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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Yes, that's how it currently works. But I thought that you were suggesting adding a PL cost to all of those various weapons upgrades. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

I was not suggesting that each of the weapons should have an individual PL cost.

I was suggesting, however, that maybe there should be a PL upgrade to the unit for possessing any special/heavy weapon in general. I see no issue with that.

IE:
A Guard Infantry Squad that just consists of a Sergeant and 9 Riflemen?
Flat cost of Power.
Taking a Special Weapon? +1PL.
Taking a Heavy Weapon? +1 PL.

That's basically how Apocalypse does it.
Well, for heavy weapons, anyway. Assault weapons and sergeants weapons don't 'show up' in the scale and just blend into the stats of 'small arms' and 'melee weapons'.

 Kanluwen wrote:
IE:
A Guard Infantry Squad that just consists of a Sergeant and 9 Riflemen?
Flat cost of Power.
Taking a Special Weapon? +1PL.
Taking a Heavy Weapon? +1 PL.

Not all weapons are created equal. Some do a different things to others, whereas others are straight upgrades.

Power Level doesn't account for this in the same way that points do, and if you start re-writing Power Level to account for these types of changes, then you might as well just use points.

I managed to keep playing during 7th edition and the index era of 8th edition so I wouldn't quit 40k just for PL being the only way to play. I certainly prefer points though and I fear that some units that can get multiple loadouts would end up with mulitple datasheets to address the issue with PL. So even more massive rosters than what we have now. Which combined to the the massive dice rolling is basically the only thing I don't like about current 40k.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

The middle ground is that you have to realize any upgrade is worth SOMETHING and it's up to GW to figure out the point cost.

Wait that's not a middle ground.

I mean, fine, but 'what something is worth' changes constantly based on a whole gamut of contextual variations- having a single universal cost to determine its 'value' is unachievable. And lets not forget, 'the average cost' isn't the same thing (not even close!) as 'the accurate cost'. The greatest minds would struggle with this; gw ain't that.

Nos to op, if gw went all in on pl instead of points would I play? Yes, with caveats. I prefer lower granularity systems like warmachine and felt they costed things better than high granularity systems. The caveat is for this to work in gw games you'd need to radically redesign and restructure unit design/costs to the point that a units setup and loadout is set and unchanged or its options are greatly reduced.

I'd have no problem playing 40k as power level instead of points. Would certainly make adding up army cost a lot quicker.

Given the state of the current points system, the difference between it and PL seems negligible at this point.

The thing that’s stop me playing as much is time not the army building system so it wouldn’t change how often I play, but when I do play I use power levels and have since they were introduced. I think it’s a brilliant system as long as you and your opponents are all sensible and just in it to win it at all costs.

Exactly. PL is great for what it is. Approach from a min max WAAC mindset and no wonder those people don’t get it and write essays dragging PL. Both PL and points have their purpose for different types of games.

I don't think points or PLs are really the problem or the solution. GW's balance issues usually stem from a lack of playtesting. GW assume that it is enough to check that 1 of a unit in an army is balanced but never stop to check if spamming 6 of them might cause a problem. Similarly stratagems may be fine in isolation but can be seriously game-breaking when stacked.

I would not quit playing if GW would adopt PL fully. Have used PL in Crusade and don't mind it that much.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not all weapons are created equal. Some do a different things to others, whereas others are straight upgrades.
Power Level doesn't account for this in the same way that points do, and if you start re-writing Power Level to account for these types of changes, then you might as well just use points.

The more practical way would probably be for the base power level to include 'any and all items from section A' - and then +1 PL to access section B (i.e. the powerful heavy/special weapons), and another +1 PL to access section C (i.e. veteran or character upgrades).

i.e.
Minimum size tactical squad - X PL, can include your pick of flamers, heavy bolters, power swords, and things of that nature
+X PL - 5 extra models, one extra special/heavy weapon slot
+1 PL - squad may also pick melta, plasma, las, etc
+1 PL - veteran sergeant with full access to the sergeant armoury

A.T. wrote:
The more practical way would probably be for the base power level to include 'any and all items from section A' - and then +1 PL to access section B (i.e. the powerful heavy/special weapons), and another +1 PL to access section C (i.e. veteran or character upgrades).

Again, at which point you're just doing more different-er points, but with less granularity, and less accuracy... so why bother?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Approach from a min max WAAC mindset...

It has nothing to do with a "WAAC mindset". Where do you even get that? We get enough of that baseless drek from Kan. Don't ape his terrible arguments.

From about a million threads about PL.

It always comes up that competitive folk come into any PL thread to tell them how they’re wrong.

I wasn’t addressing your comments, it was a general remark.

If GW went full PL then lists designed on PL WILL be min-maxed. That's why I fear that at that point GW would balance that by splitting units with possible multiple loadouts into multiple datasheets with fixed or semi fixed loadout.

Andykp wrote:I think it’s a brilliant system as long as you and your opponents are all sensible

How many special weapons can I take on a unit of Scions (who can take up to 4) before it stops being sensible, and where can I appeal to if my opponent and I don't see eye-to-eye?

I mean, the caveat 'it works as long as you're sensible' is really just offloading the burden of balancing the game from the developer onto the players, and then throwing in a layer of undeserved moral judgment to boot (because the implication is if you can't figure it out on your own, you're not being sensible).

H.B.M.C. wrote:Again, at which point you're just doing more different-er points, but with less granularity, and less accuracy... so why bother?

Conversely, I don't think points would be even better if we increased the cost of everything by a factor of 10 and started playing 20,000 point games- less granularity doesn't necessarily translate into worse outcomes.

I don't regularly use PL, but given how GW has been approaching upgrades thus far (embracing sidegrades and baking wargear into unit costs), I would be okay with PL becoming the less-granular points system that it could be but for lack of representing wargear.

Imo, PL could work, but only if you cull most options to avoid silly cases like "this gun is 1000x better than this gun, but they are free upgrades!"

Which...seems to be what GW is doing? There's a lot fewer options these days compared to earlier editions. It's just that GW hasn't committed fully yet, resulting in that Kratos tank nonsense.

A.T. wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not all weapons are created equal. Some do a different things to others, whereas others are straight upgrades.
Power Level doesn't account for this in the same way that points do, and if you start re-writing Power Level to account for these types of changes, then you might as well just use points.

The more practical way would probably be for the base power level to include 'any and all items from section A' - and then +1 PL to access section B (i.e. the powerful heavy/special weapons), and another +1 PL to access section C (i.e. veteran or character upgrades).

i.e.
Minimum size tactical squad - X PL, can include your pick of flamers, heavy bolters, power swords, and things of that nature
+X PL - 5 extra models, one extra special/heavy weapon slot
+1 PL - squad may also pick melta, plasma, las, etc
+1 PL - veteran sergeant with full access to the sergeant armoury

I’m having flashbacks to playing DoW and upgrading the armory. Not that it’s a bad idea, just found it amusing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Again, at which point you're just doing more different-er points, but with less granularity, and less accuracy... so why bother?

It has interesting (IMO) implications for take-all-comers style lists, as you would pay for how large / elite your unit is ahead of time but pick the specifics on the day.

And it's easier to balance than the current PL system without losing its core simplicity.

i would prefer power level and good balancing so that each weapon or option served a specific purpose but was not definitively better.

as an example with an ork nob in a boyz squad you can take.
free loadout
choppa (str user ap0 D1, +1 attack)and pistol

5 points
big choppa (str +2, ap-1 D2)
power stabba (str user ap-2 D1)

10 points
killsaw str x2 user ap-4 D2
power claw str x2 ap-3 D d3

barring some kind of real need for points nobody is taking anything but a kill saw (yes the platform is bad and ork boyz are bad but with trukk boyz or for manditory troops)

improve the other options in ways to make them unique and maybe people will take them. choppa nob maybe that one gets a nob choppa for 3 extra attacks instead of 1. buff other options from there so they are a mix of varios damages ap damage and bonus attacks. something good vs marines or custodes another better vs tanks, one better vs weaker infantry etc but all the same cost


*edit mistyped +str of big choppa*

A.T. wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Again, at which point you're just doing more different-er points, but with less granularity, and less accuracy... so why bother?

It has interesting (IMO) implications for take-all-comers style lists, as you would pay for how large / elite your unit is ahead of time but pick the specifics on the day.

And it's easier to balance than the current PL system without losing its core simplicity.

Being able to swap around weapon upgrades also functionally sidesteps the issue of assigning appropriate costs to each, because it no longer is a matter of taking whatever's most optimal for the points. Even if a plasma gun is a better pick than a flamer in 80% of matchups, and in a purely points system you would never opt for flamers in a take-all-comers list if they had the same cost, being able to swap in flamers in that 20% of matchups where they're better would give them utility.

The problem then is how to realistically handle that in a game where WYSIWYG is expected and magnets are not commonly used.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
i would prefer power level and good balancing so that each weapon or option served a specific purpose but was not definitively better.

as an example with an ork nob in a boyz squad you can take.
free loadout
choppa (str user ap0 D1, +1 attack)and pistol

5 points
big choppa (str +5, ap-1 D2)
power stabba (str user ap-2 D1)

Sorry but in what world are those two equal?

I probably wouldn't play if PL was the only way. Points are unbalanced enough, if the game was any more unbalanced I would stick to other systems. Also I don't feel like building a bunch of new tac squads to model them with every upgrade possible, which is exactly what every army would do if PL became the default. Saying "but points are unbalanced" is like taking a sledgehammer to your headlight housing because a bulb on the other side is burned out.

 vipoid wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
i would prefer power level and good balancing so that each weapon or option served a specific purpose but was not definitively better.

as an example with an ork nob in a boyz squad you can take.
free loadout
choppa (str user ap0 D1, +1 attack)and pistol

5 points
big choppa (str +5, ap-1 D2)
power stabba (str user ap-2 D1)

Sorry but in what world are those two equal?

A world where most models have:
* 1 wound or a -1 Damage ability
* Transhuman or a T value low or high enough that the strength mod doesn't matter
* a 6+ or worse save, or an invulnerable save one worse than their armour save

So not quite the world we live in.

Yes and no. If I were playing or playing more then it would make playing even more easier for me. But I'm not even playing at all currently, don't enjoy 9th much at all and my other hobby has my energy this year.

 vipoid wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
i would prefer power level and good balancing so that each weapon or option served a specific purpose but was not definitively better.

as an example with an ork nob in a boyz squad you can take.
free loadout
choppa (str user ap0 D1, +1 attack)and pistol

5 points
big choppa (str +5, ap-1 D2)
power stabba (str user ap-2 D1)

Sorry but in what world are those two equal?

I gotta give GW credit, because not even they would consider those two weapons equal in a point system LOL

 catbarf wrote:
Being able to swap around weapon upgrades also functionally sidesteps the issue of assigning appropriate costs to each, because it no longer is a matter of taking whatever's most optimal for the points. Even if a plasma gun is a better pick than a flamer in 80% of matchups, and in a purely points system you would never opt for flamers in a take-all-comers list if they had the same cost, being able to swap in flamers in that 20% of matchups where they're better would give them utility.

The idea behind the extended access cost is that you do need to choose between having or not having access the better guns.

Consider if unit X cost 15 PL with any two weapons from the basic list (similar to how 5e tactical squads came with flamers and heavy bolters baked in). But instead of then paying a unique individual cost for each weapon upgrade there is just a flat '+ 5PL: may replace special/heavy weapons with any option from list B', and '+5 PL: veteran squad leader and gear'

So optimal for points becomes more of an opportunity cost - three squads with access to everything vs five squads with only access to the lesser upgrades.

It's a half way solution and as someone else mentioned kind of computer-gamey, but seems more workable as a PL based system than the current single price for everything.

I can see GW making seperate data sheets for basically the same unit.

Tactical squad X PL the squad may take any of the following options- The Sgt can have a power weapon or a trooper can take either a flamer or greanade launcher.

Tactical squad Y PL (where Y>X) the squad may take any of the following- The Sgt can have a master crafted weapon or a trooper can take either a melta gun or a plasma gun.

In AoS, at least in my army, your units are limitd in their options to things that are relatively equal. So if GW somehow managed to be consistant that's how they would end up doing 40K.

 vipoid wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
i would prefer power level and good balancing so that each weapon or option served a specific purpose but was not definitively better.

as an example with an ork nob in a boyz squad you can take.
free loadout
choppa (str user ap0 D1, +1 attack)and pistol

5 points
big choppa (str +5, ap-1 D2)
power stabba (str user ap-2 D1)

Sorry but in what world are those two equal?

sorry str +2, used numpad guess a hit a number up

It always makes me happy to see other Crusade players, and we've heard from a few. That's where I'm at- PL and Crusade is pretty much all I play.

 catbarf wrote:


Being able to swap around weapon upgrades also functionally sidesteps the issue of assigning appropriate costs to each, because it no longer is a matter of taking whatever's most optimal for the points. Even if a plasma gun is a better pick than a flamer in 80% of matchups, and in a purely points system you would never opt for flamers in a take-all-comers list if they had the same cost, being able to swap in flamers in that 20% of matchups where they're better would give them utility.

The problem then is how to realistically handle that in a game where WYSIWYG is expected and magnets are not commonly used.

I really liked this post, because the ease of model swapping when using PL allows like-minded players looking for a fair, fun fight to adjust their armies in order to achieve that goal. If I was playing a game with points, and a player shows up with an army I expect to crush, I can't easily take out my heavy and specials to make it more fair, because if I did, I'd have to rework the whole army. In PL games, I pull heavies and specials to drop in standard issue troopers all the time. This is my favourite part about PL.

As for how to represent it on a WYSIWYG table, the key is to play a game that is smaller than your collection. If I've got 5 BSS squads, but I'm only using 2, I can make any load-out for the two units I am using. Harder to do with vehicles unless you like magnets.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
i would prefer power level and good balancing so that each weapon or option served a specific purpose but was not definitively better.

as an example with an ork nob in a boyz squad you can take.
free loadout
choppa (str user ap0 D1, +1 attack)and pistol

5 points
big choppa (str +2, ap-1 D2)
power stabba (str user ap-2 D1)

10 points
killsaw str x2 user ap-4 D2
power claw str x2 ap-3 D d3

barring some kind of real need for points nobody is taking anything but a kill saw (yes the platform is bad and ork boyz are bad but with trukk boyz or for manditory troops)

What you're saying is that killsaws should cost 2-5 more points.

improve the other options in ways to make them unique and maybe people will take them. choppa nob maybe that one gets a nob choppa for 3 extra attacks instead of 1. buff other options from there so they are a mix of varios damages ap damage and bonus attacks. something good vs marines or custodes another better vs tanks, one better vs weaker infantry etc but all the same cost

But why should a choppa Nob have 6 attacks? Some weapons are better in the fluff than others, a plasma gun is superior to a boltgun and trying to change that to make up for PL being awful is an awful idea.

Toofast wrote:
I probably wouldn't play if PL was the only way. Points are unbalanced enough, if the game was any more unbalanced I would stick to other systems. Also I don't feel like building a bunch of new tac squads to model them with every upgrade possible, which is exactly what every army would do if PL became the default. Saying "but points are unbalanced" is like taking a sledgehammer to your headlight housing because a bulb on the other side is burned out.

You still have to assign weapons in PL the same way you do with pts. I've read one or two posters that cheat when it comes to this rule and then there are some that are proposing neo-PL that allows this kind of nonsense. Welcome to pay to win.

PenitentJake wrote:
I really liked this post, because the ease of model swapping when using PL allows like-minded players looking for a fair, fun fight to adjust their armies in order to achieve that goal. If I was playing a game with points, and a player shows up with an army I expect to crush, I can't easily take out my heavy and specials to make it more fair, because if I did, I'd have to rework the whole army. In PL games, I pull heavies and specials to drop in standard issue troopers all the time. This is my favourite part about PL.

If you think it's okay to add, subtract or change weapons in a PL game then what makes it not okay in a pts game? You can just play with +50 or -50 pts if you want, tournament players aren't going to chase you down and beat you with the official hammer just because you're fiddling with the game with a pts list instead of a PL list.