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.

Points or Power Level, it really doesn't matter to me.

Why? Because my squads are all WYSIWYG & don't change game to game, year to year, or even between editions. Grey Hunter squad Blue consists of the same models, armed the same way, everytime. Longfang #1 is always LF#1, etc. So it really doesn't matter what # I'm writing down/adding up.
The only feature PL provides is that although GW messes with the pts, PL doesn't change. So I never had to re-calc the units PL cost.

ccs wrote:
Points or Power Level, it really doesn't matter to me.

Why? Because my squads are all WYSIWYG & don't change game to game, year to year, or even between editions. Grey Hunter squad Blue consists of the same models, armed the same way, everytime. Longfang #1 is always LF#1, etc. So it really doesn't matter what # I'm writing down/adding up.
The only feature PL provides is that although GW messes with the pts, PL doesn't change. So I never had to re-calc the units PL cost.

They did just fiddle with PL.

Let’s try the premise again. Assume you get to spend a year at the GW studio, assume have access to an entire chapter/sept/hive fleet/etc. worth of models, imagine they’re all magnetized up the Yang Yang. Whatever list you write will have WYSIWYG models waiting for you by the time you go from the computer to the table. Assume you’re starting a whole new army you have to buy, assemble, etc. from scratch. It’s not about if you prefer this or that. I’m wondering what “meta” changes occur on the switch. Is a 15 PL Land Raider better than a 300 point one? Does limited FOC choices make 10 PL for 10 Tacs, a special, a heavy, and an Apothecary still make them worse than 10 PL for 9 Infiltrators and a Helix Adept? We’re they worse than before? It 7PL for 9 Tacs, a sgt with bells and whistles a special and a heavy better or worse than 8PL for 8 Tacs, two sgts, and two specials?

Racerguy180 wrote:
why is having a discussion about the game before hand so disgusting to some people's view of the game?

o wait, I know why....

And why is that? Could it be that people want pick-up games to be facilitated by the rules of the game and that the need to have a masters degree in 40k to set up a fair game of Kriegshammer is a bit excessive? But please, tell me how having a 10-minute conversation about the state of the meta before you can start your game is a good thing. I would rather have that chat after the game, same thing with luck not being something you should talk about during the middle of the game, it just makes the post-game chat a lot worse when you say your army is super weak and your luck is bad but you still stomp your opponent because actually your opponent's list was even less powerful than yours and you actually wound up being lucky in the last couple of rounds. Of course, you still need a pre-game chat to see what you are looking for in the game, how you want to handle terrain, take-backs, playing with intent, cocked dice and armies, but that conversation is one that I do not like having and would rather get rid of entirely. I want GW to make take-backs and intentional play the rules of the game, for all dice that don't land completely flat outside terrain to be re-rolled and for all options to be balanced such that you just have to ask whether your opponent is bringing a skew or intentionally un-synergistic list. But I don't want Wraiths with pistols and without pistols to cost the same.

vict0988 wrote:Except that GW are turning pts into PL so it needs to be heard that it is not what everyone wants or likes PL

Huh? No idea what you're saying here.
Points are still around, no-one is *forced* to use PL? Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if people want or like PL, as you still have points you can contend with.

Points aren't what everyone wants or likes, but I'm not going jump into threads discussing point breakdowns to say how much I hate using points.

it heightens need for pre-game discussion of strong each army is based on how much you take advantage of the lack of a system for balancing wargear loadouts.

I, for one, prefer more pre-game discussion, as in literally every instance, more communication has resulted in better games, and the games which have less communication of intent are nearly always unpleasant.

Being able to sit down and hammer out just what kind of game we're playing, what armies we're roughly taking, if we're planning on fielding certain units that might skew too strongly one way or another, or a specific theme, nearly always results in a more enjoyable experience for me.

So, yeah - why is pre-game discussion framed as a bad thing here?

So really PL players just need to pipe down about how much they love having gak for balance

No, PL players don't have to pipe down on anything.

It's not about having gak for balance - because that would imply that points were balanced too. Or need I bring up the countless "Primaris are breaking the game!" threads, which are being discussed using points?
To use your logic, points players need to pipe down as their system is unbalanced too.

and hopefully, GW will get back to the job of trying to balance the game and not think that everyone is happy with what we have.

There's nothing wrong with wanting changes. But direct those changes to GW, not using them to clobber down any positive opinions and belittle people who like the existing system.

There's a time and a place - and the previous examples in this thread were a fine example of not one of those times or places.

vict0988 wrote:And why is that? Could it be that people want pick-up games to be facilitated by the rules of the game and that the need to have a masters degree in 40k to set up a fair game of Kriegshammer is a bit excessive?

You're being extreme. Sitting down and TALKING to someone is simple as hell - far simpler than the leafing backwards and forwards through a codex to calculate 0.05% of an army at a time.

Since when do you need a degree to have a conversation? I though these games were supposed to facilitate social interaction, not remove it.

But please, tell me how having a 10-minute conversation about the state of the meta before you can start your game is a good thing.

Establishing shared goals and playstyle ethics. Understanding your opponent's realistic chances of dealing with certain things, and working out what might just end up as a massacre (say, I have a Knight in my bag, and I don't discuss it with my opponent - I then take that Knight, as realise that they don't have anything sufficient to deal with it. Now, the game's just going to be pretty uninteresting for both of us). Showing an interest in interpersonal communications and being friendly, encouraging a greater level communication and relaxedness throughout the rest of the game. Opportunity to request for things you normally wouldn't get to do, such as proxying, alternative subfaction abilities, or missions (such as doing a Vigilus scenario).

But, you don't even need ten minutes for these. In fact, the "pre-game discussion" could be reduced to as simple as three things - "points or PL? How big? How are we playing?" How does that take ten minutes?

I would rather have that chat after the game, same thing with luck not being something you should talk about during the middle of the game, it just makes the post-game chat a lot worse when you say your army is super weak and your luck is bad but you still stomp your opponent because actually your opponent's list was even less powerful than yours and you actually wound up being lucky in the last couple of rounds.

See, I very strongly disagree - you're welcome to your preference, but I'm voicing my disagreement to reinforce that there are people with different standards to you.
I see no issue in mid-game chat. Post game chat I would rather be talking about the cool stuff that happened rather than "yeah, instead of wasting our time playing a curbstomp, we could have just had this chat beforehand and saved us all a bunch of time".

Of course, you still need a pre-game chat to see what you are looking for in the game, how you want to handle terrain, take-backs, playing with intent, cocked dice and armies, but that conversation is one that I do not like having and would rather get rid of entirely.

So, you're misrepresenting that adding a single other question would suddenly add ten minutes more time. And, as I've made clear, I personally don't have an issue with establishing all those things, because it nearly always results in a better shared experience.

I do it for D&D, I do it for 40k, and both fit what *I* am looking for in my hobby time.

I want GW to make take-backs and intentional play the rules of the game, for all dice that don't land completely flat outside terrain to be re-rolled and for all options to be balanced such that you just have to ask whether your opponent is bringing a skew or intentionally un-synergistic list. But I don't want Wraiths with pistols and without pistols to cost the same.

Okay? Just don't play PL then. Simple as that. I don't get why this is a problem for you.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

vict0988 wrote:Except that GW are turning pts into PL so it needs to be heard that it is not what everyone wants or likes PL

Huh? No idea what you're saying here.
Points are still around, no-one is *forced* to use PL? Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if people want or like PL, as you still have points you can contend with.

Points aren't what everyone wants or likes, but I'm not going jump into threads discussing point breakdowns to say how much I hate using points.

When S6 AP-3 D1 cost the same as S7 AP-4 D2 and a model with or without a pistol cost the same, how can you say that points are any different from PL? When all points must be in multiples of 5 how can you say that I still have my pts? So yes, I am forced to play PL whether I like to or not, I can play real PL or pts bastardised into an approximation of PL, I am not happy with either. There have been several posters whining about pts or saying that pts are useless because the game is imbalanced anyway. Well here I am saying it does matter and the loss of pts that actually matter and make sense is felt and not appreciated.

When you don't have a 40k degree you will make mistakes and wrong assumption which will lead to unfair matches. It takes ten minutes because we need to hash out whether your choices or my choices are undercosted or overcosted, are they always undercosted or just when you take certain options that have no cost differentiation between one and the other? That might mean having to create a new list and I'm sure you've sat through someone spending half an hour writing a list and it is not fun to wait for people to create lists (you playing PL makes this process easier I assume). I am not saying there will ever be no need to chat for any game outside of a tournament (where you have effectively collectively had the chat with the TO), but you shouldn't have to discuss the finer points of taking lascannons or heavy bolters on Devastators and whether bringing Lootas is too strong or if it's fair enough because your opponent also brought 90 Gretchin. It's too much, if you are not taking a skew list you should just be able to say whether you are playing a weak list or a strong list and that should be it. If you were regularly hosting or participating in one-shot DnD sessions with people whom you have often never played with you might be more engaged in making the experience more smooth. Hashing out a more detailed way of playing 40k over the next six months or for starting a new DnD campaign with friends are entirely different things from having a pick-up game. Imagine if every time before you played DnD you would have to have the same discussion about whether your spells were overpowered. "Yes, Eldritch Blast is powerful but I am not using this or that aspect of my class so it is actually not as strong as it could be if I was powergaming, now for the Barbarian, should you maybe put down your axe for this session and use a stick instead?" "No I am actually unlucky and I didn't kill a single goblin last time so I should get to use my axe this session."... 10 minutes later... "Okay so the Barbarian will get to use his sword, but not his axe this session, the Bard will play his lute but not loud enough to wake up the neighbours and the Warlock will not use Eldritch Blast".... 1 session later... "Well the entire party died, guess we all better hurry up and go home because we spent half the session discussing the finer points of balance in DnD."

You misunderstood me when I said I didn't like it when people complain about luck during the game, it has nothing to do with talking, if I didn't want my opponents to talk with me while playing a game I would play a single-player game, but I don't appreciate it when people cause a fuss over some bad luck in the first couple of turns and then win the game being lucky in the end.

vict0988 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

vict0988 wrote:Except that GW are turning pts into PL so it needs to be heard that it is not what everyone wants or likes PL

Huh? No idea what you're saying here.
Points are still around, no-one is *forced* to use PL? Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if people want or like PL, as you still have points you can contend with.

Points aren't what everyone wants or likes, but I'm not going jump into threads discussing point breakdowns to say how much I hate using points.

When S6 AP-3 D1 cost the same as S7 AP-4 D2 and a model with or without a pistol cost the same, how can you say that points are any different from PL?

like two points cheaper than Terminators, despite having massive inferiority to them.
Because both can be unbalanced. I believe there's another thread out there current talking about how Aberrants are something like two points cheaper than Terminators, despite being a great deal less durable.
If points were balanced, then I'd see reason in "PL is unbalanced, don't use it", but while points are unbalanced, sorry, you're just looking for different flavours of imbalanced.

When all points must be in multiples of 5 how can you say that I still have my pts?

What?

So yes, I am forced to play PL whether I like to or not

No, you're not.

Unless your player group only plays PL (which is definitely a shame), you are not FORCED into using PL any more than I'm forced into using points.

I can play real PL or pts bastardised into an approximation of PL, I am not happy with either. There have been several posters whining about pts or saying that pts are useless because the game is imbalanced anyway. Well here I am saying it does matter and the loss of pts that actually matter and make sense is felt and not appreciated.

Loss of points? You can still play with points! What on earth are you talking about?

When you don't have a 40k degree you will make mistakes and wrong assumption which will lead to unfair matches. It takes ten minutes because we need to hash out whether your choices or my choices are undercosted or overcosted, are they always undercosted or just when you take certain options that have no cost differentiation between one and the other?

No, you don't.

All you have to do is say "okay, we're playing power level? Right, are we looking to break the game, or are we playing casually/WYSIWYG? Great, here's my WYSIWYG list, there's yours, now let's play."
All this "you need to check what units are OP" nonsense you'd have to do in points, if you were being consistent with your argument. Things like "oh, I'm not playing that unit, that's SUPER OP!" So, as I've said - the flaws of PL exist in points too.

That might mean having to create a new list and I'm sure you've sat through someone spending half an hour writing a list and it is not fun to wait for people to create lists (you playing PL makes this process easier I assume).

PL definitely doesn't take half an hour to write a list, so that's that issue fixed. And, if we're assuming a pickup game, there's only a finite amount of units that people bring with them. If there's a massive imbalance, just change what size game you're playing.

I am not saying there will ever be no need to chat for any game outside of a tournament (where you have effectively collectively had the chat with the TO), but you shouldn't have to discuss the finer points of taking lascannons or heavy bolters on Devastators and whether bringing Lootas is too strong or if it's fair enough because your opponent also brought 90 Gretchin.

No-one's talking about doing that though? And again, that same conversation could happen in points too, with people taking blatantly overpowered and undercosted units!

It's too much, if you are not taking a skew list you should just be able to say whether you are playing a weak list or a strong list and that should be it.

One "weak" list might be strong against another enemy. So, even that doesn't work. Plus, that's the same conversation that can be had over points, because points aren't balanced.

If you were regularly hosting or participating in one-shot DnD sessions with people whom you have often never played with you might be more engaged in making the experience more smooth. Hashing out a more detailed way of playing 40k over the next six months or for starting a new DnD campaign with friends are entirely different things from having a pick-up game.

Nope, I do the same with any pickup of one-shot (as they're pretty much the same thing) - lay down what I want from the interaction, what I'm looking for, and compare that to what the other people are interested in.
I don't do it for people I know, because they already know my standards, as I've already explained that to them earlier.

So, nah - they're pretty much the same thing.

Imagine if every time before you played DnD you would have to have the same discussion about whether your spells were overpowered. "Yes, Eldritch Blast is powerful but I am not using this or that aspect of my class so it is actually not as strong as it could be if I was powergaming, now for the Barbarian, should you maybe put down your axe for this session and use a stick instead?" "No I am actually unlucky and I didn't kill a single goblin last time so I should get to use my axe this session."... 10 minutes later... "Okay so the Barbarian will get to use his sword, but not his axe this session, the Bard will play his lute but not loud enough to wake up the neighbours and the Warlock will not use Eldritch Blast".... 1 session later... "Well the entire party died, guess we all better hurry up and go home because we spent half the session discussing the finer points of balance in DnD."

That's not what I'm describing at all. In fact, your idea of D&D is *really* combat oriented - unlike mine. What I'm talking about isn't "ooh, got to make sure it's all BALANCED!", I'm talking about "how can we both enjoy this, and get what we want out of this session". Ground rules like "okay, we're ignoring encumbrance" or "this is how I'm doing experience" or "this is how XYZ works in this setting/session" or even as simple as "no interrupting, and no doing drastic things to characters without player consent".

You know, setting basic ideas of what we all expect and want to get out of the game. I'm not talking about balance. I'm talking about enjoyment.

You misunderstood me when I said I didn't like it when people complain about luck during the game, it has nothing to do with talking, if I didn't want my opponents to talk with me while playing a game I would play a single-player game, but I don't appreciate it when people cause a fuss over some bad luck in the first couple of turns and then win the game being lucky in the end.

Depends how much of a fuss they make. If someone was that fussy about bad luck, I'd offer to just play another game, and take the win for myself. Maybe they'll be happier in the next game. But, if they want to improve their luck in the same game, they're welcome to try - just don't sulk.

Again - communication and transparency with the player opposite the table I've found nearly always leads to a more enjoyable experience. Which is why I have no issue making my objectives and desires for the game known to the other person at the start, so we can both get an idea of what kind of game we're playing. If the other person's after an ultra-balanced finely tuned comp game where the price of a pistol matters, then I know I'm probably not a suitable opponent for that person.

Let's try with an analogy. I do not want to eat raspberry jam, I would like to eat strawberry jam. In 8th edition GW were producing both raspberry jam and strawberry jam, now they produce raspberry jam and a jam with both raspberry and strawberry, I no longer have my strawberry jam, I only have jam with both raspberries and strawberries or whatever artifice that goes into making these flavours. I am not content because I do not have my strawberry jam, you pointing out that there are strawberries in one of the jams is not helping because it has been ruined by the infusion of raspberries.

Get the raspberries out of my jam and introduce a cost increase for weapons that clearly provide a benefit, no more free upgrades to S, AP and D for HQ weapons and no more free pistols for Wraiths, then I will have pts, real, actual, meaningful pts. Until that happens no, I do not have pts and I cannot go play with them because nobody will allow me a discount if I take an HQ choice with the inferior weapon or a Wraith without a pistol. I was lambasted for bringing Destroyer spam to a casual game once, well "quite rightly" you might think, they were one of the best units in the Necron Codex, except, they were Heavy Destroyers before they got a 35% price cut. So I should have spent 10 minutes before the game going over the finer details of Necron balance, how which types of Destroyers are good and which are bad? No, I said I brought a casual list and I did, my opponent had not gotten his masters in 40k and wrongly accused me of being a powergamer and refused to listen to reason as I tried to explain it in the middle of the game, causing me to get furious and for the game to end.

Raspberries are gross and inarguable upgrades without a cost are gross as well, they ruin my pancakes and make it harder to have a fun game. Why would you call it pts if you're not going to cost weapons appropriately? Why would you put the same packaging on raspberry and strawberry jam?

Now the fact that pts have never been quite right and have had flaws does not make it okay when GW deliberately sabotages pts by forcing as many options as possible to have a pts cost in multiples of 5 (so 0/5/10/15... pts instead of 0/1/2/3... pts) and made weapons that are clear upgrades free. It is not getting pts wrong I mind, it is the deliberate disregard and lack of trying that I mind, because it is PL philosophy "close enough by 50% of the cost of the unit" which is not where I want to land. I want the pts to get better fast. I want an Errata for the most obviously bad pts values such that CA20 becomes okay and CA21 can be great, because right now CA20 is gak and CA21? Who even knows? It's more than a year away.

The price of a pistol does matter to me and I find it acceptable that you use the wounds or toughness to determine how many models can be brought to the table, I find it acceptable when you play 2v1 with twice as many pts on one side, I do not care. But PL philosophy has clearly infested pts and ruined some of the fun that could be had by people that prefer a pts system. I don't want to haggle over how many upgrades I can bring for my models before the game, I want to say whether my army is comp or casual and then get on with it and pts have allowed me to do that to a large degree, I doubt PL will allow it to the same degree.

I am extremely lucky, I hear whinging about luck too often and my ears have become sensitive to fuss about luck, if I had a better memory I would make a great competitive player until my luck runs out.

 vict0988 wrote:
Let's try with an analogy. I do not want to eat raspberry jam, I would like to eat strawberry jam. In 8th edition GW were producing both raspberry jam and strawberry jam, now they produce raspberry jam and a jam with both raspberry and strawberry, I no longer have my strawberry jam, I only have jam with both raspberries and strawberries or whatever artifice that goes into making these flavours. I am not content because I do not have my strawberry jam, you pointing out that there are strawberries in one of the jams is not helping because it has been ruined by the infusion of raspberries.

But you still have strawberry jam. Nothing's taken that away from you.

This is what I mean by "what are you on about"? You can still play points. There's literally nothing stopping you. I don't get what the problem is.

I'm not dealing with the rest of the comment, because if your complaint is "I want to eat strawberry jam" (play with points), then there's nothing stopping you eating the strawberry jam that still exists! You're making a problem out of nothing!

Sorry, am I missing something here? Do points just not exist any more?

Two pages of replies, not a single one to the question asked.

Breton wrote:
Two pages of replies, not a single one to the question asked.

Perhaps that's because a lot of the people who play PL don't play points, and vice versa. It could well be that there's been very little experimentation on the matter.

Again, comparing a units in a vacuum, and not part of a wider army, might also be an issue in the experiment at hand.

Plus, you seem to be assuming that people take the strongest weapons available every time - which many PL players simply don't do for their armies.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Again, comparing a units in a vacuum, and not part of a wider army, might also be an issue in the experiment at hand.

Plus, you seem to be assuming that people take the strongest weapons available every time - which many PL players simply don't do for their armies.

I realize you may have been too busy arguing about points, power level and fruit preserves to read closely, or pay attention but no.

I specifically pointed out I was looking for something beyond "take the expensive weapons"

Yeah I agree 10 TH/SS Vanguard vets for the same cost as 10 BP-CCW ones is an obvious thing, but what about 7 PL Tacs vs 10 PL Intercessors? 7PL Tacs with special, heavy and a 3PL apothecary vs 10 PL intercessors?

The original premise wasn't units in a vaccuum, it was how an entire list might/would change.

I was just wondering: How different would the lists be?

And I even restated and expanded the entire premise in a way to make this abundantly clear.

Let’s try the premise again. Assume you get to spend a year at the GW studio, assume have access to an entire chapter/sept/hive fleet/etc. worth of models, imagine they’re all magnetized up the Yang Yang. Whatever list you write will have WYSIWYG models waiting for you by the time you go from the computer to the table. Assume you’re starting a whole new army you have to buy, assemble, etc. from scratch. It’s not about if you prefer this or that. I’m wondering what “meta” changes occur on the switch. Is a 15 PL Land Raider better than a 300 point one? Does limited FOC choices make 10 PL for 10 Tacs, a special, a heavy, and an Apothecary still make them worse than 10 PL for 9 Infiltrators and a Helix Adept? We’re they worse than before? It 7PL for 9 Tacs, a sgt with bells and whistles a special and a heavy better or worse than 8PL for 8 Tacs, two sgts, and two specials?

Good luck with your jelly.

Power level just makes different units OP. Competitively doesn't change much. People spam the OP and don't take the trash.

Casually though it is a difference. casual players aren't min maxing but might do something like take a full unit of choas terms all with chainfists and combi plasma - which against some loyalist terms of the same power level...its not going to be a fair match.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Breton wrote:
Two pages of replies, not a single one to the question asked.

Perhaps that's because a lot of the people who play PL don't play points, and vice versa. It could well be that there's been very little experimentation on the matter.

Again, comparing a units in a vacuum, and not part of a wider army, might also be an issue in the experiment at hand.

Plus, you seem to be assuming that people take the strongest weapons available every time - which many PL players simply don't do for their armies.

and that's why some people have a problem with it. it is impossible to imagine NOT taking the most powerful of (X) for some people. I would dare say downright unfathomable.

which is why the vitriol is so ridiculous. ever notice how pts advocates need to tell PL players they're wrong? while the reverse isnt so.

If people would actually answer your question instead of complaining about PL, I wouldn't be talking about the people complaining, But here we are.

More to your point:
There are far too many variables, because the game is more than just what upgrades you take. The best way to tell is to actually test it. And there's a LOT of factions, a LOT of possible unit permutations, and a LOT of game objectives.

I've offered my input on my game experience between points in 5th+ and in 8th, and frankly, I don't notice a massive difference. In between the one points game I played in 8th, and the other PL ones, I also didn't notice much of a difference in how the game played, mostly because I play WYSIWYG, and I also construct my lists in generally the same way (my SM lists are based around a demi-company at the very least, always with at least three Tactical/Intercessor squads, an infantry heavy support, and a fast attack option - that doesn't change, points or PL).

Honestly, you're asking a question that hasn't seemed to have any experimentation or actual research done into it, because most people seem to stick to their preferred value system, and stay there.
If you want to get answers for yourself, I'd be interested to see your findings, but you might need to find a way to co-opt a major tournament group into running their next event with PL. And, unfortunately, many tournament types don't like using PL.

You're essentially asking to predict an entire meta, when the people who would typically play in that system don't define themselves by a meta. It's a big ask.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Power level just makes different units OP. Competitively doesn't change much. People spam the OP and don't take the trash.

Exactly - when people say "PL is broken!", they forget that points also has it's undercosted and overpowered units. The only thing that changes is what units are suddenly powerful - but that's difficult to measure, as PL isn't played in tournaments where results and unit choices are scrutinised, and most often by players who don't look out for the powerful units.

 Crusaderobr wrote:

If you want to play the intro version of the game go for it, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. Why Veteran players would choose to do so is beyond me, especially when the points system is so simple and only requires basic math.

I've played Wargames for close to twenty years. Half my life. 3 editions of Warmachine. 7 of 40k. 3 of infinity. I'm pretty certain I can refer to myself as a 'veteran' at this point.

And I would prefer playing my power level.

(1) The 'better' balance of points in 40k is a myth. Balance within gw games is ludicrous, full stop. Balance in gw systems 'out of the box' is ludicrous. It's a unicorn. It doesn't exist. relative-list-matching and the pre-game discussions have always been a big component within gw games of encouraging balance. I would go so far as to argue they are written with the social contract in mind.

I simply wouldn't play gw games without this. It's too much of a necessity, in my mind. There's simply way too much scope for gotchas and horrible horrible match ups when you don't. So if I a man going to play a game wit the pre-game discussion anyway, I might as well do wit with nicer numbers.

Which leads on to

(2) I played Warmachine since mk1. There was a time when I lived and breathed and loved this game. Mainly mk2. One of the biggest aspects that I loved was the non-granular points. A squad of iron fang pikemen for 8pts. 35pt games. Mate, awesome. And now 40k has similar numbers. Cool with me

And final point

(3) I'm less interested in blind match ups and 'list-building-for-advantage'. To me, I find that relative-list building, list-matching, game building and game crafting required from the power level approach represents a far more interesting and intriguing test of player skill than 'cram as much power into your list as you can'.

Just my 2 pence, and several reasons why a veteran (a) doesn't view power level as the intro version of a game and (b) prefers it.

 Crusaderobr wrote:

Not really a dislike, just more of a " what was the point GW? " I guess some people don't have basic math skills when they get into 40k? I guess they got some complaints from uneducated people and decided here you go, just throw your squads into an army and your good, no math required now! ??? /shrug

I can do math. To a pretty decent level. Yet still prefer smaller numbers as I find the list building more elegant. Loved Warmachine for example. As to the point - some people want different things, and power level appeals to some of us more than points. It's nice to be made feel welcome.

Breton wrote:

ccs wrote:
Points or Power Level, it really doesn't matter to me.

Why? Because my squads are all WYSIWYG & don't change game to game, year to year, or even between editions. Grey Hunter squad Blue consists of the same models, armed the same way, everytime. Longfang #1 is always LF#1, etc. So it really doesn't matter what # I'm writing down/adding up.
The only feature PL provides is that although GW messes with the pts, PL doesn't change. So I never had to re-calc the units PL cost.

They did just fiddle with PL.

Yeah, for the 1st time in what, 4 years? 3.5 years? As part of an edition change.
In that time pts wise we've had the Index lists, the Codex series, V2 of some Codex books, the SM supplements, the PA series 3 CA, & various FQs/Errata. The pts are always in flux. PL? Fire & forget.

Breton wrote:
Let’s try the premise again. Assume you get to spend a year at the GW studio, assume have access to an entire chapter/sept/hive fleet/etc. worth of models, imagine they’re all magnetized up the Yang Yang. Whatever list you write will have WYSIWYG models waiting for you by the time you go from the computer to the table. Assume you’re starting a whole new army you have to buy, assemble, etc. from scratch. It’s not about if you prefer this or that.

Points or PL, I don't prefer either one. In the end, either way, I'm still adding up #s. Justt one system has one or two digits, the other two to four per unit.

Breton wrote:
I’m wondering what “meta” changes occur on the switch. Is a 15 PL Land Raider better than a 300 point one? Does limited FOC choices make 10 PL for 10 Tacs, a special, a heavy, and an Apothecary still make them worse than 10 PL for 9 Infiltrators and a Helix Adept? We’re they worse than before? It 7PL for 9 Tacs, a sgt with bells and whistles a special and a heavy better or worse than 8PL for 8 Tacs, two sgts, and two specials?

I don't think you need to worry about wether your spending Pts or PL to determine most of these things.
Your LR. Is spending around 1/6th of your army total on a LR worthwile?
Your tacs vs the Primaris guys? Well, what do you intend to do with them? Obviously if you pick the wrong tool for the job then ones worse than the other. This will be true no matter how many digits involved in their cost.
One full tac squad with the option to split it, or two dedicated smaller squads? Again, what do you intend to do with them? How you spend your limited FOC slots is the important factor here.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Let's try with an analogy. I do not want to eat raspberry jam, I would like to eat strawberry jam. In 8th edition GW were producing both raspberry jam and strawberry jam, now they produce raspberry jam and a jam with both raspberry and strawberry, I no longer have my strawberry jam, I only have jam with both raspberries and strawberries or whatever artifice that goes into making these flavours. I am not content because I do not have my strawberry jam, you pointing out that there are strawberries in one of the jams is not helping because it has been ruined by the infusion of raspberries.

But you still have strawberry jam. Nothing's taken that away from you.

This is what I mean by "what are you on about"? You can still play points. There's literally nothing stopping you. I don't get what the problem is.

I'm not dealing with the rest of the comment, because if your complaint is "I want to eat strawberry jam" (play with points), then there's nothing stopping you eating the strawberry jam that still exists! You're making a problem out of nothing!

Sorry, am I missing something here? Do points just not exist any more?

And if you had to pay 0,1 PL for pistols on Necron Wraiths would you still be happy with PL? No, because that would defeat of the PL system in the first place.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Let's try with an analogy. I do not want to eat raspberry jam, I would like to eat strawberry jam. In 8th edition GW were producing both raspberry jam and strawberry jam, now they produce raspberry jam and a jam with both raspberry and strawberry, I no longer have my strawberry jam, I only have jam with both raspberries and strawberries or whatever artifice that goes into making these flavours. I am not content because I do not have my strawberry jam, you pointing out that there are strawberries in one of the jams is not helping because it has been ruined by the infusion of raspberries.

But you still have strawberry jam. Nothing's taken that away from you.

This is what I mean by "what are you on about"? You can still play points. There's literally nothing stopping you. I don't get what the problem is.

I'm not dealing with the rest of the comment, because if your complaint is "I want to eat strawberry jam" (play with points), then there's nothing stopping you eating the strawberry jam that still exists! You're making a problem out of nothing!

Sorry, am I missing something here? Do points just not exist any more?

And if you had to pay 0,1 PL for pistols on Necron Wraiths would you still be happy with PL? No, because that would defeat of the PL system in the first place.

I genuinely don't know what you're asking, I'm afraid.
Are you asking would I still like PL if I needed to pay for unit weapon upgrades? No, I don't think I'd like it.

I fail to see what that has to do with you claiming that you can't enjoy points without PL getting in the way, as per your jam example.

 Crusaderobr wrote:


If you want to play the intro version of the game go for it, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. Why Veteran players would choose to do so is beyond me, especially when the points system is so simple and only requires basic math.

I'm fine with power.

I've been playing since 3 months before the game was officially released (not 9th edition, Rogue Trader).

 DarknessEternal wrote:

I've been playing since 3 months before the game was officially released (not 9th edition, Rogue Trader).

Haha, what now?!?!

I'm old, and have been around this game since forever.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'm old, and have been around this game since forever.

That's rad, dude.

I missed the early years because I was playing Battletech, but I distinctly remember seeing it for the first time. Big table with a couple small squads on it. For some reason a squad of Dark Reapers holed up in a shack and firing out of it is a weirdly clear memory. That miiight have been 1990.

Breton wrote:
Two pages of replies, not a single one to the question asked.

Bit disparaging, there. There were quite a few, though a lot of the usual “I can’t stop myself telling people they’re having fun wrong!” posts too, as usual in any PL thread on Dakka. Which is pretty sad. Surely those beating that drum have worn it through by now???

The posts that were relevant stated that PL and WYSIWYG go hand in hand. The OP seemed to be about defining a PL Meta. PL is designed for just plonking squads on the table with whatever they’re armed with, not building to optimal choices. So the whole concept of the OP kinda misses the point of PL to begin with. Those posts allude to that mismatch.

So given the OP is trying to predict a meta that doesn’t exist and is incompatible with the philosophy of using PL, no one can really answer the question. A wide competitive PL scene is unlikely to appear, and as such this posited meta will not appear either.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Let's try with an analogy. I do not want to eat raspberry jam, I would like to eat strawberry jam. In 8th edition GW were producing both raspberry jam and strawberry jam, now they produce raspberry jam and a jam with both raspberry and strawberry, I no longer have my strawberry jam, I only have jam with both raspberries and strawberries or whatever artifice that goes into making these flavours. I am not content because I do not have my strawberry jam, you pointing out that there are strawberries in one of the jams is not helping because it has been ruined by the infusion of raspberries.

But you still have strawberry jam. Nothing's taken that away from you.

This is what I mean by "what are you on about"? You can still play points. There's literally nothing stopping you. I don't get what the problem is.

I'm not dealing with the rest of the comment, because if your complaint is "I want to eat strawberry jam" (play with points), then there's nothing stopping you eating the strawberry jam that still exists! You're making a problem out of nothing!

Sorry, am I missing something here? Do points just not exist any more?

And if you had to pay 0,1 PL for pistols on Necron Wraiths would you still be happy with PL? No, because that would defeat of the PL system in the first place.

I genuinely don't know what you're asking, I'm afraid.
Are you asking would I still like PL if I needed to pay for unit weapon upgrades? No, I don't think I'd like it.

I fail to see what that has to do with you claiming that you can't enjoy points without PL getting in the way, as per your jam example.

So you would not like playing PL if you had to pay in increments of 0,1 PL, can you understand why I would not want to play pts in increments of 5? It's not granular enough for me, just like pts are too granular for you.

Since we aren't really seeing any new arguments here from four years ago...

Would the contra-PL people consider using it when units like the aforementioned vanguard veterants would increase in PL when they buy expensive gear and decrease when they don't?

For example, daemon princes increase in PL when they buy wings. How about something like "vanguard marines can have a TH and SS (+1PL per model)?
Since GW aparently wants to make all options equal anyways, that wouldn't be too much of a difference compared to points, right?

 Jidmah wrote:
Since we aren't really seeing any new arguments here from four years ago...

Would the contra-PL people consider using it when units like the aforementioned vanguard veterants would increase in PL when they buy expensive gear and decrease when they don't?

For example, daemon princes increase in PL when they buy wings. How about something like "vanguard marines can have a TH and SS (+1PL per model)?
Since GW aparently wants to make all options equal anyways, that wouldn't be too much of a difference compared to points, right?

I will consider using PL when it comes in increments of 0,05, then we can have two kinds of pts and everyone will be happy because you'll still have PL right?

vict0988 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I genuinely don't know what you're asking, I'm afraid.
Are you asking would I still like PL if I needed to pay for unit weapon upgrades? No, I don't think I'd like it.

I fail to see what that has to do with you claiming that you can't enjoy points without PL getting in the way, as per your jam example.

So you would not like playing PL if you had to pay in increments of 0,1 PL, can you understand why I would not want to play pts in increments of 5? It's not granular enough for me, just like pts are too granular for you.

...but points don't come in increments of 5. There's plenty of 1 and 2 and 3 point upgrades around. I don't get what you're complaining about. Or are you complaining that having to calculate 0.05% of a list at a time (1 out of 2000) isn't granular enough?

Because either way - that's got nothing to do with PL at all.

JohnnyHell wrote:Bit disparaging, there. There were quite a few, though a lot of the usual “I can’t stop myself telling people they’re having fun wrong!” posts too, as usual in any PL thread on Dakka. Which is pretty sad. Surely those beating that drum have worn it through by now???

The posts that were relevant stated that PL and WYSIWYG go hand in hand. The OP seemed to be about defining a PL Meta. PL is designed for just plonking squads on the table with whatever they’re armed with, not building to optimal choices. So the whole concept of the OP kinda misses the point of PL to begin with. Those posts allude to that mismatch.

So given the OP is trying to predict a meta that doesn’t exist and is incompatible with the philosophy of using PL, no one can really answer the question. A wide competitive PL scene is unlikely to appear, and as such this posited meta will not appear either.

Thank you, that's what I was trying to say. Unfortunately, OP is asking a question that just doesn't really have an answer, as the people who play PL don't try to answer it, and the people who'd be most interested in answering it don't play PL.As you say, it's trying to predict a non-existent meta, and as a result, has no good answers.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

vict0988 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I genuinely don't know what you're asking, I'm afraid.
Are you asking would I still like PL if I needed to pay for unit weapon upgrades? No, I don't think I'd like it.

I fail to see what that has to do with you claiming that you can't enjoy points without PL getting in the way, as per your jam example.

So you would not like playing PL if you had to pay in increments of 0,1 PL, can you understand why I would not want to play pts in increments of 5? It's not granular enough for me, just like pts are too granular for you.

...but points don't come in increments of 5. There's plenty of 1 and 2 and 3 point upgrades around. I don't get what you're complaining about. Or are you complaining that having to calculate 0.05% of a list at a time (1 out of 2000) isn't granular enough?

Do you play with pts? I thought you played PL? I'm telling you that GW has made a concerted effort to move away from any options costing 2-4, 6-9 and 11-14... pts, it's everywhere in CA20. When an upgrade (an unmistakably better option) costs 0 pts then something is wrong in the world of pts. When CA19 had the upgrade cost more and CA20 removed that cost disctinction that is moving away from pts and towards PL, how can this be so hard to understand?

Even if only a dozen common different items for each faction in were changed from 0 PL to 0,1 then PL would stop being the easy and quick to calculate system, that has happened with pts, except it has stopped being the "you pay for what you get" system and is now a bastard system which does nothing right. I want a "pay for what you get system" but when getting +1 S AP and D costs 0 pts then I'm not paying for what I get when I take the item with lower S AP and D, I am paying for the most effective option and I don't want to talk to my opponent about what they think +1 S AP and D are worth before the game, that's going too nitty-gritty, I want GW to figure it out for me.

vict0988 wrote:Do you play with pts? I thought you played PL?

No, but I have a codex, which I'm more than capable of reading, and it's got plenty of non-multiples of 5.

I'm telling you that GW has made a concerted effort to move away from any options costing 2-4, 6-9 and 11-14... pts, it's everywhere in CA20. When an upgrade (an unmistakably better option) costs 0 pts then something is wrong in the world of pts. When CA19 had the upgrade cost more and CA20 removed that cost disctinction that is moving away from pts and towards PL, how can this be so hard to understand?

And I'm telling you that I have my SM Codex right here, and it's full of 2s, 8s, 6s, and 4s.

It's not all base 5.

Even if only a dozen common different items for each faction in were changed from 0 PL to 0,1 then PL would stop being the easy and quick to calculate system, that has happened with pts, except it has stopped being the "you pay for what you get" system and is now a bastard system which does nothing right.

That sounds like a points problem, not a PL one.

So, I'll say again - what has your grievance with the ACTUAL points system got to do with someone else's enjoyment of PL?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

vict0988 wrote:Do you play with pts? I thought you played PL?

No, but I have a codex, which I'm more than capable of reading, and it's got plenty of non-multiples of 5.

I'm telling you that GW has made a concerted effort to move away from any options costing 2-4, 6-9 and 11-14... pts, it's everywhere in CA20. When an upgrade (an unmistakably better option) costs 0 pts then something is wrong in the world of pts. When CA19 had the upgrade cost more and CA20 removed that cost disctinction that is moving away from pts and towards PL, how can this be so hard to understand?

And I'm telling you that I have my SM Codex right here, and it's full of 2s, 8s, 6s, and 4s.

It's not all base 5.

Even if only a dozen common different items for each faction in were changed from 0 PL to 0,1 then PL would stop being the easy and quick to calculate system, that has happened with pts, except it has stopped being the "you pay for what you get" system and is now a bastard system which does nothing right.

That sounds like a points problem, not a PL one.

So, I'll say again - what has your grievance with the ACTUAL points system got to do with someone else's enjoyment of PL?

The codex values are out of date, the density of this conversation is approaching that of a black hole. Do you want me to play using CA19 pts values? Bolt pistol 0, chainsword 0, grav-pistol 5, lightning claw 5, plasma pistol 5, power axe 5, power fist 10, power maul 5, power sword 5, thunder hammer 15, boltgun 0, combi-flamer 10, combi-grav 10, combi-melta 10, combi-plasma 10, storm bolter 3. Most of these values were changed to be base 5 in CA20. The philosophy of CA20 has been impacted by PL notions of "balance doesn't matter" and having the math be easy to do is more important than making as many options as possible viable. The problem is that PL player cannot keep your PL to yourselves and complain about people wanting balanced pts costs, so here it is, I'm here to complain in return for what your gakky system has led pts to become.