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.

RealAndTrue wrote:


Also, it's better to be a hypocrite than a Communist radical.

Lol, no. Big no.

But this is political and has nothing to do with PL .

So, I haven't read all the 28 pages of this thread, but what if PL got a little refinement?
For some factions (Necrons, Eldar, AdMech) and many units it won't be necessary, but what if there were 2 or 3 different power levels for the problematic units that were mentioned in this thread? Crisis suits, Death Company, Terminators and so on.
Give them a Power Level for the basic loadout, one for the maximum loadout and maybe one for in between.
These could be made either with fixed loadouts (not great, but GW seems to like that since 9th) or options tied to Power Levels, say:
For 8 PL you get the squad but can't equip any additional options.
If you buy the squad for 10PL you get the following options (power swords, combi-weapons and so on).
If you buy the squad for 13 PL you get the option for Thunderhammer/ stormshield on everybody.

A system like that would be "good enough" for most things in the game I think.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
For some factions (Necrons, Eldar, AdMech) and many units it won't be necessary, but what if there were 2 or 3 different power levels for the problematic units that were mentioned in this thread? Crisis suits, Death Company, Terminators and so on.

How would you handle this for the Tau scenario, given that it isn't a single weapon or set of weapons that's the problem? Yeah, you can say that CIBs are only unlocked at the higher tier but that first CIB is fewer points than the third burst cannon on a model. And in the terminator example you have to pay 13 points to upgrade one model with TH/SS, but for 10 points you can take the cheaper options but put them on every model? I think you'd end up with a lot of really awkward datasheets trying to make it fit into the PL concept, and then once you've covered all of those situations you've certainly lost even the small ease of use advantage PL currently has. It might be less broken than current PL but there would be even less reason for it to exist at all.

I have an even more radical solution: what if GW kept both PL and points, as they do right now?
PL lovers would have PL, competitive players would have points. Everyone is happy, the end.

 Aenar wrote:
I have an even more radical solution: what if GW kept both PL and points, as they do right now?
PL lovers would have PL, competitive players would have points. Everyone is happy, the end.

Why not add a third point system? We'll call it Force Levels (FL), it works like PL except all the numbers are multiplied by 10. And then we can have a fourth point system! We can have Strength Levels (SL), where all infantry units cost 1 SL and all vehicle units cost 2 SL. And let's add Might Levels (ML) as a fifth option for our Crusade players, where a unit's ML is equal to its number of Crusade ranks plus its number of relics.

Or we could stop adding redundant systems and get rid of PL.

It was a lot easier in earlier editions with just points, just saying.
This PL/Points/ThreeWaystoPlay nonsense is a head ache.

Back in my day making a list was quicker and easier and you didn't have to dig through multiple books and updates to get information. You just made a list.

Now it just feels like work.

Hecaton wrote:
And I've noticed that every time someone brings up the very real fact that different codexes are even more unbalanced with respect to each other under PL than points, the PL advocates try to refuse engaging with the question because they know that fact makes them look bad.

How does PL not being perfect make me look bad? It isn’t part of the identity, I am not responsible for it. It’s no reflection on me if it has flaws, just as points being unbalanced doesn’t make you a bad person.

And for the millionth time, BALANCE ISN’T THAT IMPORTANT TO ME SO I DON’T CARE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It was a lot easier in earlier editions with just points, just saying.
This PL/Points/ThreeWaystoPlay nonsense is a head ache.

Back in my day making a list was quicker and easier and you didn't have to dig through multiple books and updates to get information. You just made a list.

Now it just feels like work.

PlL feels more like that to me than current points, they don’t change every three months, you don’t have to buy or download updates. If points didn’t change all the time they’d be better for me.

Andykp wrote:

How does PL not being perfect make me look bad? It isn’t part of the identity, I am not responsible for it. It’s no reflection on me if it has flaws, just as points being unbalanced doesn’t make you a bad person.

Arguing poorly makes you look bad.

Andykp wrote:
And for the millionth time, BALANCE ISN’T THAT IMPORTANT TO ME SO I DON’T CARE.

I think it is. I don't think you know how screwed up PL is.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

I'm only just dipping my toes into Imperium forces with SoS, maybe an Inquisition force. But I'm capping my non primary armies at 25PL.

Can I just say that with all the cultural stuff I've been reading recently, I read that as "non binary" and thought you were making a really funny Necron/robot joke.

My non binary spouse thought that was hilarious!

Great! I'm glad that wasn't in poor taste. Well. . . at least in your company.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

How does PL not being perfect make me look bad? It isn’t part of the identity, I am not responsible for it. It’s no reflection on me if it has flaws, just as points being unbalanced doesn’t make you a bad person.

Arguing poorly makes you look bad.

Andykp wrote:
And for the millionth time, BALANCE ISN’T THAT IMPORTANT TO ME SO I DON’T CARE.

I think it is. I don't think you know how screwed up PL is.

I get that you think it is, but that in no way makes it a fact. It’s an opinion. You not knowing what I know is no surprise either. You have shown a complete lack of understanding of anyone else’s opinions or experiences. So talking of arguing poorly read your own asinine comments above. It isn’t even an argument, it’s just childish “I’m right, you’re wrong, nah nah na nah!”

Not getting dragged back into this. It’s pointless because you cannot or will not accept that people might like something you don’t. And that is all it boils down to, so I will leave you to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aenar wrote:
I have an even more radical solution: what if GW kept both PL and points, as they do right now?
PL lovers would have PL, competitive players would have points. Everyone is happy, the end.

This, 100% this. But hecaton and sgt Bob et al won’t dare admit you are right.

Tbh if GW released "Force Levels" which were proscribed 1k/2k points army lists that were theoretically sort of balanced in terms of power and in terms of not representing a skew, I think some of the player base might go for it.

I guess arguably that's the line with the combat patrol boxes - but I don't know how they stack up in terms of each other.

Andykp wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
And I've noticed that every time someone brings up the very real fact that different codexes are even more unbalanced with respect to each other under PL than points, the PL advocates try to refuse engaging with the question because they know that fact makes them look bad.

How does PL not being perfect make me look bad? It isn’t part of the identity, I am not responsible for it. It’s no reflection on me if it has flaws, just as points being unbalanced doesn’t make you a bad person.

And for the millionth time, BALANCE ISN’T THAT IMPORTANT TO ME SO I DON’T CARE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It was a lot easier in earlier editions with just points, just saying.
This PL/Points/ThreeWaystoPlay nonsense is a head ache.

Back in my day making a list was quicker and easier and you didn't have to dig through multiple books and updates to get information. You just made a list.

Now it just feels like work.

PlL feels more like that to me than current points, they don’t change every three months, you don’t have to buy or download updates. If points didn’t change all the time they’d be better for me.

You still have to buy updates though because of the rules changes.
The points are free now anyway, which is a good move on GW's part. Now they just have to apply that to the rest of the ruleset.

My problem with PL is that it doesn't take upgrades into account. Three plasma guns are not the same as three grenade launchers.
If you built a list for points and end up having to go to PL because your opponent wants to use PL only, then you'd be at a disadvantage too because you wouldn't have everyone kitted out like you can in a PL list. Likewise, if you build your list for PL and your opponent insists on points, then you'd have to start rewriting the list and making substitutions for options.
Throw WYSIWYG into the mix and it gets messy real fast.

It's just better overall to have one system that everyone follows. Like prior to PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
Tbh if GW released "Force Levels" which were proscribed 1k/2k points army lists that were theoretically sort of balanced in terms of power and in terms of not representing a skew, I think some of the player base might go for it.

I guess arguably that's the line with the combat patrol boxes - but I don't know how they stack up in terms of each other.

Wouldn't that kill list variation though? I mean, cookie cutter lists are already frowned upon, no?
Also, don't you mean "prescribed"? Proscribed means forbidden, and I'm not sure that word fits?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
So, I haven't read all the 28 pages of this thread, but what if PL got a little refinement?
For some factions (Necrons, Eldar, AdMech) and many units it won't be necessary, but what if there were 2 or 3 different power levels for the problematic units that were mentioned in this thread? Crisis suits, Death Company, Terminators and so on.
Give them a Power Level for the basic loadout, one for the maximum loadout and maybe one for in between.
These could be made either with fixed loadouts (not great, but GW seems to like that since 9th) or options tied to Power Levels, say:
For 8 PL you get the squad but can't equip any additional options.
If you buy the squad for 10PL you get the following options (power swords, combi-weapons and so on).
If you buy the squad for 13 PL you get the option for Thunderhammer/ stormshield on everybody.

A system like that would be "good enough" for most things in the game I think.

They already do this for some units. Giving your assault marines jump packs adds a PL. (same with HQs, and similar options for eldar). The Storm Shield/Volkite/PS Lt. costs a extra PL over his peers, and is on the same datasheet. There are also units like the assorted Land Speeders, which used to just be one entry, but are now broken up with different PLs.

Andykp wrote:

And for the millionth time, BALANCE ISN’T THAT IMPORTANT TO ME SO I DON’T CARE.

The good old "not my problem" defence.

 Nevelon wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
So, I haven't read all the 28 pages of this thread, but what if PL got a little refinement?
For some factions (Necrons, Eldar, AdMech) and many units it won't be necessary, but what if there were 2 or 3 different power levels for the problematic units that were mentioned in this thread? Crisis suits, Death Company, Terminators and so on.
Give them a Power Level for the basic loadout, one for the maximum loadout and maybe one for in between.
These could be made either with fixed loadouts (not great, but GW seems to like that since 9th) or options tied to Power Levels, say:
For 8 PL you get the squad but can't equip any additional options.
If you buy the squad for 10PL you get the following options (power swords, combi-weapons and so on).
If you buy the squad for 13 PL you get the option for Thunderhammer/ stormshield on everybody.

A system like that would be "good enough" for most things in the game I think.

They already do this for some units. Giving your assault marines jump packs adds a PL. (same with HQs, and similar options for eldar). The Storm Shield/Volkite/PS Lt. costs a extra PL over his peers, and is on the same datasheet. There are also units like the assorted Land Speeders, which used to just be one entry, but are now broken up with different PLs.

As usually with GW, they apply 3 different ways to handle a single problem.
But you're right for pointing out these examples.

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
if you're an a-hole abusing it.

Cool, so now we're insulting people for optimizing their lists "too much"?

But I don't think anyone has ever branded themselves a die hard casual who wrap their identity up into it and would use PL to prove that's who they are, you seem to have some identity issues yourself.

Have they said the exact words? No. Have they made it very clear with their hyperbolic statements about how the loss of PL would ruin their games, constant talk about how "PL players" play the game differently, and flimsy rationalizations for how important it is to save a minute or two in list construction (and then spend twice that writing a post defending PL)? Absolutely. It's very clear that PL has become an identity thing in a way that other mechanics and other possible changes have not.

Yeah I will insult people that push the game system to a level that is basically unsporting.

So now we found the CAAC player. Even slight optimizing makes the PL system broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I have been using army lists based on points for over 30 years.

You continue to use points. PL is a point system, it's just one with more errors. And that's why I don't take your claims seriously. You protest about how you don't like points, but then instead of using a genuinely different system for playing your games you play the same old matched play with points-based list construction. It's completely redundant and if/when GW finally puts PL out of its misery you'll go right back to playing with normal points again and hardly even notice the difference.

Yeah, so?
And if 40k goes all PL, or goes to set pts costs like Sigmar (or Guard squads now)? You'll hop right in line too. In fact some of you howling about PL will even switch your tunes & sing it's praises.

Fine, name one person that will do that. I'll wait.

YOU will.
Will you be one of the ones suddenly changing your tune? Or will you just grumble & bitch about it? That I don't know*. But I am certain that either way, you'll be playing it.

*I strongly suspect though that you'll be one of the tune changers. At least on-line. Time will prove one of us correct.

I mean, I quit 7th due to them doing more imbalanced Formations. You think I have trouble quitting with an unbalanced point system?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Wouldn't that kill list variation though? I mean, cookie cutter lists are already frowned upon, no?
Also, don't you mean "prescribed"? Proscribed means forbidden, and I'm not sure that word fits?

Yeah, prescribed is what I meant.

I don't think people would have a problem with cookie cutter balanced lists. The frowning is on people copying lists which currently winning tournament after tournament.

Whether anyone would trust GW to write a list is a fair question - but if every army is 2 characters, 3 troops, something in each of the other slots, no multiples (I know some would hate that) then its unlikely to be massively overpowered or especially skewed. Certain factions would probably still have an advantage - but I suspect it would be reduced.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Andykp wrote:

And for the millionth time, BALANCE ISN’T THAT IMPORTANT TO ME SO I DON’T CARE.

The good old "not my problem" defence.

There's a difference between "This isn't a problem to me, so everyone else who does have an issue can deal with it," and "This isn't a problem to me, so other people an play differently."

If there was ONLY PL then yeah, you'd have a leg to stand on. But since points are still here... The solution to not deal with the problem Andykp doesn't have but you do is just use points.

It's sorta like Andy saying "I like the look of Obliterators" when you don't. Andy can field them. You don't have to.

Tyel wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Wouldn't that kill list variation though? I mean, cookie cutter lists are already frowned upon, no?
Also, don't you mean "prescribed"? Proscribed means forbidden, and I'm not sure that word fits?

Whether anyone would trust GW to write a list is a fair question - but if every army is 2 characters, 3 troops, something in each of the other slots, no multiples (I know some would hate that) then its unlikely to be massively overpowered or especially skewed. Certain factions would probably still have an advantage - but I suspect it would be reduced.

So...basically the old FoC chart then, before the detachment nonsense?
Also, no multiples would hurt some factions that have a limited roster. Like necrons, who have a whopping two troop choices.

So I think this thread has been answered, and we've had good input from various sides, however now it's just devolving into character attacks, which I'm sad that I've also done. I hope the PL side feels fine playing PL, and I hope points stay around for a good while, as there seem to be a lot of people who really enjoy it.

We can all agree that balance in this game sucks. I'm gonna ask that this be locked now.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I think this thread has been answered, and we've had good input from various sides, however now it's just devolving into character attacks, which I'm sad that I've also done. I hope the PL side feels fine playing PL, and I hope points stay around for a good while, as there seem to be a lot of people who really enjoy it.

We can all agree that balance in this game sucks. I'm gonna ask that this be locked now.

Well said and thank you for taking the right choice to ask it be locked.

Andykp wrote:
It’s pointless because you cannot or will not accept that people might like something you don’t. And that is all it boils down to, so I will leave you to it.

We accept that you like it. We reject the claim that it should continue to exist just because you've declared that you like it.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It’s pointless because you cannot or will not accept that people might like something you don’t. And that is all it boils down to, so I will leave you to it.

We accept that you like it. We reject the claim that it should continue to exist just because you've declared that you like it.

And it should cease to exist because you don’t, seems reasonable.

Andykp wrote:
And it should cease to exist because you don’t, seems reasonable.

No, it should cease to exist because it's a redundant system and eliminating redundancy is a basic game design principle.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And it should cease to exist because you don’t, seems reasonable.

No, it should cease to exist because it's a redundant system and eliminating redundancy is a basic game design principle.

Which is why you think there shouldn’t be WS and BS-just a “hit” stat.
Nor Armor, Wounds, and Toughness-just one stat of HP.

Or, hear me out-simplicity is a good goal, but when stuff works as-is, you don’t need to break it to make stuff simpler.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is why you think there shouldn’t be WS and BS-just a “hit” stat.
Nor Armor, Wounds, and Toughness-just one stat of HP.

WS/BS is a terrible comparison because those stats aren't redundant at all. Units having different accuracy for ranged and melee is very useful design space and impossible to handle in an elegant way without separate accuracy stats. Its removal would be a massive functional change to how the game works. Contrast that with PL, which is just a point system with a few more errors and not at all necessary for any part of the game to function.

Save/wounds/toughness, on the other hand, probably does need to be simplified. The system is a relic of 40k's origins in a 1980s fantasy game and has only been kept around because of tradition. There are technically some edge cases but as a general rule units with high toughness also have good saves and weapons with high strength also have good AP. It's just a convoluted way of having more increments in a single defense stat without doing the obvious thing and moving to a D12 like Apocalypse did.

Or, hear me out-simplicity is a good goal, but when stuff works as-is, you don’t need to break it to make stuff simpler.

Removing PL doesn't break anything except the gatekeeping. Everything PL is used for currently can be done just as well with the normal point system.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Removing PL doesn't break anything except the gatekeeping. Everything PL is used for currently can be done just as well with the normal point system.

This has been proven to be wrong. You are just making up arguments to justify hating on people enjoying the game in a way you cannot comprehend.

Facts that contradict a your prejudgment simply are not be believed and when they are irrefutable, you just push them aside as inconsequential, as incidental - to paraphrase the theories of Bonhoeffer.

You are the problem here, not points, not PL, not redundancy.

 Jidmah wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Removing PL doesn't break anything except the gatekeeping. Everything PL is used for currently can be done just as well with the normal point system.

This has been proven to be wrong.

No it hasn't lol

 JNAProductions wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And it should cease to exist because you don’t, seems reasonable.

No, it should cease to exist because it's a redundant system and eliminating redundancy is a basic game design principle.

Which is why you think there shouldn’t be WS and BS-just a “hit” stat.
Nor Armor, Wounds, and Toughness-just one stat of HP.

Or, hear me out-simplicity is a good goal, but when stuff works as-is, you don’t need to break it to make stuff simpler.

Removing PL wouldn't break anything though. It would just be going back to how the game was before. You already have points, which again, is an old system that everyone is used to.
It's less breaking the car, and more removing the second steering wheel that was added because the designers thought that the passenger should drive too.

I'd argue a better 'car' analogy is having manual or automatic gearboxes rather than a 'useless' passenger steering wheel.