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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Except nothing about PL is about two players talking about what kind they game they want. Its 'quick and dirty throw models on the table without talking.'

And yes, 'free reign to minimax' is the fault of PL. That's what happens when you take the reigns off. Its why rules exist and its not just a free form game of Calvinball.

I remember last year, in our regionals, we had a case of one rule was not mentioned, and a school from ukrain fielded a bunch of 20+year olds in a high school tournament.

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

Minmaxing in points is choosing the things that are deliberately the cheapest. In PL, you minmax for simply the strongest weapons. In points, you minmax for the best value weapon.

You're not really minmaxing in the same way, is what I'm getting at.

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.

I wouldn't call that minmaxing?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression minmaxing was basically just taking the optimal things to an extreme degree - ie, only taking the most points effective weaponry, or the strongest guns.
Your example just sounds like a skew list, not a minmaxed one - but perhaps my definitions are wrong.

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.

So, just like in points, how there's no reason not to take the most cost-efficient wargear?

Minmaxing works in both ways.

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

Yes, but in points, you're being motivated to minmax for the most cost effective weaponry.

Therefore points remains a superior system. Plus lets face it its only adding up to a few thousand - its not insanely complicated maths

No, but 2+2 is certainly easier that (13x5)+(3x4)+15, yes? Not to mention all the flipping backwards and forwards between what the unit has, how much it costs, what is a wargear item or just a special rule, etc etc.

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)

If I need to have a calculator to build my army, I think that's a flaw, personally.

Overread wrote: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.

Not in my experience. My sole impressions of 8th have been with PL, I haven't played points, and have no idea what things are supposed to cost, what's cost-efficient, what's not, etc etc. However, I can obviously tell if someone's just taking things because they're the most powerful options ("oh, all your guardsmen sergeants have power fists, plasma pistols, and every squad has a plasma gun? And you just happened to build them with laspistols, chainswords, and flamers? And you're sure you're not just taking plasmas because they're powerful?").

Honestly speaking, I'm okay with some imbalance, because they're probably not using PL as an excuse to get more power.

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).

Well, for me, that's something I'm fine with. I'm not going to ever say that PL is perfect for everyone, in the same way points isn't. I'm just making it clear that PL is faster to calculate, and, in my perception, encourages taking things beyond "how points effective is it".

NivNeos wrote:I think the biggest harm of PL that I notice is the attempt to casualize the games, considering they life style games.

Elaborate? What's wrong with 'casualising' the game?

Voss wrote:And yes, 'free reign to minimax' is the fault of PL. That's what happens when you take the reigns off.

If the first thing someone does when they're shown PL is to minmax and take the strongest weapons, that's on them, and their preferences on how to play.

Sorry, "there was nothing telling me not to take the strongest weapons" is a personal choice, and isn't someone I'd want to play against. And I think that's okay.

My example was basically showing that in order to afford, in points, to take the maximum on some units, you have to pay a cost. The more you spend on one unit the less you've got to spend on others.

Sure you can take every unit at maximum capabilities and you'll pay the cost of having fewer actual units on the table than an army which takes minimum versions or an army which mixes maximums and minimums (accepting that those are extreme examples and people will pick middle ground too).

Basically points makes you PAY to take better things and to take more things. Powerlevel doesn't make you pay to take a more powerful version of the same unit.
Therefor the only part of you that wouldn't take the best of the best in a power-level game is your own choice and your agreement and interpretation of the proposed game with your opponent.


Points are by no means perfect, but they at least have means to introduce finer controls on unit balance than power level currently presents.


I do agree GW could make the codex better- the old ones had upgrades, weapon stats and abilities all on the actual units page. GW in their move toward warscroll cards and twoard having single point tables has made a system that works with cards for longer and which lets them update 1 single document (the points table) more easily. However as a result we've sacrificed some ease of writing lists.

Regardless of the system, there will always be minmax, it's just the nature of competitive.

Tyel wrote:
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.

Not across different factions.

Necrons have basically no options-giving them maxed-out upgrades is basically the same as no upgrades. Tomb Blades and Wraiths are pretty much the only exceptions, and even they don't get much.

Deathwatch can go absolutely GONZO with upgrades, though. So a Necron vs. Deathwatch PL match, with everyone loaded to the gills with upgrades, is gonna be pretty one-sided in favor of the Deathwatch, generally.

Overread wrote:My example was basically showing that in order to afford, in points, to take the maximum on some units, you have to pay a cost. The more you spend on one unit the less you've got to spend on others.

And that's the thing I don't particularly like - if I want to take that power sword, despite it probably having negligible benefit on my Guard sergeant, I'm putting other entire units at risk.

I think you're missing my point - the "best" option in PL is the strongest in sheer power. The "best" option in points is the strongest for the price. Regardless of if you played PL or points, the same person who says "I'll just take the best option!" in PL is usually the same person who says "I'll take the best option!" in points, because taking the "best" option is how they enjoy the game.

That doesn't mean they'll take the same equipment in PL or points, but that they will seek to find the one that increases their chances of winning.

Therefor the only part of you that wouldn't take the best of the best in a power-level game is your own choice and your agreement and interpretation of the proposed game with your opponent.

So, likewise, the only part of you that won't take the best of the best (the best being the most cost-effective and undercosted) in a points game is your own choice.

It's a personal choice in both PL and points. They might have different "optimal" choices, but they both definitely have them, and if a player's going to go for one, they're likely to go for the other too.

JNAProductions wrote:So a Necron vs. Deathwatch PL match, with everyone loaded to the gills with upgrades, is gonna be pretty one-sided in favor of the Deathwatch, generally.

But that's assuming the Deathwatch player had everyone loaded out to the gills. If the Deathwatch player took barebones Veterans, the match would be one-sided in favour of the Necrons.

This would be one of those situations where you'd have to see what the DW player was doing. Are they just putting frag cannons on every guy because they can? Have they modelled them on? If so, I'd ask if they would be okay adding an extra 1-2 PL to the unit cost - in return, if they took a barebones unit (just bolters and power weapons, for example), I'd be happy to knock some price off that one.

Now, I actually would prefer if there were either two costs to the Deathwatch Vets (one for a more barebones squad, and another for one heavily kitted out ), or even just an increased PL for the Vets.

But that's assuming the Deathwatch player had everyone loaded out to the gills. If the Deathwatch player took barebones Veterans, the match would be one-sided in favour of the Necrons.

no DW player plays bare bones veterans.

Karol wrote:

But that's assuming the Deathwatch player had everyone loaded out to the gills. If the Deathwatch player took barebones Veterans, the match would be one-sided in favour of the Necrons.

no DW player plays bare bones veterans.

You can prove that?

Does Battlescribe include Power Level?

Also, if I may, it is in fact both a problem of mindset and system. The system is not designed to handle a competitive mindset.

Which is not a criticism. Critiquing PL from a competitive POV is very much judging a salmon on its ability to climb trees.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does Battlescribe include Power Level?

I've not used Battlescribe in a while, but I believe so.

Also, if I may, it is in fact both a problem of mindset and system. The system is not designed to handle a competitive mindset.

Which is not a criticism. Critiquing PL from a competitive POV is very much judging a salmon on its ability to climb trees.

That's how I see it, I guess - if I don't want to play with a competitive mindset, why would I complain that I can't do that? If I cared about competitive play, and PL couldn't deliver on that, that's on me for preferring competitive play.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does Battlescribe include Power Level?

Also, if I may, it is in fact both a problem of mindset and system. The system is not designed to handle a competitive mindset.

Which is not a criticism. Critiquing PL from a competitive POV is very much judging a salmon on its ability to climb trees.

I'm not of a 'competitive mindset', but I would have no idea how to build an army under PL.

I've got a unit of Termagants. They can stick with their default Fleshborers, or they can swap for Devourers, which are better in every way, but double the points cost per model.

So under points, I can clearly see the trade-off here: Devourers give me credible firepower, but at the cost of a more fragile unit overall (for its points value). I'd take all Fleshborers for screens, all Devourers for deep-striking assassination units, and a mix for main combatants.

Under PL, I... take all Devourers and feel bad about powergaming? Or just use Fleshborers and pretend the upgrade doesn't exist? Or split them 50/50? Or try to find some authoritative Tyranid TO&E that lists how many 'should' have Devourers in a unit? (There is no such TO&E, for what it's worth)

There are tons more examples like this, where the cost of an upgrade helps to shape army composition and inform role. I mentioned Scourges on the first page, and they're another good example. They can be cheap anti-infantry screens, or expensive heavy weapons carriers, but under PL they're identical. So if you want a bunch of Scourges in an army, you're in the same position- is it cheesy powergaming to load them all up with Shredders and Blasters given that 'heavy weapons squad' is a valid role for the unit? How do you know what a good balance is?

 catbarf wrote:
I'm not of a 'competitive mindset', but I would have no idea how to build an army under PL.

I've got a unit of Termagants. They can stick with their default Fleshborers, or they can swap for Devourers, which are better in every way, but double the points cost per model.

So under points, I can clearly see the trade-off here: Devourers give me credible firepower, but at the cost of a more fragile unit overall (for its points value). I'd take all Fleshborers for screens, all Devourers for deep-striking assassination units, and a mix for main combatants.

Under PL, I... take all Devourers and feel bad about powergaming? Or just use Fleshborers and pretend the upgrade doesn't exist? Or split them 50/50? Or try to find some authoritative Tyranid TO&E that lists how many 'should' have Devourers in a unit? (There is no such TO&E, for what it's worth)

There are tons more examples like this, where the cost of an upgrade helps to shape army composition and inform role. I mentioned Scourges on the first page, and they're another good example. They can be cheap anti-infantry screens, or expensive heavy weapons carriers, but under PL they're identical. So if you want a bunch of Scourges in an army, you're in the same position- is it cheesy powergaming to load them all up with Shredders and Blasters given that 'heavy weapons squad' is a valid role for the unit? How do you know what a good balance is?

I'm of the opinion that, if you built it, they're fine in my eyes. If it doesn't work out, and we find out midgame that things are pretty broken, I usually break out one of the Open War cards to give the person who's suffering a bit of a boost.

If I see someone playing PL, and then just taking upgrades that they don't have modelled, I'm not really going to want to play them. So, hunter killer missiles, for example - I actually don't take any HKM when I play PL, because my models don't have them. I don't take pintle weaponry, except on my one Leman Russ that has a stubber. On my heavy bolter Razorback, I don't play it as a lascannon or assault cannon one, because that's not what it is. That's the standard I hold myself, and other people, to.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I'm not of a 'competitive mindset', but I would have no idea how to build an army under PL.

I've got a unit of Termagants. They can stick with their default Fleshborers, or they can swap for Devourers, which are better in every way, but double the points cost per model.

So under points, I can clearly see the trade-off here: Devourers give me credible firepower, but at the cost of a more fragile unit overall (for its points value). I'd take all Fleshborers for screens, all Devourers for deep-striking assassination units, and a mix for main combatants.

Under PL, I... take all Devourers and feel bad about powergaming? Or just use Fleshborers and pretend the upgrade doesn't exist? Or split them 50/50? Or try to find some authoritative Tyranid TO&E that lists how many 'should' have Devourers in a unit? (There is no such TO&E, for what it's worth)

There are tons more examples like this, where the cost of an upgrade helps to shape army composition and inform role. I mentioned Scourges on the first page, and they're another good example. They can be cheap anti-infantry screens, or expensive heavy weapons carriers, but under PL they're identical. So if you want a bunch of Scourges in an army, you're in the same position- is it cheesy powergaming to load them all up with Shredders and Blasters given that 'heavy weapons squad' is a valid role for the unit? How do you know what a good balance is?

I'm of the opinion that, if you built it, they're fine in my eyes. If it doesn't work out, and we find out midgame that things are pretty broken, I usually break out one of the Open War cards to give the person who's suffering a bit of a boost.

If I see someone playing PL, and then just taking upgrades that they don't have modelled, I'm not really going to want to play them. So, hunter killer missiles, for example - I actually don't take any HKM when I play PL, because my models don't have them. I don't take pintle weaponry, except on my one Leman Russ that has a stubber. On my heavy bolter Razorback, I don't play it as a lascannon or assault cannon one, because that's not what it is. That's the standard I hold myself, and other people, to.

Sure, just play the models as built. But when building the models, how are you supposed to make a decision?

In a historical wargame you can look up the TO&E for a real unit and figure out how it should be equipped. We could play a totally pointsless historical WW2 game and I would have no trouble deciding how to outfit, say, a late-war German infantry squad. If I chose to give every single man an MG42 that would be clear powergaming and not in the spirit of the game.

But 40K doesn't, for the most part, have that. There's no guidance on how Scourges are generally equipped; you can take them with Shardcarbines for cheap anti-infantry harassment or Shredders for expensive anti-infantry destruction, but those are roles defined by the points system, not the lore. If I'm going into the kit knowing that I want to build anti-infantry Scourges, there's no reason under PL to take them with Shardcarbines. It just comes down to in-game effectiveness and/or how the models look, and 'bring whatever looks cool' was the (rightfully) criticized core to AoS's original balancing mechanism.

 catbarf wrote:
There's no guidance on how Scourges are generally equipped; you can take them with Shardcarbines for cheap anti-infantry harassment or Shredders for expensive anti-infantry destruction, but those are roles defined by the points system, not the lore. If I'm going into the kit knowing that I want to build anti-infantry Scourges, there's no reason under PL to take them with Shardcarbines. It just comes down to in-game effectiveness and/or how the models look, and 'bring whatever looks cool' was the (rightfully) criticized core to AoS's original balancing mechanism.

You might want the carbines for the range, or reliable shots, or targeting high toughness non-vehicle/Titanic units. Its' not like there's absolutely no feature they don't have over the shredders.

And again, how they look. I don't actually like putting plasma pistols on my Guard Sergeants because I don't think they should have them, what with being basic guardsmen. I want to encourage people to take what they like the sound of, what looks and sounds cool, rather than "what gives me the best DPS" - if you like the look and sound of Shredders, take Shredders - if you prefer the look of the carbines, take the carbines! But, that's just my preference.

For all those missing the point still: if you even consider min-maxing, then PL is not the system for you. It’s incompatible.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
For all those missing the point still: if you even consider min-maxing, then PL is not the system for you. It’s incompatible.

Not really - its more that power-level, because of its lack of any fine point control over upgrades, is more of a case of chatting with your opponent for longer in the pre-game to try and get an idea what they and you want from the game. Esp when dealing with upgrades that might not be visible on the model. Otherwise there's nothing to stop you going full silly, min, max or whatever you want with power levels.

 Overread wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
For all those missing the point still: if you even consider min-maxing, then PL is not the system for you. It’s incompatible.

Not really - its more that power-level, because of its lack of any fine point control over upgrades, is more of a case of chatting with your opponent for longer in the pre-game to try and get an idea what they and you want from the game. Esp when dealing with upgrades that might not be visible on the model. Otherwise there's nothing to stop you going full silly, min, max or whatever you want with power levels.

Again, you’ve entirely missed the point of PL and it’s not for you if considering min-maxing.

So, I can only really speak for myself, but here's how I build an army using PL;

I put together my Dudespeople/DudesDaemons in a way that fits the story I'm telling with them. Then I look at the Datasheet to see the applicable PL, then I add them all together. The idea that I might be accidentally power-gaming literally never comes into my head and I've never been accused of power-gaming.

I only ever build (built) an army this way to very quickly run a very fluffy game where the story and the cinematics matter(ed) more than performance AND where everyone else involved had the same mindset. IMO, a unit of Termagants armed with the 'best' weapons isn't in any way 'cheating' in a PL game, provided that there's a narrative reason why that everyone's happy with.

If they're taken just to give you a competitive advantage, well... that's not cheating but it's not really in keeping with the spirit.

Anyway, tl:dr PL is for fluff games between fluffmeisters.

I've used PL for quick pickup games and Narrative games. What is interesting is that if you take a mostly Primaris army there is almost no difference in points for each unit regardless of how you equip them. I think GW wanted to go with a streamlined system with 8th. Pandora's Box was opened long ago, however, and there are too many old units out there that can have wildly different load-outs points wise for the concept to thrive in the wilderness outside of the fortress in Nottingham.

In my experience of using PL armies built on points and armies built on PL tend to come out within 5-10% of each other if you're not deliberately trying to game the system. There are instances where PL breaks down (Scourges, Deathwatch Veterans) and you can break it if you're trying to break it but it's a reasonable way to do quick approximations for casual games.

There's plenty more than that. Most vehicles actually don't change in power level no matter how many add-ons you throw on them, but adding all those add-ons can really change the actual power of the vehicle.

You can play PL with a min/max attitude. It just changes the metagame.

Think about it. In points, you use the units that give the best bang for your points. In PL, you (can) use the units that give you the best bang for your PL.

In my experience, if I’m not taking useless upgrades, my PL armies are within 10% of the equivalent points-based list. So all I’m changing by going to PL would be adding a bunch of stupid upgrades... like power swords on my Infantry Sergeants. Or using my Vox Caster models.

In my opinion, the points values that GW has provided are not within 10% of accurate. Some aren’t even within 20% of accurate. The granularity of a 5 point upgrade on a 100 point unit would require a 5% margin of accuracy, to be valid.

In my opinion, a 100 point unit as designed by GW could be worth anywhere from 80 points to 120 points of “true value”.

As such, the argument that PL are not granular enough is irrelevant. Adding a 5 point upgrade to a unit (that could have a true value between -5 and + 15 points) might make the 100 point unit play as though it were a unit of “True Value” of anywhere between 75 and 135 points.

Loosely speaking, points is like measuring in mm instead of inches. (Approx 25 mm per inch is loosely analogous to 20 pts per PL, right?) If your measuring device is inaccurate, you still measure the incorrect number of mm. Same thing with inches. If your measuring device is broken, you won’t measure the right number of inches.

As far as I’m concerned, GW can’t measure the true value of units to within an “inch”, much less a mm. So the use of points is just allowing players to be *precisely* *inaccurate*.

These are technical terms, so feel free to google “what is the difference between precision and accuracy?”

 greatbigtree wrote:
In my experience, if I’m not taking useless upgrades

The difference in firepower that, for example, six rhinos can have between their default, low-points option (one storm bolter each) and their full cost option (two storm bolters and an hk-missile each) is fairly substantial. The difference between a chainsword in every squad vs a power axe, power maul, or power sword in every squad is pretty substantial, too, even if it may not necessarily be the best choice in terms of points. And since it doesn't cost anything, why wouldn't you use a combiweapon in every squad, too? For Orks, Big Choppas are often considered the most efficient points-wise, but if points are no issue, a pair of killsaws can up their damage immensely even if you'd frequently not spend the points on it since it's so expensive (thirty points vs five). And so on and so forth.

You keep saying "in my experience", but my personal anecdotal evidence is that I can easily keep the same 110 powerlevel on my current 2000 point list, but add 500 or so points of upgrades to make the list much, MUCH more versatile with a substantial more firepower-- and without changing any squad weapons (keeping just the cheap stormbolters on the dominions, for example). This is just sergeant upgrades, squad upgrades, and character upgrades. Giving every sister superior a power maul, inferno pistol, and combiplasma adds a ton of points, but oh boy that adds a ton of versatility and firepower to the army-- melta pistols and combiplasma are great, and with my order being Bloody Rose, that power maul is S5 AP-2 +1 attack on the charge. Giving each canoness a combiweapon and a blessed blade is a sizable upgrade. Simulacrums are five points a squad, that adds up when my list has twelve squads, but sure as hell wouldn't be useless. Adding hunter-killer missiles to every one of the ten vehicles adds up as well, but it allows for a massive alpha strike turn one, ten powerful shots against something I absolutely want dead.

 Melissia wrote:
You keep saying "in my experience", but my personal anecdotal evidence is that I can easily keep the same 110 powerlevel on my current 2000 point list, but add 500 or so points of upgrades to make the list much, MUCH more versatile with a substantial more firepower-- and without changing any squad weapons (keeping just the cheap stormbolters on the dominions, for example). This is just sergeant upgrades, squad upgrades, and character upgrades. Giving every sister superior a power maul, inferno pistol, and combiplasma adds a ton of points, but oh boy that adds a ton of versatility and firepower to the army-- melta pistols and combiplasma are great, and with my order being Bloody Rose, that power maul is S5 AP-2 +1 attack on the charge. Giving each canoness a combiweapon and a blessed blade is a sizable upgrade. Simulacrums are five points a squad, that adds up when my list has twelve squads, but sure as hell wouldn't be useless. Adding hunter-killer missiles to every one of the ten vehicles adds up as well, but it allows for a massive alpha strike turn one, ten powerful shots against something I absolutely want dead.

And do you have those modelled? Or are you just saying you have them, because you can? That's the difference I'm talking about - between "yes, I like this weapon, and would be taking it anyway" versus "I have no reason not to take this weapon, so I'm going to".

Again, knowing that this is where your mind goes to when presented with the freedom of PL tells me that we would not be suitable to play eachother, if this was your genuine take on the matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
You can play PL with a min/max attitude. It just changes the metagame.

Think about it. In points, you use the units that give the best bang for your points. In PL, you (can) use the units that give you the best bang for your PL.

This what I was trying to describe to Overread - the minmax of PL is different to points, because you have different things to consider. In PL, you only need to factor in "how powerful is this weapon". In points, you need to factor in the cost of the weapon, relative to it's strength, and finding the weapon that does good damage for cheap.

In PL, you minmax by going for the strongest gun.
In points, you minmax by finding the most undercosted gun.

Neither of those change if you're a minmaxer - you'll just adapt to the factors around you. Hence my overall point, it's not a fault of the system if the first thing you think of is "let's exploit this!"

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And do you have those modelled? Or are you just saying you have them, because you can? That's the difference I'm talking about - between "yes, I like this weapon, and would be taking it anyway" versus "I have no reason not to take this weapon, so I'm going to".

I have nearly all of my options magnetized. How do I navigate not being a tryhard cheesy WAAC exploiter when I'm told to put together a 100PL list? And why is 'I have no reason not to take this weapon' legitimate at the physical model assembly stage, but not at the building-your-list stage?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Neither of those change if you're a minmaxer - you'll just adapt to the factors around you. Hence my overall point, it's not a fault of the system if the first thing you think of is "let's exploit this!"

The points values in 40K are far from perfect, but they allow for some mechanism of choice between 'do I want two bare-bones squads, or one with all the bells and whistles'. PL treats them the same and forces you to do some kind of weird guilt test to decide if what you're taking is too much.

I have a whole crapton of metal Stormtroopers. They were sold back in the day in individual blister packs, so there's no GW-indicated standard of how many special weapons a unit 'should' have. I have enough models that I can assemble whatever squad composition I want- and under points, a unit of 10 with 4 plasma guns costs nearly double what a unit of 10 with nothing extra does. How do I decide what to take for my army under a PL system? Where's a reference for fluffy unit composition?

A real tournament min-maxer wouldn't take ten-man squads at all. They'd be taking four-man Command Squads loaded up with special weapons. I'm not doing that because that doesn't seem thematically appropriate to me; but without a points mechanism to provide a balancing factor for my equipment choices, I'm flying blind as to what my army should look like. And 'use what you have modeled' isn't relevant if what I have available is far in excess of what I can take for the current, hypothetical game.

 Melissia wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
In my experience, if I’m not taking useless upgrades

The difference in firepower that, for example, six rhinos can have between their default, low-points option (one storm bolter each) and their full cost option (two storm bolters and an hk-missile each) is fairly substantial. The difference between a chainsword in every squad vs a power axe, power maul, or power sword in every squad is pretty substantial, too, even if it may not necessarily be the best choice in terms of points. And since it doesn't cost anything, why wouldn't you use a combiweapon in every squad, too? For Orks, Big Choppas are often considered the most efficient points-wise, but if points are no issue, a pair of killsaws can up their damage immensely even if you'd frequently not spend the points on it since it's so expensive (thirty points vs five). And so on and so forth...

Which is another advantage of PL; if you're using points there are options you'll just never take because they're not cost-effective, PL frees you from some of those constraints and lets you use stuff without feeling like you need to sit down and math out the specific details of exactly how cost-effective option A is over option B.

As to the question of the costing of Rhinos an extra storm bolter is 2pts. That's a tenth of a percent of a 2,000pt army. I think that might fall well within GW's margin of error when they're costing options or unit upgrades.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
In my experience, if I’m not taking useless upgrades

The difference in firepower that, for example, six rhinos can have between their default, low-points option (one storm bolter each) and their full cost option (two storm bolters and an hk-missile each) is fairly substantial. The difference between a chainsword in every squad vs a power axe, power maul, or power sword in every squad is pretty substantial, too, even if it may not necessarily be the best choice in terms of points. And since it doesn't cost anything, why wouldn't you use a combiweapon in every squad, too? For Orks, Big Choppas are often considered the most efficient points-wise, but if points are no issue, a pair of killsaws can up their damage immensely even if you'd frequently not spend the points on it since it's so expensive (thirty points vs five). And so on and so forth...

Which is another advantage of PL; if you're using points there are options you'll just never take because they're not cost-effective, PL frees you from some of those constraints and lets you use stuff without feeling like you need to sit down and math out the specific details of exactly how cost-effective option A is over option B.

As to the question of the costing of Rhinos an extra storm bolter is 2pts. That's a tenth of a percent of a 2,000pt army. I think that might fall well within GW's margin of error when they're costing options or unit upgrades.

How is that an advantage of Power Level? You're basically saying the game becomes an unbalanced gak of a mess; sounds like a disadvantage to me.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
So, I can only really speak for myself, but here's how I build an army using PL;

I put together my Dudespeople/DudesDaemons in a way that fits the story I'm telling with them. Then I look at the Datasheet to see the applicable PL, then I add them all together. The idea that I might be accidentally power-gaming literally never comes into my head and I've never been accused of power-gaming.

I only ever build (built) an army this way to very quickly run a very fluffy game where the story and the cinematics matter(ed) more than performance AND where everyone else involved had the same mindset. IMO, a unit of Termagants armed with the 'best' weapons isn't in any way 'cheating' in a PL game, provided that there's a narrative reason why that everyone's happy with.

If they're taken just to give you a competitive advantage, well... that's not cheating but it's not really in keeping with the spirit.

Anyway, tl:dr PL is for fluff games between fluffmeisters.

Imagine being so casual at all costs to worry that picking a wargear option is power gaming, and then heavily implying that doing what Power Level does makes you a cheater.
This is why you don't play with Power Levels


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Again, knowing that this is where your mind goes to when presented with the freedom of PL tells me that we would not be suitable to play eachother, if this was your genuine take on the matter.

Freedom from what? Doing highschool maths?
Narrative play etc is just as viable in points as it is in power level.

Clearly you haven't played many table top rpg's that use *actual* character building rules, the good ol' stormwind fallacy.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

In PL, you minmax by going for the strongest gun.
In points, you minmax by finding the most undercosted gun.
...
Neither of those change if you're a minmaxer - you'll just adapt to the factors around you. Hence my overall point, it's not a fault of the system if the first thing you think of is "let's exploit this!"

But it IS the fault of a system if it's so glaringly full of holes you would have a better time reading rules found on a block of swiss cheese.
Dude, just because there's less maths involved doesn't make the system magic. Take a step back and recap.
- Any army NOT spoilt for choices is unplayable in PL
- PL is designed to allow for someone to pick all the cool options
- Picking the cool options is power gaming
- Picking the cool options is cheating

Great stuff guys.

catbarf wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And do you have those modelled? Or are you just saying you have them, because you can? That's the difference I'm talking about - between "yes, I like this weapon, and would be taking it anyway" versus "I have no reason not to take this weapon, so I'm going to".

I have nearly all of my options magnetized. How do I navigate not being a tryhard cheesy WAAC exploiter when I'm told to put together a 100PL list?

Congratulations on magnetising your weapons! Take what you like - things that you normally don't, things that you think look cool, anything. It should all balance out, but if it so happens that the majority of your army ends up being "huh, everyone's carrying the strongest possible gun they can", then I'll probably point that out, and ask that we use one of the Open War cards to swing things a bit.
Basically, take what you want, and if your opponent has any issues, sort it out together - just like I would with points.

And why is 'I have no reason not to take this weapon' legitimate at the physical model assembly stage, but not at the building-your-list stage?

Because how you build your model is up to you, and, more often that not, you probably don't play PL exclusively. Therefore, for most folks, they probably have some care about the points all the same when building them.

Again, some people simply don't like the extra "free" options that PL would give them - I don't put HKMs or pintles on every vehicle I own, because I just don't really like the look, and it's extra effort to paint. Therefore, I can't expect to gain rules that I haven't modelled. If someone has modelled everything, more power to them. if things don't work out, I'm sure that we can work things out.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Neither of those change if you're a minmaxer - you'll just adapt to the factors around you. Hence my overall point, it's not a fault of the system if the first thing you think of is "let's exploit this!"

The points values in 40K are far from perfect, but they allow for some mechanism of choice between 'do I want two bare-bones squads, or one with all the bells and whistles'. PL treats them the same and forces you to do some kind of weird guilt test to decide if what you're taking is too much.

What about undercosted units in points though - surely the same "guilt test" is there? Both points and PL have their broken elements, and if someone's just going to try and break either, I feel that's in poor spirit. I don't think it takes much intuition to work out if someone's gaming the PL system, or if they're just genuinely obsessed with plasma and power fists, but in either case, talking about what's going on like adults and being flexible to adding special conditions mid-battle are strong solutions.

I have a whole crapton of metal Stormtroopers. They were sold back in the day in individual blister packs, so there's no GW-indicated standard of how many special weapons a unit 'should' have. I have enough models that I can assemble whatever squad composition I want- and under points, a unit of 10 with 4 plasma guns costs nearly double what a unit of 10 with nothing extra does. How do I decide what to take for my army under a PL system? Where's a reference for fluffy unit composition?

Usually the box art, but an all plasma squad is also completely fluffy, and if you want to take it, go ahead. You've picked up enough models to do it.

And, while I wish more players had the "what does the fluff suggest" mindset like you reference, if someone actually does or does not care about the background is a personal decision/preference, not a game system one. Just re-emphasising that, if you go in with a certain mindset on either points or PL, you'll still get the same result.

A real tournament min-maxer wouldn't take ten-man squads at all. They'd be taking four-man Command Squads loaded up with special weapons. I'm not doing that because that doesn't seem thematically appropriate to me; but without a points mechanism to provide a balancing factor for my equipment choices, I'm flying blind as to what my army should look like. And 'use what you have modeled' isn't relevant if what I have available is far in excess of what I can take for the current, hypothetical game.

Take what you like. Seriously.

I'm sure I can tell if you're just taking all plasma to beat me, or because plasma weapons look awesome.

If things don't work out "fairly", I'd suggest throwing the weaker side a small bonus of some kind.

Eonfuzz wrote:How is that an advantage of Power Level? You're basically saying the game becomes an unbalanced gak of a mess; sounds like a disadvantage to me.

I believe you've missed their point.
They're saying that the game is unbalanced anyways with points, and that taking things that points would normally prohibit has a chance of actually making a more balanced game. I think those are slim odds, personally, but it certainly IS possible - after all, can you say that points aren't rife with undercosted/overcosted units?

Imagine being so casual at all costs to worry that picking a wargear option using is power gaming, and then saying that doing what Power Level does makes you a cheater.
This is why you don't play with Power Levels

I play with PL just fine. Enjoyed it more than points, that's for sure.

And again, no-one has said that picking a wargear option makes you a power gamer. Picking a wargear option to help you win harder, on the other hand, is a strong indicator that you lean that way.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Again, knowing that this is where your mind goes to when presented with the freedom of PL tells me that we would not be suitable to play eachother, if this was your genuine take on the matter.

Freedom from what? Doing highschool maths?

Freedom to not have to worry if that plasma gun will make your list illegal, or from leafing forwards and backwards through your Codex to find out exactly how much a Repulsor is. How many guns does it have again? 8? 9? That's a lot of addition for one model. Alternatively, I can just say "15PL", and we're good to go.

It's not that the maths is difficult, but that it's LONG. Or are you suggesting that (7x10)+(5x0)+5+(2x11)+6+7+5+4 is just as simple as 3+2 for the same unit?

the good ol' stormwind fallacy.

I haven't claimed that someone who minmaxes is incapable of narrative/fluffy play for a second. What I did say was that, if their first instinct when seeing PL is "how can I optimise this", that's not an attitude I think bodes well.

In an RPG where the players work together, an optimised character is less of a destabilising factor than in an opposed wargame.

- Any army NOT spoilt for choices is unplayable in PL

Unplayable is a very loaded term, and simply not true. Played a PL game of Necrons versus Guardsmen and Grey Knight allies, Necrons won handily. My main army right now, Primaris Marines, are exclusively made up of Primaris units, which are regarded as some of the most wargear-inflexible Marines right now. I've been doing fine with them (and, for what it's worth, I have two power fist Sergeants, two power swords, one chainsword, and one with no special weapon - just to dispel the idea that I just went all in on thunder hammers because they're the strongest weapon!).

- PL is designed to allow for someone to pick all the cool options

Yes, cool - not "most powerful".

- Picking the cool options is power gaming
- Picking the cool options is cheating.

Not at all. Take whatever weapons you've got modelled on your dudes, and, odds are over the course of your list, things with balance out (ie, a unit that you've taken with all the bells and whistles might be deployed alongside one that doesn't have quite so much going on). And, if they don't, and you're being genuine about not trying to minmax/win hard against your opponent, you should be open to the underdog getting a potential bonus if the game's going lopsided.

No-one said it was "cheating" either, in the same way that taking swathes of undercosted points units is cheating. It's not that it's illegal, it's that it's done in poor taste.

It's all about intent - taking the cool options isn't powergaming. Taking the cool options because they're the strongest is. This is in the same vein as someone taking an undercosted unit in points - taking the unit isn't a problem. Taking it simply because it's undercosted and imbalanced is.

Does that make sense?

If everyone had the same internalized sense of balance and fair play, power level would be good enough as a balancing mechanic. Of course, if everyone has the same internalized sense of balance and fair play, they wouldn’t need power level at all. :-/

Two 2000 point armies are more likely to be balanced against each other than two X PL forces. Because:
* Almost no option available to a unit changes the PL, and almost every option available to a unit is an improvement
* The number of options available to a unit can vary wildly

Looking at some of the Chaos Daemon models, there are some models that are 21pts per PL and others that are 31pts per PL. And that’s for the “What’s a wargear option?” Chaos Daemon models. And then there’s stuff like the unit sizes: 4PL for a box of 10 daemons, and then 4 more PL to add 1 to 10 models to the unit.

Give both players 16 PL to field. The only reason to field two units of 11 models (two 8 PL units) would be because the rest of the models in the boxes weren’t done yet.

Now take that standard of obvious choices, and look at the units in other books with actual wargear options.

If units were a few PL per model, and wargear options actually had disadvantages that offset their advantages (remove a model for the unit to upgrade weapons or something), then PL might be more effective than just telling people to “Use reason” when putting together a list.