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.

Honestly I don't get why people are getting bent out of shape about the PL. It's not like Narrative Players haven't spent most of the last 3 years using points anyways.

PL isn't a horrible system in concept, but unfortunately I don't trust people to not game a system if given half a chance. If they update PL to adjust based on wargear (say +1 PL if your tactical squad takes a special weapon for example) then sure, but as is it can get pretty lopsided.

Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.

Ice_can wrote:

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?

25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much. They're saying a crusade army can be balanced against a match play army, that's an army where half of it have more special rules and or gear than the marched play equivalent.

We dont know enough of the veteran methods to know how that stacks up, but unless you're playing die hard tourney lists the armies shouldnt be that far removed you cant have a game.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.

I'm willing to bet there will be people playing with the Crusade system using points, which will smooth over playing with matched play folks in pick up games a bit easier to manage.

But yeah, this whole back and forth has gone on for too many pages for what is basically a non-issue.

 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.

Since people are using it you are by default proven wrong(hardly surprise)

Jack Flask wrote:


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...

Honestly, this. Power Level is just another, simpler way to build your army, that's all.

Yes, you can optimize the lists with Power Level. Same with points system. The method is simply different. It's all in the player's mindset, in the end.

That doesn't mean you can't have interesting games in Narrative Play with Power Level, nor that narrative players don't play to win. They just add the narrative part into the equation, not just mindlessly spamming the best units in their army list because they can.

And anyway, that Crusade system really sounds like it doesn't matter that much in the end. I feel like it's more about another way to build your collection than anything else. Sure, you can give a few toys to your units, but they'll have to suffer the wounds as well.

To be honest, I'm waiting to know more - I'm not that hyped so far.

Dudeface wrote:

25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.

3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

 p5freak wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.

3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

Which just shows that the point system is broken.

Sarouan wrote:

And anyway, that Crusade system really sounds like it doesn't matter that much in the end. I feel like it's more about another way to build your collection than anything else. Sure, you can give a few toys to your units, but they'll have to suffer the wounds as well..

Eh if it was just adding toys with no drawack it would be building up collection for sure.

 p5freak wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.

3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

Given the power level for 5 dudes is the same as 3, you're being obtuse by taking less dudes than you can for the amount you've paid. If you then work out the mean for that unit of 5 it happens to be 472.5, which is weirdly nearly 500. Almost like it's intended to represent a unit that hasn't been min/maxed or exists somewhere in the mid ground.

Dudeface wrote:

Given the power level for 5 dudes is the same as 3, you're being obtuse by taking less dudes than you can for the amount you've paid.

Which is utterly ridiculous, more models for the same points.

Dudeface wrote:

If you then work out the mean for that unit of 5 it happens to be 472.5, which is weirdly nearly 500. Almost like it's intended to represent a unit that hasn't been min/maxed or exists somewhere in the mid ground.

Wow, one combination of dozens works out, which proves that 25L = 500 pts. ??

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.

3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

Which just shows that the point system is broken.

And in practice who has all those thunderhammer/combi melta death companies?

As I said above. Hyperbole exaggeration. Those making claims like that are just net crying and haven't actually tried it in practice.

 p5freak wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Given the power level for 5 dudes is the same as 3, you're being obtuse by taking less dudes than you can for the amount you've paid.

Which is utterly ridiculous, more models for the same points.

Dudeface wrote:

If you then work out the mean for that unit of 5 it happens to be 472.5, which is weirdly nearly 500. Almost like it's intended to represent a unit that hasn't been min/maxed or exists somewhere in the mid ground.

Wow, one combination of dozens works out, which proves that 25L = 500 pts. ??

Please, find me an example where the rough 25 = 500 points doesn't work out for the mean value of the units min & max points. Or admit it's irrelevant since you don't care and let others get on with doing what they like.

Jack Flask wrote:
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.

But why bother? Building a list with points isn't getting 'bogged down in the details'. It's just playing the game, and it's been that way since 2nd Ed. Or even RT, eventually, come to think of it, as that had points as well.

Jack Flask wrote:
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.

You mean you cannot make narrative choices with points? That's daffy.

Jack Flask wrote:
Just, because you can't think outside the box of constructed play doesn't make PL useless.

I'd be careful with those accusations there ol' Jacky boy. And I didn't say PL was useless, I said it was redundant. A second tier system that achieves a similar result to regular points but with less balance. Again, why bother?

Jack Flask wrote:
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).

And this would be impossible with regular points because... ? And as for 1d3+4 upgrades, now you're just making up rules. That's not part of the PL system. You've just bolted that on yourself. Your example fails before it even starts as you're not comparing points vs PL. You're comparing points vs PL + some other stuff I just made up.

Jack Flask wrote:
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.

All things that can (and do) happen with points. So far PL has not been necessary one iota for your example to function.

Jack Flask wrote:
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.

Ok, and? How would this be any worse off with points? It'd be more balanced to start with, that's for damned sure, and if there are campaign rules for deaths/injuries and whatnot, then that still would function under points.

Jack Flask wrote:
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.

And again we're back to this adding upgrades thing which you made up, and has no bearing on the comparison between points and PL.

Jack Flask wrote:
Please explain how points makes this system better?

You'd have to prove your point first. That there is some inherent advantage to PL or something PL can do that you cannot already do more accurately with the points system.

Jack Flask wrote:
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.

Your method serves no adequate purpose to justify its continued existence. PL does nothing that points don't already do more accurately. Or, to put it another way, everything PL can do points can do better. Your cassette player might play old tapes just fine, but it's unnecessary when there are far better and higher quality ways to play music.

Jack Flask wrote:
Well you can go take a pleasure cruise thought the warp.

Thanks for not making this personal...

tneva82 wrote:
Since people are using it you are by default proven wrong(hardly surprise)

You're not very good at cohesive or coherent arguments, so... I'll leave you alone. It'll be easier on both of us.

Never been a fan of Power levels due to the imbalance possibilities that have already been mentioned. Even playing friendly games I'd prefer to know that we have paid the same points and all upgrades have been costed (wonky points costs of some units/upgrades not withstanding). I'm in no way a WAAC player and I take a lot of sub par units cos I like the fluff or the models.

Again as previously mentioned Power Level is only works if the various unit options are roughly equivalent, which I fear can only lead to blander or more overtly "rock, scissors, paper" type options. Trading off where to spend your points and which units to invest in with upgrades and which not is part of the fun of putting together a list

Could also be I prefer playing points as that's what I've used since 2nd.

I'm just disappointed that the Campaign System, which is something I was looking fwd to, has been built around a costing system I, and none of the players I know or speak to use (YMMV)

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Which just shows that the point system is broken.

He gave four examples where the points give a better indication of relative value than PL, and it's the points system that's broken?

Can you please let the damn power level versus points matter drop already? This is the 9 edition thread and nobody cares to hear you go back and forth for 5 pages about it, use whatever you like better.

Kaneda88 wrote:
This is the 9 edition thread...

And in their latest 9th Ed preview, GW talked about how PL and points armies can play against one another. So...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:
This is the 9 edition thread...

And in their latest 9th Ed preview, GW talked about how PL and points armies can play against one another. So...

And i believe the many pages of you guys going in circles about PL/points are enough especially considering they also said they were reworking PL so you don’t have information about them.

There will always be disparity between PL and points because PL simplifies the whole structure considerably whilst points allows for far more fine-tuning (in theory) of balance. OF course GW's balance has been questionable for years so at a functional level if they adjusted PL and Points along the way the disparity between the two might not be vastly different to the power disparities within the systems.


Ergo it could work and GW is clearly aiming to try and bring the two groups together. I'd question the need for the two groups in the first place.



That said nothing stops you spending 5 mins converting your army form points to pl or from pl to points and adjusting a few elements to make it work.

 Overread wrote:
There will always be disparity between PL and points because PL simplifies the whole structure considerably whilst points allows for far more fine-tuning (in theory) of balance. OF course GW's balance has been questionable for years so at a functional level if they adjusted PL and Points along the way the disparity between the two might not be vastly different to the power disparities within the systems.


Ergo it could work and GW is clearly aiming to try and bring the two groups together. I'd question the need for the two groups in the first place.



That said nothing stops you spending 5 mins converting your army form points to pl or from pl to points and adjusting a few elements to make it work.

This hits the nail on the head. There's little point arguing about how inaccurate, useless or trashy PL is, it's as useful as the people using it deem it to be. Don't like it then don't use it and roll around enjoying your theoretically easy wins against narrative players if you're playing them with a tourney list.

I know they never refined the PL previously (apparently because they realised printing them on the build instructions was great for newbies but made it impossible to manage) but I'm hoping with 9th they'll actually update them digitally as they go to keep it as relevant as it can be.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:
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.

But why bother? Building a list with points isn't getting 'bogged down in the details'. It's just playing the game, and it's been that way since 2nd Ed. Or even RT, eventually, come to think of it, as that had points as well.

Yeah, it's just a matter of habit. I played both, I can't deny Power Level is simpler and faster to use to build your list. Because you don't go to the same level of details as points.

Mind you, either way you won't have a game perfectly balanced. So why bother going that far in details for no big gain ? That's the reasoning of those using Power Level. And since the narrative players build their lists according to the narrative of the scenario, it's good enough of a tool to do the trick. Less time counting the points and more time to play.

Kaneda88 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:
This is the 9 edition thread...

And in their latest 9th Ed preview, GW talked about how PL and points armies can play against one another. So...

And i believe the many pages of you guys going in circles about PL/points are enough especially considering they also said they were reworking PL so you don’t have information about them.

Because GW is saying armies constructed under both systems will be interchangeable without balance issues, yeah pull the other one.

Because they keep trying to promote/force it as a good enough way to play the game. It happened for all of 8th and now they are making you pay for additional content (Crusade) that's says you should use an inferior version (PL) of a system your already paying for in the books (point's).

If anything a proportion of the comunity wants more granularity in points not this wierd obsession GW has with trying to simply a system that is already struggling to differentiate between 2,3&4 point models, if that was 4,6&8 their is intermediate steps GW is trying to say 20, 40, 60 is ok levels of abstraction.

Ice_can wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:
This is the 9 edition thread...

And in their latest 9th Ed preview, GW talked about how PL and points armies can play against one another. So...

And i believe the many pages of you guys going in circles about PL/points are enough especially considering they also said they were reworking PL so you don’t have information about them.

Because GW is saying armies constructed under both systems will be interchangeable without balance issues, yeah pull the other one.

Because they keep trying to promote/force it as a good enough way to play the game. It happened for all of 8th and now they are making you pay for additional content (Crusade) that's says you should use an inferior version (PL) of a system your already paying for in the books (point's).

If anything a proportion of the comunity wants more granularity in points not this wierd obsession GW has with trying to simply a system that is already struggling to differentiate between 2,3&4 point models, if that was 4,6&8 their is intermediate steps GW is trying to say 20, 40, 60 is ok levels of abstraction.

Please quote where they say they're charging you extra for crusade content. Please show me where you're forced to play in power level. Again please show me where it says you can't talk to the other player and say you only want to play matched points.

Yeah, the argument about PL imbalance can be a complete moot point when it comes to choosing a game.

If your opponent asks to play PL's, take a glance at the list, if they are looking like they are trying to game the system then by all means, ask to play points instead.

The only people who will play with PL AND do it to their complete advantage are WAAC players, and at that point, just refuse the game and call them out on their BS whilst refusing.

Anyway, like has been said above the argument at the moment is moot, as PL's are going to change (and I think it is logical to assume, upgrades are taken into account). Additionally, some of the play testers we have been praising have been playing crusade, which means they have done it will PL's... And they say it is great, so everyone calm down and lets wait and see.

You at this point are trying to theory hammer whilst quite literally not knowing all the facts and figures. A lot of you seem stressed, go out for a walk in the real world or something...

If a system can't handle being taken to its extremes it's a bad system.

Dudeface wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:
This is the 9 edition thread...

And in their latest 9th Ed preview, GW talked about how PL and points armies can play against one another. So...

And i believe the many pages of you guys going in circles about PL/points are enough especially considering they also said they were reworking PL so you don’t have information about them.

Because GW is saying armies constructed under both systems will be interchangeable without balance issues, yeah pull the other one.

Because they keep trying to promote/force it as a good enough way to play the game. It happened for all of 8th and now they are making you pay for additional content (Crusade) that's says you should use an inferior version (PL) of a system your already paying for in the books (point's).

If anything a proportion of the comunity wants more granularity in points not this wierd obsession GW has with trying to simply a system that is already struggling to differentiate between 2,3&4 point models, if that was 4,6&8 their is intermediate steps GW is trying to say 20, 40, 60 is ok levels of abstraction.

Please quote where they say they're charging you extra for crusade content. Please show me where you're forced to play in power level. Again please show me where it says you can't talk to the other player and say you only want to play matched points.

I think the problem people are getting at, is this idea that you can play Crusade even without the other player using the Crusade system doesn't actually seem to be the case. The example given on the stream said the non-Crusade player would convert their army to PL, then probably get some bonus CPs to compensate for their lack of Battle Honours, which isn't exactly what I thought of when they initially announced Crusade as something you could integrate into your regular games without any problems. Advocates of PL always point to the fact that if you're using PL you've kind of already agreed to a certain type of experience, which is fine and I totally get that. But now GW are talking about mixing points and PL and the result just doesn't seem to match up to the initial statement they made. The example they gave on stream was even worse. They're talking about someone playing a Crusade army and someone looking to practice for an event coming together to...basically play Crusade. That doesn't seem too likely to me because it's too much like a narrative-focussed player who uses PL asking a tournament player to play a narrative-style game using PL. It just seems a little bit divorced from reality. The fact there's a bit more of a structured system to do it will probably help but I don't really see it being anywhere near as common as GW initially implied.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If a system can't handle being taken to its extremes it's a bad system.

I flatly disagree. Extremes aren't what systems are designed for. If they were they wouldn't be called "extremes".

No game has perfect balance. No game survives being gamed by players. No game survives bad faith and attempts to WAAC.

Trying to argue otherwise is nothing more than a bad faith arguement for internet points.

And as I said at least a page ago, I am willing to bet there will be plenty of people using points over PL for Crusade when it drops. I say this because many narrative players are still using points over PL and did so all through 8th. Which basically makes it moot for all but the edge cases where people don't try to meet their opponents halfway. And I don"t know anyone who enjoys playing with someone so far up their own backside they won't try and work with their opponent to have a fun game.

PL and points will likely be balanced when 9th launches since both are getting updated to match the new system. It doesn't mean they'll stay balanced, but we do know GW will be addressing PL more often (my guess is yearly) to try and keep the two more closely in line.

Hopefully the new PL updates will be a bit more granular, but I won't hold my breath since GW has never been especially quick about ironing out all of the bugs on new mechanics.

That all said, until we know more all this arguing about PL vs Points is meaningless since no one knows what either of those looks like until GW does their update when 9th drops.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If a system can't handle being taken to its extremes it's a bad system.

On that logic every game in the world has bad system. We are all doomed.

tneva82 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If a system can't handle being taken to its extremes it's a bad system.

On that logic every game in the world has bad system. We are all doomed.

Other game systems can mitigate the extremes, or be designed in a way to prevent those extremes from happening.