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.

So I have read through the Tau codex and noticed that all the models stats are on power and have the power card like it comes in the box. The point values are all listed onto two pages and it got me thinking of how the power rating got more of a center stage and point seems to be the alternative. Is GW planning to make power rating the default, and should they?

 NivNeos wrote:
So I have read through the Tau codex and noticed that all the models stats are on power and have the power card like it comes in the box. The point values are all listed onto two pages and it got me thinking of how the power rating got more of a center stage and point seems to be the alternative. Is GW planning to make power rating the default, and should they?

The rumors I heard awhile back was GW was going to get rid of pts for 8th but then all the back lash to AOS's lack of pts happened. So GW added them back in before release.

I think, at least during 8th's development, the designers wanted Power Level to be the common way to play, but after the disastrous launch of Age of Sigmar were probably reluctant to ditch points entirely.

The problem with Power Level as implemented in 40K, of course, is that it doesn't take any upgrades into account. So it can be a decent way to gauge the general comparative power of two forces, but is very poorly suited to competitive play, and falls apart on certain units (eg- Drukhari Scourges, where a unit of 5 could all be carrying cheap and basic Shardcarbines, or expensive anti-tank Dark Lances, and the PL system makes no differentiation).

Apocalypse uses Power Level, but also has Power Level costs for upgrades, and I've found it works really well and is a lot less fiddly to build lists for. So that might be an example of where things are going in the future.

They way power level is implemented in 40k makes it unusable except in quick pickup games or strictly for fun games.

Take a unit of the aforementioned Drukhari Scourges, (I don't know the actual power levels so bear with me)
They could be pwr lvl 5 and then be given weapons that essentially would have tripled or at least doubled their power level. Now look at a unit like Boyz, no matter how you equip them they are essentially the same, and its arguable that they could be made worse by the addition of Big shootas. Really the only upgrade you would take that is worth anything is a power Klaw on your nob. So those boyz pay a premium in Power level for their basic stuff and maybe gain 25pts worth of upgrades where as the Scourges gain more then 100% of their cost in special weapons.

I don't think GW are making PL the default, and I don't think it needs to be, either. Honestly, I don't think 40k *should* have a default.

Points do fine for matches where people care about if your sergeant has a plasma pistol but only a basic chainsword. PL works fine for "let's throw down models, and play with what you've modelled them with".

I think the reason PL are printed on the in-kit datasheets is because it saves GW having to dedicate more space to the individual cost of weapons, potential equipment, upgrades, etc etc, whereas PL is as simple as "you've got this unit? Cool, they cost X*" It's also a lot more beginner friendly.


*there are some cases where some unit upgrades (like jump packs) alter the cost of the unit's PL, but these are few and far between. It's far easier to do 4+1 than (16x5)+(1x5)+20 or whatever the cost of your unit is in points.

Power Level works really, really, really well as a quick and dirty way to ensure that a fluffy narrative game you're playing isn't disappointingly one-sided, but it's pretty pants at anything else.

IMO, natch.

Lately it's been the opposite. Power hasn't been updated at all while points get updates. I think if they wanted power to work the vocal response to points less AOS killed that. The modern wargamer wants points suitable for pickup games and the illusion of balance, and it's not feasible to not provide that.

There are too many people who see "free" upgrades as carte blanche to min max and powergame rather than the intent.

Wayniac wrote:

There are too many people who see "free" upgrades as carte blanche to min max and powergame rather than the intent.

And just what is the intent?

If you talk to people about it you generally get VERY different answers very fast. To the point where you quickly start to realise that there is very little to no actual common ground between gamers. More astute replies will even start to show that the "intent" isn't even the same game to game. Very quickly you find that basically there's no common default answer, so it comes down to the pre-game agreement.

The problem there is also interpretation. You can see this is also not universally agreed upon. I've seen threads where people have argued head to head and thrown up maths and such - one arguing that an army is overpowered and the other that the army is significantly underpowered. both are convinced that their interpretations of the same statistics and maths proves their point.


So even if two people agree to the same type and intention for a game, they might both interpret the choices they can make with their respective armies very differently.



Point based systems might not be perfect for balance, but they can remove a significant (though not total) layer of interpretation. Army composition restrictions further aid in this matter.


In the end its not beyond people to come to agreement, but it can often take a long time to get there and might take weeks or months if people only get a game a month - longer if their games are against different people.



In the end power-points are a very crude balancing system as they are presented in the codex. Simple, yes, but also a very crude tool that, as noted above, doesn't reflect the myriad of options. Power-points would likely work somewhat better in AoS if only because most units have only one equipment set (with the only variation often being on the leader model or a 1 in every 10 situation). So a units performance is unlikely to change much if at all. Indeed quite a lot of the equipment choices the armies do have don't actually make much difference. The recent Ossiarch Bonereaper army can take swords or spears for their infantry and cavalry. However when you do the maths; the differences are not night and day and they actually perform a very similar role very close together. Indeed the only real difference is the weapon range between the two and the corresponding affect that having more range (this more in close combat) will have on the resulting performance.

Before "those people" show up... I like the idea of Power Levels.

Specifically, if PL were based on a "fully loaded" squad. The vast option-heavy sea of possibilities that an *Infantry Squad* has is ridiculous. In many ways, they're broken without paying for upgraded equipment, as the board control they offer is incredibly valuable on top of their souping power.

But if you made them 4 PL each... Yes, you'd be foolish not to take the upgrades but that would be the point. Instead of a 40 point squad that can be more expensive, you have a (roughly) 80 point squad that you can choose to under-equip if you want.

Same deal with something like Death Company. I want to model each dude with awesome CC weaponry... but I also know that at least half will be killed before they reach combat. So make 10 DC worth... I dunno... 10 dudes with 4 Thunder Hammers. Sure, you can then load them all up with Thunder Hammers... but what will you hit that 4 TH aren't going to kill? And how often will you get even 5 of those duders to CC anyhow? A PL value for those, armed however you want, would be a more realistic and consistent in-game value.

If I consider that, with Points, I only take "good value" upgrades, then that means that all the bonus options I'd take that would otherwise bloat my Point costs really aren't worth their points... right? Otherwise I'd take them.

Like a Vox Caster in an Infantry Squad. It's practically worthless. At MOST worth 1 point, but it's costed at 5, plus another 5 somewhere else to link it to. So in PL, it's accurately assessed at *no value*. Same thing as giving a Bolt Pistol to the Sergeant. Really... it's there to make him stand out / look cool. Or a Bolter, because LP / CCW is stupid for an Infantry Sergeant.

I'm addicted to this argument. I think I post it every time this subject comes up.

What about power points when they include stuff you don't want to take. With GK for example you never wanted to use special weapons, as they were worse option then a normal stormbolter.

That would be the point. If taking an optional weapon is a sideways move, then the PL would reflect that. That said, a Psilencer is surely better than a storm bolter, no? Longer range, higher ROF? It doesn’t seem worse... and if it were you wouldn’t be increasing the PL, it would remain the same.

I’m not familiar with GK outside of Kill Team, so cant speak to the specifics.

PS: there are certain posters that *only* post about how bad their faction has it. It becomes a cliche, and eventually it’s hard to take their opinion on anything seriously. You might want to consider your own posting habits, if you are concerned about how others will perceive your posts.

Meanwhile, if I'm playing PL I'm having all of my Rhinos have two storm bolters instead of just one, because I mean, of course I would, they don't count for PL even if they count for points. Also giving them all hunter-killer missiles because, again, why wouldn't I? They don't increase PL, and the Rhinos are flat out better having them than not having them.

The eight point per rhino difference is enough, over the course of the half-dozen or so Rhinos one needs for a full size force, to make an impact on points planning. But in PL, they're no-brainer takes with no drawbacks at all-- double the firepower, plus a single shot to potentially do some anti-tank damage for no change in cost? Hell yes. There's no depth to the choice. It's either take it and be stronger, or don't take it and be weaker.

And that's the big drawback of how they designed Power Levels. They simplify and remove depth, which is fine for quick pick-up games... but it does leave a lot lacking when it comes to balance.

Power level is sort of how warmachine does its points, Its just a point system in the end.
One of the issues is that two PL10 units could be very different based entirely on what upgrades are available.

40k has had almost no management that would Help make PL anything more than as a throw down on the table and roll some dice for the funnies. If you even take list building and gameplay slightly seriously they begin to show faults in the system.

Its a good idea that i think is more a waste of time that takes away dev time to other things in the end.
I would be perfectly happy to see them go the way of power level if they did it in a competent way.
Until then it will probably just be the worse way to play if you care about the game itself and its outcome.

I don't think GW has any intention of making power the default and removing points. I think that PL is a handy tool for narrative games (as it is intended??) just to get an idea. I realise that points could do the same thing but as I said it is handy in such situations. I suspect that many who are against PL so vehemently are so because they fear that what you suggested will come to pass, i think these people need to chill out, points are clearly what they are looking at for matched play.

Power Level is for pickup games, a very rough aid to matching forces. It’s not designed to be balanced, and isn’t designed to be used vs min-maxing types. You put models on the table, use the wargear that the model is armed with and have a quick game. Falls apart any time you try ‘optimising’ because that isn’t its purpose. Every discussion on PL gets derailed by people either saying 1) it’s useless or 2) “I might as well put the best option on every model”. Both types of response simply miss the point of PL.

Hopefully Peregrine won’t show up and kill the thread by repeatedly telling people who enjoy PL they’re wrong.

PL is less balanced than points so whilst we used it to start with in 8th, we fairly quickly moved to points. I’d totted up a couple of lists and found that PL left me the equivalent of 200pts down vs my opponent one game, based on loadouts. Also we like list building so points is just what we’re used to. But saying it’s pointless, not fun or you’re wrong to play PL is silly... it’s demonstrably useful and fun for some. If it’s not for you, that’s cool, but divert your energies into something useful instead of being the Fun Police.

I'm not opposed against PL per se, but with Battlescribe it's just not necessary for me. If GW wanted to improve it in next editions there could be several ways:
- Apokalypse style: every weapon option is roughly of equal value, or gets removed
- Pre set specialized squads: pay 7PL for cheap Havocs with 4 heavy Bolters, 10Pl for antitank Havocs with 4 Lascannons, or 15PL for "gatlings are awesome" Havocs with 4 chaincannons
Problem: seeing how GW behaves in 8th we could end up with units having only the equipment from the Box, so pay 9Pl for Havocs with 2 Lascannons, 1 Autocannon, 1 chaincannon (I know Havocs have more in the Box, but just to make clear what I mean)

I think it's because GW knew from the start that balance is a weakness of theirs and updating pts on one page is easier than doing it across ten or twenty datasheets. Consider the effort required to change the cost of thunder hammers if you had to change ten datasheets individually.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Power Level is for pickup games, a very rough aid to matching forces. It’s not designed to be balanced, and isn’t designed to be used vs min-maxing types. You put models on the table, use the wargear that the model is armed with and have a quick game. Falls apart any time you try ‘optimising’ because that isn’t its purpose. Every discussion on PL gets derailed by people either saying 1) it’s useless or 2) “I might as well put the best option on every model”. Both types of response simply miss the point of PL.

Hopefully Peregrine won’t show up and kill the thread by repeatedly telling people who enjoy PL they’re wrong.

PL is less balanced than points so whilst we used it to start with in 8th, we fairly quickly moved to points. I’d totted up a couple of lists and found that PL left me the equivalent of 200pts down vs my opponent one game, based on loadouts. Also we like list building so points is just what we’re used to. But saying it’s pointless, not fun or you’re wrong to play PL is silly... it’s demonstrably useful and fun for some. If it’s not for you, that’s cool, but divert your energies into something useful instead of being the Fun Police.

Yepppppp, all of this. Nobody's saying everybody has to like, or use, PL, but I've never seen an argument against it that doesn't entail someone misunderstanding, deliberately or otherwise, the whole point of it as a system.

Pretty sure I've never played a power level based game of 40k in my life.

At the end of the day PL just results in a different meta to points, and this fact seems to be ignored.

I mean... you can always take an extra special weapon on your vehicle? Go ahead then - if everyone does, its not obviously imbalanced. There are plenty of "options" under points that people always or never take, because they are more or less efficient.

The counter is then "but theoretically points could be fixed" - sure, it could be, and I think every CA it inches closer - but you are sort of making this a mountain out of a molehill.

The much bigger issue of PL - which never seems to be discussed I think because no one who cares plays with PL - is how accurate Unit X is at a certain PL and Unit Y is at a certain PL. This is I think where the issues arise - but this is also exactly the same with points today. The fact running scourge with splinter carbines is daft when you can take blasters or something doesn't matter except to someone who really, really wants to take splinter carbine scourges and feels a bit hard done by as a result.

Its competitively silly - but there is a sort of freedom in being able to just pick and choose equipment options based on what "looks" good, rather than on a efficiency for points basis. Its sort of going back into the dark ages - but i used to hate that in Warhammer bringing a unit champion, standard bearer and musician was almost always (beyond certain key units) a waste of points. So competitively they often got ditched - even though (IMO) it made the units look much less good.

In 40k that probably corresponds to giving unit champions faction specific combat weapons and pistols, even though this is almost always a waste of points. It just "looks" better.

Something funny though is PL is basically AOS points at a smaller number. It only falls short in 40k because 40k is bogged down in a myriad of upgrades while AOS is not. Which IMHO is a major strength of AOS but people like minutiae in 40k. If things were more abstract (maybe apocalypse does this?) then it would work better.

PL seems intended that you're building everything with a variety of weapons (like say what comes in the kit) rather than get extra bits or convert to field more of a particular item. And it "kinda" works if you assume everyone is building units like they often show on the box with a mishmash of choices rather than a more optimized load out. Just only noobs who.dont know better and collectors who play once in a blue moon so care more about variety would do that.

TBH I love the concept but it is half baked in 40k.

PL is for Casual At All Costs or beginner games. It has no place at all to be used outside of that. So, basically, it isn't even worth the space on the page.

PL gives exactly what points give, but with less granularity and decisions as well as some serious flaws, like no balance and sheer ability to be abused. If you can do 15+17 congratulations, go use points.

If you have absolutely zero time and you want the game to be ruined by the resident space marine player, feel free to use Power Level but I get to say "I told you so"

Wayniac wrote:
Something funny though is PL is basically AOS points at a smaller number. It only falls short in 40k because 40k is bogged down in a myriad of upgrades while AOS is not. Which IMHO is a major strength of AOS but people like minutiae in 40k. If things were more abstract (maybe apocalypse does this?) then it would work better.

PL seems intended that you're building everything with a variety of weapons (like say what comes in the kit) rather than get extra bits or convert to field more of a particular item. And it "kinda" works if you assume everyone is building units like they often show on the box with a mishmash of choices rather than a more optimized load out. Just only noobs who.dont know better and collectors who play once in a blue moon so care more about variety would do that.

TBH I love the concept but it is half baked in 40k.

I enjoy Age of Sigmar a lot, and the point system there (still play to 2k, but everything in the game is multiples of 10).

I think you'd hit the nail on the head regarding options though. It doesnt work in 40k because the same unit can be all bolters or have 4 lascannons. You cannot just have that worth the same amount.

PL is also approximately 1PL = 20pts, so Sigmar still has twice the 'resolution' to use for balancing too.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
PL is for Casual At All Costs

Does that mean that points are for WAAC players?

Just seeing if you're being consistent here.

PL gives exactly what points give

As well as increased speed/simplicity of calculation (3PL is far easier than 16x5+13 points or whatever that squad costs), and encourages people to take the weapons they think are cool, instead of worrying if their plasma pistol on Infantry Squad Sergeant #3 will make their list illegal.

Obviously, you can break PL by only taking the strongest weapons, and always taking upgrades that you've not got modelled, or whatever else, but that's down to your mindset, not the system. My caveat with PL is enforcing strong WYSIWYG. Holstered pistol? Yeah, that can be what you like. Guy carrying a sword? Yeah, that could be a pretty nice power sword/relic blade/chainsword. Guy carrying a chainsword, but you want that to be a thunder hammer? Unless you've told me you're experimenting with your list, I'm probably not going to let that go.

Basically, PL is a quicker way for me to put the models I like down on the table, instead of having to consider if that power fist just messed everything up.

PL is also far easier to set up into "pleasing" numbers. Any kind of multiple of 5 is more ordered than something like 1978 points - it's far easier to reach a nice round number with PL.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
PL is for Casual At All Costs

Does that mean that points are for WAAC players?

Just seeing if you're being consistent here.

PL gives exactly what points give

As well as increased speed/simplicity of calculation (3PL is far easier than 16x5+13 points or whatever that squad costs), and encourages people to take the weapons they think are cool, instead of worrying if their plasma pistol on Infantry Squad Sergeant #3 will make their list illegal.

Obviously, you can break PL by only taking the strongest weapons, and always taking upgrades that you've not got modelled, or whatever else, but that's down to your mindset, not the system. .

No, its the system, not mindset. If you throw on all the power fists and special weapons because they 'look cool' you've also accidentally broken the system. The fundamental problem is people can and do min/max by accident as well as intent.
No limits and no guidelines just fundamentally doesn't work for any kind of system.

Voss wrote:
No, its the system, not mindset. If you throw on all the power fists and special weapons because they 'look cool' you've also accidentally broken the system.

And points can't also be broken in the same way, by taking undercosted units?

The fundamental problem is people can and do min/max by accident as well as intent.

The same can happen in points. However, whenever PL is brought up, we always seem to get a lot of people saying "but I'd just minmax the system, so it's bad" - sure, you *could* do it by accident, but it's not exactly hard to tell who's minmaxing the system, and who's genuinely just taking what they like.

There's a lot of people who just see PL and think "oh, cool, free reign to minmax". That's not the fault of PL for that.

No limits and no guidelines just fundamentally doesn't work for any kind of system.

I disagree. Putting more emphasis on the two players actually talking about what kind of game they want is a win in my book.

If you want a pickup game where you don't want to have to worry about the person on the other side of the table is fine, that's what points are more tailored for. PL is tailored for "I'm open to communicating my intentions and preferences to my opponent, and we can work out what kind of game we want from this". Some people simply don't need the kind of balance points offer - not saying it's bad, but that it's not necessary for others.

Think of it like stabilisers on a bike, or ramps on a bowling alley. Some people want them, others don't.

Points allows for min-maxing but makes you PAY for the min-maxing.

If you max out your landraiders and then take ultracheap marines then you've "paid" for those maxed our landraiders with cheaper infantry that won't perform as well. So you've weighted things into one area and segment of the army. In balance terms this means that you're putting more eggs in one basket of the force - it might mean your two land raiders can roll over anything, but that you can only dominate two points on the board and the whole rest has to be held with weaker marines.

Power level having no fine adjustment of its values means that you can max out the landraiders AND the marines at the same time. So there's basically no "cost" or downside. There's no reason to not take the statistically "best" choices outside of your own themes or attitude or what you own and want to use.


Basically power level relies totally upon the players choice for the game whilst points introduces a cost element which makes you pay for it










Power level could easily do the identical job that points does, just by being smaller numbers. However in practice it doesn't because there's no adjustment based on equipment and in 40K equipment choices can make big differences to model performance.
Therefore points remains a superior system. Plus lets face it its only adding up to a few thousand - its not insanely complicated maths and its not as if calculators are hard to find (computers, phones, tablets all have them as standard and paper and pen still works too)

Basically, both allow for min-maxing, powerlevel just makes min-maxing easier.

I disagree. Putting more emphasis on the two players actually talking about what kind of game they want is a win in my book.

If you want a pickup game where you don't want to have to worry about the person on the other side of the table is fine, that's what points are more tailored for. PL is tailored for "I'm open to communicating my intentions and preferences to my opponent, and we can work out what kind of game we want from this". Some people simply don't need the kind of balance points offer - not saying it's bad, but that it's not necessary for others.

And that's a fine way to approach it. The thing is without points you have to balance your own army based on your own impressions - which by and large you'll likely use points to work with. So you might use power-levels and then discuss your intent with your opponent; however you're both likely going to use points on the side to work out the interpretation of your units performance. If you both agree to a game where you take "The best" then you'll likely use higher pointed options to get the best. Similar for if you choose the "weakest" option.

Basically you might be playing a 100powerlevel game but you'll be using the point system to help you out anyway. Or if you don't you'll be using other maths to try and work out the power-difference of the different options units have.


And if you don't then chances are one of you will turn up with a stronger army and one a weaker one. Which is fine if that was your intent and not as good if it wasn't your intent (or it wasn't the intent of one of the players).

Didn't suspect so many replies

Anyway, 40k wasn't built with PL at the start. I didn't knew the whole AOS thing of replacing points with PL there, but make sense know what AOS is. Well PL is good for Quick play, I think PL could be very good and make it easier to play Apocalypse. Point lists in Apoc I could imagine would be hell to go through considering Apoc is a bit on the casual side, and considering that the role limit is not in Apocalypse, balance is already out of the window. 3 Flashlights squads, 5 baneblades, and 20 Leman Russes? Why not?

I think the biggest harm of PL that I notice is the attempt to casualize the games, considering they life style games. I don't think they are that bad, I do prefer the points, but the PL could be re-purposed or maybe have a mix of PL and points to help with the upgrades.