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.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.

You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.

What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.

Gee, it's almost like the books have points updated in the form of Chapter Approved...

Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.

And just so we're clear:
It was a <Regiment> relic being placed on a non-<Regiment> model. There wasn't even any kind of errata or FAQ, Primaris Psykers flatout never had <Regiment>.

And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.

PL is wonky ANYWHERE there's a lot of options.

Did you not read what I posted?

There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost. Your Devastator example is exactly the same thing as your Deathwatch Veterans example, it's just counting the bodies.
But if you want it finessed, fine:
Devastator Squad is 6 Power. That gets you 1 Space Marine Sergeant(who can have an Armorium Cherub, 2 weapons from the Sergeant Weapons) and 4 Space Marines(who can take heavy weapons). Those extra 5 Bolter Marines? They're 3 Power.
So 5 Bolter Marines are 3 Power, not 6. You can choose to run a Devastator Squad with no Heavy Weapons, but let's not pretend anyone does that shall we?

Hey, I got an even better idea for 9th edition. I call it "Army Points". First count the number of armies you're fielding. That's how many Army Points it costs! It's really fast for setting up pick-up games. But strangely enough it's not so good for ensuring balance. Kinda like Power Level.

Hey, up for a 1 point game? Sure! Let's play!

Power level isn't for the balanced competitive games. Its for more open games like campaigns or narrative missions where it allows different options without having to change up multiple different things just to free up those 10 points to fit a lascannon instead of a heavy bolter on a russ. It pairs pretty well with wyswyg as well- Sure a vehicle could have 8 different upgrades that are free in power level, but if they arent on the model, it doesnt have them.

I've said this in the beginning: Power Level only works on the new No Model/No Rules contents in the box approach to New GW style Unit design composition and rules writing.

Powerlevel matters when buying upgrades for your old marines. Not between different Primaris bolters. Or Las fusil vs Sniper. Or flamey Aggressors and Dakka Aggressors.

Genuinely curious if there are any of the most recent dual kit (or mono pose) boxes that have such a big swing in PL abuse?

TLDR Power Level works on 8th edition units only, due to limited builds.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Power level isn't for the balanced competitive games.

I'd argue that if it isn't balanced for one, it's not balanced for any.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I've said this in the beginning: Power Level only works on the new No Model/No Rules contents in the box approach to New GW style Unit design composition and rules writing.

Powerlevel matters when buying upgrades for your old marines. Not between different Primaris bolters. Or Las fusil vs Sniper. Or flamey Aggressors and Dakka Aggressors.

Genuinely curious if there are any of the most recent dual kit (or mono pose) boxes that have such a big swing in PL abuse?

TLDR Power Level works on 8th edition units only, due to limited builds.

The Repulsor has a pretty big swing with the upgrades. Plasma vs. Bolter inceptors.

It’s not Deathwatch vet swingy, and I in generally agree with you. But there are some examples.

In an ideal power level world a flamer, melta guns, and plasma gun would all be good at their job and cost the same. What to take would depend on what role you wanted to fill, not point efficiency. Never going to happen, but I like the theory.

 Nevelon wrote:
In an ideal power level world a flamer, melta guns, and plasma gun would all be good at their job and cost the same. What to take would depend on what role you wanted to fill, not point efficiency. Never going to happen, but I like the theory.

If only there was some sort of, I dunno, "points" system for balancing the relative efficacy of different units and weapons that we could use to replace the more blanket and obtuse PL system...

I don't know how that'd work though.

Let me tell you.. as an opponent you will have a totally different game if im running 6 squads of storm guardians with expert crafters and 2 fusion guns in each squad as oppsed to 6 squads with nothing.. If I don't have to worry about paying additional 100pts+ for those upgrades... have fun lol

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
In an ideal power level world a flamer, melta guns, and plasma gun would all be good at their job and cost the same. What to take would depend on what role you wanted to fill, not point efficiency. Never going to happen, but I like the theory.

If only there was some sort of, I dunno, "points" system for balancing the relative efficacy of different units and weapons that we could use to replace the more blanket and obtuse PL system...

I don't know how that'd work though.

Heh, I know.

I prefer points.

But if we want to have a game where Power Level is how things work, all the upgrades should be lateral shifts. Like the Intercessor guns. Short range/high ROF, Long range, low ROF, or middle, jack of all trades. All are valid choices, and roughly equal. Obviously, some work better in some metas, or with other tricks, etc. But close enough to be a wash.

Or like in 5th, when a full tac squad got a MM/HB/ML for free. What do you want the squad to do? Take the right tool.

At this point with all the bloat, it would require a massive rework to make happen, Just too many options out there to balance them all, and still be unique. The fact that you can have some just be more expensive then others gives you more design space to work in.

Honestly, the deathwatch vet situation is not a problem at all. Crusade is for narrative games, that means people who love the ultra competitive are probably not interested. However, the Deathwatch player is not going to optimize every vet, he's going to add variety....because that's the narrative. Salamanders dude is getting that hvy flamer, cuz fire. Dark Angels fella...plasma pistol and power sword. This is how narrative gamers think, so don't worry about Crusade...all you hard core, points efficient competitive types can stick to points for more balanced play. It's really not an issue.

However, the Deathwatch player is not going to optimize every vet, he's going to add variety....because that's the narrative.

it's also intreasting, modeling all your minis the exact same is kiiinda dull

BrianDavion wrote:

However, the Deathwatch player is not going to optimize every vet, he's going to add variety....because that's the narrative.

it's also intreasting, modeling all your minis the exact same is kiiinda dull

Neither of which really defeat the argument that the PL system isn't necessary given that the points system already exists. It doesn't matter if you play casually, narratively, competitively or even figuratively. There's no good reason to have two different points system. It adds nothing to the game.

Also, why should Narrative=Poorly Built?

If you're going to war, do you want to have an unoptimized loadout?

Accurate points benefits every kind of player. It's not much fun when a narrative encounter which should be compelling is just a slaughter one way or the other.

Storytelling is far more difficult if bad rules are full of landmines that undermine the narrative.

I'm glad 9th will be continuing with PL. It's all my group really uses.

We also don't pre build lists. We bring a selection of models and then once we figure out the game size, grab things to field until we hit the PL of the game. I don't think we typically transport any more than a tournament player might do for an event. We probably play a lot of 50-75 PL though even if we are bringing 100 PL to the club (when we had regular club events :( )

We have never had a broken game doing things this way, but no one is tuning their lists, so that's probably the real source of our good gaming.

I'm looking forward to Crusade. Those type of growing leagues end up producing a lot of painting progress in my experience.

Ragnar69 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Voss wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Voss wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.

Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'

I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.

I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.

No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.

I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.

Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.

The only thing I remember is that GW said that they will do regular updates with CA and then the forums explodes with 'living edition' and 'no new editions' theories but GW never stated this. And I followed the news closely.

That's what I remember too.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, why should Narrative=Poorly Built?

If you're going to war, do you want to have an unoptimized loadout?

define poorly built?
You are still thinking about optimization...again, not exactly in the narrative mindset. A kill-team should probably have a loadout to handle a multitude of threats if going by the fluff.

Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with that...and I have 3 sqds of Stormbolter/stormshield vets that agree. But at the other end of that box I have some close combat vets, combi-weapon vets, etc. They'd like to play too, and this is where they get to do that...because the goal is to have a fun, narrative game...not find th emost awesome wombo/combo, points efficient unit you can field.

stratigo wrote:
Doing army lists on paper with a calculator is simply WAY too tedious these days. I have to trawl through like 3, sometimes 4, different books to find the points costs of everything, regularly referring back to the main book. It got real old real fast, and I was quite resistant to using battlescribe until maybe a yearish ago now.

What kind of soup you need? Chapter approved and what pa books with new point values in this year you need?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, why should Narrative=Poorly Built?

If you're going to war, do you want to have an unoptimized loadout?

Because its narrative fun when my army is only half as strong as your army. My dudes run around with flashlights and cant kill anything, and your dudes run around with meltas, killing my vehicles.

 p5freak wrote:
Because its narrative fun when my army is only half as strong as your army. My dudes run around with flashlights and cant kill anything, and your dudes run around with meltas, killing my vehicles.

And a points system stops you from doing this... how?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Because its narrative fun when my army is only half as strong as your army. My dudes run around with flashlights and cant kill anything, and your dudes run around with meltas, killing my vehicles.

And a points system stops you from doing this... how?

You can do balanced and unbalanced with a point system as well. But you cant do balanced with PL. Its impossible to put the power of one unit with 13 possible weapon upgrades in one number. But thats what PL does, and it doesnt work. Two company veterans with boltgun/chansword are PL3. Now add a third company veteran with the same weapons. Now they are PL8. An increase of almost 200% ! Now compare those three vets to a dread with CCW/stormbolter and assault cannon which is PL5. When we add combi meltas and thunderhammers to those vets they are still PL8. Boltgun/chainsword is as powerful as combi melta and thunderhammer

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well tneva, I agree I was a fool to believe them. On that I feel much shame.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Voss wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Voss wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.

Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'

I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.

I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.

No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.

I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.

Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.

I'm not going to 'make you' do anything. But don't tell me I'm a 'flat earther' because you won't provide evidence to support your extraordinary (and frankly ridiculous) claim. That's exactly backwards, you're the one with a theory in need of support.

They said it, believe it or not the choice is yours.

I just went through their articles around the launch of 8th and they never said anything about "living edition" on warhammer-community at least. The FAQ (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/22/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answeredgw-homepage-post-2/) doesn't mention it and it wasn't updated (checked via Wayback Machine). They said that they will make updates based on community feedback and encouraged people to give feedback via Facebook. I would be really interested to see someone post evidence regarding that.
Google search brought this articel where BOLS asks, if there will be another edition and claims, there won't be one, because on the live Q & A the desginers always spoke of feedback: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/04/40k-8th-edition-finally-a-living-rule-set.html

 p5freak wrote:
You can do balanced and unbalanced with a point system as well. But you cant do balanced with PL. Its impossible to put the power of one unit with 13 possible weapon upgrades in one number. But thats what PL does, and it doesnt work. Two company veterans with boltgun/chansword are PL3. Now add a third company veteran with the same weapons. Now they are PL8. An increase of almost 200% ! Now compare those three vets to a dread with CCW/stormbolter and assault cannon which is PL5. When we add combi meltas and thunderhammers to those vets they are still PL8. Boltgun/chainsword is as powerful as combi melta and thunderhammer

Preaching to the choir here.

PL is just another level of "points" that is ineffective, inaccurate, inbalanced, and infun. I may have made two of those words up.

It does nothing that the actual points system does already, and the existing points system is inherently more representative of comparative "power". Power Level, as an entire system, is utterly redundant.

 p5freak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Because its narrative fun when my army is only half as strong as your army. My dudes run around with flashlights and cant kill anything, and your dudes run around with meltas, killing my vehicles.

And a points system stops you from doing this... how?

You can do balanced and unbalanced with a point system as well. But you cant do balanced with PL. Its impossible to put the power of one unit with 13 possible weapon upgrades in one number. But thats what PL does, and it doesnt work. Two company veterans with boltgun/chansword are PL3. Now add a third company veteran with the same weapons. Now they are PL8. An increase of almost 200% ! Now compare those three vets to a dread with CCW/stormbolter and assault cannon which is PL5. When we add combi meltas and thunderhammers to those vets they are still PL8. Boltgun/chainsword is as powerful as combi melta and thunderhammer

Just a different target audience, the people making the most use from PL don't care how powerful it is/isn't necessarily. They're the people who insist on running tacticals with missiles and flamers because they like how it looks, or only putting the thunder hammer on a squad leader because that makes sergeant Somename stand out. Maybe they have an army where every weapon upgrade is a flamer, not efficient but they love their theme.

Yes points would allow them to have a more balanced experience in the traditional extent, but if your main drive is quick go lucky narrative fun, then PL has a place.

Honestly, the changes for this new edition have gotten me to finally start the Black Templar Crusade I've been on the fence about since 5th edition. I am also looking forward to playing crusade so I can have a story about my Crusade's Marshall (plan to use the Captain out of the new starter, assuming that the one with the skeleton on his shield is a captian and not a second LT model).

Basically the new edition has me on the hype train, something I've managed to stay off of since the 5th edition Sisters of Battle update ended up being two White Dwarf articles.

If you all hate PL so much and are disappointed Crusade uses that system, I'm sure it will be a super simple conversion to just change anything PL-related to points. So long as it is uniform for all players, there should not be much of an issue.

Raulengrin wrote:
If you all hate PL so much and are disappointed Crusade uses that system, I'm sure it will be a super simple conversion to just change anything PL-related to points. So long as it is uniform for all players, there should not be much of an issue.

Yea, I totally hate power lances too.

 p5freak wrote:
When we add combi meltas and thunderhammers to those vets they are still PL8. Boltgun/chainsword is as powerful as combi melta and thunderhammer

that is the point of PL, that you stop worring about min/max of points and just build and use the models as you like them
one weapon is better in damage per points as another one, with PL it does not matter

if you play your models naked because you just need cheap chaff in matched play instead of the cool looking ones with combi/special weapons, your choice but with PL they are the same no matter if naked and not, allowing you to build what you think looks cool without needing to care

Dudeface wrote:
Just a different target audience, the people making the most use from PL don't care how powerful it is/isn't necessarily. They're the people who insist on running tacticals with missiles and flamers because they like how it looks, or only putting the thunder hammer on a squad leader because that makes sergeant Somename stand out. Maybe they have an army where every weapon upgrade is a flamer, not efficient but they love their theme.

Yes points would allow them to have a more balanced experience in the traditional extent, but if your main drive is quick go lucky narrative fun, then PL has a place.

When we have had PL used balance has been pretty much same. Nobody starts converting every upgrade for sake of PL game so that deals with most of the silly hyperbole experiences.

What it does is encourage using less commonly seen upgrades that aren't worth it usually which ergo wouldn't be balanced in points anyway(as spending points on that would be waste and shooting self on foot)

Raulengrin wrote:
If you all hate PL so much and are disappointed Crusade uses that system, I'm sure it will be a super simple conversion to just change anything PL-related to points. So long as it is uniform for all players, there should not be much of an issue.

That’s my plan. Use points for the army lists and if there are any externalities they offer with PL costing, I’ll convert it to points.

I have never been bothered that PL exists.

Dudeface wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Because its narrative fun when my army is only half as strong as your army. My dudes run around with flashlights and cant kill anything, and your dudes run around with meltas, killing my vehicles.

And a points system stops you from doing this... how?

You can do balanced and unbalanced with a point system as well. But you cant do balanced with PL. Its impossible to put the power of one unit with 13 possible weapon upgrades in one number. But thats what PL does, and it doesnt work. Two company veterans with boltgun/chansword are PL3. Now add a third company veteran with the same weapons. Now they are PL8. An increase of almost 200% ! Now compare those three vets to a dread with CCW/stormbolter and assault cannon which is PL5. When we add combi meltas and thunderhammers to those vets they are still PL8. Boltgun/chainsword is as powerful as combi melta and thunderhammer

Just a different target audience, the people making the most use from PL don't care how powerful it is/isn't necessarily. They're the people who insist on running tacticals with missiles and flamers because they like how it looks, or only putting the thunder hammer on a squad leader because that makes sergeant Somename stand out. Maybe they have an army where every weapon upgrade is a flamer, not efficient but they love their theme.

Yes points would allow them to have a more balanced experience in the traditional extent, but if your main drive is quick go lucky narrative fun, then PL has a place.

Except GW is now trying to say that the two systems are balanced enough that you can use your crusade force (in PL) against a match play army in Points. That seems totally at odds with the point of creating two systems in the first place as they aren't going to be balanced.

Also if 50 PL =500 points then 1 PL = 10 points that would certainly imply that gone will be the days of feee weapon choice as they will all have different PL costs at which point what is the point of PL over points if you still have to add PL for gear?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

However, the Deathwatch player is not going to optimize every vet, he's going to add variety....because that's the narrative.

it's also intreasting, modeling all your minis the exact same is kiiinda dull

Neither of which really defeat the argument that the PL system isn't necessary given that the points system already exists. It doesn't matter if you play casually, narratively, competitively or even figuratively. There's no good reason to have two different points system. It adds nothing to the game.

Provided all players are acting in good faith it adds to ability to evaluate a slightly more abstracted relative effectiveness of two forces, while not getting bogged down in the details.

A small amount of imbalance gets drowned out by scenario, terrain, and player strategy so long as no one is making force decisions based purely on out of narrative statistical reasoning.

Just, because you can't think outside the box of constructed play doesn't make PL useless. But let me give you an example to illustrate what I mean.

Say you are playing a small narrative campaign. All players are told to assemble 300PL of bare units (basic equipment as described in the unit card) and are allowed to apply 1d3+4 individual upgrades to any units within their force (a single unit can be chosen multiple times).

They then pick 100PL to deploy in their first game with a description of the objectives and terrain. They still do not know what their opponent will be. This 100PL force must be run for the next two games without changes, and any downed models will be rolled for at the end of each match to determine if they wounded, out-of-action, or killed. Prior to game 4 can you sub out units and also gain one additional upgrade of your choice before continuing for another 3 games and determining a winner based on objective completion.

Please explain how points makes this system better?

Also I want to make something perfectly clear, I couldn't care less if you think the above is overly convoluted, house rules-y, or restrictive. I don't care if you never have played a campaign like this, don't want to play a campaign like this, or never will.

But you are trying to claim that PL, a completely extra system that you can choose to simply ignore, shouldn't exist so unless you can explain why the way you play is objectively better than how I play. Well you can go take a pleasure cruise thought the warp.

JNAProductions wrote:Also, why should Narrative=Poorly Built?

If you're going to war, do you want to have an unoptimized loadout?

Because wars are never fought with perfectly balanced forces, rarely with the best equipment in existence, or even always with the right equipment for the specific conflict.

This goes doubly so when many wargear items are difficult to replace, costly to manufacture or priceless relics...