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.

In fairness a lot of people seem not to take into account of whether or not they like 40k when they play the game, PL, points or nada!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
JNAProductions

Spoiler:

JNAProductions wrote:So, you're basing what you feel on what others say?

Yes. That's how people typically form their feelings, based on their exposure to other people and generally the rest of the world. It's up to people to choose how they act on it, but yes, people absolutely form their feelings based on what others say.

That's the real world. I don't understand what kind of point you're making with that?

Because the in-game stats and performance are exactly the same whether you build a list with Points or PL.

Technically not. With points, you are encouraged to consider the weapon as good or bad based on it's power:point ratio. As such, the cheapness of something can affect how many you can bring. You can't perform with a weapon if you can't fit it in your list.

Points just attempts to assign an appropriate value to the various different options,

Appropriate in regards to it's in game performance. That's the bit I'm getting at.

Points ONLY cares about in game performance, it makes that very clear. The values it assigns are based on that.
With PL removing any kinds of values, it puts choice in the player's hands. You want to optimize? Go for it, we don't care. You want the cool looking option? Go for it, we don't care.

while PL says a Renegade Knight Gallant is worth 25% more than an Imperial Knight Gallant because options.

But it's not a Renegade Knight Gallant. It's a Renegade Knight.

Slayer-Fan123

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Except that's under the assumption people dont like the looks of the better option. The Heavy Bolter vs Grav Cannon is an excellent counter to your entire premise to be honest.

And that's just your opinion. The fact that you would rather take one over the other because it's stronger in game is your priority, not mine.

My whole point is that it puts ALL the choice in the player's hands as to which they prefer. There's no "I really want this, but it's super expensive and I can't afford that". If you want it, take it.

If you want to take the best mathematical options because that's how you enjoy the game, be my guest. However, in knowing that's why you chose it, I'm probably not going to play you because your attitude to the game is counter to mine.

If someone likes the looks of the "better" option ("better" in quote marks, because I'm assuming you're judging better by the narrow view of strength alone), then they like the looks of it. That's not my problem.

JNAProductions:

Spoiler:

JNAProductions wrote:Okay. So the system works perfectly, assuming everybody has the same tastes and their tastes just so happen to align with what's good.

What do you think the odds of that are?

I mean, hasn't it been demonstrated that the vast majority of people playing PL ARE the people with roughly the same tastes?
Yes, the system *can* be broken with people playing against others that they aren't compatible with, but isn't that the same with points?

What's the difference between a casual PL player vs a WAAC PL player, as opposed to a casual points player vs a WAAC points player? Because both outcomes will result in the WAAC most likely making the game incredibly unpleasant for the casual player.

In which case, surely the issue isn't in the choice of point system, but rather in both players not playing against a more suitable opponent?

Peregrine:

Spoiler:

Peregrine wrote:This is just your biases showing. Assigning all choices the same cost isn't "putting no value on anything", it's declaring that they're of equal value.

0 is quite literally "no value", when dealing with a system like this.

Sure, they're equal value - that value being literally nothing. So yeah, they absolutely ARE putting no value on anything, that value being equal, but still nothing.
They put no inherent choice over another, there's no "hey, look at this gun, it's better, so it costs more - it's more valuable". approach.

The player is left to choose free of any external favour or priority. If you want to go with the powerful option, that was your choice alone. If you want to go with the cool looking option, that was your choice.

The problem, once again, seems to be that you are confusing the written rules of PL with your personal approach to 40k.

As opposed to your problem of assuming that 40k has a right and wrong way to be played?

I *know* what the written rules are. My point is "this is how those written rules make me feel". I'm not trying to say that's universal. I'm saying that my interpretation of those rules, how they encourage me to act, is different from you, but just as valid.

 Charistoph wrote:
To use your bike comparison, people aren't trying to compare bikes versus cars because of efficiencies or economies, they were saying that they preferred bikes because they liked the wind in the hair while riding a bike and not what it feels like in a car, and you saying that reason is not true.

Except no, that's not the case. They're saying they prefer bikes because they enjoy the free beer every day that automatically comes with owning a bike.

Guys, we've got a telepath over here!

I mean, that's surely the only reason you could possibly have to completely put words in someone else's mouth and pretend that's what they meant all along?

Because otherwise, what's the difference between that and me saying "I think what Peregrine is TRYING to say is that he hates fun and gets irrationally offended when people play the game and have fun doing it". That would be completely absurd, wouldn't it?

And it's entirely accurate to point out that their claim of a causal relationship between the free beer and their enjoyment is absurd because the free beer doesn't exist.

The concept of "on the house" eludes you?

PL advocates can talk all they want about how they enjoy PL because of X, but if PL doesn't in fact produce X then they are, at best, displaying a very poor understanding of their hobby and what makes it fun.

Okay, let's make this real simple, just for you.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because of it being faster. PL factually IS faster. Your argument doesn't work on this point.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because it makes me feel more relaxed and casual. As I am the only person who knows how I feel, and I certainly know better than some bird of prey, this is a fact. Your argument doesn't work on this point.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because I prefer my local PL player base than the points player base. I am not saying my opinion is a fact, but I am saying that I *have* a preference. This is a fact. Your argument doesn't work on this point.

See? While I'm admitting my views are based on opinions, I'm not claiming that the opinions themselves are facts. I'm simply stating that I have those opinions, and the act of having those opinions is a fact. You cannot deny that, no more than I can deny that you as a human feel love, anger, or sadness.

Xca|iber:

Spoiler:

Xca|iber wrote:Except... the PL system still tells you "what's important" by having different PL values for units. Everything stated here can be an argument for using the completely points-less original AoS system over PL. All the criticisms of points and alleged advantages of PL can simply be swapped around to be criticisms of PL and advantages of having no valuation system at all.

I'm only talking about upgrades. Yes, someone who is more hardline could make that argument, and they're welcome to it, but I don't care about that.

I care that points tell me what "upgrades" are valuable. I don't have that same care about the units.
So yes, I absolutely see your point, and I'd fully support someone else if they were to have that belief, I'm not one of those people.
I think you're mistaking my issue with upgrades as being an issue with value systems in general.

Except it is your problem, because it has the same cost: free. Lemme break it down in steps to make it easier to understand:
1. If you don't care about optimization like you claim, you will still pay for the worse weapon because you like the look of it or something stupid like that. That has been the basic premise throughout several editions. You pay for what you get.
2. This still means that you would pay less points for said weapon though, so at least you're getting what you paid for. In this particular example, three Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon creates a reason and niche for the Heavy Bolter to exist.
3. Making them all the same cost, then, creates no point. If someone doesn't care about optimization, they won't do the math. So someone liking the Heavy Bolter still might not care.
4. Someone will come along that likes the look of Grav Cannons to Heavy Bolters, and then starts to use them on all their Devastators, Sternguard, and Centurions, because they think the concept is cool.
5. Ergo this shows the flaw with your entire logic. This person built a stronger army by default because of the fact they liked the look of the weapon more, when it is in fact a better weapon using 1-on-1 comparisons.
6. So I'd say the player is not compatible with you, even though they took the same steps to build their army like you. You won't have fun in a game where someone acts just like you and they slap your army around like it is nothing.

So basically your whole premise is actually the "you're playing the game wrong" you're accusing Perigrine of acting like.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. If you don't care about optimization like you claim, you will still pay for the worse weapon because you like the look of it or something stupid like that. That has been the basic premise throughout several editions. You pay for what you get.

Except with GW pricing, you rarely ever get what you pay for, it's usually more or less, rarely even. And if something is free, are you truly paying for it?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2. This still means that you would pay less points for said weapon though, so at least you're getting what you paid for. In this particular example, three Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon creates a reason and niche for the Heavy Bolter to exist.

Possibly, possibly not. Grav Cannons work better against Heavy Infantry while Heavy Bolters work better against Light Infantry. Value is not always measured in just points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
3. Making them all the same cost, then, creates no point. If someone doesn't care about optimization, they won't do the math. So someone liking the Heavy Bolter still might not care.

Or deals with far more Light Infantry than Heavy Infantry, increasing its value to said person. Or maybe they are just very traditionalist and don't like all this new-fangled tech.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
4. Someone will come along that likes the look of Grav Cannons to Heavy Bolters, and then starts to use them on all their Devastators, Sternguard, and Centurions, because they think the concept is cool.
5. Ergo this shows the flaw with your entire logic. This person built a stronger army by default because of the fact they liked the look of the weapon more, when it is in fact a better weapon using 1-on-1 comparisons.

Stronger is a relative term. Value is dependent on the situation, not always on the market. Water is worth kingdoms to a man stranded in a desert, but is a threat to one alone in the middle of the Pacific. Metas determine what is strongest by what is generally taken. Even then, both can be useful no matter what you play against so long as they are placed and targeted properly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
6. So I'd say the player is not compatible with you, even though they took the same steps to build their army like you. You won't have fun in a game where someone acts just like you and they slap your army around like it is nothing.

They may actually be quite compatible if they are playing the same as him. Even in a slap-around game, one can always learn something, and it is a better use of time then getting stoned or drunk. Here is where your premise slips up, because you are trying to present someone of opposite building intent to be playing the same variant of the game, while they are not. Would you compare the list building strategies between Kill Team and Horus Heresy next, or should we bring AoS in to this?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically your whole premise is actually the "you're playing the game wrong" you're accusing Perigrine of acting like.

Nope. He's presenting playing the game differently than you, while you and Peregrine have stated that he's playing the game wrong.

I'm still not sold on the idea that PL promotes or rewards non-optimization.

If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost - offering an advantage, of sorts. Perhaps not an equal advantage compared to the disadvantage of giving up the meta option, but you're still getting something at least. Although optimization is not the goal per se, this kind of compensation makes it easier for two players working together to evaluate whether their match will be balanced. The Power Level system does not do this.

In instances where this is not the case (for example, wanting to take a power sword on a sergeant when the meta call is to take no upgrades), there are two possible outcomes, which may overlap:

1) The discount received from forfeiting more-expensive meta options pays for the forfeiture of less-expensive meta options. Thus, everything is fine.

2) The extra cost places the list over the agreed limit. However, if optimization is not important, it is trivial either to remove a handful of infantry models to bring the list under the limit OR simply play a little bit over the limit with your opponent's permission. Since agreement and discussion are also central to the adequate functioning of the PL system, this does not constitute any additional burden as part of the points system.

If a player is unwilling to remove things from their list and their opponent will not allow any excess on the agreed limit (or increase the agreed limit), and the first player feels that the result is an undue burden upon their side of the game, what you have is not a failure of the points system (or any valuation system), but a failure of the two players to agree on what constitutes a balanced match. This is no different from two PL-system players having a dispute because one player feels the other one is abusing the system (by min/maxing meta upgrades for free, for example). Fundamentally, it boils down to a belief by one player that a game will not be enjoyable based on the comparison of the two armies presented. Again, this is not a failure of the value system.

Power Level does not fix this. If anything, the only benefit to saying you use Power Level is to signal to other casual players that you want to play casually without having to (somehow) shame yourself by stating that openly.


Here's a basic example to illustrate my point:

Starting Premise: Player A(dam) and Player B(ob) are preparing for a game. Adam does not care about optimization but is interested in having a fun game. Both players agree to use the points system, in a 1000 point game. Adam puts together an army from the cool stuff in his box, based on what he likes. It turns out that his total is 1024 after adding everything up. He asks Bob if this is okay. (For the sake of argument, let's assume that Adam is unwilling to change his list in any way, as it is aesthetically perfect in his mind).

Outcome 1: If Bob says it's okay (perhaps with an allowance of his own to exceed the limit), then they play their game and everything is fine. No drawback to the points system here.

Outcome 2a: If Bob says it's not okay because he believes strongly in granular valuation of unit and upgrade options within strict limits, then it is highly likely that Bob will be fundamentally opposed to Power Level, as it erases granularity of unit/upgrade options and does not have strict limits. So switching to PL does not fix this outcome, and we must conclude that the impasse is the result of conflicting player ideology.

Outcome 2b: If Bob says it's not okay because he feels that the present army matchup is not fair and/or fun, then even if changing systems resulted in identical PL for both sides, Bob would still dispute the game because nothing about the lists has changed (so his conclusion about the matchup will be the same). Again, the impasse is the result of conflicting player ideology.

Outcome 7d: As they’re playing with the Open War cards Bob says it’s just fine because he gets the Ruse card.

Outcome 12f: Both players just brought a pile of stuff and wants to see whose force is ‘stronger’ and should play the attacker in their scenario. It ends up with Bob defending and he’s totally fine with that.

Outcome 21z: Bob decides PL isn’t for him, realises his mindset is wrong for PL, and breaks the ever-shifting analogy. Poor Bob.

People should at least try to understand the purpose and uses of PL before disingenuously arguing against them. ;-)

Also, while the PL system might not inherently promote or reward non-optimisation, it may be the case that it is inherently more attractive to players who don't care about optimisation and prefer other elements of the system over points.

 Xca|iber wrote:
If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost

That's a very diplomatic "usually".

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:
If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost

That's a very diplomatic "usually".

Can you argue that it doesn't happen enough? I'd like to see that.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. If you don't care about optimization like you claim, you will still pay for the worse weapon because you like the look of it or something stupid like that. That has been the basic premise throughout several editions. You pay for what you get.

Except with GW pricing, you rarely ever get what you pay for, it's usually more or less, rarely even. And if something is free, are you truly paying for it?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2. This still means that you would pay less points for said weapon though, so at least you're getting what you paid for. In this particular example, three Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon creates a reason and niche for the Heavy Bolter to exist.

Possibly, possibly not. Grav Cannons work better against Heavy Infantry while Heavy Bolters work better against Light Infantry. Value is not always measured in just points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
3. Making them all the same cost, then, creates no point. If someone doesn't care about optimization, they won't do the math. So someone liking the Heavy Bolter still might not care.

Or deals with far more Light Infantry than Heavy Infantry, increasing its value to said person. Or maybe they are just very traditionalist and don't like all this new-fangled tech.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
4. Someone will come along that likes the look of Grav Cannons to Heavy Bolters, and then starts to use them on all their Devastators, Sternguard, and Centurions, because they think the concept is cool.
5. Ergo this shows the flaw with your entire logic. This person built a stronger army by default because of the fact they liked the look of the weapon more, when it is in fact a better weapon using 1-on-1 comparisons.

Stronger is a relative term. Value is dependent on the situation, not always on the market. Water is worth kingdoms to a man stranded in a desert, but is a threat to one alone in the middle of the Pacific. Metas determine what is strongest by what is generally taken. Even then, both can be useful no matter what you play against so long as they are placed and targeted properly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
6. So I'd say the player is not compatible with you, even though they took the same steps to build their army like you. You won't have fun in a game where someone acts just like you and they slap your army around like it is nothing.

They may actually be quite compatible if they are playing the same as him. Even in a slap-around game, one can always learn something, and it is a better use of time then getting stoned or drunk. Here is where your premise slips up, because you are trying to present someone of opposite building intent to be playing the same variant of the game, while they are not. Would you compare the list building strategies between Kill Team and Horus Heresy next, or should we bring AoS in to this?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically your whole premise is actually the "you're playing the game wrong" you're accusing Perigrine of acting like.

Nope. He's presenting playing the game differently than you, while you and Peregrine have stated that he's playing the game wrong.

1. That's assuming all point costs are wrong, whereas it's only a few weapons that are really off, and you can't argue against that.
Also you DO pay for it via opportunity cost. Grav Cannons and Heavy Bolters take up the same amount of spaces in Marine infantry units. However, the Grav Cannon being 18 points more expensive means you can fit 2 more Heavy Bolters in for the price. 3 Heavy Bolters vs 1 Grav Cannon. It adds up over time.
2. Have you actually looked at how Grav works this edition or are you pretending it's exactly the same as last edition? I'm going to let you rethink your sentence about the preferred targets and you can get back to me.
3. Once again, you're saying Grav works like last edition.
Also that's under the assumption everyone thinks the same. However, at least in the granular point system you get 3 Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon. With the simple opportunity cost, there isn't any compensation. This means PL is a bad system, plain and simple.
4. Once again, when both have the same exact opportunity cost, Grav Cannons are much stronger.
Please. Read. The. Weapon. Entries. Have you looked at them at all this edition?
5. They aren't compatible though, because both players are doing the same exact army composition in terms of units. However, the moment Grav Cannons are taken over every Heavy Bolter where possible makes the army supremely stronger.
That's the kicker. In the regular point system, you wouldn't be able to create the same exact army except replacing Heavy Bolters with Grav Cannons. In PL you can. It's therefore a broken system.
6. No, he's simply defending GWs poor system they created. My thought exercise with Heavy Bolters vs Grav Cannons would've proved that except you didn't read the weapon entries and you think Grav works exactly like it did in 7th.

Even where the points are off (which is common enough), they're typically closer than Power Levels. Wargear that typically does more typically costs more points. That is consistent enough.

Power Levels are less fine-grained for less competitive games. Playing it competitively requires a very different optimization than playing Points competitively, but most people who play Power Levels aren't looking to play competitively.

Consider the Harlequin:
-In Points games, competitive or otherwise, Fusion Pistol vs Shuriken Pistol is a valid choice; pay more to get more.
-In Power Level competitive games, Fusion Pistol is a direct upgrade; your list is better if you take it.
-In Power Level noncompetitive games, Fusion Pistol vs Shuriken Pistol is a valid choice; do you like the idea of toting a Fusion Pistol around on that model?

I think, if you look across the board, competitive Points games simply outclass competitive Power Level games as far as balance is concerned.

I personally prefer Points for noncompetitive games, but this relative balance problem is out of scope for Points vs Power Level in the scenarios you might play Power Level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for what the rules should be:
I *want* there to be "more powerful for more points" options. One Captain could be a leader first with just a chainsword and boltgun; another could be a tooled out ThunderHammer/Stormshield Smash Captain that leads from the front.

Points allow us to pick between "Awesome weapon that does stuff" and "Super awesome weapon that does more stuff, but costs more points". Power level doesn't allow for that distinction.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. That's assuming all point costs are wrong, whereas it's only a few weapons that are really off, and you can't argue against that.
Also you DO pay for it via opportunity cost. Grav Cannons and Heavy Bolters take up the same amount of spaces in Marine infantry units. However, the Grav Cannon being 18 points more expensive means you can fit 2 more Heavy Bolters in for the price. 3 Heavy Bolters vs 1 Grav Cannon. It adds up over time.

Considering the complaints about imbalance, and the effective reduction of costs of numerous aspects of some codices (see aforementioned Chaos Army), and desirability assigned not to the absolute power of equipment, but shared with its opportunity costs as well, and how something is fine for one army while over-costed in another, it is safe to assume that at every point the majority of pricing is off in one direction or another. And I can argue against that because it is a historical issue with the Warhammer games. Even going by the assumption that one army has its points 100% right, that leaves the rest of them as being off in cost. The closest this happens is in a system reset like 3rd or 8th where everyone's pricing is set at the same time, but even then it is off. With every new codex or CA with points adjustment, it swings everyone from one direction to another.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2. Have you actually looked at how Grav works this edition or are you pretending it's exactly the same as last edition? I'm going to let you rethink your sentence about the preferred targets and you can get back to me.
3. Once again, you're saying Grav works like last edition.
Also that's under the assumption everyone thinks the same. However, at least in the granular point system you get 3 Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon. With the simple opportunity cost, there isn't any compensation. This means PL is a bad system, plain and simple.
4. Once again, when both have the same exact opportunity cost, Grav Cannons are much stronger.
Please. Read. The. Weapon. Entries. Have you looked at them at all this edition?

I'm presenting it as I remember, true, because I don't have access to codices any more. However, the concept stands on its own merits as value is still situational and not always on a purely RAW strength concept.

But I guess you are too busy or up-tight to bother providing an example as to HOW one is always stronger than another. A Lascannon will obliterate one average Infantry model, but it can't obliterate more than one at a time, ever. Conversely, the Heavy Bolter can smash more than one average Infantry model, though the odds vary on the target. Last I remember, Grav Cannons worked well against high armor, care to elucidate or are you going to try to be obtusely superior?

Then let us consider how Power Fists and Power Swords used to work. Power Fists gave high strength hits and ignored armor, but cost more while sacrificing the ability to strike first. Power Swords ignored armor while not sacrificing the chance to strike first, but still cost less. Power Fists worked better against Vehicles or against targets that will already hit last, but less effective against duelers who were able to strike at their Initiative. Power Swords gave the opportunity to eliminate the Power Fist user before they were even able to swing, but only marginally effective against lighter Vehicles yet still cost less. Now Initiative doesn't matter, which actually makes the higher price of a Power Fist a consideration in every environment, not just in extremis. Was the pricing only recently corrected, or is that just another silly thing in my imagination?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
5. They aren't compatible though, because both players are doing the same exact army composition in terms of units. However, the moment Grav Cannons are taken over every Heavy Bolter where possible makes the army supremely stronger.
That's the kicker. In the regular point system, you wouldn't be able to create the same exact army except replacing Heavy Bolters with Grav Cannons. In PL you can. It's therefore a broken system.

No, it is a different system, not a broken system. You can create the same army, but it just requires a change in points level (which is not cheating, btw), which is going to happen either way since 100 points will net you almost nothing to field.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
6. No, he's simply defending GWs poor system they created. My thought exercise with Heavy Bolters vs Grav Cannons would've proved that except you didn't read the weapon entries and you think Grav works exactly like it did in 7th.

That is a mind-reading assumption or you are indirectly calling him a liar.

You think it is poor because you don't like the granularity. He likes it because that granularity is no longer getting in the way of quickly plopping models on the table.

You show up with carefully planned lists finely-tuned prepared to call someone who doesn't do the same a cheater. He shows up with his collection looking for a game and is willing to forgo such tuning in order to get the game going quickly.

All your thought exercise does is demonstrate that you are a close-minded individual that cannot even comprehend that someone would like to play the game differently than you. As a side experiment, did you ever have or use the Battle Missions book that came out during 5th Edition? It included missions like Kill Team (2nd version), Linebreaker, and Clash of Heroes, and army missions focused on their different objectives. My guess is that was completely rejected by your meta, and depending on your experience, you may not have even heard of it.

I prefer power level but rarely get to play it as people insist on points. With power level you get more interesting games imo. like instead of 3 sets of 5 space marines in a tac squad with no special weapon and a sarg that has a chainsword we get real weapons options on the table liek a melta squad, a plasma squad and a missile squad and each sarg has a proper power weapon.

power level leads to some really fun open war games where you do not know the scenario before hand and so build pretty evenly powered lists with a large variety of gear and rules.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I prefer power level but rarely get to play it as people insist on points. With power level you get more interesting games imo. like instead of 3 sets of 5 space marines in a tac squad with no special weapon and a sarg that has a chainsword we get real weapons options on the table liek a melta squad, a plasma squad and a missile squad and each sarg has a proper power weapon.

power level leads to some really fun open war games where you do not know the scenario before hand and so build pretty evenly powered lists with a large variety of gear and rules.

And prepear to be told you are wrong and a liar and are actually a power gamer trying to get an advantage by a tiny bird of pray and a fanatic of a pretty poor thrash band. My conclusion is that the fun games you describe are more because people who like power levels are more fun people.

But that's PL vs Points in a vaccum; it works the other way, too.

In a PL game, if you're optimizing, every direct-upgrade is taken. Every single Harlequin has a Fusion Pistol and fancy CC weapon. Every Wave Serpent has CTM, Vector Engines, etc. Every member of a Death Company Vet squad has SS/TH jetpack and whatnot.

Conversely, in a Points game, you might have a Harlequin army where each unit is different, or each model is different. You might have a DC Vet Squad with a mix of weapons.

Even your Tac suggestion; in PL game, all 3 units will be identical. Sarge will always have a CombiPlas. One guy in each squad will have a Lascannon, and 3 squaddies. In Points, not every Sarge will have a CombiPlas. One squad might have a Lascannon, another might have a Plasma Gun, and a third might not have any.

Optimised PL will see *less* variance than optimized Points, as there's less distinction between wargear choices. Points allow the Power Sword and Relic Blade, for instance, to each have a place. In Power Level, there's no actual choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear, I don't have a problem with wanting to play PL. Or that it works out to be more fun for you. Or what lists you tend to see in PL games.

I just disagree with your assessment of *why* you see those lists.

Specifically, I think you see the lists you enjoy more there, because people who are willing to play PL games tend to be more likely to want to play those style of lists. And those lists are more likely to have a fun time in PL games.

Andykp wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I prefer power level but rarely get to play it as people insist on points. With power level you get more interesting games imo. like instead of 3 sets of 5 space marines in a tac squad with no special weapon and a sarg that has a chainsword we get real weapons options on the table liek a melta squad, a plasma squad and a missile squad and each sarg has a proper power weapon.

power level leads to some really fun open war games where you do not know the scenario before hand and so build pretty evenly powered lists with a large variety of gear and rules.

And prepear to be told you are wrong and a liar and are actually a power gamer trying to get an advantage by a tiny bird of pray and a fanatic of a pretty poor thrash band. My conclusion is that the fun games you describe are more because people who like power levels are more fun people.

probably true, though people rarely accuse me of power gaming, i just bring whatever i feel like playing, like showing up to a tournament with maxed out number of tactical marines with varying armaments and weaposn on sargents because i figured nobody would expect it and it would be fun to show off my paint jobs. finished in the middle but had a blast. My fav ork ists are ok now with biker improvements, but in early 8th they were terribad from an efficiency of points standpoint but still fun to run.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. That's assuming all point costs are wrong, whereas it's only a few weapons that are really off, and you can't argue against that.
Also you DO pay for it via opportunity cost. Grav Cannons and Heavy Bolters take up the same amount of spaces in Marine infantry units. However, the Grav Cannon being 18 points more expensive means you can fit 2 more Heavy Bolters in for the price. 3 Heavy Bolters vs 1 Grav Cannon. It adds up over time.

Considering the complaints about imbalance, and the effective reduction of costs of numerous aspects of some codices (see aforementioned Chaos Army), and desirability assigned not to the absolute power of equipment, but shared with its opportunity costs as well, and how something is fine for one army while over-costed in another, it is safe to assume that at every point the majority of pricing is off in one direction or another. And I can argue against that because it is a historical issue with the Warhammer games. Even going by the assumption that one army has its points 100% right, that leaves the rest of them as being off in cost. The closest this happens is in a system reset like 3rd or 8th where everyone's pricing is set at the same time, but even then it is off. With every new codex or CA with points adjustment, it swings everyone from one direction to another.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2. Have you actually looked at how Grav works this edition or are you pretending it's exactly the same as last edition? I'm going to let you rethink your sentence about the preferred targets and you can get back to me.
3. Once again, you're saying Grav works like last edition.
Also that's under the assumption everyone thinks the same. However, at least in the granular point system you get 3 Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon. With the simple opportunity cost, there isn't any compensation. This means PL is a bad system, plain and simple.
4. Once again, when both have the same exact opportunity cost, Grav Cannons are much stronger.
Please. Read. The. Weapon. Entries. Have you looked at them at all this edition?

I'm presenting it as I remember, true, because I don't have access to codices any more. However, the concept stands on its own merits as value is still situational and not always on a purely RAW strength concept.

But I guess you are too busy or up-tight to bother providing an example as to HOW one is always stronger than another. A Lascannon will obliterate one average Infantry model, but it can't obliterate more than one at a time, ever. Conversely, the Heavy Bolter can smash more than one average Infantry model, though the odds vary on the target. Last I remember, Grav Cannons worked well against high armor, care to elucidate or are you going to try to be obtusely superior?

Then let us consider how Power Fists and Power Swords used to work. Power Fists gave high strength hits and ignored armor, but cost more while sacrificing the ability to strike first. Power Swords ignored armor while not sacrificing the chance to strike first, but still cost less. Power Fists worked better against Vehicles or against targets that will already hit last, but less effective against duelers who were able to strike at their Initiative. Power Swords gave the opportunity to eliminate the Power Fist user before they were even able to swing, but only marginally effective against lighter Vehicles yet still cost less. Now Initiative doesn't matter, which actually makes the higher price of a Power Fist a consideration in every environment, not just in extremis. Was the pricing only recently corrected, or is that just another silly thing in my imagination?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
5. They aren't compatible though, because both players are doing the same exact army composition in terms of units. However, the moment Grav Cannons are taken over every Heavy Bolter where possible makes the army supremely stronger.
That's the kicker. In the regular point system, you wouldn't be able to create the same exact army except replacing Heavy Bolters with Grav Cannons. In PL you can. It's therefore a broken system.

No, it is a different system, not a broken system. You can create the same army, but it just requires a change in points level (which is not cheating, btw), which is going to happen either way since 100 points will net you almost nothing to field.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
6. No, he's simply defending GWs poor system they created. My thought exercise with Heavy Bolters vs Grav Cannons would've proved that except you didn't read the weapon entries and you think Grav works exactly like it did in 7th.

That is a mind-reading assumption or you are indirectly calling him a liar.

You think it is poor because you don't like the granularity. He likes it because that granularity is no longer getting in the way of quickly plopping models on the table.

You show up with carefully planned lists finely-tuned prepared to call someone who doesn't do the same a cheater. He shows up with his collection looking for a game and is willing to forgo such tuning in order to get the game going quickly.

All your thought exercise does is demonstrate that you are a close-minded individual that cannot even comprehend that someone would like to play the game differently than you. As a side experiment, did you ever have or use the Battle Missions book that came out during 5th Edition? It included missions like Kill Team (2nd version), Linebreaker, and Clash of Heroes, and army missions focused on their different objectives. My guess is that was completely rejected by your meta, and depending on your experience, you may not have even heard of it.

1. Complaints about imbalance are less so after the last Chapter approved (Storm Shields at 2 points being the worst example), but PL doesn't get adjusted. Storm Shields are already free for Deathwatch in that system, because their PL assumes you will take a lot of them. That's why we had that absurd comparison of 2000 point lists for Eldar vs Deathwatch and got a difference of around 40% with the compared PL for those lists.
2. Grav Cannons are a straight 4 shots S5 AP-3, with DD3 against targets with a 3+ save or better.
So if you pay the same opportunity cost and you choose either the Grav Cannon or Heavy Bolter, one is clearly superior.
Also you kinda prove the point if you wanted to compare various Power Weapons. Ignoring Fists for a moment, Power Axes cost a point more than Swords and Mauls. Fists confer more a niche that needs to be filled, and Axes/Swords the rest, with math showing Axes better in more situations to Swords. Mauls are just bad now due to the wounding chart, but that's a different conversation.
3. Actually, you cannot. Like I said, the Grav Cannon is 2 points away from buying three Heavy Bolters. You would not be able to create the same army at all.
4. I'm not calling him a liar. I'm calling him the GW White Knight for defending a lazy system.
Also of course people can play the game differently. That doesn't mean their thoughts are valid when it comes to game theory or balance, and defending a system, using the thought exercise of Grav Cannon vs Heavy Bolter, would simply make no sense to anyone trying to design a game or understand one.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also of course people can play the game differently. That doesn't mean their thoughts are valid when it comes to game theory or balance, and defending a system, using the thought exercise of Grav Cannon vs Heavy Bolter, would simply make no sense to anyone trying to design a game or understand one.

For the millionth time, game theory, balance or optimisation are not something everyone cares about. Most realise the PL system can be abused by people looking for those things but since the people using PL generally aren't looking to exploit the system, the fact it is exploitable isn't a problem for them. Any time you find yourself making an argument against PL using balance or optimisation reasons you really should just stop. Players advocating for PL aren't concerned about those factors. They are quite literally a non-issue for them. That's not to say they're unaware of the weaknesses of the system, just that they don't care because that particular weakness of the system doesn't create problems for them.

Then they wouldn't look to exploit a better, more granular system either.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Complaints about imbalance are less so after the last Chapter approved (Storm Shields at 2 points being the worst example), but PL doesn't get adjusted. Storm Shields are already free for Deathwatch in that system, because their PL assumes you will take a lot of them. That's why we had that absurd comparison of 2000 point lists for Eldar vs Deathwatch and got a difference of around 40% with the compared PL for those lists.

FYI, your numbers do little to help understand what you are responding to unless the other person used a numbering system as well.

Being less so, does not mean it has disappeared. In fact, it provides evidence that the pricing system is incredibly off to begin when they swing incredibly from codex to CA adjustment. If they were properly balanced to being with, then such changes would not be needed as any current codex pricing would be designed to be balanced with the Indecies.

Has there been anything official that states, "PL is approximately 40% of the average build of the unit,"? If not, than such a comparison is pointless.

Even more so is the fact that such efficiencies are not the focus of Narrative Games where they are for Matched Play. One might as well say that Narrative Games is playing 40K wrong.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2. Grav Cannons are a straight 4 shots S5 AP-3, with DD3 against targets with a 3+ save or better.
So if you pay the same opportunity cost and you choose either the Grav Cannon or Heavy Bolter, one is clearly superior.

Thank you for the information that helps establish a proper base to work from.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also you kinda prove the point if you wanted to compare various Power Weapons. Ignoring Fists for a moment, Power Axes cost a point more than Swords and Mauls. Fists confer more a niche that needs to be filled, and Axes/Swords the rest, with math showing Axes better in more situations to Swords. Mauls are just bad now due to the wounding chart, but that's a different conversation.

Actually it is part of the exact same conversation as we are talking about the efficacy of a weapon for its price as a reason for promoting a point system solely. Oddly, enough those three Power Weapons were all priced the same an edition ago, yet had widely differing performances.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
3. Actually, you cannot. Like I said, the Grav Cannon is 2 points away from buying three Heavy Bolters. You would not be able to create the same army at all.

Failure to read does not excuse this statement. Read what I stated to your point #5.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
4. I'm not calling him a liar. I'm calling him the GW White Knight for defending a lazy system.
Also of course people can play the game differently. That doesn't mean their thoughts are valid when it comes to game theory or balance, and defending a system, using the thought exercise of Grav Cannon vs Heavy Bolter, would simply make no sense to anyone trying to design a game or understand one.

He's defending a system he prefers. That doesn't make him a white knight any more than you are for the point system. Of course, he's not going around calling a person a liar, cheater, loser, or TFG for preferring a different system, and that is the biggest differences.

Is it a lazy system? Sure. I don't think anyone justified it as a hard-working system, after all. Warhammer is a lazy game system to begin with. It's meant to be a beer & pretzels game. If you're that hard up on a tight pointing system, than may be 40K is not the game for you, because it sure isn't nor has ever been. Oddly enough, those that are use a PL system because there is no unit customization like 40K has.

I had an army project idea. I decided to tot up how many power level it would be. It took 1m37.

I tried to calculate points, it took 5m58.

I actually made a mistake in both systems (calculation errors for points, simply forgot to list a PL value for one of my units). The PL error was much easier to double check for than the points, which I am still working on. Times don't include error checking :S

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:
If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost

That's a very diplomatic "usually".

Can you argue that it doesn't happen enough? I'd like to see that.

I can't really argue for or against that, because there is a lot of leeway in "subpar" even from a meta-perspective, I'm just saying that nailing down that "usually" is very generous when one of the supposedly most common model in the game (the humble Space Marine) suffers from the not-good-but-at-least-not-cheap problem.

Bharring wrote:
I think, if you look across the board, competitive Points games simply outclass competitive Power Level games as far as balance is concerned.

That's more of a problem with the weapon/wargear balance than with the concept of the Power Levels system. Ideally, the decision between shuriken pistols and fusion pistols should be meaningful.

nareik wrote:
I had an army project idea. I decided to tot up how many power level it would be. It took 1m37.

I tried to calculate points, it took 5m58.

I actually made a mistake in both systems (calculation errors for points, simply forgot to list a PL value for one of my units). The PL error was much easier to double check for than the points, which I am still working on.

Yep. And that's a perfectly fine reason to use PL. It is unquestionably objectively true that it is faster and easier to use.

"using the thought exercise of Grav Cannon vs Heavy Bolter, would simply make no sense to anyone trying to design a game or understand one."
Provably false. Example: Designers of 40k Power Levels.

You can argue that it's stupid. That they shouldn't have. But they clearly did. Your claim assumes PL are bad, and you're using it to prove PL are bad. That's not a solid argument.

"Then they wouldn't look to exploit a better, more granular system either."
Even if true (PL implies a different social construct than Points. So it may not be true.), that still misses the entire point of PL.

"That's more of a problem with the weapon/wargear balance than with the concept of the Power Levels system. Ideally, the decision between shuriken pistols and fusion pistols should be meaningful."
In Points, the decision is already meaningful. It's only in PL that it's not.

One of the things I *want* from 40k is for not everything to have the same value. I want a Space Marine to be worth more than a Fire Warrior (one on one). I want a Relic Blade to be stronger than a Power Sword. And, ideally, I want the *option* to take either the Relic Blade or Power Sword.

In other words, I want to have two different Captain models, that use the same datasheet, but where one is vastly more powerful than the other.

Points enable that by having it cost more points. PL just hand-wave it away. Which is typically fine for a typical PL game - it's usually two guys just throwing what they want on the table. But I want more nuance in my Points game.

To that end, the current construct (if not the finer points values) actually handle that well. We can just throw the stuff on the table (with PL), or we can take a more evenly matched pair of forces and duke it out (points).

Neither system is inherently 'better'. One provides more granularity, more real choice. The other provides less bookkeeping and more freedom.

Yes, the one with more real choice actually has less freedom. Might sound weird, but it shouldn't.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Except it is your problem, because it has the same cost: free.

Free is a literal LACK of cost. Sure, they all cost the same, but that same is literally NOTHING.

1. If you don't care about optimization like you claim, you will still pay for the worse weapon because you like the look of it or something stupid like that. That has been the basic premise throughout several editions. You pay for what you get.

Why am I paying for something I don't care for?

That HAS been the basic premise of several editions. Fortunately, I think 8th is better than those other editions.
Plus, would you say points are perfectly balanced? No? Well, they clearly don't pay for what you get then.

2. This still means that you would pay less points for said weapon though, so at least you're getting what you paid for. In this particular example, three Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon creates a reason and niche for the Heavy Bolter to exist.

That only creates a reason and niche for someone who only cares about power.
For people with a different mindset, there's plenty of other reasons.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

3. Making them all the same cost, then, creates no point. If someone doesn't care about optimization, they won't do the math. So someone liking the Heavy Bolter still might not care.

Only pointless to people who only care for power. There's more to the hobby than that.

4. Someone will come along that likes the look of Grav Cannons to Heavy Bolters, and then starts to use them on all their Devastators, Sternguard, and Centurions, because they think the concept is cool.

Maybe so. Good for them.

5. Ergo this shows the flaw with your entire logic. This person built a stronger army by default because of the fact they liked the look of the weapon more, when it is in fact a better weapon using 1-on-1 comparisons.

"Stronger" is a matter of opinion. If they and their opponent both enjoy the game they're having, is the difference in "power" as you see it, really an issue?

6. So I'd say the player is not compatible with you, even though they took the same steps to build their army like you. You won't have fun in a game where someone acts just like you and they slap your army around like it is nothing.

I disagree. I think the real factor would be intent. If someone went in with the intent of going in like I do, then I think I'd enjoy that game regardless if I won or lost - because their intent matches with mine.

I think you're assuming that I can't enjoy a game I "get slapped around" in. I beg to differ.

So basically your whole premise is actually the "you're playing the game wrong" you're accusing Perigrine of acting like.

Where have I said anything of the sort?

I've consistently said "if you want to play that way, you're well within your power and rights to do so". I've never said there's a right and wrong way to play - only ways that I prefer, and ways that other people do.
Unfortunately, it's not so much a case of "accusing" Peregrine. It's a case of pointing out exactly what he's doing, in writing.

Xca|iber wrote:I'm still not sold on the idea that PL promotes or rewards non-optimization.

If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost - offering an advantage, of sorts. Perhaps not an equal advantage compared to the disadvantage of giving up the meta option, but you're still getting something at least. Although optimization is not the goal per se, this kind of compensation makes it easier for two players working together to evaluate whether their match will be balanced.

However, the optimising meta of the points system isn't the same kind of optimisation meta as PL would have.

In points, the meta is to pick something with the best power in relation to it's cost. In this respect, the PL metas and points metas would look very different.

The Power Level system does not do this.

In instances where this is not the case (for example, wanting to take a power sword on a sergeant when the meta call is to take no upgrades), there are two possible outcomes, which may overlap:

1) The discount received from forfeiting more-expensive meta options pays for the forfeiture of less-expensive meta options. Thus, everything is fine.

This isn't reliable.

2) The extra cost places the list over the agreed limit. However, if optimization is not important, it is trivial either to remove a handful of infantry models to bring the list under the limit OR simply play a little bit over the limit with your opponent's permission. Since agreement and discussion are also central to the adequate functioning of the PL system, this does not constitute any additional burden as part of the points system.

In PL, the player doesn't need to compromise for aesthetic or non-meta upgrades, and relying on opponent's permission to go over points has been shown by some people participating in this thread to be "cheating".

If a player is unwilling to remove things from their list and their opponent will not allow any excess on the agreed limit (or increase the agreed limit), and the first player feels that the result is an undue burden upon their side of the game, what you have is not a failure of the points system (or any valuation system), but a failure of the two players to agree on what constitutes a balanced match. This is no different from two PL-system players having a dispute because one player feels the other one is abusing the system (by min/maxing meta upgrades for free, for example). Fundamentally, it boils down to a belief by one player that a game will not be enjoyable based on the comparison of the two armies presented. Again, this is not a failure of the value system.

If I'm honest, most issues about PL are not really issues with the system. Some people like it, some people don't - and some people are incapable of letting other people like what they like.

Points aren't inherently an issue, but oftentimes, the attitude they inspire is - optimisation, power-over-aesthetic. On the other hand, PL creates an attitude to me that feels more relaxed. I won't pretend that's universal, but it very much is proof that different game modes bring out different feelings.

Power Level does not fix this. If anything, the only benefit to saying you use Power Level is to signal to other casual players that you want to play casually without having to (somehow) shame yourself by stating that openly.

And this is more mindreading. PL doesn't HAVE to be casual. Points don't HAVE to be optimised. However, it would be wrong to pretend that certain groups don't prefer certain gamemodes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:
If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost

That's a very diplomatic "usually".

Can you argue that it doesn't happen enough? I'd like to see that.

Could anyone prove it happens enough that it defends taking aesthetic choices?

Bharring wrote:
"That's more of a problem with the weapon/wargear balance than with the concept of the Power Levels system. Ideally, the decision between shuriken pistols and fusion pistols should be meaningful."
In Points, the decision is already meaningful. It's only in PL that it's not.

I'm not really counting the "oh it is crap, but at least free crap" as a meaningful decision-making process.

Bharring wrote:
One of the things I *want* from 40k is for not everything to have the same value. I want a Space Marine to be worth more than a Fire Warrior (one on one). I want a Relic Blade to be stronger than a Power Sword. And, ideally, I want the *option* to take either the Relic Blade or Power Sword.

You can have all these with Power Levels too. Space Marines would be already twice the cost of Fire Warriors (the base units are PR 5 for 5 SMs vs PR 2 for 4 FWs), and the Relic Blade could be a Power Rating +1 option if you want it to be so powerful, or simply replace both the master-crafted boltgun and the power weapon for no PR increase (as losing the ranged weapon makes up for the stronger-than-average melee weapon). It is no big deal.

" Relic Blade could be a Power Rating +1 option"
But then we add the "Moderate Relic Blade". To be fair, it's got to be more than a Power Sword, but less than a Relic Blade. So PR+0.5 option?

It depends on how granular you want to be. Points do this much more granularly, which I, personally, like - even in casual games.

"It is no big deal."
Typically. Which is why PL games work. I think Points work a little better, in that they quantify many such "no big deals" to balance them out in a nice reasonable-ish number.

I get the impression, Ato/Smudge/Crimson/Char/etc, you'd be fun to play against with points *or* PL.

"I'm not really counting the 'oh it is crap, but at least free crap. as a meaningful decision-making process. "
I don't consider Shuriken Pistols crap. They have their place. I consider Fusion Pistols to be *stronger*, because they are. I consider them anti-hard-target weapons. Shuriken Pistols are more anti-light-target. One thing 40k does well is that a Melta Gun is quite likely to fry a Guardsman - as it should be. And that it's ROF isn't that much lower than things like Boltguns and Lasguns - they just pay more points for that power.

As such, I choose to field as many Fusion Pistols as I'm willing to spend points to give that squad anti-tank firepower. Which is how I like it. So Fusion Pistol vs Shuriken Pistol isn't a "Good vs Crap" option. It's a "Good AT vs reasonable anti-infantry" option. The first is better, per model, vs Infantry, and should be. The second is better, per points, vs Infantry, and should be. A real meaningful choice in the decision-making process.

PL doesn't give that choice. Because it doesn't have that granularity. It doesn't make PL a bad game mode. PL just doesn't account for decisions at that small scale - because it's not big enough a deal. And that's fine, for PL games.

Bharring wrote:
" Relic Blade could be a Power Rating +1 option"
But then we add the "Moderate Relic Blade". To be fair, it's got to be more than a Power Sword, but less than a Relic Blade. So PR+0.5 option?

That's probably your "replaces both the melee and the ranged weapon" option. This is the beauty of Power Levels: you can't just handwave balance away with juggling around some random point values. You gotta make every option meaningful in some way, and the system makes it clear when you are doing that wrong.

Bharring wrote:
So Fusion Pistol vs Shuriken Pistol isn't a "Good vs Crap" option. It's a "Good AT vs reasonable anti-infantry" option.

That's the Power Level way of thinking. Currently, as per the Points System, fusion pistols are, actually, better at everything because they are expensive, so "it is okay". If we had Power Levels, there should have been a choice: do you go with the shuriken pistol that can do pewpewpew (something it can't do now because it is your "cheap and crap" option) or do you go with the fusion pistol that does PEW? Are you more of a guy for high potential and low damage (via higher RoF and range) or low potential and high damage (via lower RoF and range)?

" This is the beauty of Power Levels: you can't just handwave balance away with juggling around some random point values. You gotta make every option meaningful in some way, and the system makes it clear when you are doing that wrong."
You're asserting that one of the strengths of Power Levels is that it forces all options to be of equal value; I'm asserting that one of the strengths of Points is that it allows different options to have different values.

I don't agree that all options should be equally powerful. I *want* to have minor variations on the power of a unit based on upgrades taken. I want a Plasma Pistol to be simply better than a Bolt Pistol per-item. I want to have two different Tac squads on the table, with the same number of men, but with different total points in equipment. I want there to be stronger and weaker options (but with points costs to balance them out).

Basically, I want properties of this game to be what you want removed. Unfortunately, our visions of what we want this game to be actually *are* mutually exclusive.

I view 'Points' vs 'Power Levels' differently than you, I think. You see PL as "Balance each choice such that they're worth the same PL". I see PL as "The points difference in the upgrades doesn't really matter, let's just play a game".

So, while we both see PL as a valid way to play, we clearly have a different view on what PL actually is.

Bharring wrote:
I get the impression, ...Char..., you'd be fun to play against with points *or* PL.

Maybe, I may not provide a challenging game, but I also try not to be cruel, whiny, or obnoxious when I do.

"Maybe, I may not provide a challenging game, but I also try not to be cruel, whiny, or obnoxious when I do."
When I started playing, two of the regulars who were always up for a game were very different: one always lost, but was never fun to play. The other always won, but was always fun to play.

Winning/losing isn't what makes a game fun/unfun for some people.