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.

I just can't ever spare the extra five or ten minutes to write up a list with points instead of power level - I'm far too busy driving my collection of super cars, going to important business meetings, and banging my supermodel girlfriends to be spending my time writing army lists.

Dudeface wrote:
I just don't understand how it would take longer in PL you have the added bonus that your guard list doesn't pay for squad upgrades anyway (sounds familiar). I'd love to see you take an honest crack doing the same for say chaos marines, even just balancing it out to ~2k can take some hefty reshuffling and calculations that adds way more time due to the granularity and not wanting 10+ points free.

Edit: PL didn't take longer you messed your own tl;dr up

God dammit. I had it right in the lists themselves, fixed the TL;DR.

And maybe I'll look at CSM later, but I don't really have any clue how a CSM list is supposed to work (and haven't even read the new codex yet) so I'm not sure my fumbling around with it is going to tell you much. I suspect the method that is faster in the test would just be the one I do second, since the first pass took care of having to read the datasheets and figure out what all the options are.

Well then considering GW is bad at inventing new stuff, and new stuff takes both design time, space in the books and has bad interactions with how box load outs are build, then clearly over all PL are at best not much different from points on a player vs player basis, and worse by sole virtue of existing on a over all game state level.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Optimizing lists to match your playstyle is part of player skill though, plus facing the exact same armies all the time is super boring.

I believe 40k has never been designed for "blind" games against random opponents, regardless of how popular this way of playing might be in some areas. Heck, I know pineapple on pizza is pretty popular somewhere (very far from where I live thankfully) and I can't think of a worst kind of heresy .

Please keep one of my national treasures out of your tawdry arguments over Power Levels. Next you will drag poutine into your polemics about having to paint your miniatures to get 10 VPs. Keep this up and I will come over there and put ketchup on all of your pasta. And your chips.

You can keep your ketchup, although it's really common to put it on chips here (to the point that's basically the only thing people put ketchup on).

My example was to make people understand that popular doesn't mean right or best. Just popular. In my example I can't think of a worst kind of heresy but I totally respect the tastes of those who like that. Instead, I can't accept those who like that saying "it's the best way to do it" or, even worse, "it's how it's supposed to be". That's it, like in my food example, also in 40k there's no better way to do it, because better is a subjective term.

And just to be perfectly clear, for me and my group a rule that grants VPs for painted armies never existed .

 Blackie wrote:
And just to be perfectly clear, for me and my group a rule that grants VPs for painted armies never existed .

Hey, we have something in common! Unpainted models aren't permitted at all so there's no point in giving everyone 10 VP, we just do scoring out of 90 points.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
And just to be perfectly clear, for me and my group a rule that grants VPs for painted armies never existed .

Hey, we have something in common! Unpainted models aren't permitted at all so there's no point in giving everyone 10 VP, we just do scoring out of 90 points.

No we don't have that in common. We don't care about painted/unpainted and have no problems playing with or against unpainted stuff, even whole grey plastic armies. Just like we don't care about conversions or base/models' sizes. As long as it's clear what is what everything is good . We do try to play fully painted armies and we certainly prefer to do that, but if a player gets new stuff he/she should be able to play it immediately, let alone if he/she gets a whole new army.

And rushed or too simple paint jobs just to be battle ready are worse to look at than grey plastic or primed models .

nou wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
This means I can build a list based on the units I like and not worry about load-out at all.

But why does it matter if you have to worry about those weapons? If it takes you 10 minutes to write a PL list and 11 minutes to write a list that considers equipment costs why is it such a big deal? And TBH, with small games it's likely to be the reverse and be 15 minutes to make a list with PL vs. 10 minutes to write a list with normal points because PL can only add or remove things in whole-unit increments if you're at 24/25 or 26/25 points.

Okay, I'm kinda sick of seeing this whole "points only takes a minute more" concept thrown around, because it's utterly hyperbolic. I would be perfectly happy to construct two separate lists, one with PL, and the other with points, out of my existing Primaris army, and see which one is faster. I'd be happy to stick it to 1500 points, or 75PL, and see how long both take - have no interest in cheating, but I want to put this idea that there's only about a minute saved to bed.

Just out of curiosity, I've just made a 1500pts list using points vs using PLs and a stopwatch.

Pure math time:
- PLs: 13 individual entries, pure math time 0:30, without calculator.
- Points: 38 individual entries, pure math time 1:15, had to use calculator for that to not get lost in what has been counted already

BUT

- PLs time overhead for actually constructing the list, that is to make all the choices necessary at the list building stage and noting the list down for print: 5 minutes, had to swap one unit to fit under the limit.

- Points time overhead, for having to choose and juggle all upgrades for all unit entries: the same 5 mins from PLs (it's the same list) plus about 20 minutes for choosing loadouts with point considerations in mind, noting the list down and formatting it for print, with the last 5 minutes spent on juggling the last 10 points to fit 1500. This also doesn't account for the time to actually optimise the list and do math for point efficiencies against my known opponent and their army, as this was not the part of the excercise and is also not necessary for the actual game context those lists were created for.

Additional note: this is made out of about 10000pts of owned models for a single faction. If you only have own 2000 pts + spares here and there worth 500-1000 pts, then you basically own a single list and have little need for juggling points, so here PLs vs points have narrower overhead gap.

Now with PLs, you also have to add a time to choose loadouts before the match, but that is 90% covered by putting the models on the table, with only "invisible" wargear to note down and inform my opponent of - I'll very generously add 5 mins for that

So, totals:
PLs: 10 minutes, 30 seconds
points: 26 minutes, 15 seconds (plus any optimisation time)

Now, another element to that is: PL list is perfectly reusable from game to game in "cross tailoring for balance" narrative environment I play in. Ability to swap loadouts just by selecting different models adds no time over the listed 10m 30s. Point list? Not so much, as with many list entries not being round 5-10 pts you have to juggle all those odd pts upgrades around. This adds between 10 to 20 minutes before each game I want to play with the same narrative balance goal I play when using PLs. And anticipating the question "why I care about juggling those points" - I have built both of those lists to be legal - that is to the standard of presentation required in both systems - and to the scrutiny levels expected from players of both systems. On top of that - in a friendly, narrative context, all this "but PLs allow for sooooo much free gear it makes the game utterly broken" crap is completely irrelevant, as in such context you are not building your lists for advantage and not in the void of blind pickup, but in a co-op fashion, so you don't care for min-maxing potential within the system.

So no, PLs vs Points is not "just a minute saved on adding fewer numbers" and PLs have a very clear utility context. With the standard game taking about 3 hrs, that is 1/7th-1/6th time overhead saved, about the same time it would take me to commute to the nearest FLGS.

One other thing to note, which some posters here seem to not realise/ignore: any PL player that has started in edition prior to 8th has an actual experience with both systems and often decades worth of list building with points under their belt. On the other hand, points advocates clearly state, that they have zero practical experience with PLs and all their views are purely theoretical. This simple fact makes position of those posters utterly bizarre - they literally try to convince people, that their life experience is wrong - not merely their PoV - both on time saved and practical, real life balance levels produced by both systems.

You could just build a 1400 pt list and add more or less wargear as you please instead of going for exactly 1500 pts. Then there is the whole optimization argument, yes you could be spending time optimizing your pts list, but you could do the same for your PL list. People try to optimize their Guardsmen and Plague Marine Squads even though they get free wargear, you still have the question of which options are most optimal. For Necrons there is no time difference between a PL list and a pts list on Battlescribe. Your pts list building also sounds like it is very inefficient. It took me less than 6 minutes to make a SK TBs Necrons pts list at 1999 pts, I think your main problem is adding options all at the end and then ending up with not enough points, if you just add the most pts-efficient options to the units as you go then you won't have to go back and forth a lot. Start off with SK in a sup/com detachment, add a Patrol with a Cloakmancer, 20 Warriors. Add Plasmancer and Ghost Ark. Add 2x3 TBs, 2 DDAs, filling up FA and HS. Check points. Add Warriors, Lychguard and a Hexmark Destroyer to get close to pts limit and add relics. Finish remaining points by adding shields to one unit of Tomb Blades and a couple of gauss Tomb Blades to the same unit. Do random stuff to make the list look legal to Battlescribe and save. I wouldn't be surprised to see the list win a tournament.

It took me less than 7 minutes to make a Fleshtearers despite not having played them in 9th (are we really in 9th?). It's probably pretty terrible, but there are terrible datasheets in PL games as well. I just added Gabriel Seth, a Master Apothecary, Intercessors, Predators and Aggressors and fiddled with the remaining points for a few minutes.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I just can't ever spare the extra five or ten minutes to write up a list with points instead of power level - I'm far too busy driving my collection of super cars, going to important business meetings, and banging my supermodel girlfriends to be spending my time writing army lists.

I've painted my models too nicely to play PL so that I have to change all my wargear from the most pts-efficient to the most powerful. /sarcasm

 vict0988 wrote:
I think your main problem is adding options all at the end and then ending up with not enough points, if you just add the most pts-efficient options to the units as you go then you won't have to go back and forth a lot.

This is where you actually hit the proverbial nail in the head. I play in pseudo-historical narrative way, there is no such thing as limiting yourself to the most obvious, point efficient loadouts. Loadouts are dictated by theme and scenario. I can’t stress it enough - my group utilises any and all choices in our games. We don’t create lists from easily remembered, pre-constructed, optimal builds for each unit. Doing this with points is more time consuming and on top of that, due to the whole „listbuilding should be a skill” internal point efficiency differences between choices, building historicals style lists with points does not increase resulting balance. Competitive players who seek the most point efficient choices should perfectly understand, that 2000pts of efficient choices is not equal 2000pts of inefficient choices. That is very much by definition of point efficiency and what every competitive player actively utilises when building a list.

So now thgis is about 10th ed primaris rumors. So far we have a Furioso Melta redemptor, Primaris Terminators, and JUMP PACK ASSAULT INTERCESSORS!!! Please god give me jump pack Primaris Librarians/Chaplains.

nou wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
I think your main problem is adding options all at the end and then ending up with not enough points, if you just add the most pts-efficient options to the units as you go then you won't have to go back and forth a lot.

This is where you actually hit the proverbial nail in the head. I play in pseudo-historical narrative way, there is no such thing as limiting yourself to the most obvious, point efficient loadouts. Loadouts are dictated by theme and scenario. I can’t stress it enough - my group utilises any and all choices in our games. We don’t create lists from easily remembered, pre-constructed, optimal builds for each unit. Doing this with points is more time consuming and on top of that, due to the whole „listbuilding should be a skill” internal point efficiency differences between choices, building historicals style lists with points does not increase resulting balance. Competitive players who seek the most point efficient choices should perfectly understand, that 2000pts of efficient choices is not equal 2000pts of inefficient choices. That is very much by definition of point efficiency and what every competitive player actively utilises when building a list.

If I am making a thematic Salamanders list I can still just slap thunder hammers on my Devastators and flamers on my Tacticals as I go along, I don't need to take grav cannons if I don't like or own them. Pts rewards me for taking the lesser option more often than PL does by usually making the lesser of the two options cheaper.

Anyone who likes internal point efficiency differences should love PL since it is riddled with such errors. Just like powergamers loved to say they could bring 100 wounds worth of wyvern-riding badasses vs their opponent's 100 wounds worth of cowardly goblins at the start of AOS. The difference between two 100 PL lists can be larger than the difference between two 2000 pt lists. Any sufficiently imbalanced game requires homebrew to be fun and effective, homebrew requires engagement and knowledge. When I play casual games against new factions that I don't have a deep understanding of I cannot tell whether my opponent brought a strong list, at best I can ask them whether they think their list is unfair for a casual game. Because GW's 9th edition codexes have so much lethality in-built so games quickly snowball so problems of imbalance feel real bad, in 8th games only snowballed really badly if you built a wombo-combo list or rolled hot.

 Blackie wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Optimizing lists to match your playstyle is part of player skill though, plus facing the exact same armies all the time is super boring.

I believe 40k has never been designed for "blind" games against random opponents, regardless of how popular this way of playing might be in some areas. Heck, I know pineapple on pizza is pretty popular somewhere (very far from where I live thankfully) and I can't think of a worst kind of heresy .

Please keep one of my national treasures out of your tawdry arguments over Power Levels. Next you will drag poutine into your polemics about having to paint your miniatures to get 10 VPs. Keep this up and I will come over there and put ketchup on all of your pasta. And your chips.

You can keep your ketchup, although it's really common to put it on chips here (to the point that's basically the only thing people put ketchup on).

My example was to make people understand that popular doesn't mean right or best. Just popular. In my example I can't think of a worst kind of heresy but I totally respect the tastes of those who like that. Instead, I can't accept those who like that saying "it's the best way to do it" or, even worse, "it's how it's supposed to be". That's it, like in my food example, also in 40k there's no better way to do it, because better is a subjective term.

And just to be perfectly clear, for me and my group a rule that grants VPs for painted armies never existed .

To be clear, I am referring to Ketchup Chips - potato chips. I am not talking about french fries (or just fries) which English speakers on the other side of the Atlantic do indeed call chips. Those folks would also say that chips are crisps. Over here we call fries chips when they are served with fish. So I will put ketchup on your crisps. And your pasta. And your Power Levels. But not on your painted miniatures - there is a line that must not be crossed.

 vict0988 wrote:


Anyone who likes internal point efficiency differences should love PL since it is riddled with such errors. (...) The difference between two 100 PL lists can be larger than the difference between two 2000 pt lists.

I would like to go back to example brought up earlier in this thread - 7th ed War Convo, SM Company, vs Eldar, vs Tyranids. Despite all those free points, both WarConvo and SM company were perfectly beatable by the most efficient Eldar lists, and yet I was able to construct numerous Eldar lists that were equal match for the bottom tier Tyranid codex. So please, don't perpetuate the myth, that somehow nominally 2000pts lists are effectively worth 2000pts. The spread of Eldar builds in the above example was easily 1000pts. And no, it doesn't apply to 7th ed only - this has always been the case, that is why you always have top-mid-low-thrash tier codices AND bad and good lists within a single codex.

And again - internal point efficiency differences is the key element that drives "listbuilding as a skill" demanded mostly by competitive players and it doesn't matter, if you look on unit by unit basis of nominal cost or list by list overall efficiency (where the list with proper synergies will always be worth more effective points than basically the same list without said synnergies). "Listbuilding as a skill" simply cannot exist otherwise.

Any sufficiently imbalanced game requires homebrew to be fun and effective, homebrew requires engagement and knowledge.

Very true, and this is exactly how 40k was, is and forever will be if you step outside of min-max domain of competitive meta. It actually baffles me, how you are able to defend "point driven balance" knowing this simple truth. I have stated this numerous times already - granularity of a 100-400 points is game size metrics that is precise and accurate enough for all practical purposes. Tell me, why should I obsess about a unit be priced at precisely 73 pts instead of 70 or 75, when in real life the effective, contextual point value of such unit can swing by +/- 50%, depending on matchup, scenario and terrain? In a game, where first turn advantage can easily exceed 50%?

I have played more than 200 games of 7th ed using our scenario balancing methods, and after first few dozens of "calibration" games, we were able to ensure closely balanced game experience in nearly all of the rest of them, using anything and everything, including FW, for total of 6 factions. In an edition deemed utterly broken and imbalanced.

The most interesting aspect here is that I use some of the same "point efficiency calculation and optimisation" methods as competitive players do. The only difference is that I utilise those towards list cross-balance at any list power levels instead of only min-maxing lists to squeeze the most from internal point efficiency discrepancies. And yet, most of competitive players do not understand or accept, that this is even possible.

nou wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:


Anyone who likes internal point efficiency differences should love PL since it is riddled with such errors. (...) The difference between two 100 PL lists can be larger than the difference between two 2000 pt lists.

I would like to go back to example brought up earlier in this thread - 7th ed War Convo, SM Company, vs Eldar, vs Tyranids. Despite all those free points, both WarConvo and SM company were perfectly beatable by the most efficient Eldar lists, and yet I was able to construct numerous Eldar lists that were equal match for the bottom tier Tyranid codex. So please, don't perpetuate the myth, that somehow nominally 2000pts lists are effectively worth 2000pts. The spread of Eldar builds in the above example was easily 1000pts. And no, it doesn't apply to 7th ed only - this has always been the case, that is why you always have top-mid-low-thrash tier codices AND bad and good lists within a single codex.

And again - internal point efficiency differences is the key element that drives "listbuilding as a skill" demanded mostly by competitive players and it doesn't matter, if you look on unit by unit basis of nominal cost or list by list overall efficiency (where the list with proper synergies will always be worth more effective points than basically the same list without said synnergies). "Listbuilding as a skill" simply cannot exist otherwise.

Any sufficiently imbalanced game requires homebrew to be fun and effective, homebrew requires engagement and knowledge.

Very true, and this is exactly how 40k was, is and forever will be if you step outside of min-max domain of competitive meta. It actually baffles me, how you are able to defend "point driven balance" knowing this simple truth. I have stated this numerous times already - granularity of a 100-400 points is game size metrics that is precise and accurate enough for all practical purposes. Tell me, why should I obsess about a unit be priced at precisely 73 pts instead of 70 or 75, when in real life the effective, contextual point value of such unit can swing by +/- 50%, depending on matchup, scenario and terrain? In a game, where first turn advantage can easily exceed 50%?

I have played more than 200 games of 7th ed using our scenario balancing methods, and after first few dozens of "calibration" games, we were able to ensure closely balanced game experience in nearly all of the rest of them, using anything and everything, including FW, for total of 6 factions. In an edition deemed utterly broken and imbalanced.

The most interesting aspect here is that I use some of the same "point efficiency calculation and optimisation" methods as competitive players do. The only difference is that I utilise those towards list cross-balance at any list power levels instead of only min-maxing lists to squeeze the most from internal point efficiency discrepancies. And yet, most of competitive players do not understand or accept, that this is even possible.

I don't post here often... probably years since my last one, can't be bothered to check.

But would you please stop. This isn't the place for well intentioned and well reasoned debate as you present. Me and my group use dakkadakka as a little peek into what the scum and villainy of the hobby are crying about today... and this thread has been giving us a lot of laughs along it's journey.

Please don't ruin our fun with your "common sense" and "good intentions" 🤣


Also, much as I normally use points... if someone is just starting or we want a quick game and don't have time to crunch the numbers... I'm more than happy to play power level, both have their place.

Given the choice, I'd stick to 100% power level. Just need to fix a few of the units with too many options (deathwatch vets? Harlequin troupes?) so that the min-maxers calm the heck down, then its a nice easy and approachable system


...now can we get back to slinging insults at each other, please? I need some entertainment 🤣

"Fixing the few units with too many options" seems to have already been GWs awful take with many units in the 9th ed codexes.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So now thgis is about 10th ed primaris rumors. So far we have a Furioso Melta redemptor, Primaris Terminators, and JUMP PACK ASSAULT INTERCESSORS!!! Please god give me jump pack Primaris Librarians/Chaplains.

I hope they don't until we get jump chaos lords, warbosses on bikes, etc.

nou wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:


Anyone who likes internal point efficiency differences should love PL since it is riddled with such errors. (...) The difference between two 100 PL lists can be larger than the difference between two 2000 pt lists.

I would like to go back to example brought up earlier in this thread - 7th ed War Convo, SM Company, vs Eldar, vs Tyranids. Despite all those free points, both WarConvo and SM company were perfectly beatable by the most efficient Eldar lists, and yet I was able to construct numerous Eldar lists that were equal match for the bottom tier Tyranid codex. So please, don't perpetuate the myth, that somehow nominally 2000pts lists are effectively worth 2000pts. The spread of Eldar builds in the above example was easily 1000pts. And no, it doesn't apply to 7th ed only - this has always been the case, that is why you always have top-mid-low-thrash tier codices AND bad and good lists within a single codex.

And again - internal point efficiency differences is the key element that drives "listbuilding as a skill" demanded mostly by competitive players and it doesn't matter, if you look on unit by unit basis of nominal cost or list by list overall efficiency (where the list with proper synergies will always be worth more effective points than basically the same list without said synnergies). "Listbuilding as a skill" simply cannot exist otherwise.

I am not saying 2000 pts=2000 pts, I am saying the difference between 2000 pts and 2000 pts is smaller than 100 pl and 100 pl. I am also constantly gunning for GW when their pts are out of wack, because I think the game is better when pts more accurately describe the value of a unit or option.

...why should I obsess about a unit be priced at precisely 73 pts instead of 70 or 75...

Because a plasma pistol is better than a las pistol and a 6-man squad should not cost as much as a 10-man squad. Pts also aren't 70 or 75 pts, it's 60 or 80 pts, that's a big difference. How about a unit worth 30 pts? It is either going to be effectively 20 or 40. I am not saying pts will ever be perfect, in any given meta the plasma pistol or las pistol will be more pts-efficient, I am just asking for the plasma gun to cost more. Ideally, GW's cost fits pretty well with the average meta making both options reasonably viable, but my low bar is things that are clearly more powerful should cost some amount of extra points. I also agree that you can get overly nitpicky with pts, like Monoliths costing 381 pts, this is a silly value. The actual value of a Monolith was around 300, making that last 1 pt seem all the sillier.

You might scoff at me being unwilling to take my S+1 AP-3 D1 weapons just because the S+2 AP-4 D2 weapon is free but I am just not married enough to the hyperphase sword to be willing to accept inferior stats for no benefit.

 vict0988 wrote:
...but my low bar is things that are clearly more powerful should cost some amount of extra points.

Oh, but I agree. I have never defended those PLs as flawless. If you go through my posts, you'll see, that what I defend is low granularity point systems.

However, you and I clearly disagree on what "clearly more powerful" option threshold is. If in real game, not theoretical mathhammer calculations, a given choice has neglectable or minimal impact on the outcome of the game, then I don't consider it "a clearly more powerful" option, no matter if on paper it is 2 or 3x "more efficient". In 40k, with it's IGOUGO structure and level of lethality, only really considerable effective point differences between lists actually impact the result of the game more than Initiative roll does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrspadge wrote:

Spoiler:

nou wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:


Anyone who likes internal point efficiency differences should love PL since it is riddled with such errors. (...) The difference between two 100 PL lists can be larger than the difference between two 2000 pt lists.

I would like to go back to example brought up earlier in this thread - 7th ed War Convo, SM Company, vs Eldar, vs Tyranids. Despite all those free points, both WarConvo and SM company were perfectly beatable by the most efficient Eldar lists, and yet I was able to construct numerous Eldar lists that were equal match for the bottom tier Tyranid codex. So please, don't perpetuate the myth, that somehow nominally 2000pts lists are effectively worth 2000pts. The spread of Eldar builds in the above example was easily 1000pts. And no, it doesn't apply to 7th ed only - this has always been the case, that is why you always have top-mid-low-thrash tier codices AND bad and good lists within a single codex.

And again - internal point efficiency differences is the key element that drives "listbuilding as a skill" demanded mostly by competitive players and it doesn't matter, if you look on unit by unit basis of nominal cost or list by list overall efficiency (where the list with proper synergies will always be worth more effective points than basically the same list without said synnergies). "Listbuilding as a skill" simply cannot exist otherwise.

Any sufficiently imbalanced game requires homebrew to be fun and effective, homebrew requires engagement and knowledge.

Very true, and this is exactly how 40k was, is and forever will be if you step outside of min-max domain of competitive meta. It actually baffles me, how you are able to defend "point driven balance" knowing this simple truth. I have stated this numerous times already - granularity of a 100-400 points is game size metrics that is precise and accurate enough for all practical purposes. Tell me, why should I obsess about a unit be priced at precisely 73 pts instead of 70 or 75, when in real life the effective, contextual point value of such unit can swing by +/- 50%, depending on matchup, scenario and terrain? In a game, where first turn advantage can easily exceed 50%?

I have played more than 200 games of 7th ed using our scenario balancing methods, and after first few dozens of "calibration" games, we were able to ensure closely balanced game experience in nearly all of the rest of them, using anything and everything, including FW, for total of 6 factions. In an edition deemed utterly broken and imbalanced.

The most interesting aspect here is that I use some of the same "point efficiency calculation and optimisation" methods as competitive players do. The only difference is that I utilise those towards list cross-balance at any list power levels instead of only min-maxing lists to squeeze the most from internal point efficiency discrepancies. And yet, most of competitive players do not understand or accept, that this is even possible.

I don't post here often... probably years since my last one, can't be bothered to check.

But would you please stop. This isn't the place for well intentioned and well reasoned debate as you present. Me and my group use dakkadakka as a little peek into what the scum and villainy of the hobby are crying about today... and this thread has been giving us a lot of laughs along it's journey.

Please don't ruin our fun with your "common sense" and "good intentions" 🤣


Also, much as I normally use points... if someone is just starting or we want a quick game and don't have time to crunch the numbers... I'm more than happy to play power level, both have their place.

Given the choice, I'd stick to 100% power level. Just need to fix a few of the units with too many options (deathwatch vets? Harlequin troupes?) so that the min-maxers calm the heck down, then its a nice easy and approachable system


...now can we get back to slinging insults at each other, please? I need some entertainment 🤣

If you look into my post history, then you'll see, that nowadays I really, really try to restrain myself. But I'm merely a deeply flawed human being. I'll try to do better

nou wrote:
This is where you actually hit the proverbial nail in the head. I play in pseudo-historical narrative way, there is no such thing as limiting yourself to the most obvious, point efficient loadouts. Loadouts are dictated by theme and scenario. I can’t stress it enough - my group utilises any and all choices in our games. We don’t create lists from easily remembered, pre-constructed, optimal builds for each unit. Doing this with points is more time consuming and on top of that, due to the whole „listbuilding should be a skill” internal point efficiency differences between choices, building historicals style lists with points does not increase resulting balance. Competitive players who seek the most point efficient choices should perfectly understand, that 2000pts of efficient choices is not equal 2000pts of inefficient choices. That is very much by definition of point efficiency and what every competitive player actively utilises when building a list.

None of this is a defense for PL. If you don't remember "LRBTs always have demolisher cannons" or whatever then yes, it will take you some more time to go back and look at the options. But you're going to be doing that regardless of which point system you're using and time spent deciding which option is a best fit for the story has nothing to do with the point system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
No we don't have that in common. We don't care about painted/unpainted and have no problems playing with or against unpainted stuff, even whole grey plastic armies. Just like we don't care about conversions or base/models' sizes. As long as it's clear what is what everything is good . We do try to play fully painted armies and we certainly prefer to do that, but if a player gets new stuff he/she should be able to play it immediately, let alone if he/she gets a whole new army.

And rushed or too simple paint jobs just to be battle ready are worse to look at than grey plastic or primed models .

Gross. Have some standards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
However, you and I clearly disagree on what "clearly more powerful" option threshold is. If in real game, not theoretical mathhammer calculations, a given choice has neglectable or minimal impact on the outcome of the game, then I don't consider it "a clearly more powerful" option, no matter if on paper it is 2 or 3x "more efficient". In 40k, with it's IGOUGO structure and level of lethality, only really considerable effective point differences between lists actually impact the result of the game more than Initiative roll does.

Then why do you defend PL, a high-granularity system that cares about stuff that is too small to care about? Why do you care about +/-1 point in assigning costs? Why should my crisis suits have to pay +1 point for a mere pair of gun drones that will have negligible effect on the outcome of the game. Why even track all that stuff? Just make all point costs in increments of 5 to make the system even faster to use and avoid having to waste time trying to figure out how to spend those last few points when you're at 98/100 and no useful unit in your codex costs only 2 points.

Blackie has standards-they just aren't the same as yours.
Most people are capable of accepting that other people can value different things from themselves.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Blackie has standards-they just aren't the same as yours.
Most people are capable of accepting that other people can value different things from themselves.

I accept it, I'm just appalled by it.

mrspadge wrote:
[
Please don't ruin our fun with your "common sense" and "good intentions" 🤣

After realising that CadianSgtBob was just intolerant of anybody playing the game anyway but theirs I put them on my ignore list. After that this thread has become significantly more boring, it's mostly quite reasonable people saying 'PL work in some (not all circumstances) and as long as it doesn't invalidate points what is the harm?' Or giving real world reasons why they and their groups use PL.

Tallonian4th wrote:
After realising that CadianSgtBob was just intolerant of anybody playing the game anyway but theirs I put them on my ignore list. After that this thread has become significantly more boring, it's mostly quite reasonable people saying 'PL work in some (not all circumstances) and as long as it doesn't invalidate points what is the harm?' Or giving real world reasons why they and their groups use PL.

"Once I ignore everyone who disagrees with me I get lots of affirmation for my beliefs!"

The big problem with the game, and one that a PL system is perhaps trying to patch, is that way too many of the equipment options are just utter and complete garbage.

Seriously, in every codex there is a plethora of garbage items in every datasheet. For items to justify many of their current point costs there needs to be a fundamental change to the game that exceeds whatever we've seen in all the preceding editions. I have a bunch of special equip Space Marine Captains that will never see play unless I am playing super casual narrative, because their upgrade costs just don't warrant upgrading them.

Take for example plasma pistol. it needs to go to something like Pistol 2-3 to be worth 5 points on an infantry guardman because 5 points(if they did cost) for "one" shot that might do damage is just never going to cut it(which is probably why the Multi-Melta went to Heavy 2 and suddenly became usable). Hell, the old Plague Marine upgrades were lackluster at their point cost, even if they gave +1A when equipped. It's only now, that they are free, you will see Plague Marines and their melee weapons used.

Because all too often the upgrades often come at an extra cost of more bodies on the field. Again, with the old PM cost, you often would be served better by adding another body of Poxwalkers(or Plague Marines if you were in an adventurous mood) than getting an upgrade as the upgrade is a one dimensional upgrade whereas extra bodies serve more flexible purposes.

Now that I think about it the fundamental flaw of the system and why upgrades are rarely worth it is because there are too many steps where your shots might fail. First you need to hit, then you need to wound, and then your opponent needs to roll saves, who might also have some FnP system. When a weapon has to pass through so many Gates of Chance there is no wonder why upgrades are often not worth it. If GW would fundamentally change the system to have less Gates then it would probably be easier to justify weapon upgrades as their output becomes more straight forward.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Take for example plasma pistol. it needs to go to something like Pistol 2-3 to be worth 5 points on an infantry guardman because 5 points(if they did cost) for "one" shot that might do damage is just never going to cut it(which is probably why the Multi-Melta went to Heavy 2 and suddenly became usable).

The plasma pistol is actually a great example of systemic vs. single case errors. It is not a common pick but it's not that far off being viable. Consider a BS 3+ model like a veteran squad sergeant: a single shot plasma pistol is 5 points, a two-shot plasma gun is 10 points. Both of them have the same cost per shot and before power creep made 95% of the codex obsolete plasma spam was absolutely a viable strategy. The math changes a bit on regular infantry squads because GW made the weird decision to make BS 4+ plasma guns cost half the cost of a BS 3+ plasma gun despite doing 75% of the damage. But what that suggests is that the real value of a plasma pistol is 2-3 points and if GW set the price correctly you'd see them more often.

Contrast this with PL where the cost can never be correct. A plasma pistol is strictly better than a laspistol so if they're the same price there is no argument within the game rules for taking the laspistol. The plasma pistol is the correct strategy choice, the laspistol is only taken when you have some out-of-game narrative reason for deliberately equipping your unit with weaker weapons. The error in price is a systemic one that PL can not ever fix without no longer being PL. And it's an error that is repeated all over the game.

Now that I think about it the fundamental flaw of the system and why upgrades are rarely worth it is because there are too many steps where your shots might fail. First you need to hit, then you need to wound, and then your opponent needs to roll saves, who might also have some FnP system. When a weapon has to pass through so many Gates of Chance there is no wonder why upgrades are often not worth it. If GW would fundamentally change the system to have less Gates then it would probably be easier to justify weapon upgrades as their output becomes more straight forward.

This is a misunderstanding of statistics. Yes, there are "gates" but upgrades have easier gates to pass than basic equipment. You need to set aside the psychological factor of "my upgrade didn't work" and look at the statistics for the various options, and in many cases the upgrade is absolutely justified. And when it isn't it's because the point cost is too high for what you get, not because it has RNG gates to pass.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Your PL list took as long as it did because you factored load-out into the list, which in a PL game is unnecessary at the list building stage.

So much wrong in so few words.

First of all, no, that's not why it took that long. All of the equipment choices were incredibly obvious because that's what PL does. Why debate LRBT sponson options when, if they all cost the same zero points, multimeltas are the obvious correct answer? Why would you ever not take the free plasma pistol and power sword on every sergeant? Etc. I spent more time typing out the words than it took to pick which things to add.

It isn't a question of "Why would you ever..." The question isn't even asked. Whether or not the choices are obvious is irrelevant when you don't think about them. No matter how obvious they are, not thinking about them at all is faster than picking them because they're obvious. I literally build my list from the PL Update PDF on the Community site which first claimed didn't exist (wrong) and then claimed hadn't been updated for more than a year (wrong again). And if you'll notice, equipment isn't even in that PDF, because it doesn't need to be.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Second, no, it isn't unnecessary. Units go in a list for a reason and their equipment is part of that reason. For example, the command squad with plasma guns goes with the Hades drill (and is required to take the drill). Its whole purpose in the list is to deep strike and kill something with special weapons, and because of the 9" minimum range on deep strike that means 4x plasma guns. Any other equipment choice would contradict its role in the list.

Obviously, you want to know what a unit does when you add it too your list, and the load out that it can include will influence your decision about whether or not to include it. There are a few factors that influence why it's as easy as it is for me- I build small lists, and mostly for armies I've been playing since the 90's or aughts. Obviously, other people's experiences may differ from mine- a fact I've noted in most of my posts- including the one you've quoted. I do this because I'm not an arrogant prick who thinks that everyone else's experiences are the same as mine, or that everyone else's experiences should be the same as mine.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

There is zero difference between taking five minutes in one single session and taking five minutes divided up into four minutes to write the list and one minute to pick the equipment. Ignoring equipment when you start putting a list together doesn't change the total time required to make the list, it just defers some of that time until later. The end result is still the same total amount of time spent.

Ahhh, but there is a difference- because with points, you literally CAN'T use the deferral method. If you tried, the value of your list would end up changing on game day, because the value of the list would change as you tweaked you load out. This is what I mean by a dissimilar experience - list construction day, assuming you have an adequate knowledge of what a given unit's role is, involves zero thought extended toward load out. The mustering an army day is mathless- the units have already been paid for, so you take what you want.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Fourth, who cares? Even if you increase the time savings to a whole two minutes who ****ing cares? It's still a choice between four minutes and six minutes out of a 3-4 hour game. You're nitpicking at a ridiculously minor detail and ignoring the broader point that there is no meaningful difference in time here.

Well, obviously, the people who like and use PL care, and there are more of us in this thread than there are who are advocating for PL's removal. when you add the people who don't like PL, but who also realize that since they don't have to use it, leaving it in the game has zero effect on them, you're even more outnumbered.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But even so, I still don't bother thinking about load-out at all when I'm doing the list building- I still leave until game day.

You're contradicting yourself here. You play Crusade which means fixed lists, how do you leave equipment choices to game day when they have to be written permanently into your order of battle and only changed at a high price? You might be willing to spend tons of RP changing things on game day but even then you still have to pick a default choice to start with, you can't leave it as "TBD" in your list.

I've created a spreadsheet unit card- I found that the published GW blanks don't have enough fields to contain all of the information I want to record, so I designed my own. On game day, I print enough blanks for me, and my opponent(s). I pick my load-out, my opponent picks theirs. Once we've picked, we eyeball both forces to see if anything should be swapped in or out- but usually both forces will be balanced enough that there isn't a lot of swapping necessary.

From there, we can play filling, out the unit cards as the game progresses when we have a spare moment or two in the action. We have to record agenda tallies while we play, so we're already writing on the cards anyway. We're all friends, and we can see the other players loadout on the models, so it doesn't have to by written down before we play.

At the end of the game, we'll do our post game book keeping, recording that on the cards too. Once that's done, we'll eventually fire up the computer and type all of the handwritten information into the digital spreadsheets. At that point, the unit is "Locked" - it's loadout can only be changed by battle honours or requisitions.

Next time we play, we don't print blank cards unless we're adding new units. You have to record any new information by hand on these printed cards, updating the spreadsheets after the post battle sequence again. And the process repeats.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Buy too much expensive gear and you don't get to bring as many dudes.

Why would you think that this is a good thing? If you brought a ton of expensive and powerful equipment for your dudes why should you have the same number of dudes as someone who brought their dudes with basic starting equipment only? Do you not think you should have to pay the fair price for your powerful gear? Or is your opponent expected to sacrifice their fun and replace everything in their own list with all the expensive stuff just so they aren't at a significant disadvantage?

This is the eyeballing part I referred to above, where we can swap models in or out to balance and obvious issues. Now after the first game, as mentioned above in both my post and yours, RAW the load-outs become locked. Because we're friends, we'll still swap heavies, specials and other upgrades for a fight if we need to, but we don't bother changing the cards, because it's a one-off balance fix for a particular game, rather than a permanent change to the Order of Battle.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Cool. Use PL and enjoy it.

This was great- this is where we've been hoping to arrive for 40 pages...

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But if you want to argue against having it removed then you need something more compelling than "I like it and I don't have to justify it".

But then you immediately feth it all up by saying this- not even noticing the contradiction between these two sentences, despite the fact you seem to accuse others of contradiction all the time.

PenitentJake wrote:
The question isn't even asked.

Of course it's asked! You can't play a game with a unit that has "TBD" for weapons. At some point prior to starting the game you will have to finish creating the list by making those choices. And that time taken is still part of list construction because you don't have a finished list until it is done.

I literally build my list from the PL Update PDF on the Community site which first claimed didn't exist (wrong) and then claimed hadn't been updated for more than a year (wrong again).

You're right, I was wrong about it. I made the mistake of believing you when you praised the fact that the PL point lists don't change without looking it up myself to see if you were just making stuff up. I will concede that you were wrong in that claim and PL does get regular updates that invalidate your Crusade lists.

Ahhh, but there is a difference- because with points, you literally CAN'T use the deferral method.

Of course you can. I can write a list and then adjust it with a tiny amount of time on game day. Remember the entire process of creating a finished 2000 point list took six minutes. That's the absolute ceiling on how much it would take to adjust equipment on game day. More realistically you're talking about a difference of one minute vs. two minutes out of a 3-4 hour game.

And remember, if you're toning down a list for balance reasons it doesn't matter if you're short on points. If I show up to a game and decide that removing all of the plasma guns and lascannons from my infantry is the best way to tone down my list why do I care if the result is that I'm at 1950/2000 points? The entire goal here was to make my list weaker, why would I care that I'm not maximizing my available points? Hell, I've removed entire units from a list and just played at 1700 out of 2000 points or whatever. And you can't tell me that "ok, I'll delete the Manticores to make this fair" takes more than a few seconds.

Well, obviously, the people who like and use PL care

I don't think you genuinely care about saving a single minute in list construction. I think you care about PL as a symbol of a certain style of play and will cling to that single minute as "proof" that PL should exist. No reasonable person is going to even notice a difference of a single minute in a 3-4 hour game.

Next time we play, we don't print blank cards unless we're adding new units.

This is exactly the point. You save a single digit number of minutes in one game at the very start of your long Crusade campaign. And you probably don't even save that much time because your Crusade order of battle should be dictated by the concerns of the story as a whole, not by the whims of what happened in your first game. Your squad should be taking flamers instead of melta guns because it fits their story, a story you started writing before playing your first game, not because your first opponent happened to bring a weaker list and you wanted to tone yours down a bit by swapping melta for flamers.

And after the first game it becomes a complete non-issue. You've said in the past that adding a new unit to your order of battle is a major story event that requires multiple games to prepare for and then multiple games of incorporating the new unit into your force. So the single-digit minutes of time (at most) involved in deferring your choices until game day will only happen once every 3-5 games at most. So congratulations, you're arguing passionately for PL because it saves you a single minute of time out of 10-15 hours or more of gaming time. What an absolutely vital system for GW to maintain. /s

This is the eyeballing part I referred to above, where we can swap models in or out to balance and obvious issues. Now after the first game, as mentioned above in both my post and yours, RAW the load-outs become locked. Because we're friends, we'll still swap heavies, specials and other upgrades for a fight if we need to, but we don't bother changing the cards, because it's a one-off balance fix for a particular game, rather than a permanent change to the Order of Battle.

Like I said before, I find it hilarious that I have more commitment to story than you do. My units are built as units and I do not swap models unless absolutely necessary. I'll do it if I have to but I'm not going to be happy that third squad is using a random flamer pulled from a SWS instead of the grenade launcher model that is built and painted to be part of that unit. You, on the other hand, seem perfectly willing to break apart your units and substitute in random models if it suits your whim of the moment.

But then you immediately feth it all up by saying this- not even noticing the contradiction between these two sentences, despite the fact you seem to accuse others of contradiction all the time.

There's no contradiction at all. I don't care if you use PL while GW continues to make the mistake of allowing it to exist. I do care when you insist that GW should keep it and argue that it has any value besides "I like it".

I don't think IG should exist. What do they add to the setting, or the game? Daemons can do Infantry Horde, Tau can do military shooting tactics, a ton of factions can do tank-spam...
Who cares if some people like them? They add nothing to the game, far as I can see. Maybe they can get a mention as a truly NPC fodder faction, for other superhuman factions to mow down with ease, but that's all.

Not an actual position I hold-but an example of what CSB is doing when they say "Power Level doesn't deserve to exist." Maybe it'll get through to them.

You leave my toy tanks and soldiers alone!

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think IG should exist. What do they add to the setting, or the game? Daemons can do Infantry Horde, Tau can do military shooting tactics, a ton of factions can do tank-spam...
Who cares if some people like them? They add nothing to the game, far as I can see. Maybe they can get a mention as a truly NPC fodder faction, for other superhuman factions to mow down with ease, but that's all.

Not an actual position I hold-but an example of what CSB is doing when they say "Power Level doesn't deserve to exist." Maybe it'll get through to them.

Yes, because keeping an established faction with a large model range, entire novels dedicated to them, etc, is equivalent to keeping a redundant second point system so that some players can save one minute out of a 3-4 hour game. Do you stop to think at all before posting nonsense like this?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think IG should exist. What do they add to the setting, or the game? Daemons can do Infantry Horde, Tau can do military shooting tactics, a ton of factions can do tank-spam...
Who cares if some people like them? They add nothing to the game, far as I can see. Maybe they can get a mention as a truly NPC fodder faction, for other superhuman factions to mow down with ease, but that's all.

Not an actual position I hold-but an example of what CSB is doing when they say "Power Level doesn't deserve to exist." Maybe it'll get through to them.

Yes, because keeping an established faction with a large model range, entire novels dedicated to them, etc, is equivalent to keeping a redundant second point system so that some players can save one minute out of a 3-4 hour game. Do you stop to think at all before posting nonsense like this?

When did 8th release? Five, six years ago now?
There are plenty of people who started 40k in that time period. Some of them stick to PL and modes of play other than Matched, because that's what they enjoy-and it's been with them since the very start of their 40k experience.
Of these players, how many do you think play IG? Because removing PL would affect them 100%, removing IG might very well not.

You've yet to have a compelling argument for why it should go-"I don't like it," isn't a reason to remove it entirely, it's just a reason to not play with it. "It makes the game worse," just straight up isn't true.