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.

I'm gonna tell you one reason they should not use powerlevels, actually, 2.
Rubric marines, and geneatealers

Considering the number of upgrades some units have, I think the only way to make this work is something akin to the quick build cards x wing uses. Essentially you have a number of pre built units with fixed equipment and a fixed cost.

IMO they should do something like that even if they don’t drop matched play points. PL is and has been messy to use the way it works now.

Honestly, I've been playing with the basic free rules, and power levels. It's a really different feeling Game, and actually not nearly as problimatic as Matched Play.

 Blndmage wrote:
Honestly, I've been playing with the basic free rules, and power levels. It's a really different feeling Game, and actually not nearly as problimatic as Matched Play.

If you haven't been playing matched play how do you know that it's different and less problematic? Especially given the fact that the basic rules don't contain things like the full rules for terrain, something that is nearly universally agreed to be a bad thing? And how does using a less accurate method to add up your point costs for your units improve the game?

Saying he HAS been playing open doesn't mean hes NEVER played matched. Stow away the pitch fork and torch.

 Lance845 wrote:
Saying he HAS been playing open doesn't mean hes NEVER played matched. Stow away the pitch fork and torch.

Then it's a pretty simple question to answer. But I'm kind of skeptical that someone could play matched play with the full rules and then say "you know what this game needs is to remove all this pesky terrain and play on an empty field".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Honestly, I've been playing with the basic free rules, and power levels. It's a really different feeling Game, and actually not nearly as problimatic as Matched Play.

If you haven't been playing matched play how do you know that it's different and less problematic? Especially given the fact that the basic rules don't contain things like the full rules for terrain, something that is nearly universally agreed to be a bad thing? And how does using a less accurate method to add up your point costs for your units improve the game?

I've played a lot of matched play in 8th, but due to my FLGS becoming unsafe and dangerous to attend due to treats of violence directed at me, I've been running narrative scenarios at home, etc.

The basic core rules don't have fancy terrain stuff but it's actually functional. Any terrain gives cover bonuses, nothing fancy, no extra rules, just base functionality. Which is better than nothing.

And I said nothing about "an empty field" , I play with lots of terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Saying he HAS been playing open doesn't mean hes NEVER played matched. Stow away the pitch fork and torch.

*Points at sig*
She, not he.

 Blndmage wrote:
And I said nothing about "an empty field" , I play with lots of terrain.

None of which actually matters because of the poor LOS rules. 8th is pretty much unplayable without additional terrain rules to block LOS and have terrain be relevant outside of an occasional unit sitting directly on top of it. And I really don't understand why you'd want to play narrative scenarios with the most basic and stripped down version of the rules instead of adding all of those narrative features found in the full rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Saying he HAS been playing open doesn't mean hes NEVER played matched. Stow away the pitch fork and torch.

Then it's a pretty simple question to answer. But I'm kind of skeptical that someone could play matched play with the full rules and then say "you know what this game needs is to remove all this pesky terrain and play on an empty field".

Nothing about open says you can't have terrain rules.

@Bindmage - My bad. Noted.

 Lance845 wrote:
Nothing about open says you can't have terrain rules.

Nothing about open, but playing only with the free basic rules sure does because terrain is not included in the free basic rules.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I'm gonna tell you one reason they should not use powerlevels, actually, 2.
Rubric marines, and geneatealers

You just told us the two reasons not to use Power Level with Datasheets designed for use with points. 9th Edition will, Good God I hope, have new data sheets. If the Genestealer were designed for power level, the upgrade options would be tuned for them - either optional potent upgrades coming with a power level bump like jumppacks, or turning into balanced either/or options.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Nothing about open says you can't have terrain rules.

Nothing about open, but playing only with the free basic rules sure does because terrain is not included in the free basic rules.

Actually there are terrain rules, well, more accurately one rule:



While it is very basic, it saves me looking up multiple books on terrain, and it's actually not that bad. I've based my barricade type terrain to give it a defined space for models to be while gaining benefits, same with the rest of my terrain.

dosiere wrote:
Considering the number of upgrades some units have, I think the only way to make this work is something akin to the quick build cards x wing uses. Essentially you have a number of pre built units with fixed equipment and a fixed cost.

IMO they should do something like that even if they don’t drop matched play points. PL is and has been messy to use the way it works now.

cards would be interesting but xwing matches are very different from 40k. I have xwing, and enjoy playing it sometimes but keepign track of cards for 30 units on a field might be a bit much.

as for units with no upgrades that should be reflected in power level as part of balancing. if we are saying a 5 man tactical squad essentially can take a special or heavy weapon, a plasma pistol, and a power weapon compared to say Tzangors who get 2 blades or a pistol and a blade but no special weapons option then ... well the tzangors would need to go down in cost to reflect that. additionaly units with less equipment options than others would have to have power level reflecting this.

But by the same token you could price the equipment appropriately for a platform. A power weapon on any unit sarg equivalent is just not worth as much as it is on a character with more wounds, more attacks, bettwe WS (usually) and protection due to the character keyword. I think that is the problem now, those weapons in points are costed for better units than they are usually on.

I read the first page and then jumped to my response so this may be a bit late...
I believe tactical squads and the chaos equivalent should get a free special weapon at 5 man and heavy weapon at 10 man squads. This gives the base marine a bit of a lift and encourages 10 man squads once again. Of course everybody may just pick lascannons and plasma but so be it.

 Huron black heart wrote:
I read the first page and then jumped to my response so this may be a bit late...
I believe tactical squads and the chaos equivalent should get a free special weapon at 5 man and heavy weapon at 10 man squads. This gives the base marine a bit of a lift and encourages 10 man squads once again. Of course everybody may just pick lascannons and plasma but so be it.

Tactical Squads shouldn't be paying the same points for each weapon as other squads. I'd prefer a discount over free, but similar arguments. Discount, because some weapons will tend to be better than others.

 Huron black heart wrote:
I read the first page and then jumped to my response so this may be a bit late...
I believe tactical squads and the chaos equivalent should get a free special weapon at 5 man and heavy weapon at 10 man squads. This gives the base marine a bit of a lift and encourages 10 man squads once again. Of course everybody may just pick lascannons and plasma but so be it.

yes, btu that is why in order for it to work weapons would need to be reworked to be better than each other at something but nothing being outright better at everything

plasma would still have overcharge as a risk, lascannon would still be the best antitank from a distance, ditto for melta guns up close, heavy bolter best infantry from afar, flamer best infantry choice up front, missile launcher most versitile but not as good as the others at any one thing etc.

 Blndmage wrote:


I've played a lot of matched play in 8th, but due to my FLGS becoming unsafe and dangerous to attend due to treats of violence directed at me, I've been running narrative scenarios at home, etc.

I know you don't know me from Adam, and I don't want to be seen as a white knight swooping in to rescue someone (if anything, my wife sees me as the one who needs to be constantly rescued, and she's probably not wrong!)but I'm more than disheartened, and more than a little bit angry to hear this is your experience, for what it's worth. Our hobby should be something to enjoy, something that represents a fun day out and not something where we deal with threats of violence...

Truly, for what it's worth, I know I can't do much, and while this verges on the uselessness of 'thoughts and prayers' I'm genuinely sorry to hear this.

On topic though, playing at home (and the 'garage scene' in general ) is my preference these days, instead of the flgs. My,friend has converted his garage into a gaming space and has a twelve by six board. It's great for the simple home comforts, and for me, a more relaxed , whether we are gaming or doing a painting evening. Plus, friendly dog.

Deadnight wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


I've played a lot of matched play in 8th, but due to my FLGS becoming unsafe and dangerous to attend due to treats of violence directed at me, I've been running narrative scenarios at home, etc.

I know you don't know me from Adam, and I don't want to be seen as a white knight swooping in to rescue someone (if anything, my wife sees me as the one who needs to be constantly rescued, and she's probably not wrong!)but I'm more than disheartened, and more than a little bit angry to hear this is your experience, for what it's worth. Our hobby should be something to enjoy, something that represents a fun day out and not something where we deal with threats of violence...

Truly, for what it's worth, I know I can't do much, and while this verges on the uselessness of 'thoughts and prayers' I'm genuinely sorry to hear this.

On topic though, playing at home (and the 'garage scene' in general ) is my preference these days, instead of the flgs. My,friend has converted his garage into a gaming space and has a twelve by six board. It's great for the simple home comforts, and for me, a more relaxed , whether we are gaming or doing a painting evening. Plus, friendly dog.

Thank you, that means a lot.

We're in a small, very packed one bedroom place, so I don't have room for a board, I I've our sectional, chairs, small bridges I made. I keep te games small, so far, no more than 25PL, but even that can take time. I also have no one to play against, but I'm finding solo 40k surprisingly engrossing.

Very very bad idea.... just look at AOS. If they get rid of points and only use power lvl ill sell my GW stock. Bcause it will hurt their business really bad.

 nordsturmking wrote:
Very very bad idea.... just look at AOS. If they get rid of points and only use power lvl ill sell my GW stock. Bcause it will hurt their business really bad.

I don't think this a big issue for casual, friendly, fun players. I'm doing a campaign with some friends and we're using PL instead of matched play points (that's what we used for the last 15 years) and it's working out great.

For competitive occassions I can see some "challenges", because surely everybody would be tempted to max out as far as possible. Maybe one would need some more organizational restrictions to make it work properly.

Wouldn't be that much of a big deal, to get rid of the point fiddlin'...


edit: grammar

 nordsturmking wrote:
Very very bad idea.... just look at AOS. If they get rid of points and only use power lvl ill sell my GW stock. Bcause it will hurt their business really bad.

Isn't AOS doing better now than it has in a long time? Locally I never saw it played and now it is everywhere. Not quite as big as 40k sure but people actually can find games. I run the local facebook miniature group and until the last year or so nobody ever posted sigmar stuff, now we have members there looking for games and doing events for it, it has even poached several warmachine/hordes players and 40k players.

It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.

Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.

Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?

If you look at the Apokalypse dataheets you see how 40k could work with powerlevels and how weapons can be balanced against each other. Melter and flames could be the strongest weapons against tanks and light troops respectively but would be balanced by range. Plasma is the alrounder but not as specialized as other weapons and so on. What's problematic is that GW likes to put new weapons into new Kits that sometimes don't have niché left or don't really work under the current system, like the chaincannon is simply a better heavy Bolter and Grav weapons are hardly different from Plasma.

And even then some weapons will still be the best or worse choice, like a Melter isn't as useful on a tac Marine as it is on a raptor. And for that a granular System is nice to have.
But I wouldn't be opposed to points per se, it'd depend on how they pull it off and how it works with the rules set.

 Blndmage wrote:

Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.

Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?

Not really. With AoS it really was pretty much an unplayable mess for a lot of people at launch because there was too much work required to end up with a balanced and enjoyable game. It wasn't a fear of change so much as an unworkable system. Things improved somewhat with the 3rd party points systems, then improved again (in terms of player numbers anyway) with the official release of points from GW. I think the reason points are currently not balance din 8th edition is because GW are really bad at balance. I don't think it has anything to do with the alleged decision to backtrack on their master plan and add points back in.

 Blndmage wrote:

Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.

Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?

Lolwut? No, it isn't fear of change. It's recognizing the obvious, that PL is a really stupid idea and worse than conventional points. I don't need to try stabbing myself in the face to know that it's a bad idea, and I don't need to waste time on PL.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.

Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?

Lolwut? No, it isn't fear of change. It's recognizing the obvious, that PL is a really stupid idea and worse than conventional points. I don't need to try stabbing myself in the face to know that it's a bad idea, and I don't need to waste time on PL.

**Looks at the new Apocolypse rules**

You were saying?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.

Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?

Lolwut? No, it isn't fear of change. It's recognizing the obvious, that PL is a really stupid idea and worse than conventional points. I don't need to try stabbing myself in the face to know that it's a bad idea, and I don't need to waste time on PL.

**Looks at the new Apocolypse rules**

You were saying?

What does Apocalypse have to do with this? You do know that the Apocalypse point system is a raging dumpster fire of failure to understand math and blatantly unbalanced options, right?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.

Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?

Lolwut? No, it isn't fear of change. It's recognizing the obvious, that PL is a really stupid idea and worse than conventional points. I don't need to try stabbing myself in the face to know that it's a bad idea, and I don't need to waste time on PL.

**Looks at the new Apocolypse rules**

You were saying?

What does Apocalypse have to do with this? You do know that the Apocalypse point system is a raging dumpster fire of failure to understand math and blatantly unbalanced options, right?

At a glance the apoc system looks to be significantly more balanced with less options that have more clearly defined roles and costs that make sense for them in the form of Power Levels. Since none of us have played it none of us know if it's a failure or a success. But I am personally looking forward to it.


Also, bunching a bunch of the various weapon options together in apoc opens up the door for significantly more modeling options WHILE keeping things wysiwyg. "Power weapon" can be a spear sword or axe while "melee bio-weapon" can be bonesword or bonesword/lashwhip or whatever you want to kit bash. Apoc is moving entirely in the right directions. I am pretty excited to play a regular game of 40k on apocs rules.

Apoc works with power levels because there are almost no options for those units (and the ones that do cost PL).