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.

 oni wrote:
Nope. Will never happen. GW learned this the hard way with AoS.

I read this argument a lot, but AoS switched from nothing at all to Power Levels
so the only thing GW learned is that there need to be something, and Power Level work just fine

Wyldhunt wrote:

Toofast wrote:
The only way GW games could be any more of a clusterfeth balance wise is if we went to that format. Imagine 10 marines with 2 meltas costing the same as 6 marines without them.

Daemon's advocate: it would be kind of weird to field our hypothetical 6 dudes with no special weapons. At that point, you're just spending PL really inefficiently; which you can also do with points. Not that I'm keen to defend PL. Power Level is fine for quick casual games where you want to try out some upgrades you can't normally stand to spend points on, but making it the main way to play the game would be a mistake.

Here's a principle of game design, though: you don't intentionally build trap options that people can do.
Because people do make 'inefficient' or wrong choices. What you want to do is write rules so people make interesting choices, not just always take the better choice.

 kodos wrote:

 oni wrote:
Nope. Will never happen. GW learned this the hard way with AoS.

I read this argument a lot, but AoS switched from nothing at all to Power Levels
so the only thing GW learned is that there need to be something, and Power Level work just fine

Perhaps I'm out of touch with the current edition of AoS, but I thought everything had a points value associated with it except some wargear upgrades and that units are pointed in blocks of models instead of a per model basis. Regardless of how things get broken down for AoS, it's still more granular than W40K's Power Level. The thing to keep in mind is that the AoS system is structured differently than W40K and seems to have less options overall (unit wargear, unit upgrades, unit composition, etc); so less granular pointing seems to work for the AoS system.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Toofast wrote:
The only way GW games could be any more of a clusterfeth balance wise is if we went to that format. Imagine 10 marines with 2 meltas costing the same as 6 marines without them.

Daemon's advocate: it would be kind of weird to field our hypothetical 6 dudes with no special weapons. At that point, you're just spending PL really inefficiently; which you can also do with points. Not that I'm keen to defend PL. Power Level is fine for quick casual games where you want to try out some upgrades you can't normally stand to spend points on, but making it the main way to play the game would be a mistake.

Razorbacks hone the point.

If you want that six man Tactical Squad WITH a Special Weapon in a Razorback, that costs the same as 10 dudes, combat squad, and just having five guys in the Razorback instead.

 oni wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 oni wrote:
Nope. Will never happen. GW learned this the hard way with AoS.

I read this argument a lot, but AoS switched from nothing at all to Power Levels
so the only thing GW learned is that there need to be something, and Power Level work just fine

Perhaps I'm out of touch with the current edition of AoS, but I thought everything had a points value associated with it except some wargear upgrades and that units are pointed in blocks of models instead of a per model basis. Regardless of how things get broken down for AoS, it's still more granular than W40K's Power Level. The thing to keep in mind is that the AoS system is structured differently than W40K and seems to have less options overall (unit wargear, unit upgrades, unit composition, etc); so less granular pointing seems to work for the AoS system.

The AOS system is almost identical to 40k power level except they have an added zero to the points.

100 points instead of 10 points.
250 points instead of 25 points.

The extra zero is largely a placebo but keeps things gw standard 2000 points.

The only other major difference is that there are more options in 40k. Assuming that just because there are more options in 40k means that gw feels they want to keep granularity is wholly based in opinion. GW will do whatever GW feels like doing at any given moment, as we can attest to in over 30 years of watching them do whatever they want on a whim that seems to take people off guard when they do it. That AOS already exists with 40k power level system with the extra zero should be something to keep an eye on depending on how their surveys go in what is popular and is not popular.

When AOS got its "official points" in 2016, there was some minor bitching that options were free and everyone would just take the most powerful options all the time.

And they did.

And then after a short period the fan base seemed to love that. And the tourney crowd today seems to be quite large and there is often praise of that type of system keeping things simple.

Power level is just points, but less accurate.

Its works in AoS because units have, at most a, choice between 2 weapons.

Can 40k move to Power level? Sure, if you get rid of a lot of the options that now exist.
And in a way GW is already doing just that, we can see it in the newer codexes where all the options weapons for a unit are all the same price.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Toofast wrote:
The only way GW games could be any more of a clusterfeth balance wise is if we went to that format. Imagine 10 marines with 2 meltas costing the same as 6 marines without them.

Daemon's advocate: it would be kind of weird to field our hypothetical 6 dudes with no special weapons. At that point, you're just spending PL really inefficiently; which you can also do with points. Not that I'm keen to defend PL. Power Level is fine for quick casual games where you want to try out some upgrades you can't normally stand to spend points on, but making it the main way to play the game would be a mistake.

Look at a unit like Drukhari Scourges. A unit with just the basic carbines is a fast, cheap, DS-ing harasser unit and objective-grabber. A unit carrying heavy weapons on everyone besides the squad leader is either DS-able long-range fire support or a short-range suicide unit. Power Level in its current incarnation splits the difference, massively overcosts the naked squad, and undercosts the heavy weapon squad.

It wouldn't be wholly unreasonable to:
-Continue using the current '6 guys are the same cost as 10' system. It's basically AOS's fixed unit size increments, except you can choose to drop a guy if you need to fit the squad plus a character in a transport or something.
-Assign PL costs to weapon upgrades that are either actually optional (eg on Scourges, or Chosen, or other units that have a base weapon but every model can swap it out), or more valuable than the weapon upgrades assumed to be baked into their cost. In the case of Scourges, it could be that you can take no heavy weapons at base cost, two at PL+1, or four at PL+2. Pretty straightforward.

Yeah, it'd be functionally just a less-granular points system, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Total lack of wargear/upgrade representation is the main thing that currently makes PL a no-go for me in terms of balancing two forces.

While I don't play AoS very often (only had, like, 2 games total), it seems like GW likes to give some free standard equipment (banner/musician, leader, etc.) and weapon choices that look identical, but then at the same time give some kind of rule, buff, or ability that basically says "no, you really should take this weapon".

I think we can all agree, There is no diversity in the current makeup of the competitive scene. Everyone just plays the best min-max lists. Just like the days of IH Dreads. I think Power level systems would change that.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we can all agree, There is no diversity in the current makeup of the competitive scene. Everyone just plays the best min-max lists. Just like the days of IH Dreads. I think Power level systems would change that.

Why would it change that?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we can all agree, There is no diversity in the current makeup of the competitive scene. Everyone just plays the best min-max lists. Just like the days of IH Dreads. I think Power level systems would change that.

By what reasoning? Lists will be min-maxed just as hard with PL. You think AoS doesn't have netlists?

Power Level won't change netlisting.

Netlisting has been a thing since AOL chat days of the 1990s. It doesn't matter what point system you use, competitive players will always find what is broken and gravitate toward that barring a system that can actually not be grotesquely broken. AOS players have embraced and glorified the power level system of gittin gud since the system dropped for them in 2016.

Speaking as a former competitive player that only fielded busted lists. And also pretended it was my skill winning the day and not my list.

I’d hate a change to all PL. Even in the crusade games I’ve played my group agreed to just use points.

PL wont fix balance issues. Better rules and pointing will. PL is great for some people, trash for others. I like there is a choice by players what system they will use. In the case of tournaments, I doubt the people using PL would care to much about playing a tourn thus points being a comp standard. Much like it is now. Keep em both. If you want better balance you need to push GW to fix their codex release schedule to minimize power creep. This will never happen. WH40k will ALWAYS be unbalanced simply due to release schedules.

Toofast wrote:
The only way GW games could be any more of a clusterfeth balance wise is if we went to that format. Imagine 10 marines with 2 meltas costing the same as 6 marines without them.

To be fair that's how AoS is formatted already. You don't have to take that special weapon in the squad(but you'd be a fool if you don't) and you don't need to take a block of 5/10 at once(but you'd be a fool if you don't). A squad of 6 barebone Khorne Warriors costs the same as a squad of 10 that have a banner and the single big axe. AoS has its imbalances, but no worse for wear than 40k.

Now whether something like PL will happen to Matched 40k I am not that worried about it. I can imagine many armies having a setup that can use PL, but marines just break the mold horribly(and also shows that marines have it way too good already) as their amount of permutations is just mindboggingly complex.

Basically Marines are too problematic for PL to take over. They'd need a massive restructure of marines to even think about doing something like that and I can't see that happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arcanis161 wrote:
While I don't play AoS very often (only had, like, 2 games total), it seems like GW likes to give some free standard equipment (banner/musician, leader, etc.) and weapon choices that look identical, but then at the same time give some kind of rule, buff, or ability that basically says "no, you really should take this weapon".

AoS 3.0 seems to be consolidating some of the weapons(much like we've seen in 40k), but even then all extras in a squad are included in the price of entry so you really don't have a reason to pick a barebone squad or understrength units.

Too slow OP - https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/804033.page#11326333

As my trend setting (as I'm so cool) post states they have been creating the perfect situation to switch to PL.

100 PL of Harlequins is really 110~115 PL right now anyway, so does it really matter if 100 PL of Marines which might be really 90 PL is 'secretly' adding 5~10 PL due to free upgrades?

 oni wrote:


*snip*

Perhaps I'm out of touch with the current edition of AoS, but I thought everything had a points value associated with it except some wargear upgrades and that units are pointed in blocks of models instead of a per model basis. Regardless of how things get broken down for AoS, it's still more granular than W40K's Power Level. The thing to keep in mind is that the AoS system is structured differently than W40K and seems to have less options overall (unit wargear, unit upgrades, unit composition, etc); so less granular pointing seems to work for the AoS system.

Only thing that costs point is the unit blocks. You have the reinforcement point system in 3.0, but overall you just pay a single cost for everything. Everything is basically just baked into the unit cost so if you skip a unit upgrade(like some heavy weapons for units) that's just on you for not using what is offered. With the amount of points offered AoS could easily offer to buy each model individually, but chose not to.

Regarding 40k unit upgrades it is mostly Marines that break any sort of AoS/PL system as they just have weaponry that is all over the place. Aeldari could almost use PL as is due to how Aspects are structured, and Necrons, and a lot of tyranids could easily be used in a PL system due to how static a lot of the units are. They could easily fit into an AoS style system where you buy a unit of 10 termagants and they all have 1 of 3 weapon setups available to them(quite a few Stormcasts have similar setups, at least the older lines). Even things like vehicle upgrades(non-weaponry) could just be abilities on the datasheet itself or stratagems which does seem where GW is going with a lot of vehicle upgrades.

Again, I doubt very much this will happen.

The problem with such a set up begin, when GW bakes in the upgrades cost in to the PL, but the faction you play has horrible upgrade, that no one wants to take, because they actually make your units worse. And with PL you suddenly get a points hike comparing to other armies that do not want or can't have unit options.

I'm all in of PL. Throw the points away!

Ahh PL is points. It's just a different way of counting them from the more granular point system.

This is like...textbook flame bait

 warhead01 wrote:
I'm all in of PL. Throw the points away!

State what benefits a less granular system provide?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I'm all in of PL. Throw the points away!

State what benefits a less granular system provide?

*Saves me a few moments by not having to look up pts values for this/that/something else.
*I don't have to pay any attention to CA volume whatever.

Now if only I could bank those saved moments & put em towards the time wasted with all the re-rolls.....

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Ahh PL is points. It's just a different way of counting them from the more granular point system.

'Not counting' when counting is definitely a different way.
'Less granular' is likely not the proper term when 6 models = 10 models and grenade launchers are the same as plasma guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I'm all in of PL. Throw the points away!

State what benefits a less granular system provide?

*Saves me a few moments by not having to look up pts values for this/that/something else.
*I don't have to pay any attention to CA volume whatever.

The first isn't an inherent benefit of the system, just GW crappy way of hiding points in an appendix (or another book). They could easily put points next to PL on the datasheet.

Ignoring CA is definitely an advantage at this point. The last few updates have turned points into a joke- they just aren't bothering to do this properly.
On the other hand, it makes me dubious as to how reasonable the PL values are. Even putting aside the inherent problems with PL (6=10, unequal weapons aren't equal), there isn't any reason to trust their judgement with either system, PL problems just... last longer.

Voss wrote:
The first isn't an inherent benefit of the system, just GW crappy way of hiding points in an appendix (or another book). They could easily put points next to PL on the datasheet.

Apropos!

Voss wrote:
Ignoring CA is definitely an advantage at this point. The last few updates have turned points into a joke- they just aren't bothering to do this properly.

Which, as you kind of point out, isn't a problem with the points system. It's the classic GW failing of concept vs realisation.

It's a good system, they're just bad at it.

And to take that one step further, them being bad at it isn't a good reason to stop using it, especially when the alternative is no better and actually leads to worse outcomes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I'm all in of PL. Throw the points away!

State what benefits a less granular system provide?

In the future, every model will cost 1 point, making everyone equal (not)

 Manchild 1984 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I'm all in of PL. Throw the points away!

State what benefits a less granular system provide?

In the future, every model will cost 1 point, making everyone equal (not)

In the future, you will own nothing and you will be happy.

Not buying it.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we can all agree, There is no diversity in the current makeup of the competitive scene. Everyone just plays the best min-max lists. Just like the days of IH Dreads. I think Power level systems would change that.

They would not. It's like points with less granularity.

Ultimately, PL works if:

1) You're happy only buying models in blocks of a fixed number

2) Upgrades are either so automatic you would never not take them (like a regimental banner) or if you have the option of 1 weapon upgrade, all the options are roughly equal in effectiveness.


The 6 marines = 10 marines with an assault weapon thing is...frankly a bit of a red herring to me. Marines coming in 5 or 10 is fine to me. The Razorback isn't there to carry squads of 6, it's there to carry 5 marines plus a character (where the equivalent guard vehicle, the chimera, carries 12 men when all their base squads are 10 strong).

The problem is that the various options for marines are ridiculously extensive and clearly NOT equal. A chainsword is a lot better than it used to be a few editions ago - having AP-1 and giving an extra attack where a powered blade doesn't, but it still doesn't make it a realistic choice when compared to any of the various special melee weapons if you're not paying for it.

As I've said before, apocalypse works fine just on PL - in that, you paid a chunk of points for 5 marines, a second chunk for another 5, and a single point if you wanted 1 heavy weapon of your choice. but that was okay because that was as granular as the system got; sergeants didn't register and all a captain carries is "master-crafted weapons" with the same melee statline regardless of the specific modelled weapons

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I'm all in of PL. Throw the points away!

State what benefits a less granular system provide?

*Saves me a few moments by not having to look up pts values for this/that/something else.
*I don't have to pay any attention to CA volume whatever.

Now if only I could bank those saved moments & put em towards the time wasted with all the re-rolls.....

Hate to break it to you but AoS still gets points changes so CA would not be going away.