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.
2022/06/28 00:16:30
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not, but is it so much worse that it alters the value of the whole unit in an army of 5 such units and a dozen other units? And if the main objective of the game (to us) is having fun, telling a story and using models we like does it matter that one model has a slightly better pistol than another? To me, no not at all.
Hecaton was saying that using points makes the game “objectively” better than using power levels. How do you measure betterness? And if that is the case (it isn’t) the. Surely all of us who are having more fun playing the game without using points are doing it wrong. Please answer that, tell me how anyone can conclude that?
Except it’s not, that’s a question not a statement. I think if GW do go away from points as they stand they will do it like in AoS where it’s fixed coast of units but in numbers more like points than power levels.
"Should points go away?" Is also a question, but again it amounts to the same thing. Fezziks question, paraprased as "Is there any value in keeping points?" Is highly suggestive.
Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?
I don't care, I haven't teally been following. I only hopped in to respond to Fezziks suggestion that points dissapear.
Well that was really useful thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For clarity here is the full post where fezzik said that.
“ So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only? From what I'm seeing, most if not all the people in the NAY camp, would still keep playing, one person has said they'll stop playing altogether, but as they have admitted, they are not a competitive player. Can anyone point to articles or interviews where the really hard core competitive players have been pro or anti PL? I know Maniac and Kirioth have said in vidoes they like PL for quick games, but prefer Points for competition.”
It isn’t an insinuation, it’s a question. The same question that stated the debate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/28 00:23:18
2022/06/28 00:31:34
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not, but is it so much worse that it alters the value of the whole unit in an army of 5 such units and a dozen other units? And if the main objective of the game (to us) is having fun, telling a story and using models we like does it matter that one model has a slightly better pistol than another? To me, no not at all.
Hecaton was saying that using points makes the game “objectively” better than using power levels. How do you measure betterness? And if that is the case (it isn’t) the. Surely all of us who are having more fun playing the game without using points are doing it wrong. Please answer that, tell me how anyone can conclude that?
Yes you can be doing it wrong.
People do the wrong things in hobbies all the time. Sometimes wrong is just going against convention; sometimes wrong is simply following a lesser known convention/theory (even if they are also unware of the theory); sometimes wrong is just doing stuff outright wrong; sometimes its simply not quite grasping the fundamentals well enough.
You can most certainly play with your toys in an incorrect manner.
And when its you playing with your toys that's fine. If you and your opponent are fine with it and you're having fun and neither of you is willing to learn more or change your approach. That's PERFECTLY FINE.
However it means that when you come into discussions with those outside of your sphere of influence you are going to bump into counter-arguments. You are going to hit the wall of people who know more than you; who understand the game better than you; who play better (yes you can measure that in a game which, at its core, is competitive structured). Sometimes you just have to accept that your understanding only goes so far and that others are going further.
Power Level really only has one advantage and that's being simpler maths to add up. That's really it.
Otherwise it has no real advantages over points for the game in its current state. It can't react and doesn't even try to react to the variation in unit potential based upon its weapon and upgrade choices. It doesn't try to balance units against each other or evaluate their potential. It's simple, its quick, its easy but its not accurate.
A more granular system of points simply works better. Yes GW balance is not the best, yes it has major issues at times; however the system in itself has the potential to work better if given the proper structure and testing.
Points can allow narrative players to establish matches with a greater understanding of the expected performance of their armies. You can take "double" the points of your opponent in a narrative situation and have a good grasp of how that will affect the game and thus the narrative that you are going to write. You know one side is up against a wall and the other is overwhelming. You can play some freaking fun games like that. You can setup a grand battlefield with thousands of points per side in a huge narrative epic war.
Power Level lets you kind of do it, but the variation in "power" of both forces has the potential to be grossly different than what the power-level values suggest it to be. A great part of this is, as noted many times, how different people use Power Levels. Because the system doesn't mandate costs for upgrades its really on the players if they take any or not; if they change the properties of their army; ergo its performance potential. You have to either both not care or negotiate how you will use power level in choosing models every time you play.
In a sense this makes powerlevel ok between people who know each other; who have played together before and all. It, however, makes it much harder to use between people who don't know each other; who didn't pre-arrange the game a week before; who might be turning up to a club, event, tournament or such to play against people they don't know for the first time.
In the end I can't objectively find a bonus for power level outside of its simple maths. In every other respect points are either equal too or superior in performance (or at least have potential to be superior).
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference. I am happy to pay the same price for both. So, yes pricing the. Differently just adds complexity where it’s not needed. Price then the same.
Point efficiency and the rest of that isn't the point.
Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
Yes, there's a decent amount of Open Play content, but it's all in past CA books that most point playing folks didn't even look at or care to keep once the next book came out.
213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL (she/her)
2022/06/28 01:15:54
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not, but is it so much worse that it alters the value of the whole unit in an army of 5 such units and a dozen other units? And if the main objective of the game (to us) is having fun, telling a story and using models we like does it matter that one model has a slightly better pistol than another? To me, no not at all.
Hecaton was saying that using points makes the game “objectively” better than using power levels. How do you measure betterness? And if that is the case (it isn’t) the. Surely all of us who are having more fun playing the game without using points are doing it wrong. Please answer that, tell me how anyone can conclude that?
Yes you can be doing it wrong.
People do the wrong things in hobbies all the time. Sometimes wrong is just going against convention; sometimes wrong is simply following a lesser known convention/theory (even if they are also unware of the theory); sometimes wrong is just doing stuff outright wrong; sometimes its simply not quite grasping the fundamentals well enough.
You can most certainly play with your toys in an incorrect manner.
And when its you playing with your toys that's fine. If you and your opponent are fine with it and you're having fun and neither of you is willing to learn more or change your approach. That's PERFECTLY FINE.
However it means that when you come into discussions with those outside of your sphere of influence you are going to bump into counter-arguments. You are going to hit the wall of people who know more than you; who understand the game better than you; who play better (yes you can measure that in a game which, at its core, is competitive structured). Sometimes you just have to accept that your understanding only goes so far and that others are going further.
Power Level really only has one advantage and that's being simpler maths to add up. That's really it.
Otherwise it has no real advantages over points for the game in its current state. It can't react and doesn't even try to react to the variation in unit potential based upon its weapon and upgrade choices. It doesn't try to balance units against each other or evaluate their potential. It's simple, its quick, its easy but its not accurate.
A more granular system of points simply works better. Yes GW balance is not the best, yes it has major issues at times; however the system in itself has the potential to work better if given the proper structure and testing.
Points can allow narrative players to establish matches with a greater understanding of the expected performance of their armies. You can take "double" the points of your opponent in a narrative situation and have a good grasp of how that will affect the game and thus the narrative that you are going to write. You know one side is up against a wall and the other is overwhelming. You can play some freaking fun games like that. You can setup a grand battlefield with thousands of points per side in a huge narrative epic war.
Power Level lets you kind of do it, but the variation in "power" of both forces has the potential to be grossly different than what the power-level values suggest it to be. A great part of this is, as noted many times, how different people use Power Levels. Because the system doesn't mandate costs for upgrades its really on the players if they take any or not; if they change the properties of their army; ergo its performance potential. You have to either both not care or negotiate how you will use power level in choosing models every time you play.
In a sense this makes powerlevel ok between people who know each other; who have played together before and all. It, however, makes it much harder to use between people who don't know each other; who didn't pre-arrange the game a week before; who might be turning up to a club, event, tournament or such to play against people they don't know for the first time.
In the end I can't objectively find a bonus for power level outside of its simple maths. In every other respect points are either equal too or superior in performance (or at least have potential to be superior).
So you can see that there is a purpose to power levels. That’s a start.
You don’t seem to have acknowledged some of the drawbacks points though. PL are simpler to add up as you say, therefore points must be more complicated than power levels. Even more so when points are not in the same page as the units and their options, now not even in the same book. Points change very often, every three months now I believe so that’s another thing to keep up with.
Back in the heady days of 2nd edition I could add up an army list with very little reference to the book as I was so familiar with the points, I can’t imagine that happens nowadays with them altering so often.
So this is where objective is not the right word here. For you and for the things you want from the game, points are better. For me, all of the above make points too much of a faff with not enough upside to make them worth while. The simplicity of power levels out weighs the granularity offered by points. So it’s a very much SUBJECTIVE matter.
It’s like claiming cats are better than dogs objectively, or rice better than pasta. It’s a nonsense.
As for doing the hobby wrong, Balls. Especially with a hobby like tabletop wargaming with so many facets. But the specific claim here is that by not wanting to know the precise value of each piece of war gear on a unit and by being happy to play the game within the rules but without the objective of winning the game, is wrong.
That’s bollocks too.
2022/06/28 01:16:55
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Not sure what you’re getting at. I was referring to hecatons use of the word.
Quoting my post:
"The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true."
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
And who is stopping you? You came into a thread about points vs. PL and joined the discussion, nobody came into your house and demanded that you justify your incorrect way of playing the game.
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/06/28 01:24:22
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Not sure what you’re getting at. I was referring to hecatons use of the word.
Quoting my post:
"The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true."
That’s is true, what is subjective is, whether or not that makes for a better game. I say it does not make the game better for me.
2022/06/28 01:25:27
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
And who is stopping you? You came into a thread about points vs. PL and joined the discussion, nobody came into your house and demanded that you justify your incorrect way of playing the game.
But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/06/28 01:27:50
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
I've already answered that question for you: "better" is defined by how well the system accomplishes its goal, and that goal is to assign a numerical value to a unit's on-table strength for list construction purposes. The numbers PL assigns are less accurate by design and PL has no other non-negligible redeeming factors so PL is the clearly worse system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.
There is nothing in there at al that is insulting to them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/28 01:28:18
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/06/28 01:30:03
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
For someone who chastised me for not catching subtext, you don't seem to have a good grasp of it yourself.
Wait-that was Andykp, sorry. But still-if you don't think being told you're doing something wrong is insulting when you're not doing anything untoward, I don't know what to tell you.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/06/28 01:32:58
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
JNAProductions wrote: For someone who chastised me for not catching subtext, you don't seem to have a good grasp of it yourself.
Wait-that was Andykp, sorry. But still-if you don't think being told you're doing something wrong is insulting when you're not doing anything untoward, I don't know what to tell you.
Apparently you missed the part where "justify your incorrect way of playing the game" is the hypothetical thing said by the person who does not exist, and my point is that it is not happening?
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/06/28 01:36:11
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Ok, this is silly. Which is better? A Basic Intercessor Squad, or a basic Sternguard Squad? Both cost the exact same, but one has access to far better things, and special ammo.
If Points are so much more granular, why is an objectively better unit costed the exact same as a stock standard troop unit?
Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?
Here's a declarative statement you can all flay me over: Points are the inferior system, simply because 40k has become such a bloated mess, that there is inherent imbalance every single time you points cost a unit. Doesn't matter if it's a Grot, a Conscript, a Wytch, or a Custodes General, GW is completely proven themselves incompetant at balancing this game via points. Instead they have to come up with broken faction-wide shananigans like HotE, or AoC, to completely offset the rediculous imbalance int he points. THAT THEY CREATED.
We cannot balance 40k via points anymore. It's grown too big. It's like saying the answer to America's Obesity problem is smaller spoons. It's completely missing the point.
2022/06/28 01:56:47
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
And who is stopping you? You came into a thread about points vs. PL and joined the discussion, nobody came into your house and demanded that you justify your incorrect way of playing the game[spoiler].
This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.
213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL (she/her)
2022/06/28 02:04:56
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Sorry for any vitriol I've hurled towards the PL crowd. As mentioned before, I'm firmly on the side of playing with points-never played a PL game, probably never will. And I've almost certainly said things that were too harsh-so my apologies to anyone who I've offended.
Regardless of the system you use to calculate your army, I wish you the best in gaming.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/06/28 02:07:39
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
No, it's inherently Subjective. I like the look of the Laspistol. See? Others might find painting the Plasma way too difficult. Or hate the look of the Bolt Pistol. It's inherently subjective. It's not a Binary choice.
2022/06/28 02:10:01
Subject: Re:If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Sorry for any vitriol I've hurled towards the PL crowd. As mentioned before, I'm firmly on the side of playing with points-never played a PL game, probably never will. And I've almost certainly said things that were too harsh-so my apologies to anyone who I've offended.
Regardless of the system you use to calculate your army, I wish you the best in gaming.
Thank you. Any vitriol I have hurled has been intended for the individuals involved and not at the masses. Best wishes to you too.
2022/06/28 02:11:57
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If Points are so much more granular, why is an objectively better unit costed the exact same as a stock standard troop unit?
Two words: objective secured. Sternguard have better gun options, they are not strictly better.
Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?
Because of mistakes. But PL has the same kind of mistakes but also has inherent mistakes add on top of that.
Here's a declarative statement you can all flay me over: Points are the inferior system, simply because 40k has become such a bloated mess, that there is inherent imbalance every single time you points cost a unit. Doesn't matter if it's a Grot, a Conscript, a Wytch, or a Custodes General, GW is completely proven themselves incompetant at balancing this game via points. Instead they have to come up with broken faction-wide shananigans like HotE, or AoC, to completely offset the rediculous imbalance int he points. THAT THEY CREATED.
I will flay you over it because "points are inaccurate" is not the same as "points are worse". If 40k is beyond balancing with normal points then it is also beyond balancing with PL since, once again, PL is just a point system with more errors. So you might as well use the point system that can at least theoretically do better, not the one that is guaranteed to always have more flaws.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: No, it's inherently Subjective. I like the look of the Laspistol. See? Others might find painting the Plasma way too difficult. Or hate the look of the Bolt Pistol. It's inherently subjective. It's not a Binary choice.
We're talking about rules, not models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.
Please do not make this dishonest argument. You are not merely "talking about playing the game", you're voluntarily participating in a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't like seeing the full range of opinions there, including the opinion that you are completely wrong, don't get into discussions that are clearly labeled as "points vs. PL". Nobody here is coming into your private games and demanding to have an argument with you.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/28 02:15:25
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/06/28 02:21:25
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
We are going in silly circles here and the knock out blow you want to land will never become because as has been pointed out many times, you are wrong points do not objectively make the game better. It’s SUBJECTIVE!
One piece of gear can be better on the table top. But that’s doesn’t mean it has to be priced differently. The difference is small and meaningless when the whole army is considered that that level of granularity isn’t needed. So a squad of ten guard lead by a sgt with a las pistol should cost the same as one with a plasma pistol. It doesn’t matter what weapon the sgt has to me. That’s why it’s subjective.
Yes the plasma pistol is a better pistol than the las pistol rules wise. Should it be priced more, NO. I chose las pistols for all but one of my guard squad sergeants because I liked the look of the models more and it made more sense with my back ground. The one guy only got one to add variety. But does that mean I enjoy my games less, no it doesn’t. I thoroughly enjoy my games of 40k. More than I would if I’d had to spend ages re-pricing all my units every 3 months or spending an age writing an army list when I could be getting in with my game.
So please give up trying to say by charging a few points more for a weapons option on one model the game is objectively made better.
I, and many others here, have played 40k for decades using points. When power levels came along I was more than happy to leave points behind and not think about them again. Because power levels make the game better than points. FOR ME!!!!!!!!!!
2022/06/28 02:22:19
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Not sure what you’re getting at. I was referring to hecatons use of the word.
Quoting my post:
"The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true."
That’s is true, what is subjective is, whether or not that makes for a better game. I say it does not make the game better for me.
Andykp wrote: More than I would if I’d had to spend ages re-pricing all my units every 3 months or spending an age writing an army list when I could be getting in with my game.
I really do not understand why you think it takes "ages" to use the normal point system. I've made lists with both PL and normal points and the difference is a minute or two at most, out of a process that involves an hour or more of considering strategic and/or narrative choices and potentially weeks/months working on painting new models for the list. At this point you've spent longer arguing about points vs. PL on this forum than it would take you to use the normal point system for the rest of your life.
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/06/28 02:36:15
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Andykp wrote: More than I would if I’d had to spend ages re-pricing all my units every 3 months or spending an age writing an army list when I could be getting in with my game.
I really do not understand why you think it takes "ages" to use the normal point system. I've made lists with both PL and normal points and the difference is a minute or two at most, out of a process that involves an hour or more of considering strategic and/or narrative choices and potentially weeks/months working on painting new models for the list. At this point you've spent longer arguing about points vs. PL on this forum than it would take you to use the normal point system for the rest of your life.
"A minute or two at most"
For you!
Others might get more reward from it.
Like me. I've said that it's massively helpful. Yet, my lived experience with the game seems to matter less than yours. Why?
Do you think that my disabilities put me in some edge case that you can discount?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/28 02:37:39
60PL 
12PL 
cool