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:
And do you have those modelled?

The first of the new Sisters of Battle minis shipped yesterday, and without such units as the Canoness, Exorcist, and other such necessities. I ran games to playtest various builds using proxies.

Using PL lets you build units that are worth more in points than a straight conversion would indicate.

It can also create inefficient units, like a 2 PL character worth 35 points. If one were to play competitive PL (and you can) such units might not be taken. If a person plays competitively, that person will take massive amounts of what look like “free upgrades”.

But that’s the tail wagging the dog. In PL, you’re charged for a fully kitted unit, and can then choose to not use the “optimum” load out if you so choose. That changes the metagame as to which units are “undercosted” compared to true value.

Again, in PL, you don’t get free upgrades. You pay for a unit kitted out in any manner you so choose, and you can choose to “under equip” a unit if you so desire.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Using PL lets you build units that are worth more in points than a straight conversion would indicate.

It can also create inefficient units, like a 2 PL character worth 35 points. If one were to play competitive PL (and you can) such units might not be taken. If a person plays competitively, that person will take massive amounts of what look like “free upgrades”.

But that’s the tail wagging the dog. In PL, you’re charged for a fully kitted unit, and can then choose to not use the “optimum” load out if you so choose. That changes the metagame as to which units are “undercosted” compared to true value.

Again, in PL, you don’t get free upgrades. You pay for a unit kitted out in any manner you so choose, and you can choose to “under equip” a unit if you so desire.

You're usually charged for a medium kitted out unit, not a fully kitted out unit. If you take the most expensive upgrades you are getting an advantage over points, if you take the cheapest you're at a disadvantage, if you take something in the middle things should be the same assuming no pts updates or pts costs that add up to something other that isn't divisible by 20.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

Lol, as it turn out, no, they don't have models that came out yesterday or next week or two weeks from now modeled yet. Who'da thunk huh?

Eonfuzz wrote: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

Imagine being so gung-ho about sharing your inane opinion that you don't bother checking what a poster is actually saying and what they're responding to before you unload a whole bunch of strawmen on them.

Again, I use(d) PL for one very specific type of game. It doesn't follow that all of my games used PL, especially so when I explicitly say I use(d) points for all other types of game. I explicitly said that taking all the 'best guns' is not cheating. I said this in response to another poster who raised the spectre of powergaming accusations.

Raise your game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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 think the core fallacy here is the idea that because points aren't perfect, we might as well throw them out entirely and go with something less accurate and less effective as a balancing mechanism.

Yeah, I know that grenade launchers are a bit overcosted for my Stormtroopers, but I still enjoy taking them in casual games because being 8pts cheaper than a plasma gun can buy me a whole extra guy for the squad. Under PL, why would I bother? I'd just take the plasma gun. There are degrees of competitiveness and optimization; points break down under the most ruthless tournament-oriented optimization, while PL breaks if you optimize at all.

And that's really the thing. You're not arguing in favor of PL as a mechanic, you're arguing in favor of a very casual attitude where we don't optimize at all, and praising PL because by being so easy to break it's obvious when someone is trying to optimize.

AoS's original balancing mechanism of 'bring literally whatever you want; if your enemy has more models you get an easier objective' would probably work for you. I don't mean that as an insult; you're clearly looking for like-minded casual players and are okay with doing the grunt work of deciding whether your forces look balanced to one other. I mean, you can make the same arguments for that system that you are for PL: PL isn't perfectly balanced, just bring whatever you want and we'll eyeball it to make a fair game.

But that's insufficient for a majority of the playerbase; not because we're all WAAC tryhards, but because either we enjoy playing to win (which entails some degree of optimization) or we don't want to have to decide for ourselves whether two armies are balanced (especially when the players have very different views of how powerful the armies are).

Melissia wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And do you have those modelled?

The first of the new Sisters of Battle minis shipped yesterday, and without such units as the Canoness, Exorcist, and other such necessities. I ran games to playtest various builds using proxies.

I thought you were talking about pre-existing models, or just being hypothetical.

Going under the assumption that, as you were saying, just playtesting, sure, no problem. But for a more established collection? Sorry, I'd be asking for WYSIWYG here. No vox casters in Infantry Squads unless you have them modelled, no hunter killer missiles unless you have them represented, etc etc.

In the case of "I've literally only just got my hands on these, I want to playtest them", I'm happy to suspend that.

ERJAK wrote:Lol, as it turn out, no, they don't have models that came out yesterday or next week or two weeks from now modeled yet. Who'da thunk huh?

You do know that Sisters did exist prior to this recent plastics?
Hence why I asked for more details on their situation, yes?

catbarf wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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 think the core fallacy here is the idea that because points aren't perfect, we might as well throw them out entirely and go with something less accurate and less effective as a balancing mechanism.

That's not what I claimed.

Points are imbalanced in places, but they shouldn't be thrown out. I'm not advocating for one single army building mechanism - I want points AND PL to exist. Did you think that I only wanted PL?

The advantage of PL, as I've said, is that they're far easier to calculate on the fly, are far more suitable for players who are less interested in winning and prefer less optimisation, and are much more beginner friendly - those are things that points won't be able to do to the same degree.

Yeah, I know that grenade launchers are a bit overcosted for my Stormtroopers, but I still enjoy taking them in casual games because being 8pts cheaper than a plasma gun can buy me a whole extra guy for the squad. Under PL, why would I bother? I'd just take the plasma gun.

That's because of your mindset though - not PL.

Your motivating factor shown above (and I'm only going on that, so it's not at all a true reflection of you personally) is entirely driven by mechanics. You concern yourself with how good it is in regards to what it brings to your odds of winning. That's YOUR mindset though, and that was your choice to focus on that priority.

There are degrees of competitiveness and optimization; points break down under the most ruthless tournament-oriented optimization, while PL breaks if you optimize at all.

So, what have we learned? If you're going to optimise, don't play PL!

Is that a problem? Not for me.

And that's really the thing. You're not arguing in favor of PL as a mechanic

I mean, I have been. But sure, let's ignore that.

you're arguing in favor of a very casual attitude where we don't optimize at all, and praising PL because by being so easy to break it's obvious when someone is trying to optimize.

What's wrong with a very casual attitude where people don't optimise though? I mean, I think most people who are pro-PL have made it very clear - "this isn't for people who want to optimise, so just don't play it if that's how you enjoy it".

Just like how comp tournaments don't exactly meet the wants of more casual, narrative hobbyists, why should we expect PL to meet the wants of players who want more fine-tuned games?

But that's insufficient for a majority of the playerbase; not because we're all WAAC tryhards, but because either we enjoy playing to win (which entails some degree of optimization) or we don't want to have to decide for ourselves whether two armies are balanced (especially when the players have very different views of how powerful the armies are).

And that's fine! The majority of the playerbase can go and play points instead! After all, it's not like PL is the only option available, nor does anyone want it to be.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Melissia wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And do you have those modelled?

The first of the new Sisters of Battle minis shipped yesterday, and without such units as the Canoness, Exorcist, and other such necessities. I ran games to playtest various builds using proxies.

I thought you were talking about pre-existing models, or just being hypothetical.

I was talking about Sisters of Battle. An incomplete list of Sisters of Battle new miniatures went on pre-order last week and were shipped yesterday, and we're still waiting on important minis like our basic generic HQ to be released (and it's likely we'll be waiting a few weeks longer). While I did have Sisters minis in the past, I sold much of my collection (from Sisters, to Orks, to Guard) off to pay for college textbooks many years ago.

Ultimately it doesn't actually matter, however. Your point, insofar as you can even call it a point, is irrelevant. Plenty of people just magnetize options they sometimes use. And I am seriously considering it for things like the Exorcist now that it has two weapon options, as well as for Retributors and Dominions. Meaning, they can be swapped out on the fly for more powerful options depending on if it's PL or Points. PL being a poorly balanced mess for competitive play doesn't go away just because of your argument. PL is fine for pick-up games where you don't really have plans on what you intend to play, like someone only brought a certain number of units and you had plans for a bigger game, for example. Or for throwing together a quick narrative game. Points are just as good, to someone like me who is decent at math, but not everyone has the inclination for such things, thus PL.

But points are still better for competitive play, and are definitely more balanced than PL are.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Melissia wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And do you have those modelled?

The first of the new Sisters of Battle minis shipped yesterday, and without such units as the Canoness, Exorcist, and other such necessities. I ran games to playtest various builds using proxies.

I thought you were talking about pre-existing models, or just being hypothetical.

I was talking about Sisters of Battle. An incomplete list of Sisters of Battle new miniatures went on pre-order last week and were shipped yesterday, and we're still waiting on important minis like our basic generic HQ to be released (and it's likely we'll be waiting a few weeks longer).

Yes, I gathered. However, I didn't know if you had pre-existing Sisters, or were just talking in the hypothetical. Still, that's sorted.

Ultimately it doesn't actually matter, however. Your point, insofar as you can even call it a point, is irrelevant. Plenty of people just magnetize options they sometimes use. And I am seriously considering it for things like the Exorcist now that it has two weapon options, as well as for Retributors and Dominions. Meaning, they can be swapped out on the fly for more powerful options depending on if it's PL or Points.

Well, that's your choice to do that, but as you have said, you're doing it in order to gain power. That's not a failing of PL because you have that set of priorities.*

PL being a poorly balanced mess for competitive play doesn't go away just because of your argument. PL is fine for pick-up games where you don't really have plans on what you intend to play, like someone only brought a certain number of units and you had plans for a bigger game, for example. Or for throwing together a quick narrative game. Points are just as good, to someone like me who is decent at math, but not everyone has the inclination for such things, thus PL.

But points are still better for competitive play, and are definitely more balanced than PL are.

I never claimed otherwise? What's with people thinking that, just because I like PL, I think it's the One True Way of playing 40k, and no other army building systems need to exist? I've outright said PL isn't for competitive play - but that doesn't bother me, since I don't play comp. What I *have* said is that PL does have a place and a use, whether it's suitable for you as an individual depends on your priorities and outlook on the game and what you want from it.

If someone happens to be a hobbyist who prioritises power and the most optimal weapons for the game, that's not a fault of PL. It just means it's not suitable for you, in the same way that baroque music is generally unsuitable for someone who prefers grime - it's not a fault of the music that they have those preferences.

*just to clarify, there is nothing wrong with having those priorities, and everyone is free to enjoy the hobby in their own way!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I never claimed otherwise?

Then stop making unnecessary arguments against people who are saying exactly this. I've been saying PL is fine for pick-up games from the start of this edition, yet here we are.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I never claimed otherwise?

Then stop making unnecessary arguments against people who are saying exactly this. I've been saying PL is fine for pick-up games from the start of this edition, yet here we are.

I've not been. I've been making "unnecessary" arguments against people saying that "it's the game's fault for being unbalanced if I want to minmax", which is very different.

People saying "PL's not for you if you want to optimise"? I've never argued against that at all.

Unless, of course, you can point out where I did that.

Sure. You argued against my posts where my only point this entire thread was that PL was not balanced for competitive play.

I never said PL was overall bad, but I think I showed that it certainly does not fulfill the goal of a strong level of balance compared to points.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Eonfuzz wrote: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

Again, I use(d) PL for one very specific type of game. It doesn't follow that all of my games used PL, especially so when I explicitly say I use(d) points for all other types of game. I explicitly said that taking all the 'best guns' is not cheating. I said this in response to another poster who raised the spectre of powergaming accusations.

Except you basically did, see below:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
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.

The fact we're even talking about the "thread" of power gaming while building lists for PL is telling.

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.

If something is not in the spirit of it, and you directly compare it to *cheating* - what is it?

 Melissia wrote:
Sure. You argued against my posts where my only point this entire thread was that PL was not balanced for competitive play.

I never said PL was overall bad, but I think I showed that it certainly does not fulfill the goal of a strong level of balance compared to points.

But if PL's problems (ie, terrible, sloppy and under maintained balance) are answered by another system - does it not make that other system far superior?
thus, the worse option is worse, a la bad.

I'd be fine if they kept them both. Obviously there's space for both or we wouldn't have them but personally, if it came to a choice between the two, i'd be a point man. I prefer the nuance of points and enjoy using it to make lists.

I can see the benefits and uses in both systems but if you start being able to adjust power levels for different equipment loadouts you might as well just use points as you're effectively already doing it.

Eonfuzz- we don’t need another Peregrine, all CAAC as an insult and telling people they’re wrong or PL is bad... this is just silly fun-policing. Don’t do it. You cannot disprove someone else’s experience, so don’t make yourself look foolish. Different people enjoy different things.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Eonfuzz- we don’t need another Peregrine, all CAAC as an insult and telling people they’re wrong or PL is bad... this is just silly fun-policing. Don’t do it. You cannot disprove someone else’s experience, so don’t make yourself look foolish. Different people enjoy different things.

I never argued it wasn't fun, hell, some people find Shadowrun 6e fun.
I'm arguing it's a worse system that introduces more problems than it fixes.

Point of order: Asserting that Points are more *accurate* than PL is false. Points are more *precise* but are not more accurate.

Also, it was asserted that the PL value is based around an “average load out” in points. This is irrelevant in competitive terms, as you *can* take all the goodies. In points, you could choose to pay 150 points for a unit worth 120. That’s your option. In points, you can play *fewer* points than the limit, you just can’t go over.

PL is generally regarded as being a casual environment, but it doesn’t need to be. If both players approach the game in a cut-throat way, both players will optimize their PL spending to get the best value from their list. Just like people playing points would do.

All it does is change the metagame of which units are most exploitable. As precision does not equal accuracy, it’s simply playing a different costing compared to points.

Neither format can claim to be more *accurate*. If the true value of unit - Marines with guns and special movement rules- is 175 True Value Units, and according to “points” you pay 190 or PL you pay 9 (180 points) then PL is more accurate.

And we can turn that on it’s head and say 175 TVU costs 170 points, or 7 PL (140 points) then Points is more accurate.

Without a measure of True Value Units to compare to, all we can assert is that points are more precise.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Point of order: Asserting that Points are more *accurate* than PL is false. Points are more *precise* but are not more accurate.

Also, it was asserted that the PL value is based around an “average load out” in points. This is irrelevant in competitive terms, as you *can* take all the goodies. In points, you could choose to pay 150 points for a unit worth 120. That’s your option. In points, you can play *fewer* points than the limit, you just can’t go over.

PL is generally regarded as being a casual environment, but it doesn’t need to be. If both players approach the game in a cut-throat way, both players will optimize their PL spending to get the best value from their list. Just like people playing points would do.

All it does is change the metagame of which units are most exploitable. As precision does not equal accuracy, it’s simply playing a different costing compared to points.

Neither format can claim to be more *accurate*. If the true value of unit - Marines with guns and special movement rules- is 175 True Value Units, and according to “points” you pay 190 or PL you pay 9 (180 points) then PL is more accurate.

And we can turn that on it’s head and say 175 TVU costs 170 points, or 7 PL (140 points) then Points is more accurate.

Without a measure of True Value Units to compare to, all we can assert is that points are more precise.

That's totally false, there's a reason why tournaments aren't using Power Levels.
Something being more "precise" is more balanced.

As an anology you have to balance two weights, one is 140-200 kg, the other is 140-200kg how do you balance those two weights?
It'd be easier if you knew one was 140kg and the other was 200kg; just means you need 10 of the first to 7 of the second!

Alternatively I could play Necrons and never be able to hold a candle to insert-army-that-has-wargear-options-here, thanks Power Levels!

 greatbigtree wrote:
If both players approach the game in a cut-throat way, both players will optimize their PL spending to get the best value from their list. Just like people playing points would do.

...Yeah, except that the actual choice available with PL is much more limited, since there is no tactical niche for suboptimal weapons or cheap/lightweight units. You take the best thing you can on every unit.

If we threw out points and PL entirely and went by model count, we could probably finagle our way to balance in a '100 model list', relying on self-imposed limitations on power to get a balanced game, and walk away saying 'and if both players approach it in a cutthroat way, they'll optimize their models to get the best value'. That's technically true, but doesn't mean balancing by model count is just as effective as balancing by points.

@ Eonfuzz: please google the difference between accuracy and precision. What I state is true. Tournaments can use points, and they can use PL, I’ve seen both, though I’m not a tournament player myself.

Precision has nothing to do with balance, at all. “Holistic Accuracy” in the True Value between two armies is what creates mathematical balance between the forces.

When using points, there are (demonstrably) armies that have a higher True Value than the point total. Those armies consistently outperform other armies at the same *points* value, because the True Value of Army A could be 2200 points, while the True Value of Army B could be 1950 points... even though both are precisely measure to 2000 points, the measurement is inaccurate compared to True Value.

Conversely, the armies that top the *Points* metagame may not succeed as well in a PL meta. Army Q has a true value of 110 PL, while Army W has a true value of 98 PL. Both are measured to be 100 PL, but again, this is clearly not accurate.

Optimal upgrades change from the most points efficient, to take whatever seems to do the job best. Yes, adding a Power Sword to every Infantry Sergeant might add... 80 points to a list. But do you get 80 points of true value from that?

No. You certainly do not. So the “accuracy” of points is false. Which is why you wouldn’t see that in a competitive *points* game. Whereas in PL, I can put those Power Swords on my Sergeants because it looks cool, and when they’re shot off the board without seeing close combat? Who cares?

My same reasoning goes into Death Company. You could give them all Thunder Hammers, but you wouldn’t in a points game. Because half of them will be dead before they arrive. That would make them points inefficient. Instead, you play the 2 upgrades per 5 dudes game. A mid-range set of upgrades?

So yes, the Death Company with 10/10 Thunder Hammers has the potential to do tremendous damage, in real experience, you’re unlikely to land with even half of those. So you’re right back to a true value of 4/10 dudes with TH, even through they’re all modeled with them.

Consider how, in points, Meltaguns cost more points than Plasma. Does that seem accurate? If you could, for no increase in PL take a MG or PG, which would you take? Probably the PG, even though you could exploit the points loophole and get the “more valuable” meltagun for the same resource investment?

Precision does not equal accuracy.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Precision does not equal accuracy.

You're misusing that phrase. That's referring to 'precision' in the sense of mathematical consistency, not 'precision' as in the granularity of numerical systems (as used in computer science). Accuracy is unrelated to precision in the first sense, but absolutely requires precision in the second sense, which is what we're talking about here.

So far I haven't seen any reason to think that the lack of granularity in PL combined with the non-representation of upgrades under the PL system leads to a more balanced game.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I can put those Power Swords on my Sergeants because it looks cool, and when they’re shot off the board without seeing close combat? Who cares?

How about seeing close combat with a champion with a measly chainsword? Your freedom is an illusion, what you really like is champs with power swords not being garbo, instead, chainswords are garbo, if you think chainswords are cool you are out of luck. People should be incentivised to rip models apart as little as possible, PL fails in this regard to a larger extent than pts do with the rare exception where a more powerful option costs more instead of the same as in PL or more as is the case with most pts options.

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ Eonfuzz: please google the difference between accuracy and precision. What I state is true. Tournaments can use points, and they can use PL, I’ve seen both, though I’m not a tournament player myself.

Precision has nothing to do with balance, at all. “Holistic Accuracy” in the True Value between two armies is what creates mathematical balance between the forces.

When using points, there are (demonstrably) armies that have a higher True Value than the point total. Those armies consistently outperform other armies at the same *points* value, because the True Value of Army A could be 2200 points, while the True Value of Army B could be 1950 points... even though both are precisely measure to 2000 points, the measurement is inaccurate compared to True Value.

Conversely, the armies that top the *Points* metagame may not succeed as well in a PL meta. Army Q has a true value of 110 PL, while Army W has a true value of 98 PL. Both are measured to be 100 PL, but again, this is clearly not accurate.

Optimal upgrades change from the most points efficient, to take whatever seems to do the job best. Yes, adding a Power Sword to every Infantry Sergeant might add... 80 points to a list. But do you get 80 points of true value from that?

No. You certainly do not. So the “accuracy” of points is false. Which is why you wouldn’t see that in a competitive *points* game. Whereas in PL, I can put those Power Swords on my Sergeants because it looks cool, and when they’re shot off the board without seeing close combat? Who cares?

My same reasoning goes into Death Company. You could give them all Thunder Hammers, but you wouldn’t in a points game. Because half of them will be dead before they arrive. That would make them points inefficient. Instead, you play the 2 upgrades per 5 dudes game. A mid-range set of upgrades?

So yes, the Death Company with 10/10 Thunder Hammers has the potential to do tremendous damage, in real experience, you’re unlikely to land with even half of those. So you’re right back to a true value of 4/10 dudes with TH, even through they’re all modeled with them.

Consider how, in points, Meltaguns cost more points than Plasma. Does that seem accurate? If you could, for no increase in PL take a MG or PG, which would you take? Probably the PG, even though you could exploit the points loophole and get the “more valuable” meltagun for the same resource investment?

Precision does not equal accuracy.

Right, so you're saying anecdotally points are bad because marines got shot off the table.

A guesstimation of points that has flaws in it as pointed out multiple times in the scope of this topic is further away from this "True value" you speak of.
If you wish to truly hit this "True Value" You'd need to take into account matchups, composition and player skill, which neither do. But as a function of accuracy, the revised ruleset that is used in tournaments must be assumed to be more accurate.

Yet again, no tournaments use power level because of obvious problems
Yet again, power level has obvious problems for armies that do not have a plethora of wargear options
Yet again, assuming both players behave how the ruleset expect (ie, 50% wargear in a unit) the system works
Yet again, doing ANYTHING outside of that causes power levels to break down
Yet again, points addresses all the above issues

But, I will give you that there are serious balance and design in the ecosystem of 40k, but that has more to do with greed and design space.
But, I will give you that points are unrealistic for pick up and play games

Power Levels nor points will fix deep strike alpha strike shenanigans, nor bad design in making whole factions obviously more powerful than others.
The short story is that Points *is* a better system than Power Level, but neither of them are totally perfect, and the more concessions you make to a human player base, the less accurate it becomes.
Fun can be found in anything, I personally find DnD 5e to be terribly bland and lazily designed, and yet I can still have fun while playing the roll d20+level game.

Melissia wrote:Sure. You argued against my posts where my only point this entire thread was that PL was not balanced for competitive play.

I never said PL was overall bad, but I think I showed that it certainly does not fulfill the goal of a strong level of balance compared to points.

What you said was

Melissia wrote:There's no depth to the choice. It's either take it and be stronger, or don't take it and be weaker..

I'm not saying for a second that you think PL is overall bad, or that I disagree PL is bad for competitive play. My point is that the attitude of "there's no reason not to take it because it's the strongest option" is to do with the player's mindset, not the game.

Literally, it's as simple as that - if someone wants to use the most powerful weaponry, that's their decision to do so. The game isn't forcing you to take the best gear.

catbarf wrote:...Yeah, except that the actual choice available with PL is much more limited, since there is no tactical niche for suboptimal weapons or cheap/lightweight units. You take the best thing you can on every unit.

That's on you for only caring about the power of your army though. That's your personal preferences and priorities in the game there. Your mindset and attitude towards playing would indicate that PL is just not compatible with you - and that's okay! You should just play points instead.

For someone who doesn't have that "gotta take the best thing on every guy" mentality, PL isn't a problem. Again, pick the game system that best suits your needs. Want more precise balance? Play points. Want quicker and less restrictive play? Play PL. Neither is "right" or "wrong" or objectively better than the other - and they both fill different roles.

I don't get why people think that it's one or the other here.

Eonfuzz wrote:Yet again, power level has obvious problems for armies that do not have a plethora of wargear options

That's assuming that someone playing an army with a plethora or wargear options takes all the best gear. That, however, is down to the person playing it.

Yet again, doing ANYTHING outside of that causes power levels to break down

So someone seeking to do that deliberately shouldn't play PL. Simple.

So, anyone who's expressed the "there's no reason I shouldn't take the best weapon!" opinion realistically should stick with points, unless they're playing PL with someone of the same mindset.

Yet again, points addresses all the above issues

However, units may have imbalanced points, wherein all the same problems are repeated (ie, people spamming undercosted units, overcosted factions being imbalanced against undercosted ones, etc etc).

If someone seeks to exploit imbalances, that's down to the player, not the game, IMO.

But, I will give you that points are unrealistic for pick up and play games

In all fairness, pick up and play isn't great regardless of points or PL without first asserting with your opponent what kind of game you're playing. If both players go in with the same mindset, they'll largely be fine with whichever system they choose. If they don't, then PL or points regardless, they'll probably have a bad time.

The short story is that Points *is* a better system than Power Level, but neither of them are totally perfect, and the more concessions you make to a human player base, the less accurate it becomes.

Agreed, but only on the caveat that "better" means "more balanced". Again, to emphasise, some people don't care all that much for balance, and assigning the idea of "less balanced = bad" devalues the playing experience of people who care less about balance.

Fun can be found in anything

Can't argue with that, and just accepting that someone's idea of fun can be very different to someone else's should realistically mean that every style of play should be regarded as equally valid.

I stg this forum could just be distilled down into like five permanent threads going round in the same circles over and over again:

• Mad about GW prices vs not mad about GW prices
• Mad about rules vs not mad about rules
• Mad about PL vs not mad about PL
• Mad about painting vs not mad about painting
• Other (what else are you mad about this week?)

 Nazrak wrote:
I stg this forum could just be distilled down into like five permanent threads going round in the same circles over and over again:

• Mad about GW prices vs not mad about GW prices
• Mad about rules vs not mad about rules
• Mad about PL vs not mad about PL
• Mad about painting vs not mad about painting
• Other (what else are you mad about this week?)

Ooh, and "Mad about Primaris vs not mad about Primaris"!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That's on you for only caring about the power of your army though. That's your personal preferences and priorities in the game there. Your mindset and attitude towards playing would indicate that PL is just not compatible with you - and that's okay! You should just play points instead.

For someone who doesn't have that "gotta take the best thing on every guy" mentality, PL isn't a problem. Again, pick the game system that best suits your needs. Want more precise balance? Play points. Want quicker and less restrictive play? Play PL. Neither is "right" or "wrong" or objectively better than the other - and they both fill different roles.

I don't get why people think that it's one or the other here.

Read the post I was responding to. They're arguing that PL is equally suited to competitive play as points, and that PL is just as accurate at capturing the value of a unit.

If someone just says that PL is a handy tool to quickly calculate rough parity for casual or narrative games, but breaks down if you try to use it competitively, then I'm 100% in agreement. And I use PL, for exactly that purpose.

I just don't buy that it's equally suited for competitive play, that it produces a different, but comparably deep meta, or that it's just as accurate as points.

Edit: Same for your response to Eonfuzz; you seem to be missing the context that he is responding to someone who is making the claim that PL is just as suited to competitive play as points.

For someone who doesn't have that "gotta take the best thing on every guy" mentality, PL isn't a problem. Again, pick the game system that best suits your needs. Want more precise balance? Play points. Want quicker and less restrictive play? Play PL. Neither is "right" or "wrong" or objectively better than the other - and they both fill different roles.

Up until an army that has options balanced with real points for its army play against an army where GW did not give any squad or unit upgrades, and the balance of options comes from something else. Then playing casualy or not, one person can be double punished.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
But if PL's problems (ie, terrible, sloppy and under maintained balance) are answered by another system - does it not make that other system far superior?
thus, the worse option is worse, a la bad.

That's up to you. PL has the advantage of being simpler to calculate and thus a lot of people who aren't as fast with mental math (and don't have a lot of things memorized) will favor it for quick pick-up games.

The kind of games you use powerlevel for are very different than the kind of games you use points for. But if you feel PL's downsides outweigh its upsides, then yeah, to you PL is outright worse.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I stg this forum could just be distilled down into like five permanent threads going round in the same circles over and over again:

• Mad about GW prices vs not mad about GW prices
• Mad about rules vs not mad about rules
• Mad about PL vs not mad about PL
• Mad about painting vs not mad about painting
• Other (what else are you mad about this week?)

Ooh, and "Mad about Primaris vs not mad about Primaris"!

Ah, I *knew* there'd be one I forgot!