ahead of time should be in basic agreement of what kind of game they expect. If most of the people on the field think they are have agreed to playing flag football, the first person to get randomly tackled and driven into the ground have a right to be upset.
If I am expecting a casual game or a hardcore game, what system doesn't matter if players have radically different expectations.
It doesn't work as intended, because you're required to police not only yourself but your opponent.
No matter how watertight you try to make a set of rules, some people will try to game the system. People have been abusing the rules of 40K to gain an in-game advantage for a hell of a lot longer than Power Levels have been a thing. The key to making the game work is to have both players looking for a similar experience from the game... as it is with any game ever created. So, yes, you need to 'police' yourself and your opponent. You need to do the same thing if you're playing by points, because the points system has all sorts of exploitable flaws. You need to do the same thing if you are playing Monopoly, because different people approach that game in different ways as well.
Ensuring that you and your opponent are both approaching the game with the same mindset is not something that will ever be dealt with in any set of rules.
I don't need to police my opponents in Monopoly as that has a strict set of rules.
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
Peregrine wrote: The goal of a point system is the same whether you price upgrades separately or as part of a fixed point cost for the unit. The only difference between PL and normal points is that PL does a worse job of it.
Every game needs policing whether that's done by the players as a collective or by a third party. Players ahead of time should be in basic agreement of what kind of game they expect. If most of the people on the field think they are have agreed to playing flag football, the first person to get randomly tackled and driven into the ground have a right to be upset.
If I am expecting a casual game or a hardcore game, what system doesn't matter if players have radically different expectations.
The only agreement in place should be the point limit and the mission (assuming you didn't randomly choose that). At least points will give more balance via being granular, which therefore requires less policing. PL throws everything out the window and assumes all upgrades are worth the same when they CLEARLY are not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/16 00:10:17
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
It doesn't work as intended, because you're required to police not only yourself but your opponent.
No matter how watertight you try to make a set of rules, some people will try to game the system. People have been abusing the rules of 40K to gain an in-game advantage for a hell of a lot longer than Power Levels have been a thing. The key to making the game work is to have both players looking for a similar experience from the game... as it is with any game ever created. So, yes, you need to 'police' yourself and your opponent. You need to do the same thing if you're playing by points, because the points system has all sorts of exploitable flaws. You need to do the same thing if you are playing Monopoly, because different people approach that game in different ways as well.
Ensuring that you and your opponent are both approaching the game with the same mindset is not something that will ever be dealt with in any set of rules.
So, which is better:
-Making two different points systems, one of which is incapable of being as accurate as the other
-Focus on making one system perform better and be more balanced
Allow me to put it another way:
What do you have against the game being balanced? What would it make you lose, or why would it decrease your enjoyment?
Because that's the thing. You can take a balanced game and make it imbalanced-if you want a desperate, impossible last stand from Ultramarines against Tyranids, you can do that! Just give the UM 1,000 points and the Nids 3,000 with respawning models.
But it's much, MUCH harder to take an imbalanced game and make it balanced.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
This argument would count for a lot more if it weren't for the countless discussions over the years, since long before Power Levels were a thing, about all of the things that are priced incorrectly.
If I throw together a list using whatever models I happen to have laying around, and you throw together a list with the same number of points, but optimised... what happens? Are the lists of equal strength?
Hence the need for 'policing'... If I show up to a game with a fluffy list expecting to just throw some dice and shoot some gak, and you show up with a hardcore tournament list and a burning need to win the game, it's unlikely that we're going to have fun. Using points or PL makes no difference to that very simple fact.
I think we need a balanced game and all this but I don’t. What would it make you lose using power levels? A slight perceived edge and a feeling of superiority for squeezing the most out of list. To me all that is a waste of time. It doesn’t make the game more fun or engaging for me. Power level lets you quickly get two forces of strengths that U can compare (not even evenly matched but comparable) with minimal fuss and bother. No need to worry about a point here or there. Just fun. Having points break down into thousands implies that a thousandth (1 point) makes a meaningful difference. I argue it doesn’t. Not until you are getting to hundreds of points then maybe. So one load out might be more optimal than another it depends on deployment and what happens to that unit and then the dude as well. That 100 point unit gets killed as quick as the 64 point one.
The quest for balance can ruin the narrative and feel of the game. There are three ways to play. Your way isn’t the only one and isn’t the “right” one. It’s just a way. My way is more appealing to me. U don’t have to play it. If you had it your way and went all balance you would just be playing a cross between top trumps and chess.
No one has to police anything, just don’t be a dick and try and win so hard you stop being nice.
-Making two different points systems, one of which is incapable of being as accurate as the other
-Focus on making one system perform better and be more balanced
That really depends on your goal.
If the goal was solely to create a balanced game, then yes, having a single, balanced system would be better.
If the goal is to give players a granular system intended for creating more-or-less balanced list, and a separate system that allows players to quickly throw lists together using whatever models they have in their collection, then having one system that is balanced and as accurate as possible and another system that is less granular, quicker and easier to use would seem like a better option.
Allow me to put it another way:
What do you have against the game being balanced? What would it make you lose, or why would it decrease your enjoyment?
Because that's the thing. You can take a balanced game and make it imbalanced-if you want a desperate, impossible last stand from Ultramarines against Tyranids, you can do that! Just give the UM 1,000 points and the Nids 3,000 with respawning models.
But it's much, MUCH harder to take an imbalanced game and make it balanced.
It seems like you're still missing the point here.
I can paint a miniature with 17 colours in three and a half hours. Or, if I'm more interested in speed than in quality, I can paint the same miniature with three colours in 10 minutes. Opting for the second doesn't mean that I specifically wanted a miniature that looks like gak, it just means that having the mini painted quickly was more important than having it look good. Which is fine, if I don't care what the miniature looks like, and just want to get it on the table quickly.
Same thing here. Power levels aren't for people who want an imbalanced game. They're for people who don't care if the game is perfectly balanced, they just want a rough, ball-park figure that is easier to calculate than adding points costs for every single piece of wargear.
It doesn't work as intended, because you're required to police not only yourself but your opponent.
No matter how watertight you try to make a set of rules, some people will try to game the system. People have been abusing the rules of 40K to gain an in-game advantage for a hell of a lot longer than Power Levels have been a thing. The key to making the game work is to have both players looking for a similar experience from the game... as it is with any game ever created. So, yes, you need to 'police' yourself and your opponent. You need to do the same thing if you're playing by points, because the points system has all sorts of exploitable flaws. You need to do the same thing if you are playing Monopoly, because different people approach that game in different ways as well.
Ensuring that you and your opponent are both approaching the game with the same mindset is not something that will ever be dealt with in any set of rules.
So, which is better:
-Making two different points systems, one of which is incapable of being as accurate as the other
-Focus on making one system perform better and be more balanced
Allow me to put it another way:
What do you have against the game being balanced? What would it make you lose, or why would it decrease your enjoyment?
Because that's the thing. You can take a balanced game and make it imbalanced-if you want a desperate, impossible last stand from Ultramarines against Tyranids, you can do that! Just give the UM 1,000 points and the Nids 3,000 with respawning models.
But it's much, MUCH harder to take an imbalanced game and make it balanced.
This seems to be the fundamental disconnect we all want the game to be balanced. But it isn't and GW either can't or won't put the effort in to do so to the tightness of say chess or monopoly. Truthfully given the wide range of choices and factions such a thing might not be possible. If I want a casual game and my opponent doesn't or vis versa, either system produces the same results. Neither one of us probably had fun because we wanted different things out of the game. PL at least lets me take less optimal options with out truly sandbagging myself.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I don't need to police my opponents in Monopoly as that has a strict set of rules.
Then you must really trust them when they're running the bank. It requires more policing, after all. Beyond that, Monopoly has more house rules to it than almost any other game that exists, and most people honestly don't know they are using house rules.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
Wait, weren't you one of the people accusing another of just asking to change the point tally a little for cheating? If it is worth the accusation of cheating, it is worth policing, and that applies to points as well as other factors.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The only agreement in place should be the point limit and the mission (assuming you didn't randomly choose that). At least points will give more balance via being granular, which therefore requires less policing. PL throws everything out the window and assumes all upgrades are worth the same when they CLEARLY are not.
You mean you don't need an agreement to use the same rules system, or are you just assuming that you will be? I state this in a day when you can bring Warhammer Fantasy models to play Age of Sigmar, 9th Age, and Kings of War with almost the same set of models in the same day. If you bring in a person who played several generations of 40K, but is new to 8th, then they will need to update their brain and that requires policing the system they are using, if only to make sure they don't make a mistake with the new system.
And, that's not quite the right analogy. PL assumes that people will take the upgrades that they want to take for the unit, not that they are all worth the same. As it is, some weapons may be pointed less, but are worth more in certain situations. A Lascannon isn't worth much against an Infantry Squad, but pretty decent when you're targeting a Chimera. Conversely, a Heavy Bolter is worth more when dealing with that Infantry Squad, and worth less against that Chimera.
Oddly enough, PL requires LESS policing because it doesn't matter if they didn't calculate in expensive options that a lot of people, either deliberately or unconciously.
JNAProductions wrote:So, which is better:
-Making two different points systems, one of which is incapable of being as accurate as the other
-Focus on making one system perform better and be more balanced
Allow me to put it another way:
What do you have against the game being balanced? What would it make you lose, or why would it decrease your enjoyment?
Because that's the thing. You can take a balanced game and make it imbalanced-if you want a desperate, impossible last stand from Ultramarines against Tyranids, you can do that! Just give the UM 1,000 points and the Nids 3,000 with respawning models.
But it's much, MUCH harder to take an imbalanced game and make it balanced.
If points were balanced to begin with, I could see the merit of the argument. But Warhammer is as balanced as a 3-sheets drunk clutz on a unicycle, and always has been, with only newbies and masochists believing otherwise.
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
This argument would count for a lot more if it weren't for the countless discussions over the years, since long before Power Levels were a thing, about all of the things that are priced incorrectly.
If I throw together a list using whatever models I happen to have laying around, and you throw together a list with the same number of points, but optimised... what happens? Are the lists of equal strength?
Hence the need for 'policing'... If I show up to a game with a fluffy list expecting to just throw some dice and shoot some gak, and you show up with a hardcore tournament list and a burning need to win the game, it's unlikely that we're going to have fun. Using points or PL makes no difference to that very simple fact.
Pretty much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/16 01:07:13
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.
I don't think anyone believes that points as they are, are the ideal and perfect balance. TBH, unless every army has the same rules and options, no wargame is going to have perfect balance- regardless of the system it uses.
Points are a more 'refined' balance than Power Level, if they are a bit imperfect.
PL and Points are both different tools that can be used for different types of games. While I rarely use PL, I'm glad it's an option.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I don't think anyone believes that points as they are, are the ideal and perfect balance. TBH, unless every army has the same rules and options, no wargame is going to have perfect balance- regardless of the system it uses.
Points are a more 'refined' balance than Power Level, if they are a bit imperfect.
It's more that some keep pushing that GW points are balanced in the first place, and don't consider that there are other factors than price point.
Oddly enough, even though points can provide a more refined balance, it can actually also set up significantly more imbalance than PL, and I think Warhammer's history adequately demonstrates that as a significant factor.
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.
That would be the thing I disagree strongly with too.
The chiming in that points bring balance and PL do not.
Neither bring balance. They bring structure. Points do it in a more granular fashion which is fine. But you get the same type of game with either in the end.
Charistoph wrote: It's more that some keep pushing that GW points are balanced in the first place, and don't consider that there are other factors than price point.
I think points are a more -specific- balance than PL.
In a PL game, you're going to optimize everything you can for a game. With points, you're going to squeeze things into a list around restrictions.
Charistoph wrote: It's more that some keep pushing that GW points are balanced in the first place, and don't consider that there are other factors than price point.
I think points are a more -specific- balance than PL.
In a PL game, you're going to optimize everything you can for a game. With points, you're going to squeeze things into a list around restrictions.
Kinda depends on what you want, I suppose.
Want or have, at any rate. Value is based on what you can take versus what you will be facing. Going against Conscript Spam with a focus on Lascannons and Meltaguns will not be very well balanced, even if the points cost more than with Heavy Bolters and Flamers. Conversely, facing off against an Armoured Company withe the reverse would also be unbalanced, even though running with the same number of models would be cheaper.
And this is where having an easier time at building an all-comers balance is usually achieved with PL than with Points, since Points will limit your options in building that All-Comers list.
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.
Charistoph wrote: It's more that some keep pushing that GW points are balanced in the first place, and don't consider that there are other factors than price point.
I think points are a more -specific- balance than PL.
In a PL game, you're going to optimize everything you can for a game. With points, you're going to squeeze things into a list around restrictions.
Kinda depends on what you want, I suppose.
Want or have, at any rate. Value is based on what you can take versus what you will be facing. Going against Conscript Spam with a focus on Lascannons and Meltaguns will not be very well balanced, even if the points cost more than with Heavy Bolters and Flamers. Conversely, facing off against an Armoured Company withe the reverse would also be unbalanced, even though running with the same number of models would be cheaper.
And this is where having an easier time at building an all-comers balance is usually achieved with PL than with Points, since Points will limit your options in building that All-Comers list.
This sounds a lot like list tailoring.
And what if you don't have options? Like Necrons or Daemons.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
This argument would count for a lot more if it weren't for the countless discussions over the years, since long before Power Levels were a thing, about all of the things that are priced incorrectly.
If I throw together a list using whatever models I happen to have laying around, and you throw together a list with the same number of points, but optimised... what happens? Are the lists of equal strength?
Hence the need for 'policing'... If I show up to a game with a fluffy list expecting to just throw some dice and shoot some gak, and you show up with a hardcore tournament list and a burning need to win the game, it's unlikely that we're going to have fun. Using points or PL makes no difference to that very simple fact.
You deciding to bring no ounce of structure or effort into your list is not my concern, and it isn't something I'm going to think about when I bring in a list (because I go into a store prepared unlike you, apparently). Why should I have to accommodate your poor list building skills when I decided I wanted to put some effort into it?
Things being priced slightly incorrect with regular, granular points > Prices all over the place with PL that take no consideration the actual value of items
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
You deciding to bring no ounce of structure or effort into your list is not my concern, and it isn't something I'm going to think about when I bring in a list (because I go into a store prepared unlike you, apparently). Why should I have to accommodate your poor list building skills when I decided I wanted to put some effort into it?
SO, to recap for those who just joined us:
Power Levels are bad, because it is possible for a player to create an optimised list with them. This leaves those players who don't optimise their lists at a disadvantage, and is thus proof that the system is completely broken.
Points, by contrast, are good, because it is possible for a player to create an optimised list with them. This leaves those players who don't optimise their lists at a disadvantage, which is entirely their own fault.
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
This argument would count for a lot more if it weren't for the countless discussions over the years, since long before Power Levels were a thing, about all of the things that are priced incorrectly.
If I throw together a list using whatever models I happen to have laying around, and you throw together a list with the same number of points, but optimised... what happens? Are the lists of equal strength?
Hence the need for 'policing'... If I show up to a game with a fluffy list expecting to just throw some dice and shoot some gak, and you show up with a hardcore tournament list and a burning need to win the game, it's unlikely that we're going to have fun. Using points or PL makes no difference to that very simple fact.
You deciding to bring no ounce of structure or effort into your list is not my concern, and it isn't something I'm going to think about when I bring in a list (because I go into a store prepared unlike you, apparently). Why should I have to accommodate your poor list building skills when I decided I wanted to put some effort into it?
Things being priced slightly incorrect with regular, granular points > Prices all over the place with PL that take no consideration the actual value of items
something tells me that you 2 wouldn't have a fun game together, and that's ok. 2 different types of players and 2 different types of game. oops forgot about the damn dirty open players.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I don't need to police my opponents in Monopoly as that has a strict set of rules.
Then you must really trust them when they're running the bank. It requires more policing, after all. Beyond that, Monopoly has more house rules to it than almost any other game that exists, and most people honestly don't know they are using house rules.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
Wait, weren't you one of the people accusing another of just asking to change the point tally a little for cheating? If it is worth the accusation of cheating, it is worth policing, and that applies to points as well as other factors.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The only agreement in place should be the point limit and the mission (assuming you didn't randomly choose that). At least points will give more balance via being granular, which therefore requires less policing. PL throws everything out the window and assumes all upgrades are worth the same when they CLEARLY are not.
You mean you don't need an agreement to use the same rules system, or are you just assuming that you will be? I state this in a day when you can bring Warhammer Fantasy models to play Age of Sigmar, 9th Age, and Kings of War with almost the same set of models in the same day. If you bring in a person who played several generations of 40K, but is new to 8th, then they will need to update their brain and that requires policing the system they are using, if only to make sure they don't make a mistake with the new system.
And, that's not quite the right analogy. PL assumes that people will take the upgrades that they want to take for the unit, not that they are all worth the same. As it is, some weapons may be pointed less, but are worth more in certain situations. A Lascannon isn't worth much against an Infantry Squad, but pretty decent when you're targeting a Chimera. Conversely, a Heavy Bolter is worth more when dealing with that Infantry Squad, and worth less against that Chimera.
Oddly enough, PL requires LESS policing because it doesn't matter if they didn't calculate in expensive options that a lot of people, either deliberately or unconciously.
JNAProductions wrote:So, which is better:
-Making two different points systems, one of which is incapable of being as accurate as the other
-Focus on making one system perform better and be more balanced
Allow me to put it another way:
What do you have against the game being balanced? What would it make you lose, or why would it decrease your enjoyment?
Because that's the thing. You can take a balanced game and make it imbalanced-if you want a desperate, impossible last stand from Ultramarines against Tyranids, you can do that! Just give the UM 1,000 points and the Nids 3,000 with respawning models.
But it's much, MUCH harder to take an imbalanced game and make it balanced.
If points were balanced to begin with, I could see the merit of the argument. But Warhammer is as balanced as a 3-sheets drunk clutz on a unicycle, and always has been, with only newbies and masochists believing otherwise.
Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
This argument would count for a lot more if it weren't for the countless discussions over the years, since long before Power Levels were a thing, about all of the things that are priced incorrectly.
If I throw together a list using whatever models I happen to have laying around, and you throw together a list with the same number of points, but optimised... what happens? Are the lists of equal strength?
Hence the need for 'policing'... If I show up to a game with a fluffy list expecting to just throw some dice and shoot some gak, and you show up with a hardcore tournament list and a burning need to win the game, it's unlikely that we're going to have fun. Using points or PL makes no difference to that very simple fact.
Pretty much.
1. The basic concept of "don't cheat" is not something I should police, as most people will simply . If my opponent is caught cheating, then the game simply ends and they're disqualified. So there's no need for me to police the main banker for Monopoly.
I do agree there are people probably using house rules for Monopoly, as that sometimes happens with family board games. Did you know some people play Sorry! where you have a hand of 5 cards and you play individual cards in a more strategic fashion to the regular "randumb"? Think it's actually included with the rules in the game though.
I have only played by the rules in the box though. When my friends needed clarifications I pointed where in the rulebook the stuff is. Simple as that.
2. Changing the point values because you lack the ability to create the list is cheating, yes. If they're caught, they're no longer playing legally and the game is now pointless. I triple check my lists to make sure I am playing an honest game.
3. You're not serious with this argument are you? The game does not equal the models, and that's why you get a lot of conversions happening in the first place.
Also the singular Heavy Bolter is actually not a lot better than a singular Lascannon against an Infantry Squad or a Tau Fire Warrior. A Heavy Bolter kills one Guardsman and a Lascannon kills over half of one. Meanwhile each one kills less than 1 Fire Warrior. Then the Lascannon ends up excelling vs a lot of big targets significantly compared these numbers against chaff.
See where the point values kinda come in there? Take two Heavy Bolters per Lascannon and now we're talking.
4. Once again, one is CLEARLY more balanced due to granularity. What you propose is what happens when you might as well toss ANY point system out the window. You don't need points OR PL to just go "pewpew" like you want.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/16 05:23:26
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
And what if you don't have options? Like Necrons or Daemons.
I don't get this, either. Like I said before, there's a time and a place for PL, and it's certainly not what I'd ask for in a considerably balanced game. Looking over at what someone else is bringing and 'maximizing your list to deal with it' sounds a lot like 'list tailoring'. At some point, someone's looking at a guy's list and building his list specifically to squash the other guy. I doubt it's working both ways, because I've never seen a decent player tailor lists- unless asked specifically to do so for narrative or testing reasons. There's a reason that even our casual and friendly game rules are 'show your lists when you both get to the table', and we're far from 'competitive'.
And yes, about Necrons and Daemons...
Let's put it this way, let me put down a Deathwatch list using Power Levels, and I assure you that unless you're playing a few specific options, you'll be singing a different tune- some OBSCENE loadouts can come out of that, with little to no reaction to the PL of the unit... compared to, say... most other armies out there.
The more and more I hear this argument in favor of power levels, the more I am assured it's just a cheap way for someone to exploit a system developed for a very different style of playing the game for a very different reason.
Because I guess folks forget that not every army is built to be as 'modular' as others, and that points tend to make that versatile unit balanced somewhat against that single-purpose squad.
I don't get this, either. Like I said before, there's a time and a place for PL, and it's certainly not what I'd ask for in a considerably balanced game. Looking over at what someone else is bringing and 'maximizing your list to deal with it' sounds a lot like 'list tailoring'. At some point, someone's looking at a guy's list and building his list specifically to squash the other guy. I doubt it's working both ways, because I've never seen a decent player tailor lists- unless asked specifically to do so for narrative or testing reasons. There's a reason that even our casual and friendly game rules are 'show your lists when you both get to the table', and we're far from 'competitive'.
Meh, the groups I've gamed with over the years have gone both ways on this. Sometimes we've kept the lists for the table, sometimes we've discussed what we we bringing. Sometimes that was so that we could match up stuff for a scenario, and sometimes it was specifically so that we could tailor our lists in an effort to outdo each other.
Which all comes right back full circle to the idea of making sure that both players are expecting the same thing, regardless of what system you're using.
The more and more I hear this argument in favor of power levels, the more I am assured it's just a cheap way for someone to exploit a system developed for a very different style of playing the game for a very different reason.
That would be an odd conclusion, given that most of the arguments about how broken it is are coming from people who refuse to use it, with those on the other side of the fence pointing out that the perceived problems don't exist if you don't choose to abuse the system.
So, what would you call building a 75 PL list with mostly Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons (you know you're facing Orks) but, when faced with Mekspam, you swap it all for Lascannons and other heavier weapons?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
insaniak wrote: That would be an odd conclusion, given that most of the arguments about how broken it is are coming from people who refuse to use it, with those on the other side of the fence pointing out that the perceived problems don't exist if you don't choose to abuse the system.
In two of the biggest gaming tournaments for Warhammer 40k, where the players are supposed to be the best of the best, people are getting busted cheating. You'll have to pardon me of I'm not particularly a fan of 'the honor system' with a random game against someone I don't know, and just hoping they're an upstanding sport and won't exploit the hell out of this glaringly unbalanced system. You may as well be telling me that I can leave my truck unlocked in the worst neighborhood in town with my wallet on the dashboard, "Because it's not a problem until a scumbag comes along". And let's face it, you can't walk into the average FLGS and throw a D6 without hitting one or two scumbags.
FFS, this same "It's not a problem if you don't abuse it" is basically saying, "It works between friends as long as you agree to it", which is fine. But 'works between friends' is also how you do homebrew codexes, custom characters, and Reivers with dual grenade launchers and jump packs. Don't expect it to fly with anyone else outside your group of pals. And I honestly get behind the "fast and loose" style of gaming with friends, but I know I need to be playing to a normal standard with actual points to go out and play with new people and potentially make new friends.
JNAProductions wrote: So, what would you call building a 75 PL list with mostly Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons (you know you're facing Orks) but, when faced with Mekspam, you swap it all for Lascannons and other heavier weapons?
That's why if you want a game that's actually somewhat more fair, you don't discuss your lists' contents until you've both made one and gotten to the table. I booted a guy from my gaming group for this exact thing, and we're more a fluff/narrative/casual group. He'd show up with every model in his army in his car, look at what everyone brought, and THEN sit down on Battlescribe and start making his list.
Whether you want to believe it or not, 40k (and many other games) are full of people pretending to be in it 'just for fun', but they're not having fun unless they're winning and they will exploit your good sportsmanship, kindness, and tolerance to 'have fun' and do everything short of cheating (and will often cheat when they're certain they can get away with it).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/16 05:54:05
