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.

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.

When I buy and build models, I like them to look badass and how I could best use them in my current army. I could care less if it's powerful/efficient in the game. I have a Landraider Helios, it's both expensive $wise and PL/Points wise. Is there a better version(not like any LR is efficient) prob, but I love how it looks and fills a specific role in my army.

If all you care about is X vs. Y you miss what myself and other PL proponents are trying to say. I enjoy the spectacle and grandeur of a proper 40k game. Interesting missions, well filled out terrain, weird matchups, unequal odds, etc...

Okay-but if you don't care at all about performance, why even use a point system? Throw down roughly equal amounts of models of similar size and have a blast.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay-but if you don't care at all about performance, why even use a point system? Throw down roughly equal amounts of models of similar size and have a blast.

Exactly. Making the point system less accurate doesn't help you achieve any of your stated goals.

Anything power level can do, points can do better. It only takes a couple minutes to build a list in battlescribe. I'm not sure why power level even exists. Maybe to teach someone their first few games it's fine but after that they should really be learning to build a list with points.

JNAProductions wrote:Okay-but if you don't care at all about performance, why even use a point system? Throw down roughly equal amounts of models of similar size and have a blast.

Agreed. How would you calculate the "roughly equal amount of models", when some are more elite than others, when some units are vehicles, and some are heroes?

Some kind of system to determine the relative and rough power level of a unit, perhaps?

Toofast wrote:Anything power level can do, points can do better.

Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points
Faster to build lists
Used by local group/casual players you associate with
Can be played just by having the unit's datasheet (which often comes in the kit)
Designed for Open War cards and Narrative system

A few things that PL does in my experience that are better. I don't expect this to be universal, but it certainly punctures holes in the idea that points>power level in every way. Points have their strengths, don't get me wrong. But PL, at least for me, does too.

It only takes a couple minutes to build a list in battlescribe.

Two things: one, it takes even LESS time to make one in Combat Roster (GW's PL based army builder)
Second, why should I have to rely on Battlescribe? By bringing Battlescribe in, you admit that points ARE more complex than Power Level. If this weren't the case, you wouldn't need to mention a third party application. Same as calculators - sure, I *could* use one, but I don't need a calculator for power level. Apparently, points requires some kind of third party application to help - which defeats the idea that "points are just as easy as PL".

I mean, we wouldn't turn around and say something like "If they're in cover, Scions get a +1 to their save, so Scions = Space Marines!", would we?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Agreed. How would you calculate the "roughly equal amount of models", when some are more elite than others, when some units are vehicles, and some are heroes?

By looking at roughly how many square inches of table space they take up. You take a squad, I take a squad. You take a LRBT, I take another squad. You take a Baneblade, I take a Predator and 2-3 squads. Maybe if it's a super elite army vs. a horde army throw in a few handfuls of basic troops to make a proper horde. Etc. If the two armies look roughly the same size they're probably close enough. After all, points don't matter and you don't care about winning. And this approach goes a lot faster than adding up PL points.

Alternatively, you let the narrative decide. For someone like you, with your obsessive dedication to the fluff, it should be very easy for you to pull out your Ultrasmurfs 15th Company and challenge Shas'o R'Y'X'z'U'X and his cadre to a fight. You already know what is involved in your list because each model has a 10 page backstory and can't be exchanged for any other model, so just pull them out and start playing.

Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points

PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.

Faster to build lists

Not by any meaningful amount.

Can be played just by having the unit's datasheet (which often comes in the kit)

Not true. You still need the codex for the army-wide rules, the FAQs for any rule changes, etc. IOW, the same list of books that you need for a normal points game. The only thing you could possibly argue that you can do without by using PL is CA 2018 for the point cost errata, but if you're a narrative player then you already bought CA 2018 for its narrative content.

Second, why should I have to rely on Battlescribe?

Because, in addition to the convenience of adding up your points, it also makes a nice formatted army list you can print and bring to the game and that saves you the time and effort of writing one without a list builder. Even if you're playing PL Battlescribe is still a useful tool.

 Peregrine wrote:

Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points

PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.

Sure it does. Prove it doesn't. Your accusations based on assumptions do not count as proof. Others' declarations state that it does, therefore you are wrong unless you can demonstrate they are lying.

 Peregrine wrote:

Faster to build lists

Not by any meaningful amount.

Depends on the army. Necrons, sure. Deathwatch, not so much unless you've already put them in to convenient point tallies like I used to do with my Black Templar in yester-year.

 Peregrine wrote:

Can be played just by having the unit's datasheet (which often comes in the kit)

Not true. You still need the codex for the army-wide rules, the FAQs for any rule changes, etc. IOW, the same list of books that you need for a normal points game. The only thing you could possibly argue that you can do without by using PL is CA 2018 for the point cost errata, but if you're a narrative player then you already bought CA 2018 for its narrative content.

No, you don't NEED it, it's just handy. It depends on the datasheet, too, because if it is not from the codex, it is already listed on the datasheet in question. And then there are those who have no codex for their army.

 Peregrine wrote:

Second, why should I have to rely on Battlescribe?

Because, in addition to the convenience of adding up your points, it also makes a nice formatted army list you can print and bring to the game and that saves you the time and effort of writing one without a list builder. Even if you're playing PL Battlescribe is still a useful tool.

You are not saying why he MUST do so, though. You advocate the convenience, but do nothing to list it as a requirement. Even worse, since it is doubly 3rd party and not connected to GW in any way, Battlescribe can be out of date or just plain wrong with no recompense. It's not like Battlescribe nor the add-on creator are being employed or directly fed the information by GW. All it takes is the add-on creator to give up on the game and no one with the chops to take it over for it to fail without notification.

Also, power level seems more fitting with the "New GW model" system, where you have very specific and limited options.

Play a Primaris vs Primaris battle and tell me theres any advantage the other player doesent have.

 Charistoph wrote:
Sure it does. Prove it doesn't. Your accusations based on assumptions do not count as proof. Others' declarations state that it does, therefore you are wrong unless you can demonstrate they are lying.

Proving a negative is impossible and you know it (or at least I hope you do). On the other hand, people have offered nothing more than "I do aesthetic things" as proof that PL does encourage it, without any credible argument that it is PL encouraging aesthetic choices rather than their existing commitment to take upgrades for aesthetic reasons regardless of the point system.

Depends on the army. Necrons, sure. Deathwatch, not so much unless you've already put them in to convenient point tallies like I used to do with my Black Templar in yester-year.

Any army. The difference in time is literally the few seconds required to type a couple more digits into the calculator. In fact, the normal point system is likely to be faster than PL unless you have a policy of letting your opponent break the point limit to bring more stuff. If you're 5 points over the limit in a normal game you can usually make a quick change to remove an upgrade and have a legal list. If you're 1 point over in a PL game you have to remove an entire unit and swap it with something else, possibly forcing other changes to accommodate the swap.

No, you don't NEED it, it's just handy. It depends on the datasheet, too, because if it is not from the codex, it is already listed on the datasheet in question. And then there are those who have no codex for their army.

No, you need it. You can't play the game with just the datasheets unless you ignore some of the rules. Maybe you can come up with some obscure and unrealistic list that technically allows you to play without the codex, but for all realistic purposes you need to buy the codex for your army. Or index I suppose, but the index armies also have their normal point costs in the same book as the PL point costs.

You are not saying why he MUST do so, though. You advocate the convenience, but do nothing to list it as a requirement. Even worse, since it is doubly 3rd party and not connected to GW in any way, Battlescribe can be out of date or just plain wrong with no recompense. It's not like Battlescribe nor the add-on creator are being employed or directly fed the information by GW. All it takes is the add-on creator to give up on the game and no one with the chops to take it over for it to fail without notification.

Of course it's not a requirement. It isn't a requirement to use Battlescribe regardless of PL vs. points. But the simple fact is that Battlescribe is a useful tool regardless of which point system you're using, and saying "you have to use Battlescribe for points to be convenient" is hardly a compelling argument when you're sitting there making a PL list using the exact same tools.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Sure it does. Prove it doesn't. Your accusations based on assumptions do not count as proof. Others' declarations state that it does, therefore you are wrong unless you can demonstrate they are lying.

Proving a negative is impossible and you know it (or at least I hope you do). On the other hand, people have offered nothing more than "I do aesthetic things" as proof that PL does encourage it, without any credible argument that it is PL encouraging aesthetic choices rather than their existing commitment to take upgrades for aesthetic reasons regardless of the point system.

And if it does for them, that is sufficient evidence. You don't get to make that determination for them.

 Peregrine wrote:

Depends on the army. Necrons, sure. Deathwatch, not so much unless you've already put them in to convenient point tallies like I used to do with my Black Templar in yester-year.

Any army. The difference in time is literally the few seconds required to type a couple more digits into the calculator. In fact, the normal point system is likely to be faster than PL unless you have a policy of letting your opponent break the point limit to bring more stuff. If you're 5 points over the limit in a normal game you can usually make a quick change to remove an upgrade and have a legal list. If you're 1 point over in a PL game you have to remove an entire unit and swap it with something else, possibly forcing other changes to accommodate the swap.

It takes more than a few seconds if your army has every unit with upgrades out the wazoo. My close Combat Crusader Squad had 5 upgrades to them. That's 5 more entries than just doing PL if I had not already had the total figured out.

From there, agonizing over which unit to downgrade to fit 5 points in (since some think that asking for different points is cheating somehow), can actually extend the amount of time in building the list as opposed to, "not this unit".

 Peregrine wrote:

No, you don't NEED it, it's just handy. It depends on the datasheet, too, because if it is not from the codex, it is already listed on the datasheet in question. And then there are those who have no codex for their army.

No, you need it. You can't play the game with just the datasheets unless you ignore some of the rules. Maybe you can come up with some obscure and unrealistic list that technically allows you to play without the codex, but for all realistic purposes you need to buy the codex for your army. Or index I suppose, but the index armies also have their normal point costs in the same book as the PL point costs.

And if you're not paying points, you don't need to worry about such, right? The whole point of Datasheets is that you didn't need a codex to know everything about the unit, right? Or was that another lie from GW?

Heck with Battlescribe, you don't need the codex, either. Except you do to verify that Battlescribe calculated and presented everything properly.

 Peregrine wrote:

You are not saying why he MUST do so, though. You advocate the convenience, but do nothing to list it as a requirement. Even worse, since it is doubly 3rd party and not connected to GW in any way, Battlescribe can be out of date or just plain wrong with no recompense. It's not like Battlescribe nor the add-on creator are being employed or directly fed the information by GW. All it takes is the add-on creator to give up on the game and no one with the chops to take it over for it to fail without notification.

Of course it's not a requirement. It isn't a requirement to use Battlescribe regardless of PL vs. points. But the simple fact is that Battlescribe is a useful tool regardless of which point system you're using, and saying "you have to use Battlescribe for points to be convenient" is hardly a compelling argument when you're sitting there making a PL list using the exact same tools.

Then you are missing the definition of "need", because that is the word you used.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay-but if you don't care at all about performance, why even use a point system? Throw down roughly equal amounts of models of similar size and have a blast.

I'll be honest, against some of may most familiar opponents we don't; we know what forces will give us a good game better than a points limit or PL provides. It's fun to calculate what we used after the battle to see how our forces compared points or power wise.

That said, this works best with people and armies you are already familiar with. Saying "if you're not going to use points then don't bother with PL either" is throwing out the baby with the bath water. The most detailed measurement isn't always needed. At 2 or 3 years old we stop measuring a persons age in month and switch over to years. Years isn't as detailed as months, but it is sufficient for most purposes.

 Charistoph wrote:
And if it does for them, that is sufficient evidence. You don't get to make that determination for them.

If someone claims that their magic anti-Tyranid amulet keeps the Tyranids from coming into our world and eating them we'd absolutely make the determination for them and call on that claim, pointing out the obvious fact that they haven't been eaten by Tyranids because Tyranids don't exist. We certainly wouldn't call their belief that it's the amulet keeping them safe sufficient evidence just because it's what they believe. Same thing for PL. They make the claim, but the claim is not plausible at all and I reject it.

It takes more than a few seconds if your army has every unit with upgrades out the wazoo. My close Combat Crusader Squad had 5 upgrades to them. That's 5 more entries than just doing PL if I had not already had the total figured out.

But most of the time you're going to have a setup or two that you commonly use. You aren't adding up each point cost separately each time like it's your first time playing the game, you know that your most common choice of upgrades is 125 points for the squad and the other one you sometimes use is 135. Once you're familiar at all with the system, after playing a few games, you're doing it mostly from memory and it is a matter of a few seconds of extra time.

From there, agonizing over which unit to downgrade to fit 5 points in (since some think that asking for different points is cheating somehow), can actually extend the amount of time in building the list as opposed to, "not this unit".

And this is better than spending that time agonizing over which unit to remove from your army (and hopefully swap with something else, if you have the right combination of units to make it all work) because you're 1 PL over? I suspect that "should I drop a power fist or a plasma gun" is an easier question than having to figure out a multi-unit swap that fixes your point total without disrupting your army too much.

The whole point of Datasheets is that you didn't need a codex to know everything about the unit, right? Or was that another lie from GW?

Yep, it's a lie. The idea that you can play the normal game of 40k without buying the codex/index (or a list-building program that has all of the rules and point costs) for your army is a blatant lie. Maybe in theory you can come up with a list that doesn't require a codex, but it is not a realistic way to play the game. In the real world you don't have all of the rules your units require until you buy the codex/index. Blame GW for dishonest marketing, but wishful thinking doesn't make it true.

Then you are missing the definition of "need", because that is the word you used.

Did I? Because I sure can't find it. I claimed that you need the index/codex, but I don't recall making any such claim about Battlescribe. It's a useful tool whether you're using PL or normal points, but it isn't mandatory.

If you read the PL based missions, they tend to not want equal PL, or have a note in place about if there's a difference in PL.

Peregrine wrote:By looking at roughly how many square inches of table space they take up. You take a squad, I take a squad. You take a LRBT, I take another squad. You take a Baneblade, I take a Predator and 2-3 squads. Maybe if it's a super elite army vs. a horde army throw in a few handfuls of basic troops to make a proper horde. Etc. If the two armies look roughly the same size they're probably close enough.

So you're telling me that because Sisters and Guardsmen take up the same amount of space, they're equal? Telling me that Grey Knight Paladins are equivalent to Ruststalkers? Or, that a Company Commander is equivalent to a Primaris Captain?

I like the concept, but size ain't everything. Some squads are elite, others are less so, and still the same size. This is why having a system that estimates the Power Level is a good idea.

After all, points don't matter and you don't care about winning.

I never said that. I said winning doesn't matter, and complete balance doesn't matter, but having an equilibrium of equality to simplicity is good for me.

Stop trying to push your "all or nothing" attitude on me. One can like "some" rough balance without having to go into the anally retentive category.

And this approach goes a lot faster than adding up PL points.

Again, not really, not if you're after a semblance of equality. Anyone can throw down a bunch of units, but they might not be even *close* to eachother in terms of relative power. And that's not necessarily a bad thing - but then, how far is the gap between the two?
Having the Power Level system, as a less granular and faster version of the points system, fills a niche. Just because it's a niche you don't appreciate, it exists. Respect that.

Alternatively, you let the narrative decide. For someone like you, with your obsessive dedication to the fluff, it should be very easy for you to pull out your Ultrasmurfs 15th Company and challenge Shas'o R'Y'X'z'U'X and his cadre to a fight. You already know what is involved in your list because each model has a 10 page backstory and can't be exchanged for any other model, so just pull them out and start playing.

Why does this sound like you're mocking my approach to the game? Are you implying that my way to play is not "right" or respectable?

Also, 15th Company doesn't exist, save for a potential fringe case before the 3rd Founding, where the Ultramarines did maintain at least one additional company (the Aegida Company) - which was disbanded for fears if they were caught.

Besides, not even that, but T'au Cadres are of variable size. Whilst a Battle Company is more fixed (still with their own differences - after all, do they have Devastators or Centurions? Do they have Tactical Squads or Intercessors? How many Dreadnoughts are there?), the Cadre system is far more flexible.

The "pull them out and star playing" is exactly what I do. It's just useful to know relatively how big this game is going to be - do I take my 300+ PL Ultramarine force, or my 30 PL Skitarii Killclade? With a rough level of power, I can choose the army best suited for that size, and if someone is under or over, then we apply the Underdog rule.

Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points

PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.

And in points, you're punished for taking that power fist because you're preventing yourself taking other aesthetic upgrades or even other units.

The only way you can be "punished" or "discouraged" in PL is if you go in with the mindset of "I MUST take the options that are the best in strength, else I am weakening myself". Now, I see that you happen to have that "maximise at all costs" mindset, but I don't. As such, that negative aspect you assign to PL simply doesn't affect me. I'm not denying it's a negative, but it's only a negative if you have that mindset.

As a counterpoint - I've made very clear I find points to have negative aspects - but they're only negative because I have a certain mindset that you do not. To you, my negatives of points aren't a factor.

Is that so hard to understand?

Faster to build lists

Not by any meaningful amount.

Maybe not to you. To me, it very much has meaning. You can't argue that away. If I genuinely find PL to be faster, and I value that, then it factually IS a meaningful amount. Not to you, maybe, but the fact it affects at least ONE person, it is meaningful.

Can be played just by having the unit's datasheet (which often comes in the kit)

Not true. You still need the codex for the army-wide rules, the FAQs for any rule changes, etc. IOW, the same list of books that you need for a normal points game.

If you don't use the army-wide rules, then you don't need Codexes. FAQs are free and can be printed and downloaded, but even then, if you and your opponent agree to disregard them or parts of them, then it's fair game.

I'm not advocating going into a pickup game and saying "hey, we're ignoring the FAQs, now play me". I'm saying if you and your opponent have talked about it, and you both want to play the game in a certain way, then that's not wrong.

So no, I'm going to contest the idea that you *need* those things. If you have the datasheet for a unit, the basic rules to play the game, and the equipment the game calls for (dice, ruler, models, objectives, battlefield, etc etc) then you can play. Anything else, no mater how common it is, is supplementary (even if it IS used by the majority of people).

The only thing you could possibly argue that you can do without by using PL is CA 2018 for the point cost errata, but if you're a narrative player then you already bought CA 2018 for its narrative content.

I haven't. I'm getting around to it, but I've not bought it yet. And I'm under no obligation to, barring my own. Unless you'd like to get it for me?

Second, why should I have to rely on Battlescribe?

Because, in addition to the convenience of adding up your points, it also makes a nice formatted army list you can print and bring to the game and that saves you the time and effort of writing one without a list builder. Even if you're playing PL Battlescribe is still a useful tool.

I'm not disputing it is. But it's not part of the game. It's a third party application. I shouldn't require a third party application to play the game. As such, an argument that requires me to use a third party application to consider itself valid is no argument to me.

Besides - Battlescribe cannot be relied upon. Sure, you can plug in all your units, but it's not 100% accurate. You still should check it manually, and that's going straight back to "PL is faster than points".
Plus, even IF I were to accept Battlescribe as a valid argument, I could also then include Games Workshop's Combat Roster, which calculates Power Level lists faster than Battlsecribe can.

Having a nicely formatted army list is optional. It doesn't factor in to the fact that PL is faster than points.

Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
And if it does for them, that is sufficient evidence. You don't get to make that determination for them.

If someone claims that their magic anti-Tyranid amulet keeps the Tyranids from coming into our world and eating them we'd absolutely make the determination for them and call on that claim, pointing out the obvious fact that they haven't been eaten by Tyranids because Tyranids don't exist. We certainly wouldn't call their belief that it's the amulet keeping them safe sufficient evidence just because it's what they believe. Same thing for PL. They make the claim, but the claim is not plausible at all and I reject it.

There's a big difference between an amulet warding off a known fictional race, and people having personal experience and preferences.

Are you genuinely so ignorant and arrogant that you would literally call someone's personal PREFERENCE for something "not plausible"? Like, you realistically hold yourself to be such an authority over other people that you wholeheartedly believe that you can call someone's likes and dislikes "not plausible" and dismiss them.

Okay. I think your claims are not plausible.

But most of the time you're going to have a setup or two that you commonly use. You aren't adding up each point cost separately each time like it's your first time playing the game, you know that your most common choice of upgrades is 125 points for the squad and the other one you sometimes use is 135. Once you're familiar at all with the system, after playing a few games, you're doing it mostly from memory and it is a matter of a few seconds of extra time.

Which would still make PL even faster, wouldn't it?

So, with points, sure, you know what your unit will take, but that's still likely a three digit number. However, at the same time, the PL player is still calculating with single or double digit numbers - still faster.

And this is better than spending that time agonizing over which unit to remove from your army (and hopefully swap with something else, if you have the right combination of units to make it all work) because you're 1 PL over? I suspect that "should I drop a power fist or a plasma gun" is an easier question than having to figure out a multi-unit swap that fixes your point total without disrupting your army too much.

Nah, Underdog rule. Being a small amount of PL over is covered by that. Hell, in some games, having an Underdog is recommended.

The whole point of Datasheets is that you didn't need a codex to know everything about the unit, right? Or was that another lie from GW?

Yep, it's a lie. The idea that you can play the normal game of 40k without buying the codex/index (or a list-building program that has all of the rules and point costs) for your army is a blatant lie. Maybe in theory you can come up with a list that doesn't require a codex, but it is not a realistic way to play the game. In the real world you don't have all of the rules your units require until you buy the codex/index. Blame GW for dishonest marketing, but wishful thinking doesn't make it true.

I play games without the Codex. I've ran 4v4 games and not used Codexes for them. Say what you like, but you factually CAN play without a Codex. You only need the Datasheet. If there's an army special rule (Canticles of the Omnissiah, And They Shall Know No Fear), then that can either be ignored, or you can literally just look it up online. Not hard.

I respect that you think that 40k MUST be played with all factions having army-wide rules, "balanced" codexes, and suchlike, but the fact that I can play 40k with just the Datasheet and Battle Primer is just that - a fact. You have your opinion that it's not proper, or not genuine, but as long as I am using GW approved rules, and can play the game by those rules, I am factually playing 40k.

Then you are missing the definition of "need", because that is the word you used.

Did I? Because I sure can't find it. I claimed that you need the index/codex, but I don't recall making any such claim about Battlescribe. It's a useful tool whether you're using PL or normal points, but it isn't mandatory.

So if it's not mandatory, you shouldn't be using it as a crutch to defend points. Why should an optional tool be factored into an argument about which is easier to use? Is it because you KNOW that points are more complex than power level (which you've still not admitted to), but rely on a crutch to defend the idea?

In fairness to Peregrine, many people have listed plenty of their own preferences and opinions regarding PLs, and Peregrine did not dispute them or judge them as implausible.

This tacit acceptance of those arguments gives credence to the instances where Peregrine's perspectives on others opinions being implausible. It seems only the ones found doubtful by Peregrine are disputed.

I don't think Peregrine argued against being able to rejig character/special/heavy load outs without needing to rejig points elsewhere. Neither was the argument of PL providing a second 'optimisation' meta dismissed.

These ideas being left undisputed shows acceptance there are benefits to PL existing, even if just supplementary to instead of overriding the need for points.

nareik wrote:
In fairness to Peregrine, many people have listed plenty of their own preferences and opinions regarding PLs, and Peregrine did not dispute them or judge them as implausible.

Which ones? As far as I've seen Peregrine has routinely expressed the view that his opinion is fact, and if your personal views don't align with that, he judges them to be flat out wrong.

This tacit acceptance of those arguments gives credence to the instances where Peregrine's perspectives on others opinions being implausible. It seems only the ones found doubtful by Peregrine are disputed.

But these aren't people arguing that X is *objectively* better. These are arguments of people saying "I like X because of this", and Peregrine, because they seem to be mentally incapable of accepting people like things for different reasons", say that it's "implausible" that they really like it for that.

It'd be like someone saying "I like playing Space Wolves because I like their lore". I don't particularly like Space Wolf lore, but I at least have the openness of mind to understand "just because I don't think that's a good reason, this person clearly does". I can at least recognize that it's a valid opinions, even if I disagree with it.

These ideas being left undisputed shows acceptance there are benefits to PL existing, even if just supplementary to instead of overriding the need for points.

I've seen nothing from Peregrine themselves admitting they feel that way.

While I'd like to believe you that Peregrine has some tolerance for Power Level, everything they've ever said screams the opposite.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

This tacit acceptance of those arguments gives credence to the instances where Peregrine's perspectives on others opinions being implausible. It seems only the ones found doubtful by Peregrine are disputed.

But these aren't people arguing that X is *objectively* better. These are arguments of people saying "I like X because of this", and Peregrine, because they seem to be mentally incapable of accepting people like things for different reasons", say that it's "implausible" that they really like it for that.

Because the reason stated is literally not true!

Peregrine's logic is perfectly sound here:

 Peregrine wrote:

Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points

PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.

For the last several pages this thread has basically been Peregrine responding to anyone with a different opinion trying to shout them down and prove why they are wrong.

I think it's run its course.

Wayniac wrote:
For the last several pages this thread has basically been Peregrine responding to anyone with a different opinion trying to shout them down and prove why they are wrong.

I think it's run its course.

What's crazy is that most of us agree that both are valid for different things. I think the general consensus is "I prefer using this but only in certain circumstances".

This thread has been a beautiful example of how a WAAC player defends his behaviour. Plenty of lessons to be learned here for players less familiar with those personalities. Thanks for that, at least.

Power level works for reasonable people who aren’t going play like tools. All this talk of list optimisation is a bit of a false flag. If you turn up with a lovely painted army, I’m not going proxy options to better suit my opponents army, I’m going wysisyg all the all. And that is what I would expect from my opponent. If you played someone who was doing it to be that guy I wouldn’t enjoy the game whatever points system was used. The fact is most people who want to be that guy play using points and play comepetitve style lists. Because they believe somehow coming up with an unfluffy copy and pasted netlist makes them somehow superior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Power level works for reasonable people who aren’t going play like tools. All this talk of list optimisation is a bit of a false flag. If you turn up with a lovely painted army, I’m not going proxy options to better suit my opponents army, I’m going wysisyg all the all. And that is what I would expect from my opponent. If you played someone who was doing it to be that guy I wouldn’t enjoy the game whatever points system was used. The fact is most people who want to be that guy play using points and play comepetitve style lists. Because they believe somehow coming up with an unfluffy copy and pasted netlist makes them somehow superior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
For the last several pages this thread has basically been Peregrine responding to anyone with a different opinion trying to shout them down and prove why they are wrong.

I think it's run its course.

What's crazy is that most of us agree that both are valid for different things. I think the general consensus is "I prefer using this but only in certain circumstances".

Exactly, but one or two “characters” are derailing the discussion.

Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

This tacit acceptance of those arguments gives credence to the instances where Peregrine's perspectives on others opinions being implausible. It seems only the ones found doubtful by Peregrine are disputed.

But these aren't people arguing that X is *objectively* better. These are arguments of people saying "I like X because of this", and Peregrine, because they seem to be mentally incapable of accepting people like things for different reasons", say that it's "implausible" that they really like it for that.

Because the reason stated is literally not true!

Sorry, what is untrue about PL being preferred because of:
Speed of list creation
An atmosphere of "take what you think is cool"
The player base of PL being markedly more casual than points?

Peregrine's logic is perfectly sound here:

 Peregrine wrote:
PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.

And I disagree with Peregrine's "sound" logic. I think it to be flawed because of Peregrine's inability to see the game beyond a series of numbers. There's more to the game than making sure your army is the most powerful.

I've bolded every time Peregrine makes reference to things that a list optimiser would care about - namely, things being "weaker" or "suboptimal". And I'm not saying that being a list optimiser is BAD, but I am saying that I don't play with that attitude.
All Peregrine can see to think about is points points points, power power power. It scarcely crosses their mind that there could be other reasons someone would choose a different weapon, or that someone simply doesn't give two hoots about points.
I think Power Level inspires a more casual experience in that it doesn't matter what you take, the unit's still the same value. On a game design level, it puts all value in the hands of the beholder. The beholder (player) may place value in the weapon's strength. The beholder might place value in the weapon's aesthetics. They might place value in the weapon's fluff. With power level, the value of the weapon is entirely subjective.

With points, the value is fixed. Who cares if you think that plasma guns are cooler than meltas? The game places the only value of the plasma as relative to it's gameplay strength. With power level, the value is completely subjective, and frankly doesn't matter. It's all your choice. That's why I prefer Power Level.

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely my opinion, my experience of it, and anyone who says that is "implausible" can take a trip into the warp without a Gellar Field.

If a person believes that points oppress them, and that power level creates a nicer environment in their head, that is their subjective opinion. However, you cannot deny that the opinion is real.
You can debate all you like if you agree or disagree, but you simply cannot argue that the person's opinion doesn't exist at all.

Otherwise, what is to stop me saying to our favourite bird of prey "Hey, I think your opinion doesn't exist. All those things you believe, all the preferences, values, and opinions you hold as your own? They don't exist."
Do you understand both how insulting and close-minded that is?

Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
And if it does for them, that is sufficient evidence. You don't get to make that determination for them.

If someone claims that their magic anti-Tyranid amulet keeps the Tyranids from coming into our world and eating them we'd absolutely make the determination for them and call on that claim, pointing out the obvious fact that they haven't been eaten by Tyranids because Tyranids don't exist. We certainly wouldn't call their belief that it's the amulet keeping them safe sufficient evidence just because it's what they believe. Same thing for PL. They make the claim, but the claim is not plausible at all and I reject it.

There is a considerable difference between something that can be objectively tested, such as anti-tyranid medallion (they exist, even if it is just models and fiction), and the subjective topic of someone's personal preferences and reasons behind them.

Someone may hate the color pink, and tells anyone who wears it that it is a horrible color and they are a loser for wearing pink. I know many people who like to wear pink, such as my daughter, and it is her favorite color. That doesn't make my daughter a loser for choosing to wear pink no matter what someone else thinks about it. When you try to make something that is 100% subjective and tell them that they are objectively wrong, you are demonstrating a prejudice of assumption. That is what you are doing here.

Peregrine wrote:

It takes more than a few seconds if your army has every unit with upgrades out the wazoo. My close Combat Crusader Squad had 5 upgrades to them. That's 5 more entries than just doing PL if I had not already had the total figured out.

But most of the time you're going to have a setup or two that you commonly use. You aren't adding up each point cost separately each time like it's your first time playing the game, you know that your most common choice of upgrades is 125 points for the squad and the other one you sometimes use is 135. Once you're familiar at all with the system, after playing a few games, you're doing it mostly from memory and it is a matter of a few seconds of extra time.

I notice you didn't bother to recognize that part where I said, "unless you have the points worked out before hand, like I did with my Black Templar in yester-year."

How are you to know that I'm going to use a regular set up most of the time? I may want a change for the sake of change or find something not working out for me so it needs to be changed. I may not get a chance at a lot of games, so every game will be different. Heck, I've honestly never played a 40K game with the same army twice because of time, building, painting, and my personal preferences in those regards, so I had to work it out manually at one point, but I never played a second game with that list because I ended up changing armies in the period between games.

Peregrine wrote:

From there, agonizing over which unit to downgrade to fit 5 points in (since some think that asking for different points is cheating somehow), can actually extend the amount of time in building the list as opposed to, "not this unit".

And this is better than spending that time agonizing over which unit to remove from your army (and hopefully swap with something else, if you have the right combination of units to make it all work) because you're 1 PL over? I suspect that "should I drop a power fist or a plasma gun" is an easier question than having to figure out a multi-unit swap that fixes your point total without disrupting your army too much.

Well, PL isn't as tight on its requirements and allows for more wiggle room than you and Slayer allow for. Anyone with experience with the game has seen armies whose actual power changed with FAQs and codex updates. And it may be more than just the Power Fist or Plasma Gun since you don't have a model to do the actual replacement.

Peregrine wrote:

The whole point of Datasheets is that you didn't need a codex to know everything about the unit, right? Or was that another lie from GW?

Yep, it's a lie. The idea that you can play the normal game of 40k without buying the codex/index (or a list-building program that has all of the rules and point costs) for your army is a blatant lie. Maybe in theory you can come up with a list that doesn't require a codex, but it is not a realistic way to play the game. In the real world you don't have all of the rules your units require until you buy the codex/index. Blame GW for dishonest marketing, but wishful thinking doesn't make it true.

So, which is it, you can or you can't? You say it is unrealistic, but it is possible. I can go to my previous LGS with my WMH army and possibly get a game, but since they are Steamroller die-hards, it is unrealistic. From that, I take your statement to be, "it is possible, but it is uncompetitive because you need points and everything that comes with it in Matched Play in order to have a chance at winning." That is the type of excessiveness which is toxic.

Peregrine wrote:

Then you are missing the definition of "need", because that is the word you used.

Did I? Because I sure can't find it. I claimed that you need the index/codex, but I don't recall making any such claim about Battlescribe. It's a useful tool whether you're using PL or normal points, but it isn't mandatory.

The question you responded to was, "Why should I have to rely on Battlescribe?", and your response was using the same language, along with needing the codex. You were speaking in absolutes without qualification. I also note that you cut out a lot of contextual language to make your point.

spacelord321 wrote:This thread has been a beautiful example of how a WAAC player defends his behaviour. Plenty of lessons to be learned here for players less familiar with those personalities. Thanks for that, at least.

If by WAAC player, you mean, "Play my way or get out of the game," then you are correct.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry, what is untrue about PL being preferred because of:
Speed of list creation
An atmosphere of "take what you think is cool"
The player base of PL being markedly more casual than points?

The first one is obviously true, the last two are not intrinsic features of the PL system, and as noted, the PL actually hampers the second. I'm pretty laid back and my list building is mostly motivated by what looks cool, yet I predominately use points.

The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.

 Crimson wrote:
The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.

That is a mind-reading assumption. A classic case of prejudice.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.

That is a mind-reading assumption. A classic case of prejudice.

How it is that mind reading? I read the rules, not anyone's mind.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry, what is untrue about PL being preferred because of:
Speed of list creation
An atmosphere of "take what you think is cool"
The player base of PL being markedly more casual than points?

The first one is obviously true, the last two are not intrinsic features of the PL system, and as noted, the PL actually hampers the second. I'm pretty laid back and my list building is mostly motivated by what looks cool, yet I predominately use points.

The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.

If you're having trouble understanding the "PL encourages weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons" point, try thinking of it another way:

Points force you to look at every upgrade in your army and judge whether or not they are worth it. Therefore, they encourage you to only take what is "useful" (or "more efficient") for the unit's goal. Therefore, playing with points discourages taking upgrades for any reason other than efficiency.

If you play with points, you have to decide what the most efficient equipment is. Does the Devastator Sergeant benefit from a Power Fist or a Power Axe? If not, best leave him with a chainsword, those points can be best spent elsewhere. But if you play with PL, you can give the sergeant whichever option you want, and it won't actively hamper you to take whichever you think is coolest.

It's not that PL encourages taking aesthetic upgrades directly, it's that points actively discourage it while PL is neutral to it. Which means that in comparison to points, PL encourages it.

Math hard

Levels easy.

Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry, what is untrue about PL being preferred because of:
Speed of list creation
An atmosphere of "take what you think is cool"
The player base of PL being markedly more casual than points?

The first one is obviously true,

Well that's something. Unfortunately, some people seem to disagree.

the last two are not intrinsic features of the PL system, and as noted, the PL actually hampers the second.

I disagree, for the reasons stated below. PL doesn't hamper "taking what you think is cool" unless you look at the game in a "this is the optimum loadout, and that is what matters" attitude. Now, if you look at the game in that way, then yes, PL would be a hindrance, but I don't. Therefore, it IS completely valid that I would see PL as a system that encourages free choice.

The latter literally IS intrinsic to the PL system. More people who play PL are casual. Therefore, playing PL is more likely to expose me to casual players. How is that not a feature that PL offers?

I'm pretty laid back and my list building is mostly motivated by what looks cool, yet I predominately use points.

That's fair. If you think it works for you, I won't say that's "implausible". However, I personally would find it "implausible" to treat points as a system that encourages me to choose "cool" upgrades.

And THAT is the difference between Peregrine and I. I might disagree and personally not see it that way, but I do understand that you do see it that way, and you're entitled to that, as a fellow member of this forum, and as a human being. Peregrine does not.

The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.

And you're the arbiter of which opinions are and are not true since... when? You're a mind reader now?

It's not like I'm saying that "factually, PL encourages more casual play". I'm saying that "to my perspective, PL encourages me to be more casual". I'm not asserting it as a universal fact. I'm saying that in my head, it is a truth that PL affects ME that way.
What right do you have to tell me my perception and opinion are "not true"?

PL affects me in X way. You cannot say that the effect PL has on me is false, when I feel that way.

Aelyn wrote:It's not that PL encourages taking aesthetic upgrades directly, it's that points actively discourage it while PL is neutral to it. Which means that in comparison to points, PL encourages it.

Exactly. PL doesn't care for the upgrades taken. It's completely unconcerned with it - which is better than points, which actively cares.

Aelyn wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry, what is untrue about PL being preferred because of:
Speed of list creation
An atmosphere of "take what you think is cool"
The player base of PL being markedly more casual than points?

The first one is obviously true, the last two are not intrinsic features of the PL system, and as noted, the PL actually hampers the second. I'm pretty laid back and my list building is mostly motivated by what looks cool, yet I predominately use points.

The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.

If you're having trouble understanding the "PL encourages weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons" point, try thinking of it another way:

Points force you to look at every upgrade in your army and judge whether or not they are worth it. Therefore, they encourage you to only take what is "useful" (or "more efficient") for the unit's goal. Therefore, playing with points discourages taking upgrades for any reason other than efficiency.

If you play with points, you have to decide what the most efficient equipment is. Does the Devastator Sergeant benefit from a Power Fist or a Power Axe? If not, best leave him with a chainsword, those points can be best spent elsewhere. But if you play with PL, you can give the sergeant whichever option you want, and it won't actively hamper you to take whichever you think is coolest.

It's not that PL encourages taking aesthetic upgrades directly, it's that points actively discourage it while PL is neutral to it. Which means that in comparison to points, PL encourages it.

But it will hamper you because the PL of the unit assumes you're taking the best possible equipment and upgrades.