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.

Yeah, as someone who likes Magic…
A card isn’t the same as a model. You don’t put the same effort into it. Even if it’s priced similarly, it’s not the same.

I was actually thinking about power level this afternoon.

Given the poor balance in the game, it probably wouldn't really change much if they did switch to power level only.

A 100 power level Harlequin army vs a 100 power level Space Marine army. Does it really matter if the "real power level" is 105 on the Space Marines because of how clunky upgrades are? They are still getting crushed by turn 2 no matter what.

Maybe this has all been a long con by the rules writer who loves power level. He volunteered to do all the points this edition and he is determined to make them useless.

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's what points seems to be. The path of least resistance. There are too many people who do nothing but throw shade at power or pretend like there's no burden on the players involved to self-police for EVERYONE involved to be able to have a fun game. There are similarly too many people who do nothing but copy/paste lists or read the day one reviews and structure their buy lists accordingly.

I'd rather say it's a matter of generations and how the new players are taught the game.

For quite a lot of editions, detailed system by points for separate options was the rule. Veteran players (especially on the competitive scene) are simply used to it and habits are hard to change. When you're a new player, you usually adapt to what you're taught.

Besides, GW tend to make the difference between power and points system less obvious as new codexes come out with options being less numerous / more "equivalent" in terms of point cost and efficiency. It's just a matter of time before the argument of army lists being widely different if you use one or the other way doesn't stand that much in comparison to, say, 8th edition.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Maybe this has all been a long con by the rules writer who loves power level. He volunteered to do all the points this edition and he is determined to make them useless.

Great, we're all playing the, "Who's Line is it, Anyway?" version of 40k.

I prefer power level over points. All these nice kits with cool options that go right into the bits box because with points everything has to have a maximized purpose or its a waste. Make a cool sargeant with weapon options? Not with points, you need to squeeze that tactical squad down to its bare minimum so you can spam more of the strong things.

Points has no chill and is the direct cause of toxic game play. I will take my little baby power levels and enjoy getting the most out of my $100 model kit for pretend soldiers.

 Togusa wrote:
But in Warhammer kits hang around for decades, and to me, that's the difference.

some do, not all and units come and go with Edition changes or new Codex version as well
I have a lot of stuff for Marines that once were but now are not more, the only difference to Magic is the time frame it happend in the past, but since GW get the Edition cycle short to 3 years the big difference is not there any more

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Gert wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
After all, we have people defending PL here right now.

Yes, god forbid there be a quick and easy system for people to make a list without needing a calculator.

Yeah it's pretty quick when GW switches up points all the time but the PL remains static.

While not changing as frequently, we have seen PL updates in 2021 and 2022 - here is the 2022 document.

Not going to comment on how much changed each time, but they do consider it, at least - and have yet to charge for the update document...

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I prefer power level over points. All these nice kits with cool options that go right into the bits box because with points everything has to have a maximized purpose or its a waste. Make a cool sargeant with weapon options? Not with points, you need to squeeze that tactical squad down to its bare minimum so you can spam more of the strong things.

Points has no chill and is the direct cause of toxic game play. I will take my little baby power levels and enjoy getting the most out of my $100 model kit for pretend soldiers.

Yup. I prefer and play mostly with PL lately too, as does the group of players I play with. Makes it waaay easier to build a list for a game, and use what is on the models you bring.

We also had no problem eyeballing AoS when it first hit with no points or PL. Our group had lots of fun with the more free form movement and taking 'roughly equal' forces. Led to some really fun and interesting games.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I prefer power level over points. All these nice kits with cool options that go right into the bits box because with points everything has to have a maximized purpose or its a waste. Make a cool sargeant with weapon options? Not with points, you need to squeeze that tactical squad down to its bare minimum so you can spam more of the strong things.

Points has no chill and is the direct cause of toxic game play. I will take my little baby power levels and enjoy getting the most out of my $100 model kit for pretend soldiers.

That attitude is there whether you play points or power. If you're finding an attitude problem no system will change that.

I find power actually discourages taking a variety of options.
Why would I take a chainsword when I can get a powersword for free? You're paying for the powersword whether you use it or not, so you're encouraged to use it.
At least under points you can choose to just not pay the points.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Not sure what the outrage is about, even if it was real. Per the fake article it was meant to be a rotating/seasonal "restricted" list. Things that were banned or limited this season might not be the same things that were banned or limited next season. This season Trajan Valoris isn't available and you can only field 1 or 2 units of Crisis Suits or whatever, next season Trajan is available and you can field as many units of Crisis Suits as you want.

Of course, its only for matched play on the competitive circuit, so since most of you guys aren't competitive players it shouldn't affect you at all... right?

40K/AoS isn't Magic. You cannot have a Banned/Restricted list for a game that includes 150$ + models.

You say that like people aren't paying that much for single Magic cards.

Yeah, also a massive false equivalency. To the best of my knowledge Magics banned and restricted lists are permanent, whereas this is a rotating list. Oh boo hoo, you can't use Trajann Valoris for 3 months, whatsoever will you do - best sell your entire army and quit the game i sraad of trying a different list until he rotates back into play in few weeks.

nobody is really hurt by thus except maybe the people who constantly sell the minis that they bo longer use in their current lists. Hold on to your minis, build a collection, rotate your minis through over time. Its not hard.

 Togusa wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Not sure what the outrage is about, even if it was real. Per the fake article it was meant to be a rotating/seasonal "restricted" list. Things that were banned or limited this season might not be the same things that were banned or limited next season. This season Trajan Valoris isn't available and you can only field 1 or 2 units of Crisis Suits or whatever, next season Trajan is available and you can field as many units of Crisis Suits as you want.

Of course, its only for matched play on the competitive circuit, so since most of you guys aren't competitive players it shouldn't affect you at all... right?

40K/AoS isn't Magic. You cannot have a Banned/Restricted list for a game that includes 150$ + models.

You say that like people aren't paying that much for single Magic cards.

They aren't, very, very few people compete in legacy events where cards hit that value. Most modern/standard events hover much, much lower.

in Magic, cards come and go. But in Warhammer kits hang around for decades, and to me, that's the difference.

Sure, and your minis will still hypothetically be useful forever. We are talking 3 month cycles where some of your individual units are going to be restricted in quantity, nobody is telling you that these units are permanently banned/out of rotation or being legendsized

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I prefer power level over points. All these nice kits with cool options that go right into the bits box because with points everything has to have a maximized purpose or its a waste. Make a cool sargeant with weapon options? Not with points, you need to squeeze that tactical squad down to its bare minimum so you can spam more of the strong things.

Points has no chill and is the direct cause of toxic game play. I will take my little baby power levels and enjoy getting the most out of my $100 model kit for pretend soldiers.

I prefer points over power levels. All these nice kits with cool options that go right into the bits box because with power levels everything has to have a maximized purpose or its a waste. Make a cool sargeant without weapon options? Not with power level, you need to squeeze that tactical squad up to its maximum so you can spam more of the strong things.

Power level has no chill and is the direct cause of toxic game play. I will take my more granular points and enjoy getting the most out of my $100 model kit for pretend soldiers.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's noteworthy that even when my group plays Crusade, they do so under a mismatch of Narrative and Matched rules (essentially Matched with Secondaries swapped for agendas and advancements layers on top).

Matched Play is, for the vast majority of the community, 40k.
I suspect the only people that genuinely do use power are the kids.

The only way I've ever seen crusade played here is with points and using the rule swaps you mentioned


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

Two things.
1 - Power levels and Matched are not mutually exclusive.
2 - The whole "only kids/newstarts use Power" thing reeks of elitism. Power is easier to use for pickup games and for people who don't have loads of time to spend on calculating their lists down to the last point. Get off your high horse.

Whoever it's for, I've only seen kids playing with it. Usually kids with limited collections or who built models without looking at a codex and have a totally illegal hodgepodge of weapon options compared to codex loadouts. It takes me like 2 mins to throw a list together on battlescribe which is both free and works on any PC/android/apple so I'm not sure what the excuse is for not being able to make a list with points. Somehow since 1999 everyone I've played has been able to do the 1st grade level math required to put a proper list together. If someone doesn't have the ability to do that, I'm not sure I would enjoy a game with them anyway. Play however you like though, nobody is having fun or pushing little plastic toys around the "wrong" way.

Battlescribe's garbage.

The constant talking down to people about Power is a big factor likely informing why you "don't see it". Not like points actually do anything to balance the game if someone wants to be TFG anyways.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Battlescribe's garbage.

The constant talking down to people about Power is a big factor likely informing why you "don't see it". Not like points actually do anything to balance the game if someone wants to be TFG anyways.

What is the advantage to PL over points?

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the advantage to PL over points?

What's the advantage to points over PL?

Toofast wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's noteworthy that even when my group plays Crusade, they do so under a mismatch of Narrative and Matched rules (essentially Matched with Secondaries swapped for agendas and advancements layers on top).

Matched Play is, for the vast majority of the community, 40k.
I suspect the only people that genuinely do use power are the kids.

The only way I've ever seen crusade played here is with points and using the rule swaps you mentioned

I've seen that as well, simply because Matched Play provides the basic framework with rules that you would expect to be game-wide.

GW's problem right now is trying to patch the game to cater to cutthroat high-level tournaments, while simultaneously applying the same restrictions to casual play. And while tournament players (and those grognards with decade-old multi-army collections) might be all for rules that arbitrarily ban units and create a constantly-shifting meta, it really sucks for anyone just trying to build up a single army for normal play.

Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the advantage to PL over points?

What's the advantage to points over PL?

Generally better balance between two players who don't have the game knowledge needed to balance it out themselves, and a starting point closer to parity for players who can do the last-minute tweaks as needed.

I mean, you could have just answered the question by saying 'it's easier to pick 50PL of stuff in your head'.

I highly suspect if GW did an actual ban list it'd be for GT play only. Not that it seems to stop people from trying to treat GT play as the only valid play experiance.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I prefer power level over points. All these nice kits with cool options that go right into the bits box because with points everything has to have a maximized purpose or its a waste. Make a cool sargeant with weapon options? Not with points, you need to squeeze that tactical squad down to its bare minimum so you can spam more of the strong things.

Points has no chill and is the direct cause of toxic game play. I will take my little baby power levels and enjoy getting the most out of my $100 model kit for pretend soldiers.

I prefer points over power levels. All these nice kits with cool options that go right into the bits box because with power levels everything has to have a maximized purpose or its a waste. Make a cool sargeant without weapon options? Not with power level, you need to squeeze that tactical squad up to its maximum so you can spam more of the strong things.

Power level has no chill and is the direct cause of toxic game play. I will take my more granular points and enjoy getting the most out of my $100 model kit for pretend soldiers.

I prefer points too.
This dual system (PL or point) is an aberration to me.

People who want to maximize things will do it whatever system is used,
but I surely miss the days when you can just seat and make a list
with your one army book and a simple roster,
without thinking about bataillon this, stratagem that...

 Kanluwen wrote:
Battlescribe's garbage.

Battlescribe is hands-down the best data file system for army building/composition in use currently. I'd trust it (with all it's potential data entry errors) over someone's pen and paper list any day of the week.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I highly suspect if GW did an actual ban list it'd be for GT play only. Not that it seems to stop people from trying to treat GT play as the only valid play experiance.

Thing is MTG can do banned lists because it does't actually affect their bottom line. Since the only way to get cards is in random packs, the only ones impacted are those trading cards who then end up with banned cards to sell. The cards all came from random packs so MTG got their money. They'd have to ban most of a season during its prime selling period for it to hurt their bottom line.


GW on the other hand really doesn't want a banned models list. It directly impacts their bottom line in selling models because models are sold direct to the customer.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the advantage to PL over points?

What's the advantage to points over PL?

Greater granularity.

There's a difference between 6 Tactical Marines, bare-bones, to ride in your Razorback; and 10 Tactical Marines with a Lascannon, Plasma Gun, Combi-Flamer, and Thunderhammer.
Under points, that difference is represented. Under PL, they are treated exactly the same.

 Overread wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I highly suspect if GW did an actual ban list it'd be for GT play only. Not that it seems to stop people from trying to treat GT play as the only valid play experiance.

Thing is MTG can do banned lists because it does't actually affect their bottom line. Since the only way to get cards is in random packs, the only ones impacted are those trading cards who then end up with banned cards to sell. The cards all came from random packs so MTG got their money. They'd have to ban most of a season during its prime selling period for it to hurt their bottom line.


GW on the other hand really doesn't want a banned models list. It directly impacts their bottom line in selling models because models are sold direct to the customer.

I wasn't arguing if they would/would not do it or why it might be a bad idea. I was saying IF they did it then it'd likely be GT mission pack only like most of their balance changes have been.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the advantage to PL over points?

What's the advantage to points over PL?

Weapons that do more damage cost more points. If points is unbalanced, then giving free weapon upgrades out is even more unbalanced. Especially when some factions can take a ton of different upgraded weapons on a squad while others have limited to no options.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I prefer power level over points. All these nice kits with cool options that go right into the bits box because with points everything has to have a maximized purpose or its a waste. Make a cool sargeant with weapon options? Not with points, you need to squeeze that tactical squad down to its bare minimum so you can spam more of the strong things.

Points has no chill and is the direct cause of toxic game play. I will take my little baby power levels and enjoy getting the most out of my $100 model kit for pretend soldiers.

That attitude is there whether you play points or power. If you're finding an attitude problem no system will change that.

I find power actually discourages taking a variety of options.
Why would I take a chainsword when I can get a powersword for free? You're paying for the powersword whether you use it or not, so you're encouraged to use it.
At least under points you can choose to just not pay the points.

Power level is meant for people who have no intention of competitive play or pretending to play competitive. I just like the ability to model as a choose without tallying up the points and finding myself 150+ points in the hole with no appreciably gain in fighting capability.

Having played since 3rd switching over to power level has been a better experience with more interesting armies.

If GW dropped power level (or even crusade honestly) I'd probably have to hang up the game for good. There are vastly better competitive games for my time.

 catbarf wrote:

GW's problem right now is trying to patch the game to cater to cutthroat high-level tournaments, while simultaneously applying the same restrictions to casual play.

To GW casual play = narrative and competitive play = matched. GW is editing matched play rules in response to the tournament crowd because that is what the matched play product is meant for. Its the community's fault that we refuse to adopt narrative play as the casual standard and continue to ape the conventions of the matched play game paradigm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the advantage to PL over points?

What's the advantage to points over PL?

Greater granularity.

There's a difference between 6 Tactical Marines, bare-bones, to ride in your Razorback; and 10 Tactical Marines with a Lascannon, Plasma Gun, Combi-Flamer, and Thunderhammer.
Under points, that difference is represented. Under PL, they are treated exactly the same.

Except PL is designed under the assumption that you and your opponent will coordinate and self-moderate in order to have a good time rather than trying to min-max the game. If you're the kind of player to try to take every option available in a unit, then yeah PL will never be balanced - but thats a "you" problem rather than a problem with PL - you're not using it the way its meant to be used.

In most cases, if you look at a units points cost vs its PL costs using the "typical" builds that players commonly take for a unit, using the 1PL = 20 points conversion ratio, you find that a units PL roughly matches the converted points value for that unit, often within +/- 5-10 pts. Basically, if your typical squad build with a unit of tac marines using matched play points is a flamer and powerfist, but you feel compelled to field the same unit with a lascannon, plasma gun, combi-flamer, and thunderhammer instead when you're playing with PL, then the problem is really with you looking to extraneously tool-up your unit with every toy possible rather than seeking to play in a fluffy and rational manner based around a fluffy TO&E that you have devised for your army. Just because you have the option to do something doesn't mean you should - in matched play points you wouldn't necessarily want to invest that many points into a single unit because its subject to diminishing returns by mixing such a mish-mash of capabilities into one squad (you want to be at range standing still to use the lascannon, you want to get up close into melee to use the thunderhammer, etc.). Those same sensibilities should still apply when you're using PL - just because you aren't punished by the points system for doing so doesn't mean you should metagame and minmax - theres more to the game than simply winning.

chaos0xomega wrote:
To GW casual play = narrative and competitive play = matched. GW is editing matched play rules in response to the tournament crowd because that is what the matched play product is meant for. Its the community's fault that we refuse to adopt narrative play as the casual standard and continue to ape the conventions of the matched play game paradigm.

Crusade, and the things that stem form it, are recent endeavours by GW; the first time in, well, ever that they've put some real effort behind the idea of 'narrative play' beyond "Do whatever!" or that "Forge the Narrative!" malarkey from a few years back.

For most of its existence the standard method of playing 40k has been what they now call 'matched play'. As such, I think it's a really bad idea to say that it's the community's fault for playing the game the way they've been playing it for literal decades.

Right now GW is like Creative Assembly nerfing a unit in a Total War game because it overperforms in multi-player, but the nerf also works in single-player where it was never a problem. And their solution to most things has been extremely harsh blanket changes to the rules because of a few units causing problems (flyers!), or just heaping more rules on top of things (most recent example being the AoS 'Prime Hunter' craziness).

The rules team has become a headless chicken on speed-laced crack. They need a new chicken (and fewer drugs!).

And Power Level was just a cop-out for balancing purposes. It's, at best, a 'get you by' style allowing for quick organisation of games. It's not even remotely balanced, and is far less balanced than any more granular system could ever hope to be. Basic maths tells us that. That some people still continue to act as if it's a better system just shows a lack of basic mathematical understanding or perhaps reading comprehension. Or an extreme anti-tournament bias. Or all three.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Except PL is designed under the assumption that you and your opponent will coordinate and self-moderate in order to have a good time rather than trying to min-max the game.

When a system designed to regulate the effectiveness of two armies into parity essentially holds up it's hands and says "actually, you're supposed to do the work", it naturally fails at that purpose.

Power level clearly has a niche, that tiny bit easier to organise makes it suitable for people that genuinely can't be arsed to spend 5 minutes making a list.

However, it is not suitable for pickup games that make up 99% of 40k games. I don't know what the guy at the FLGS is bringing, how the hell am I supposed to organised my army to be 'in-line' with his? The answer is we need such a scoring system that is able to get us two armies within close parity of a pre-agreed upon (by convention) points limit.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Except PL is designed under the assumption that you and your opponent will coordinate and self-moderate in order to have a good time rather than trying to min-max the game.

When a system designed to regulate the effectiveness of two armies into parity essentially holds up it's hands and says "actually, you're supposed to do the work", it naturally fails at that purpose.

Power level clearly has a niche, that tiny bit easier to organise makes it suitable for people that genuinely can't be arsed to spend 5 minutes making a list.

However, it is not suitable for pickup games that make up 99% of 40k games. I don't know what the guy at the FLGS is bringing, how the hell am I supposed to organised my army to be 'in-line' with his? The answer is we need such a scoring system that is able to get us two armies within close parity of a pre-agreed upon (by convention) points limit.

Points is same though. It's not intended for balance. It's horrible for balance. If you use either you don't care about balance. You don't bring 2000 pts game for pickup game and expect it's "in-line" with his.

Both are lousy way to balance game.

At least points makes an earnest attempt at it.

The fact that GW is unable to adequately fulfil that basic responsibility is besides the point.

The whole Matched play VS Casual VS Narrative VS Competitive shouldn't be an issue.


People throw it up, but really its a non-issue. If the game is balanced for competitive players WITH a view toward a generally even level of performance between and within armies, then its a good thing for all. It means the matched play/competitive people get to play balanced matches where the skill is in the list building AND the table. It means casual players have fewer "I win" buttons which can be used by or against them by accident in casual games. It means narrative people have a solid rules system which they can easily tweak for specific effects.


Right now GW has a very lumpy approach with extreme reactions to problems. The result of which is that you have broken elements. Those broken things are what win tournaments; they are what crush casual players and they are what makes it harder to do narrative.
Sure its not all there is to the game, but it puts extreme power into the list building stage. GW has also doubled down on lethality which means the game moves faster, but also means you get fewer turns where actual game-state-change can take place. When you can wipe out most of your opponents army by turn 2 that isn't giving your opponent a challenge its basically winning the game whilst one player has had very reduced chance to actually play (and don't get me started on the whole double turn).



I think the issue stems from several aspects
1) GW clearly doesn't have strict rules writers as their writers. There's a much more casual aid to things which lets insane/silly broken things slip through the net very easily; or be intentionally part of the system

2) We've heard that GW doesn't actually pay their writers much either for working on rules. Which might well mean even skilled writers appear unskilled because they are working with insufficient resources.

3) GW does have some limited beta feedback, but they do it in an odd way; sending out pre-written army lists and limited rules for community testers to test; rather than the entire document.

4) GW changes the core rules significantly every 3-4 years. Instead of a rules system that's 30 years old by now, they've one that's only 3 with some limited common attributes that carry over. I suspect part of this is them defending the cash injection of everyone buying new rules every few years and the big hype a new edition creates, however it also means that each edition only just starts to iron out its major issues because its all changed up again.




There are CERTAINLY things GW could do to improve the situation. Considering that rules is one of the major reasons people move away form GW games to the competing brands; considering that every time they've made some significant improvements to the rules it generally comes with a big uptake in customers, chatter and sales - - considering all those you'd think they'd want to spend more and shift their focus.


Personally I've long said that the attitude toward rules from GW will remain the same until they get new blood both in writing the rules and also in managing the resources toward rules. We've seen some of that with their side games here and there.