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.

 Galef wrote:
I get the feeling that eventually (maybe not soon) GW will effectively "merge" the 2 systems as part of a effort to streamline a later edition.
Given how they are releasing models with fewer and fewer options, it's entirely feasible that they'll update to a single system that looks something like this:

5 Tactical Marines - 10ppm. Can add up to 5 more.
Any Special weapon is 10 pts
Any Heavy weapon is 15 pts
Any Sgt equipment is 10 pts

I used pts in 5/10/15 for ease of the example, but the point is that unlike PL, upgrades a cost and unlike Points are now, individual wargear does not have differing points.
A Lascannon costs the same as a Heavy Bolter. A Plasma costs the same as a Melta gun, etc.

I could easily see GW going to this kind of Points/PL hybrid to encourage players to build their units more loosely.
But this system would also require massive rebalancing of what the weapons actually do.
As-is, a Lascannon is worth far more than a HB, so the HB would need something extra. Heavy 5 could be a simple fix.
Multimeltas could finally be 2 Shots in this system to balance with the range of the Lascannon, and so on.

If all the options are closer to balanced and therefore can be the same "points" cost, then you don't need individual costs per weapon and can just have a "Heavy weapon cost" for the unit.

There will still be "clear winning upgrades" but how is that any different from now?

-

If all the weapons were of equal value in some situations, then such a system could work. However it would require a major re-work of all weapons statlines. You cannot convince me that a Grenade Launcher in the current system is anywhere near as valuable as a Plasma Gun in the Astra MIlitarum codex, for example.

 Horst wrote:
If all the weapons were of equal value in some situations, then such a system could work. However it would require a major re-work of all weapons statlines. You cannot convince me that a Grenade Launcher in the current system is anywhere near as valuable as a Plasma Gun in the Astra MIlitarum codex, for example.

Agreed, but that's were we could introduce more free options. A Grenade Launcher really should be free. You've already got the grenades and have to give up any other shooting to use the Launcher.

So in this simplified system, we'd have plenty of free options, then options that cost based on category like Special or Heavy.
It would feel more like PL in that you just take the unit as is, but has more granularity if you want cheap basic units vs deck out ones.

And really, that's the problem with PLs. It's meant to represent the average cost, not the fully deck out one. But power gamers take all the upgrades, because why not.

-

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Points and Power Level are both easily exploited since neither are properly balanced. Indeed, it is far easier to exploit points than Power Levels because there is an internal dialogue trying to insist that points provide better balance because the tuning is finer, so it isn't as readily questioned as being garbage. From there, yeah, you could fit all that in to a PL list, and be a total prick about it, but I've seen people be total pricks with points, too. Being a prick isn't dependent on pricing structure, it is how the game is being approached by the player.

Well, again, I would think that depends on entirely who you're playing.

That's literally what I was saying. An aft-voiding sphincter will be the same no matter the pricing structure.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:Like, say for example you asked me to do a PL game. We gonna need to have a conversation. I don't have the models to make every squad 'optimized'. I tend to buy armies based on a list I've made and tested, with a few extra options here and there- but rarely is my entire gaming army that's coming to the FLGS going to have more than 4k points in there. So, working with points makes more sense for me, because that's how I (and a lot of other people) buy and build up our armies. I simply do not have every option available modeled, and the 'optimize your unit' isn't really an option for me.

And I've seen people build directly for the optimized build for their units with the only thing holding their build is the number of models being employed, save those Wargear bits which are never modeled, which allows their HQs being the most customized across their lists aside from absolute numbers of models (i.e. dropping Squad #3, or dropping a couple of them in half). Largely because if it is not an optimized build, they simply do not take it at all, even with points.

I guess that is why I am somewhat baffled by this whole concept, because I see that optimization happening in army builds ALL THE TIME no matter which system they are using to build their army. I see this happen in suggestions given in army lists, It isn't even just in Warhammer games that I see this, as it has happened in WMH, X-Wing, and even Battletech.

 Charistoph wrote:

That's literally what I was saying. An aft-voiding sphincter will be the same no matter the pricing structure.

Oh, I agree. I just feel like maybe using Power Level gives him a lot more wiggle room to be a scumbag. At least with points I can kinda keep things a bit more contained, even if he is being a WAAC guy.

Sort of like, "Yeah, he's going to beat the crap out of me anyway, but I can at least protect my balls and my nose rather than just standing there with my arms wide open".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

That's literally what I was saying. An aft-voiding sphincter will be the same no matter the pricing structure.

Oh, I agree. I just feel like maybe using Power Level gives him a lot more wiggle room to be a scumbag. At least with points I can kinda keep things a bit more contained, even if he is being a WAAC guy.

Sort of like, "Yeah, he's going to beat the crap out of me anyway, but I can at least protect my balls and my nose rather than just standing there with my arms wide open".

And I've heard stories where that didn't really do anything to help because they went WAY over the agreed upon point list and only got away with it because the reporter was unfamiliar with the army. So that's another reason why I don't really see the weight of the argument against PL on this, because either its going to happen or it isn't, and it largely is dependent on their level of scat-spewing and nothing to do with purchasing system.

 Charistoph wrote:
And I've heard stories where that didn't really do anything to help because they went WAY over the agreed upon point list and only got away with it because the reporter was unfamiliar with the army. So that's another reason why I don't really see the weight of the argument against PL on this, because either its going to happen or it isn't, and it largely is dependent on their level of scat-spewing and nothing to do with purchasing system.

Okay, that's cheating. Any system we talk about can be wrecked by cheating, and it's not really a valid argument to favor one over the other. Not being a jerk about it, but cheating isn't going to be stopped by swapping over to a different type of point system.

And yes, it is a hassle counting up points for an army. Kind of why I wish that GW would follow the method that CB uses for Infinity. You make your list online, it tells you if it's valid or not, shows all the points, and you send the list code to the TO who will review it- and it takes three seconds, because it's all right there telling you everything with a big red X or a big green check.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
And I've heard stories where that didn't really do anything to help because they went WAY over the agreed upon point list and only got away with it because the reporter was unfamiliar with the army. So that's another reason why I don't really see the weight of the argument against PL on this, because either its going to happen or it isn't, and it largely is dependent on their level of scat-spewing and nothing to do with purchasing system.

Okay, that's cheating. Any system we talk about can be wrecked by cheating, and it's not really a valid argument to favor one over the other. Not being a jerk about it, but cheating isn't going to be stopped by swapping over to a different type of point system.

And yet, that is part of the declaration that is being made about the PL system: "it is a way to cheat your opponent by virtue of just taking the most point-expensive upgrades" (though oddly, that is not always the most optimized build).

 Charistoph wrote:
And yet, that is part of the declaration that is being made about the PL system: "it is a way to cheat your opponent by virtue of just taking the most point-expensive upgrades" (though oddly, that is not always the most optimized build).

If you're playing to power level, then doing that isn't even cheating. It's pretty much within the tolerance for how you're playing. But that's exactly why it's a problem.

Overall, let's just say you and I agree to this. The obvious thing is 'optimize your dudes to fight my army and I will do the same'. All right... well, that sounds good when you say it, but think about it...

- overall, the game doesn't have factions balanced against one another to work 'fully optimized' with fewer restrictions.

Now, of course we're gentlemen or at least I can convince people I am sometimes- so we're going to come to a gentleman's agreement about what we can take because you, like many other players, don't have the models to build 'fully optimized lists'- you bought what you could to build a couple of lists, and there's still a lot of different weapons and wargear back home on the sprue. And you probably don't have extra turrets or what-have-you, no magnetized stuff, so on and so forth. Hey, that's cool, we can do the gentlemanly thing- I'll not use X and Y, but I really like this Z- tell you what, I'll let you drop in five extra dudes in that one squad over there if I can use the Z, deal? Sweet.

Now, the problem isn't us. Nope. It's 'that guy'.

That Guy is gonna challenge Newbie Ned to a game using PL. He's gonna use the absolute most optimized list he can, and you can bet That Guy has multiples of things and is gonna spam all kinds of plasma and frag and poop bombs or whatever he has that's really expensive and rarely seen in massive numbers, because now he can. Great! Well, obviously Newbie Ned's list is just sort of basic, he's running on a few starter boxes and a couple of other things here and there. Probably stills smells like the cheap Testors glue he bought from Wal-Mart.

End Result:

That Guy did not cheat, according to the rules and agreement. That Guy is under no obligation to be a 'gentleman gamer' like you or I. That guy is going to say that Newbie Ned should have also optimized his list, which would have probably required him to do something ludicrous like buy five of the same kit for one weapon or something but whatever. Doesn't matter. I don't care if That Guy won, and he'll know I don't care because he's probably going to gloat about it and brag to everyone that comes near him (we had That Guy, exactly him, for a while- that's why this sounds very specific or at least rather detailed).

What I care about is Newbie Ned. He's just seen this 'perfectly fair and reasonable' game system used to exploit the freedom of it, and been crushed and flattened. That's not fun, especially when you're new and some guy throws a list at you that just annihilates you and you see all your pretty new models come off the table and go back into the foam tray- and if he's bragging about it, all you hear in your head when you're new is "I suck at this". You weren't cheated, you were beaten 'fair and square'.

I don't know if using actual points would have been different, but it does help you learn more about the specific restrictions that your army has, and what you can generally expect in a more balanced and granular game type.

But here is the problem with Newbie Ned- this is where he's gonna make one of three choices:

A- Realize investing in this game was a stupid idea, he sucks at this, and it's dumb if you only doing something ludicrous like buying 5 boxes of the same guys to get one weapon to spam
B- Get the impression that That Guy is doing it right, and start doing things exactly like That Guy.
C- Maybe ask someone else to play and learn a different system for building a list and continue to grow and get better and enjoy the hobby, avoiding That Guy.

But hey, look, I understand- PL has its place and all, I'm using it for a couple of things myself (more than willing to share if you wanna help me with something). But, it's like pooping with the door open- you only do it with people you really know and the FLGS might not be the best place to do it (trust me, no one cared that I needed fresh air, either).

Points in 40k aren't a perfect balance, because overall- not every faction is balanced against the others. I'm convinced several aren't meant to be taken alone, and it's not always the obvious ones. And 'balance' between factions sometimes is relative to what specific units the other faction is taken. Also, I'm convinced that some armies are more balanced, and even go from 'useless garbage' to 'really good' depending on what point level you're playing at.

Points might be 'unbalanced', but there's at least some means to make it somewhat balanced- more so than the average PL game, by far. The thing is... there's no way you can really, honestly, truly balance a game with as many possible options and match-ups as there are in this game.

Though I do think maybe some kind of additional system that acts as a balancing ruleset would be kinda nifty. Basically, "If your opponent has X, you get -y VP for using Y" or something to that effect.

That guy is That guy no matter if you are using points or PL. You get the same type of game either way.

To me trying to say that points-unbalance is better than PL-unbalance because unbalance is not as unbalanced is kind of circular and trivial.

They both take you to the same destination. An unbalanced game won in the listbuilding phase more often than not.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
And yet, that is part of the declaration that is being made about the PL system: "it is a way to cheat your opponent by virtue of just taking the most point-expensive upgrades" (though oddly, that is not always the most optimized build).

If you're playing to power level, then doing that isn't even cheating. It's pretty much within the tolerance for how you're playing. But that's exactly why it's a problem.

I know it's not cheating. YOU know it's not cheating. Yet, there are two prolific posters who have both stated as such several times. They are automatically assuming that you are loser/cheater/That Guy for wanting to play PL because points don't matter there. The fact that points don't matter to both players, and people often take the most optimized build for a unit ANYWAY (at least, of the time of the build) doesn't seem to register to them as a factor.

As for the rest:

auticus wrote:That guy is That guy no matter if you are using points or PL. You get the same type of game either way.

To me trying to say that points-unbalance is better than PL-unbalance because unbalance is not as unbalanced is kind of circular and trivial.

They both take you to the same destination. An unbalanced game won in the listbuilding phase more often than not.

I've said similar so many times in this thread, I almost think I should put it in my sig.

Yeah, it's overall a bit easier for 'That Guy' to exploit than points. At least points makes him work a little harder for it, and I'll take that just to make it less convenient for him.

That's all I got at this point.

You're not cheating if you use PL, but you would have to know what you want out of it and make it clear to an opponent who's got a similar mindset to yours.

Doing a list by standard points isn't a flawless alternative and you're not a jerk for asking people to use it even in fun and friendly casual games.

There is no wrong way to play 40k, unless you use Logan Grimnar on the Stormrider. Then you're wrong and lose every game forever and should have your models incinerated.

 Charistoph wrote:
I guess that is why I am somewhat baffled by this whole concept, because I see that optimization happening in army builds ALL THE TIME no matter which system they are using to build their army. I see this happen in suggestions given in army lists, It isn't even just in Warhammer games that I see this, as it has happened in WMH, X-Wing, and even Battletech.

The problem is in two parts:

1) PL advocates have claimed that PL eliminates, or at least reduces, list optimization. This is a blatantly false statement, as you point out.

2) At least some PL advocates are choosing PL over normal points because it favors the particular lists they want to use (and openly admitting to doing so). So yeah, there's list optimization in both systems, but you have a match between a person who has optimized for PL and a person who has optimized for the normal point system and has to keep mostly the same list without many of the optimizations they'd make if PL was the primary game. And it's TFG behavior to lobby for a point system with built-in systemic errors because it happens to favor your preferred lists/units at the expense of your opponent.

Points, I'm not a zealot about other people being over or under, so long as it's no more than 100 points or so. Power Level is vague, but a great way for newer players or for people looking to have a pick-up game without taking a lot of time to point it out.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Points, I'm not a zealot about other people being over or under, so long as it's no more than 100 points or so. Power Level is vague, but a great way for newer players or for people looking to have a pick-up game without taking a lot of time to point it out.

Yeah, I'm not hugely buttmad if someone is a little over. Even if they are, that can usually be 'balanced' by adding a missile or storm bolter to a vehicle or something.

Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I guess that is why I am somewhat baffled by this whole concept, because I see that optimization happening in army builds ALL THE TIME no matter which system they are using to build their army. I see this happen in suggestions given in army lists, It isn't even just in Warhammer games that I see this, as it has happened in WMH, X-Wing, and even Battletech.

The problem is in two parts:

1) PL advocates have claimed that PL eliminates, or at least reduces, list optimization. This is a blatantly false statement, as you point out.

So why is this one of your main complaints?

Peregrine wrote:2) At least some PL advocates are choosing PL over normal points because it favors the particular lists they want to use (and openly admitting to doing so). So yeah, there's list optimization in both systems, but you have a match between a person who has optimized for PL and a person who has optimized for the normal point system and has to keep mostly the same list without many of the optimizations they'd make if PL was the primary game. And it's TFG behavior to lobby for a point system with built-in systemic errors because it happens to favor your preferred lists/units at the expense of your opponent.

Wait, which is it? Is unit build optimization a consistent thing or not? If it is, then you have zero argument and you are simply name-calling the people who like to use the PL system. If it is not a consistent thing, then your first point is a lie.

And apparently you seemed to miss one of my points that you did not quote. A unit's option loadout is not changed between points and PL. What may be changed is the absolute number of models on the field, and that always has the potential for negotiation no matter which system you use.

Nor is it TFG to use an army build system which doesn't have the competitive pressure that people stuck on points have, simply because it gets away from that pressure system. Too much tournament focus can end up as toxic to a meta as cheaters and poor hygiene, as it can keep new players from coming in to learn the game. If it happens to use an army build that a person prefers, so what? I have had people deny me games simply because my collection had not reached tournament level yet, how is that any different? There have been people on forums who were completely willing to deny a game against specific armies at times because they were considered brokenly powerful, and that was when there was no PL system, how is that any different? Keep in mind that Warhammer games are systemically riddled with pointing errors, and you advocate for it, so here's your stone back through your glass wall.

You have too much of a white knight view of the points system and a black knight view of the PL system if your knee-jerk reaction is always assuming that a person wanting to play PL is TFG. It is as much a form of bigotry as a person who treats anyone not training for a tournament as a loser. It is a very poor case of poor sportsmanship on your part in that case. You may have been burned by this before, but that's on the individual, not the group, and has been pointed out, they've been there all the time with points trying to poison the meta, so you really can't honestly place the blame on the structure.

I'm not convinced by the 'free upgrade' argument against PL and think it can be pretty much inverted.

The problem with points is you only choose the most OP and underpriced upgrades. Each time you do that you earn free points to spend else where. The option to take completely unupgraded troops means you can squeeze more boots onto the field than you could afford under PL.

This allows you to have ludicrously cheap battalions by cutting upgrade points, to farm CP for and spam the most over powered underpointed options in a faction.

Points lets you work around the PL system by paying LESS for the same thing...

 Charistoph wrote:
So why is this one of your main complaints?

Because, while you acknowledge that the claim is false, other PL advocates do not and keep insisting that PL removes list optimization as a factor.

Wait, which is it? Is unit build optimization a consistent thing or not? If it is, then you have zero argument and you are simply name-calling the people who like to use the PL system. If it is not a consistent thing, then your first point is a lie.

The existence of list optimization is constant. Precisely which list ends up being the best one is not. For example, maybe in the normal point system the best heavy weapon for a squad is a mortar because it is cheap and efficient. Meanwhile in the PL point system the best heavy weapon for that squad is a lascannon, because it has the most raw power and all options cost the same. It is TFG behavior to look at your collection full of lascannons and say "PL makes my army stronger, I want to play a game with PL instead of normal points". You're lobbying to use a known error in pricing because it gives you an advantage.

A unit's option loadout is not changed between points and PL. What may be changed is the absolute number of models on the field, and that always has the potential for negotiation no matter which system you use.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The list of options does not change but their point costs certainly do change.

Nor is it TFG to use an army build system which doesn't have the competitive pressure that people stuck on points have, simply because it gets away from that pressure system.

Except, again, PL does not remove competitive pressure. List optimization and a competitive approach to the game still exist even if all options for a unit have the same point cost, as demonstrated by WH/H and its PL-style point system.

Too much tournament focus can end up as toxic to a meta as cheaters and poor hygiene, as it can keep new players from coming in to learn the game.

Only if you assume that "new player" and "tournament player" are mutually exclusive concepts. A new player who is interested primarily in competitive tournament play will likely look at a game/group that doesn't focus on tournaments (and tournament practice) and decide to go elsewhere.

There have been people on forums who were completely willing to deny a game against specific armies at times because they were considered brokenly powerful, and that was when there was no PL system, how is that any different?

Do you honestly not see a difference between "your army is much more powerful than mine, you're going to win in one turn, and there's no point in wasting time playing" and "my army is more powerful under PL than under normal points, therefore we should use PL"?

You have too much of a white knight view of the points system and a black knight view of the PL system if your knee-jerk reaction is always assuming that a person wanting to play PL is TFG.

I make no such assumption. There are people who advocate for PL who are simply mistaken, not TFG. What I'm talking about is the specific motivation for using PL that certain people in this thread have explicitly stated. No assumptions are needed, only reading the words they voluntarily write.

Peregrine wrote:1) PL advocates have claimed that PL eliminates, or at least reduces, list optimization. This is a blatantly false statement, as you point out.

Agreed. You *can* list omptimise in both points and power level.

And it's TFG behavior to lobby for a point system with built-in systemic errors because it happens to favor your preferred lists/units at the expense of your opponent.

So you admit that you're TFG as well? Because lobby for points, which has multiple systemic errors in it (time to build, encouraging competitive power over flavour), just because you favour what it lets you do (minmax your game for optimal price/power) at the expense of other people (having a relaxed beer+pretzels experience).

You're literally calling people TFG for preferring a differnet points system. Of course people will prefer a system if it benefits them in some way, be that competitive strength, balance, or ease of function. They're not TFG for that.

Peregrine wrote:The existence of list optimization is constant. Precisely which list ends up being the best one is not. For example, maybe in the normal point system the best heavy weapon for a squad is a mortar because it is cheap and efficient. Meanwhile in the PL point system the best heavy weapon for that squad is a lascannon, because it has the most raw power and all options cost the same. It is TFG behavior to look at your collection full of lascannons and say "PL makes my army stronger, I want to play a game with PL instead of normal points".

Absolutely agreed. If you're picking Power Level because your models are given the strongest weapons (ignoring their points) and want to wipe the floor with your opponent, then that's TFG behaviour.

However, I feel that you're missing out that not everyone plays PL for that reason. Do you understand that?

You're lobbying to use a known error in pricing because it gives you an advantage.

Some people (like myself) lobby for Power Level for different reasons. What is your problem with that?

A unit's option loadout is not changed between points and PL. What may be changed is the absolute number of models on the field, and that always has the potential for negotiation no matter which system you use.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The list of options does not change but their point costs certainly do change.

I think what is being said is something like this:

I have a Tactical Squad kit. I want to expand my army, maybe I'm just adding in another Tactical Squad to finish my Battle Company. Either way, I have a Tactical Squad, and they will definitely be used in my games. However, which points system I choose to play with will affect me. If I play Power Level, then I can pick options that I think look the best, and I can afford to bling out my Sergeants with cool looking gear, because they will always cost X amount.

If I play points, then I need to factor in how expensive my squad will end up being, because that could affect what units I'm able to take for my list later on. They could be cheap, and allow me to take more of other things, or they might be so expensive that I'm unable to take other units. So while my Tactical Squad will be the same cost in every game, I have to choose how much they cost now.

Put shortly, with Power Level, you only need to consider what units you're taking, and fitting that together. With points, you need to consider both what units you want, and what they're armed with, and that can affect both what units and options you can afford.

Except, again, PL does not remove competitive pressure. List optimization and a competitive approach to the game still exist even if all options for a unit have the same point cost, as demonstrated by WH/H and its PL-style point system.

I'll agree it doesn't remove it, but it's hard to ignore that most PL players have less competitive urges than points players, at least from this thread.

You have too much of a white knight view of the points system and a black knight view of the PL system if your knee-jerk reaction is always assuming that a person wanting to play PL is TFG.

I make no such assumption. There are people who advocate for PL who are simply mistaken, not TFG. What I'm talking about is the specific motivation for using PL that certain people in this thread have explicitly stated. No assumptions are needed, only reading the words they voluntarily write.

And am I one of these people? Because I've made it very clear that I do not support PL for gaining power. It just seems that all of my reasons you seem to think are invalid as well.

Generally speaking, the people who prefer Power Level are the ones who will outfit a squad based on what looks cool, rather than what's "good" (e.g. they are the kind of person who gives a sergeant a powerfist and plasma pistol because it looks suitably heroic, irrespective of whether that's an optimal configuration or not). The people who prefer points, generally speaking, will do the opposite since everything needs to be accounted for so there is no opportunity to take something just because, you have to justify every choice made because each choice you make means another choice you didn't make.

Wayniac wrote:
Generally speaking, the people who prefer Power Level are the ones who will outfit a squad based on what looks cool, rather than what's "good" (e.g. they are the kind of person who gives a sergeant a powerfist and plasma pistol because it looks suitably heroic, irrespective of whether that's an optimal configuration or not). The people who prefer points, generally speaking, will do the opposite since everything needs to be accounted for so there is no opportunity to take something just because, you have to justify every choice made because each choice you make means another choice you didn't make.

Generally speaking, but yes. This seems to be the standard. Of course, it doesn't stop people suggesting that PL players only play PL because it lets them take the strongest weapons without consequence or because "they're too stupid".

I prefer points BUT the option for power level (which a few players in my area use) allows me to build and use units and models I normally wouldn't. If we play Open War cards, we use PL.

Plasma pistols and power fists for everyone! Bring that Heavy Flamer brother! Havoc Launchers! More Combi-weapons!

I've always been a WYSIWYG gamer, so I often have more builds made than I usually field. My Plague Marines all have either a PFist Plasma champ, just a plasma champ, and a stock bolter champ that I can swap out depending on points. Power level makes them more relevant.

I'll reiterate that my problem with Power Level is NOT that it makes it too easy to optimize certain units. My problem is that Power Level de-optimizes too many units.
Basically anything that has a wide variance of wargear is now going to be heavily discouraged from taking large chunks of that wargear, and thus punishes players for running varied units.

My go-to example is Sisters of Battle, whose two best weapons are Storm Bolters and Melta, and who operate by taking those weapons in spades. In Power Level, one of our two weapons isn't just suboptimal, it's practically not viable.

Taking five Nobz with double-choppas is a fun way to get a bunch of S5 attacks on a reasonably cheap platform. (70 points for 25 attacks is pretty nice.) Taking five Nobz with double-killsaws is maybe a bit less viable because it's such a glass cannon, but still not a bad option if you need a ton of high Strength, high AP, reliable attacks. Both are reasonable options that could be put into a list with a reasonable expectation of making their points back in a casual game. In a Power Level game, the double choppas might as well not exist for how much of a waste they are.

Space Wolf Wolf Guard and Thunderwolves. Anything Deathwatch. Most Space Marine veteran choices. These are just the armies I play regularly - Almost every army (except really recent ones with tiny numbers of units, like Custodes or Knights,) have at least a couple units who are viable both with stripped down and over the top gear, and who lose over half their build options when you play Power Level unless you want to go into the game with a severe handicap.

The thing that amazes me about this topic is that everyone seems to assume players are starting with "Let's play PL" then go "How should we equip our models?"

I always figure that PL is more used for people who start by building models before writing lists, either because they're new, are building for looks / to fit flavour (e.g. building the UM company exactly as shown in the Codex), or maybe even had a pre-existing army from a previous edition.

Waaaghpower wrote:
My go-to example is Sisters of Battle, whose two best weapons are Storm Bolters and Melta, and who operate by taking those weapons in spades. In Power Level, one of our two weapons isn't just suboptimal, it's practically not viable.

How so? Taking meltaguns for every special weapon slot won't help when that Boyz Mob shows up.

Waaaghpower wrote:I'll reiterate that my problem with Power Level is NOT that it makes it too easy to optimize certain units. My problem is that Power Level de-optimizes too many units.
Basically anything that has a wide variance of wargear is now going to be heavily discouraged from taking large chunks of that wargear, and thus punishes players for running varied units.

Of course, this is only an issue if you only consider the effectiveness of them in game.

If that's all that you care about, good on you. From what I can see, most PL players aren't the ones with that kind of mindset.

 AtoMaki wrote:
How so? Taking meltaguns for every special weapon slot won't help when that Boyz Mob shows up.

Actually it will. Melta is 0.55 kills per turn, a bolter is 0.27/0.54 kills per turn. So the melta is as good against the basic troops as the gun it replaces, sacrifices only minimal squad-total firepower against basic troops, and has far more firepower against vehicles and elite infantry. And yes, even orks bring vehicles and elite infantry. The only reason to take the storm bolter, unless you are TFG-level tailoring against an opponent who you know can't bring anything but boyz, is the cheaper cost and under PL it costs as much as the melta. IOW, storm bolters cease to exist as an option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aelyn wrote:
The thing that amazes me about this topic is that everyone seems to assume players are starting with "Let's play PL" then go "How should we equip our models?"

I always figure that PL is more used for people who start by building models before writing lists, either because they're new, are building for looks / to fit flavour (e.g. building the UM company exactly as shown in the Codex), or maybe even had a pre-existing army from a previous edition.

Of course everyone starts with "how should we equip our models". You look at the rules to see what options you should assemble, so that you don't end up with tactical marines armed with dual plasma guns. And it's incredibly unlikely that your game is using every single model that you own, so even though every kit has been assembled already you're still choosing which of your models to include in your army for that game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Generally speaking, the people who prefer Power Level are the ones who will outfit a squad based on what looks cool, rather than what's "good" (e.g. they are the kind of person who gives a sergeant a powerfist and plasma pistol because it looks suitably heroic, irrespective of whether that's an optimal configuration or not). The people who prefer points, generally speaking, will do the opposite since everything needs to be accounted for so there is no opportunity to take something just because, you have to justify every choice made because each choice you make means another choice you didn't make.

If it's all about "what looks cool" then you should be happy to play with the normal point system and pay the appropriate point cost. Or you should be happy to model the sergeant that way and then say "he has no upgrades rules-wise". But what you actually want is to be able to use the rules that make your sergeant more powerful on the table but not have to pay any additional points for it. And your desire comes at the expense of the person who wants to model their sergeant with a bolt pistol and chainsword because it's what they think looks cool, since they're now paying for a power fist and plasma pistol but only getting much weaker weapons.

Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
So why is this one of your main complaints?

Because, while you acknowledge that the claim is false, other PL advocates do not and keep insisting that PL removes list optimization as a factor.

Not the point of what you quoted. YOU keep bringing it up as a reason the whole PL system is trash even when no one else proffers it as an opinion. You have LED with this argument before anyone else brings it up the last two threads.

Peregrine wrote:

Wait, which is it? Is unit build optimization a consistent thing or not? If it is, then you have zero argument and you are simply name-calling the people who like to use the PL system. If it is not a consistent thing, then your first point is a lie.

The existence of list optimization is constant. Precisely which list ends up being the best one is not. For example, maybe in the normal point system the best heavy weapon for a squad is a mortar because it is cheap and efficient. Meanwhile in the PL point system the best heavy weapon for that squad is a lascannon, because it has the most raw power and all options cost the same. It is TFG behavior to look at your collection full of lascannons and say "PL makes my army stronger, I want to play a game with PL instead of normal points". You're lobbying to use a known error in pricing because it gives you an advantage.

Assumption. People build Lascannons in to a Heavy Weapon Team because they want the ability to Wound and to Damage. Mortars are their to provide Wound chances just like a Heavy Bolter does. It may seem like the same, but it isn't because of the differences in capacity to reliably apply a Wound versus Damage, and that's not even considering those Teams that were built when Mortars could barely hurt a Trukk. A Weapon is chosen based on what it can do. Points only get involved on a minor level since it is applied when you have to pare back at the end of writing a list and get a few points over so a trimming is needed.

Peregrine wrote:

A unit's option loadout is not changed between points and PL. What may be changed is the absolute number of models on the field, and that always has the potential for negotiation no matter which system you use.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The list of options does not change but their point costs certainly do change.

Which adequately demonstrates that you have honestly not read a single word I said, since you just agreed with me the post before.

When people play with points, they build with an optimized weapon set for the unit. It is only the odd unit which is used to pad the points that this is not in consideration. Going back to the Mortar versus Lascannon debate, people will often try to prove statistically which one will provide more Wounds against a specific target, and it is that determination which will win out more than which one is more expensive until you get to the very final selections in a point structure.

Peregrine wrote:

Nor is it TFG to use an army build system which doesn't have the competitive pressure that people stuck on points have, simply because it gets away from that pressure system.

Except, again, PL does not remove competitive pressure. List optimization and a competitive approach to the game still exist even if all options for a unit have the same point cost, as demonstrated by WH/H and its PL-style point system.

Again, you are ignoring what has been said in favor of what you want to perceive. Yes, it does remove that competitive pressure in the list-building phase since the fine-tuning of points do not matter. One is not having to downgrade from a 10-man Devastator Squad to an 8 man squad to fit in another Lascannon, even though the Boltguns on those two Devastors will provide a minimal difference offensively, and MAY allow the unit to survive a few more Wounds (or have it be more concentrated on due to larger appearance).

Peregrine wrote:

Too much tournament focus can end up as toxic to a meta as cheaters and poor hygiene, as it can keep new players from coming in to learn the game.

Only if you assume that "new player" and "tournament player" are mutually exclusive concepts. A new player who is interested primarily in competitive tournament play will likely look at a game/group that doesn't focus on tournaments (and tournament practice) and decide to go elsewhere.

Again, you are not listening. A tournament atmosphere is great for the meta. It is when it becomes TOO MUCH of a focus that it can lead new players away since they will get overwhelmed to play tournament games (in practics) as their very first game, and that includes army building in an army that may not actually suit them. It is that excess of competitive spirit which is toxic, just like too much oxygen in the air is toxic.

Peregrine wrote:

There have been people on forums who were completely willing to deny a game against specific armies at times because they were considered brokenly powerful, and that was when there was no PL system, how is that any different?

Do you honestly not see a difference between "your army is much more powerful than mine, you're going to win in one turn, and there's no point in wasting time playing" and "my army is more powerful under PL than under normal points, therefore we should use PL"?

I do not. Why don't you? That is your claim about PL, after all, and it is the exact same attitude.

Peregrine wrote:

You have too much of a white knight view of the points system and a black knight view of the PL system if your knee-jerk reaction is always assuming that a person wanting to play PL is TFG.

I make no such assumption. There are people who advocate for PL who are simply mistaken, not TFG. What I'm talking about is the specific motivation for using PL that certain people in this thread have explicitly stated. No assumptions are needed, only reading the words they voluntarily write.

You have repeatedly made that as a definitive statement regarding PL, yet people have repeatedly claimed otherwise. Therefore it is an assumption, and a poor one at that. You take a claim about, "not having to worry about the details," as, "I have permission to go as crazy as I want," when it has to do more with not fiddling with minutiae (that are largely arbitrary) than being a power-gaming scat-spewer. It is this assumption to which I speak and you have repeatedly stated.

I'm just gonna say that arguing with 'certain people' is pretty much ensuring that the thread will get locked down, to a point where I'm pretty sure that's the intent.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
How so? Taking meltaguns for every special weapon slot won't help when that Boyz Mob shows up.

Actually it will. Melta is 0.55 kills per turn, a bolter is 0.27/0.54 kills per turn. So the melta is as good against the basic troops as the gun it replaces, sacrifices only minimal squad-total firepower against basic troops, and has far more firepower against vehicles and elite infantry. And yes, even orks bring vehicles and elite infantry. The only reason to take the storm bolter, unless you are TFG-level tailoring against an opponent who you know can't bring anything but boyz, is the cheaper cost and under PL it costs as much as the melta. IOW, storm bolters cease to exist as an option.

Now compare the Meltagun to the Flamer, the other common Imperial Special Weapon, and costs the same, if not less.

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
The thing that amazes me about this topic is that everyone seems to assume players are starting with "Let's play PL" then go "How should we equip our models?"

I always figure that PL is more used for people who start by building models before writing lists, either because they're new, are building for looks / to fit flavour (e.g. building the UM company exactly as shown in the Codex), or maybe even had a pre-existing army from a previous edition.

Of course everyone starts with "how should we equip our models". You look at the rules to see what options you should assemble, so that you don't end up with tactical marines armed with dual plasma guns. And it's incredibly unlikely that your game is using every single model that you own, so even though every kit has been assembled already you're still choosing which of your models to include in your army for that game.

And you still knee-jerk accuse the guy of being TFG. Beautiful.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Generally speaking, the people who prefer Power Level are the ones who will outfit a squad based on what looks cool, rather than what's "good" (e.g. they are the kind of person who gives a sergeant a powerfist and plasma pistol because it looks suitably heroic, irrespective of whether that's an optimal configuration or not). The people who prefer points, generally speaking, will do the opposite since everything needs to be accounted for so there is no opportunity to take something just because, you have to justify every choice made because each choice you make means another choice you didn't make.

If it's all about "what looks cool" then you should be happy to play with the normal point system and pay the appropriate point cost. Or you should be happy to model the sergeant that way and then say "he has no upgrades rules-wise". But what you actually want is to be able to use the rules that make your sergeant more powerful on the table but not have to pay any additional points for it. And your desire comes at the expense of the person who wants to model their sergeant with a bolt pistol and chainsword because it's what they think looks cool, since they're now paying for a power fist and plasma pistol but only getting much weaker weapons.

Why should they play with an arbitrary point system that is inaccurately riddled with minutiae when they can quickly toss together a quick list and have a fun game?

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
The thing that amazes me about this topic is that everyone seems to assume players are starting with "Let's play PL" then go "How should we equip our models?"

I always figure that PL is more used for people who start by building models before writing lists, either because they're new, are building for looks / to fit flavour (e.g. building the UM company exactly as shown in the Codex), or maybe even had a pre-existing army from a previous edition.

Of course everyone starts with "how should we equip our models". You look at the rules to see what options you should assemble, so that you don't end up with tactical marines armed with dual plasma guns. And it's incredibly unlikely that your game is using every single model that you own, so even though every kit has been assembled already you're still choosing which of your models to include in your army for that game.

Did you even read what I said? Because it wasn't that people start with "How should I equip my models".

My point is that everyone is assuming that people are building models on the basis of playing PL games, and equipping accordingly (i.e. maxing out upgrades), whereas I think PL is partly intended to be for "We have these models, now let's look at the gaming side" situations.

And yes, some people do play with all their collections. If I was playing against a new player who'd built their Start Collecting box and two more kits, I'd suggest they bring everything they have and I'd build to match (or slightly below) their PL.