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.

catbarf wrote: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.

It's less the "PL is inappropriate for competitive play" that I'm responding to (because that's a stance I agree with), but rather ones like "PL is completely useless" or "it's not my fault as a player if I want to minmax my army, and PL makes that broken".

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

I'm sure there's plenty more we've both missed!

Also aren't PL not being updated, unlike normal points? That seems like a bit problem for both under and over achivers.

Karol wrote:
Also aren't PL not being updated, unlike normal points? That seems like a bit problem for both under and over achivers.

IMO a huge problem with Power Level. It doesn't get updated to be in line with the point drops when they realise that certain units are overcosted etc.

Take the GUO as an example, still 17 PL which equates to 340 points (it's old cost) - it's now 250 but still costing 17 PL when it should really be 12 or 13

The problem with PL for me is centred around perception as much as it is the weaknesses of the PL system. I agree that, theoretically at least, there's no reason why PL couldn't be just as good as points and also agree that both points and PL can both be inaccurate representations of the relative power of two units.

However, PL really doesn't help itself when you see things like adding a single Sternguard to a 5-man unit doubles the PL of the unit while upgrading every guy with combi-weapons changes nothing. I know people will point out that if you're trying to min-max using PL you're doing it wrong, but I'm talking more about the perception of the system than the reality. Literally anyone I've spoken to about PL, including brand new players who don't even know points exist until you tell them, have mentioned the weird discrepancy that adding 1 model to a unit costs the same as adding 5 or 10 in most cases. This also makes a bit of a mockery of the idea that with PL you don't need to worry so much about unit composition, you just play with what you've got. One of the strengths of PL is that you don't need to track every last little upgrade in a squad, which is fine, but then if you happen to have 6 or 7 Sternguard the opposite is true. Now you need to worry about the size of the unit rather than what upgrades it has.

PL just seems to add far too many arbitrary decision points like that rather than meaningful ones whereas in a points system all decisions regarding army construction have much more similar weight because points tracks changes in a much more granular fashion. I'm "penalised" in more or less the same way for adding a single Sternguard model vs deciding to equip 3 out of 5 with combi-plasma, for example.

Slipspace wrote:
The problem with PL for me is centred around perception as much as it is the weaknesses of the PL system. I agree that, theoretically at least, there's no reason why PL couldn't be just as good as points and also agree that both points and PL can both be inaccurate representations of the relative power of two units.

However, PL really doesn't help itself when you see things like adding a single Sternguard to a 5-man unit doubles the PL of the unit while upgrading every guy with combi-weapons changes nothing. I know people will point out that if you're trying to min-max using PL you're doing it wrong, but I'm talking more about the perception of the system than the reality. Literally anyone I've spoken to about PL, including brand new players who don't even know points exist until you tell them, have mentioned the weird discrepancy that adding 1 model to a unit costs the same as adding 5 or 10 in most cases. This also makes a bit of a mockery of the idea that with PL you don't need to worry so much about unit composition, you just play with what you've got. One of the strengths of PL is that you don't need to track every last little upgrade in a squad, which is fine, but then if you happen to have 6 or 7 Sternguard the opposite is true. Now you need to worry about the size of the unit rather than what upgrades it has.

PL just seems to add far too many arbitrary decision points like that rather than meaningful ones whereas in a points system all decisions regarding army construction have much more similar weight because points tracks changes in a much more granular fashion. I'm "penalised" in more or less the same way for adding a single Sternguard model vs deciding to equip 3 out of 5 with combi-plasma, for example.

I think the thing here though is, for the sort of games you might play using PL, you could have a conversation along the lines of "Oh I've only got seven of my Sternguard painted; is it cool if I go over by a couple of PL?" "Yeah no bother." If, for whatever reason, that's not a conversation you're willing – or able – to have, then you can always uyse points instead.

Karol wrote:Also aren't PL not being updated, unlike normal points? That seems like a bit problem for both under and over achivers.

They do get updated, but not as frequently as points are.

I'm fairly sure that Hellblasters used to be something like 8PL when they were first released, in the current SM Codex they're more like 6PL. I think one of the more egregious times where PL was quite out of place was on Marneus Calgar, back when he had two versions. His artificer armour version was 12PL, and his Armour of Antilochus was something like 13PL in the Index. That's cool, makes sense. Then, the first Space Marines Codex, his artificer armour version was dropped, remaining Index exclusive, and his Armour of Antilochus was made cheaper (matching his lowered price in the points) to something like 11PL. So, the stronger version of Calgar got made cheaper than his weaker one. Now, with Calgar having been made into Primaris in the new Codex, he got a brand new datasheet, and new PL to match. So, the even stronger version of Calgar is.... 11PL - the same cost as his regular Terminator variant.

Now, this isn't really an issue in my eyes, with a bit of logic applied. Want to use the artificer version of Calgar? I'd say drop him to about 9PL, and keep his datasheet the same. Want to use Armour of Antilochus Calgar? Just use the datasheet for Gravis Calgar, or just play him at 10PL instead (the difference between a regular Captain and a Primaris one is about 1PL, from what I can gather).

Slipspace wrote:However, PL really doesn't help itself when you see things like adding a single Sternguard to a 5-man unit doubles the PL of the unit while upgrading every guy with combi-weapons changes nothing.

Yeah, that's one of my only real gripes with PL - it's full unit or nothing. I was having that issue when I was building my Grey Knight Paladins - I have 6 of them, which means that, RAW, if I wanted them all in one unit, I'd have to pay for an extra 4 Paladins which I'd never use! Even more annoying is that some armies actually take this into account for high model price units - nearly all Custodes units pay for their Custodians on a PL by PL basis (like, add an extra Custodian for 3PL), and annoyingly, Paladins should cost around the same, yet don't get that option. For something like an Intercessor Squad, where the squad of 5 is 5PL, an Intercessor should realistically cost 1PL to add to the squad, yet if you did only add one Intercessor, you'd be paying for 5.

However, this is one of those cases where you just realistically explain it to your opponent, and find the "closest" PL cost, rounding up for safety. So, in my case of having 6 Paladins, which roughly cost about 3 or 4PL each, I'd ask "hey, I've only got 6 Paladins, but that puts me in the weird spot between 5 and 10 of them - do you mind if I pay 4PL to the cost of the 5 man squad instead of paying for the 4 Paladins I don't have?". That takes my Paladins from costing 32PL to only costing 23PL.

Basically, if something feels extremely out of whack, just talk about it, and resolve it between yourselves.

However, yes, I do recognise that odd squad numbers are a big issue with PL, and I really want that to change.