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.

Ah yes, read your book that has the following changes to it:
- Index Book
- CA 2018
- FAQ 2018
- CA 2018-2
- FAQ 2018-2
- CODEX 2018
- FAQ 2019
- CA 2019
- FAQ 2019-2
- PA 1
- PA 2
- PA 3
- PA 4
- RULES 9E
- Global FAQ 9E
- RULES FAQ 9E

yes yes just bring the books and read them you darn millennials

Removed - Please do not advocate piracy.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

To make the whole thing easier I suggest downloading Battlescribe. It's a roster calculator.

It's also become way too big of a crutch to people these days.

A crutch for what?

Pretending that it's a replacement for a codex or actually having an inkling of what their rules do or how to build an army from scratch. I've seen too many people throwing Relics onto places they shouldn't be able to and then getting salty when called out upon it. Read your army book. Write a list by frigging hand. Don't trust Battlescribe.

I always find four major issues with Battlescribe, Kan:
- The data is untrustworthy
- The eyepatch ruins my depth perception
- The parrot keeps doing its business down the back of my shirt (and someone has taught it to swear, which can be awkward)
- The peg leg is decidedly uncomfortable

I'd like to try PL but I'd need a different army for it. I've used points as that's all there ever was historically speaking (most GW games I know has used points, from Space Hulk to WFB).

Never thought about PL meaning "All the upgrades, all the time", which actually makes much more sense than the tired old argument "a model without upgrades costs the same PL as fully upgraded, cannot be fair!".

But then, logic dictates that "all the upgrades, all the time" = entirely different loadouts to my whole army! There aint enough magnets in the world for that..

This got me thinking of another cool way to use PL — Matched play games between friends who know each other very well, and know one player is a much, much better player than the other. Using PL would allow you to "handicap" by splurging on the upgrades against the more skilled opponent, who'd opt out of taking the more powerful upgrades altogether. Interesting!

Oh look, it's this thread again.

Sorry OP, you've accidentally stumbled into one of Dakka's traditionally hostile topics.

If you're just playing your first games, I'd honestly say it doesn't matter whether you use points or PL since both of you will likely just be looking to have some fun while getting your head around the rules of the game. For Necrons in particular, the weaknesses of the PL system don't really have too much of an effect because Necrons tend not to have many options for their units. Incidentally, even under points you don't pay for the Phase Shifter as it's part of the Overlord's abilities, and not an upgrade.

As you get more experience you'll be in a better position to judge whether you want to use PL or points. Try both and see which works best. If you're planning to go to a gaming group rather than just play against your buddy the whole time it's probably worth finding out what they use. In my experience points are a lot more popular than PL but it really is a local thing so that might not be the case for you.

Removed

Karol wrote:
Removed

OP, feel free to ignore this gibberish. The previous response was a lot more helpful.

Karol wrote:Removed

Random sexism apparently has a home in this already hot button thread.

For what it's worth, I love PL, but that's because they suit me, and I care more about getting the WYSIWYG already assembled models I have on table, without having to micromanage their upgrades in pre-list creation and fret about being 3 points under or one point over. I've already got the units I want, already got the upgrades I plan on fielding - I don't want to spend more time manually inputting the weapons they're armed with (and for anyone saying 'use Battlescribe', I shouldn't need to rely on a third party unofficial app in order to play a game, even if I could guarantee it was accurate).

But, those are MY preferences, and if you prefer points for the granularity, or because you're more familiar with them, or whatever reason you want, you should play points!

I think there is merit to the PL system, and it should be explored further within the game. All sorts of things could be developed around PL, such as missions which only accept battleforged armies with units below a certain power level, or mission briefs where PL unit caps were unsymmetrical, like a 1000 pts Incursion level game where the defender can only select units below PL 6 But attacker has no such restriction (or has to take units with PL above 6), or victory point scoring conditions based on PL destroyed, and so on..

It's a pity this divide exists so strongly. Combining the merits of both PL and points systems could yield interesting new opportunities in the game.

Nixalys wrote:
Quick question regarding power levels. My buddy and I are about to play our first game of 9th this weekend and agreed to use power level cuz we have been hearing the points were kind of imbalanced lately. Regarding power tho, does a model get all particular upgrades for free (an example being an overlord getting its weapon plus a phase shifter for no additional cost)? I was looking in the new power level rating faq that just came out and it looks like it's mostly just on a per model cost. I'll be playing necrons and him dark angels. Is using power vs them a mistake? Thank you!

Its worth noting that the way power is calculated is they take the most inexpensive combination possible, say, Terminators with Chainaxes and Storm Bolters, and the most expensive combination possible, like Chainfists+Meltas, and then they take the average of those 2.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:Removed

Random sexism apparently has a home in this already hot button thread.

For what it's worth, I love PL, but that's because they suit me, and I care more about getting the WYSIWYG already assembled models I have on table, without having to micromanage their upgrades in pre-list creation and fret about being 3 points under or one point over. I've already got the units I want, already got the upgrades I plan on fielding - I don't want to spend more time manually inputting the weapons they're armed with (and for anyone saying 'use Battlescribe', I shouldn't need to rely on a third party unofficial app in order to play a game, even if I could guarantee it was accurate).

But, those are MY preferences, and if you prefer points for the granularity, or because you're more familiar with them, or whatever reason you want, you should play points!

100% agree with all of this. I love PL and the whole vibe around it, but in no way insist everyone else should be using it. It's a good thing that there are options that allow people to get what they enjoy out of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tauist wrote:
I think there is merit to the PL system, and it should be explored further within the game. All sorts of things could be developed around PL, such as missions which only accept battleforged armies with units below a certain power level, or mission briefs where PL unit caps were unsymmetrical, like a 1000 pts Incursion level game where the defender can only select units below PL 6 But attacker has no such restriction (or has to take units with PL above 6), or victory point scoring conditions based on PL destroyed, and so on..

It's a pity this divide exists so strongly. Combining the merits of both PL and points systems could yield interesting new opportunities in the game.

This is a cool idea. Into it. The Open Play missions in the Core Book kinda do this, but it could for sure be explored further.

See and this is why I don't do humor. I thought it was a funny thing.

In the end it comes down to this, if your opponents play power levels, you can play them, if they don't you can't. In general I think it is easier to find games using normal points.

Random sexism apparently has a home in this already hot button thread.

You did leave me confused by this, but this wouldn't be the first time, so it is normal probably.

 tauist wrote:
I think there is merit to the PL system, and it should be explored further within the game. All sorts of things could be developed around PL, such as missions which only accept battleforged armies with units below a certain power level, or mission briefs where PL unit caps were unsymmetrical, like a 1000 pts Incursion level game where the defender can only select units below PL 6 But attacker has no such restriction (or has to take units with PL above 6), or victory point scoring conditions based on PL destroyed, and so on..

It's a pity this divide exists so strongly. Combining the merits of both PL and points systems could yield interesting new opportunities in the game.

Yeah if you want to do that in a closed group go ahead but that's the sort of wierd and wonky mission set stuff GW has tried before that ment people just started carrying around either just pure filth competitive lists, or had to have 3 armies worth of models as some missions litteraly made entire armies illegal.

Zone mortalis in 30k was an example of this done well, it lead to very different way to play the game by only allowing certain units but it also wasn't suitable for pickup games or events as it effectively made otherwise legal armies unplayable.

As I've said before elsewhere, the point of power isn't to establish perfectly balanced armies. It's there to give you a (very) rough guide to how big an army is. That way you and your opponent can slap down whatever models you want to use and very quickly establish who has the bigger army, and by what ratio. The person with the smaller army can then be given other advantages such as extra command points or automatic first turn.

Zustiur wrote:
As I've said before elsewhere, the point of power isn't to establish perfectly balanced armies. It's there to give you a (very) rough guide to how big an army is. That way you and your opponent can slap down whatever models you want to use and very quickly establish who has the bigger army, and by what ratio. The person with the smaller army can then be given other advantages such as extra command points or automatic first turn.

This is the fundamentally different approach to the game that seems to be an issue. One side wants everything to be as equal as can be with no exceptions and no quarter given to their opponent.

while the other doesnt care and can work out any "problems/perceived imbalances" before the game with the other player(notice I didnt say opponent).