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.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


They've added tons to make various wargear significant.

In older editions you had plasma, because it killed literally everything.

Now, taking melta means you risk a swingy damage roll if you're not in half range and short range. Plasma lets you pick up W2/4, but comes at the risk of death to the user and still at a middling range. Lascannons are swingy, but beat the T8 breakpoint and do it from long range. Grav cannons are better than plasma at killing MEQ, but quickly become less useful outside that set of targets.

Flamers are the red headed step child, but marines CAN now pick up AP1. If they extended the CSM +3 to all basic flamers then they'd be a good option.

People might think there's no choice, because things are free, but if you follow community list building discussions it will be difficult to find a consensus on what the best list will be.

And that nuance was why, prior to the new codex after the IG patch came out, all the successful IG infantry squads had a lascannon and plasma.

Generally you're going to see soft models take longer range weapons unless they have a way to get close enough. I can't see a good reason for melta on IS in that scenario, however, with free reserves - why not?

Also, that unit got free upgrades and Hammer of the Emperor and STILL didn't make a notable difference.

Side note: I used to be unsure about power level. Now I think it occupies a rather interesting space (far FAR away form any competitive play). With the new guard codex finally giving us crusade rules, I've dipped my toes into crusade. Power level isn't as silly as many claim. It's just a tool for a slightly different purpose than points.

The pros of PL that I've seen (and remember, I'm new to PL):
1. Greater flexibility in list building for narrative purposes
2. GW's regular points updates won't completely ruin your crusade force. You've got a set of units you play throughout the crusade, it's expensive to change those units to keep your army within a points or power level cap (I know some people play crusade with points and I'm sure they've figured out some way to address this, using power levels instead of points is simply an alternative to whatever method they use).

Cons:
1. It's really easy to over tune your list. You have to be cognizant about not min/maxing everything just because you can. From what I can tell, power level REQUIRES a narrative mindset whereas points allows both narrative and competitive mindsets.


Overall, power level gives you more narrative freedom to create a list that you'll then subject to the challenges of the grim dark future. With most factions, you don't have to win a battle to succeed, although it does make things easier (Guard do actually have to win some battles to succeed at their crusade due to how their Tours of Duty rules work, there may be some other factions that work that way as well). Also, crusade doesn't just use Power Level for balance, there's also the accrual of requisition point (which can be used for one-off effects or permanent buffs to units) and Crusade Points are used to add additional (loose) balance to crusade forces that have accrued different numbers of permanent buffs.

At the end of the day, power level helps set the battle size just as points do, but it relies on the players for the balance. I'm not saying power level is better than points, it's just a different tool. The difference is like the difference between a ball-peen hammer and a claw hammer. Both will hammer in nails just fine, but sometimes you need a slightly different tool for specific circumstances.

Dudeface wrote:
I think there's about 4 of you on here that share your total disdain for PL, the vast majority seem to not really give a gak. It's used by the minority but the vast majority don't care that it exists in the first place contrary to your beliefs.

I think the majority are just being polite about it, especially as mods have asked for people not to re-hash the argument about it several times in my short stay here.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Side note: I used to be unsure about power level. Now I think it occupies a rather interesting space (far FAR away form any competitive play). With the new guard codex finally giving us crusade rules, I've dipped my toes into crusade. Power level isn't as silly as many claim. It's just a tool for a slightly different purpose than points.

The pros of PL that I've seen (and remember, I'm new to PL):
1. Greater flexibility in list building for narrative purposes
2. GW's regular points updates won't completely ruin your crusade force. You've got a set of units you play throughout the crusade, it's expensive to change those units to keep your army within a points or power level cap (I know some people play crusade with points and I'm sure they've figured out some way to address this, using power levels instead of points is simply an alternative to whatever method they use).

Wether you use PL or PTs for your Crusade, the simple way to avoid that problem is to declare that the values you started the Crusade with are in effect until the Crusade ends. Then it doesn't matter if GW updates either or how often.
Of course this might require you to actually print out the PL/PTs doc your using & not rely on BS/Wagh/GWs app....

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
1. Greater flexibility in list building for narrative purposes

Honest question: how? I get that PL changes the list optimization answers and makes different units/upgrades the obvious best choice but you still have obvious best choices and any choice that can be made in a PL army can also be made in a normal army. It's not like GW is publishing PL-only options for units.

If anything I'd argue that PL is worst for narrative games. In competitive play PL is fine, you just spam a different obvious best option and you don't care about how fluffy it is or isn't. In narrative play though you're punished for taking an option for narrative reasons. In a normal game it's ok if your narrative is that a squad is poorly equipped and only has basic lasguns/bolters/whatever. The basic guns are free, the upgrade guns cost more points, so you have a squad that is less effective but has a lower point cost to reflect this. In a PL game the point cost is always the same regardless of equipment, so your basic squad is just a strictly worse version of a squad that takes the free lascannon and plasma gun. Same point cost, significant difference in effectiveness, and you're encouraged to sacrifice your narrative element to avoid falling behind on the table.

2. GW's regular points updates won't completely ruin your crusade force. You've got a set of units you play throughout the crusade, it's expensive to change those units to keep your army within a points or power level cap (I know some people play crusade with points and I'm sure they've figured out some way to address this, using power levels instead of points is simply an alternative to whatever method they use).

GW does PL updates, just at a slower pace. Either way you need to use the obvious solution of keeping point costs (and codex updates, etc) fixed at the start of a crusade and only incorporating rule updates between crusades (or between chapters in a longer story).

1. It's really easy to over tune your list. You have to be cognizant about not min/maxing everything just because you can. From what I can tell, power level REQUIRES a narrative mindset whereas points allows both narrative and competitive mindsets.

And this is the fatal flaw. PL requires you to spend extra effort to overcome the balance issues and adds nothing in return. The conventional point system that is used by every other game does everything PL can do and also handles the balance issues better.

Dudeface wrote:

I think there's about 4 of you on here that share your total disdain for PL, the vast majority seem to not really give a gak. It's used by the minority but the vast majority don't care that it exists in the first place contrary to your beliefs.

PL is for beer and pretzel 40k. Its designed for QUICK pickup games. In anything remotely approaching a competitive game (Even a for fun competitive game) PL is useless. You are about to see a points version of PL and why its stupid in the very near future. Why bother taking anything besides the best weapon upgrade on your SM units when they are all free anyway? You don't even have to think about the value of adding a PF or TH to a Sgt...they are free upgrades, just take it and who cares?

Look at just your bog standard Tac Squad and compare it to a Boyz squad. A Tac squad gets a free Combi-weapon and a free PF/TH on the sgt, they also get either a special weapon or a heavy weapon for free. On a 5 man Tac squad you are looking at about 50pts of free gear. What do those boyz get? The Nob can take a pair of Killsaws for 20pts and the unit can take a 5pt Rokkit Launcha. So the 90pt Tac Squad (5PL) is really clocking in at around 140pts and the Boyz squad (80pts) is clocking in at 105pts. Both 5PL, which do you think is better?

Dudeface wrote:
I think there's about 4 of you on here that share your total disdain for PL, the vast majority seem to not really give a gak. It's used by the minority but the vast majority don't care that it exists in the first place contrary to your beliefs.

A lot of people don't care enough to complain about power level play as points based match play is both the default and event standard. As things stand though, power level is actually superior(ish) to new marine points:

PL: First 5 devastators cost 8 PL/second 5 bolter dudes cost +4 PL (heavy weapons and sergeant worth more than bolters)
Points: First 5 devastators cost 23ppm/second 5 bolter dudes cost 23ppm (heavy weapons and sergeant = bolters)

Long story short - if you don't care for power levels, you really don't care for free stuff.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I think there's about 4 of you on here that share your total disdain for PL, the vast majority seem to not really give a gak. It's used by the minority but the vast majority don't care that it exists in the first place contrary to your beliefs.

PL is for beer and pretzel 40k. Its designed for QUICK pickup games. In anything remotely approaching a competitive game (Even a for fun competitive game) PL is useless. You are about to see a points version of PL and why its stupid in the very near future. Why bother taking anything besides the best weapon upgrade on your SM units when they are all free anyway? You don't even have to think about the value of adding a PF or TH to a Sgt...they are free upgrades, just take it and who cares?

Look at just your bog standard Tac Squad and compare it to a Boyz squad. A Tac squad gets a free Combi-weapon and a free PF/TH on the sgt, they also get either a special weapon or a heavy weapon for free. On a 5 man Tac squad you are looking at about 50pts of free gear. What do those boyz get? The Nob can take a pair of Killsaws for 20pts and the unit can take a 5pt Rokkit Launcha. So the 90pt Tac Squad (5PL) is really clocking in at around 140pts and the Boyz squad (80pts) is clocking in at 105pts. Both 5PL, which do you think is better?

I agree that's where the place for PL is. Regards this situation I don't want to go in circles. That unit at its current cost wasn't good enough, they took a defensive rule off it for a nerf, they have to therefore boost output and/or cust costs accordingly, if the current cost is the ideal price point for the unit you described, then they could have shuffled the points to make that happen anyway. The difference then is you'd be complaining about 12 point or lower marine bodies swarming boards. I honestly think you're more mad at the method than the result.

Firstly, i'm not mad. I'm having an absolute blast. Every single time a Marine army or Marines in general get something ridiculously broken you have the defenders rush in to point out its not that bad. SM aren't doing well right now W/L rate wise nor tournament placement. They were the first codex and the creep is real. The thing is that the top armies all just got kicked in the teeth. Nids just took a beating and Harlequins are really going to struggle to stay alive now that their durability just fell by 33%.

I pointed this out in the other thread but it wouldn't matter what you priced Marines at. They functionally have 2 settings, OP or crap. there is no in between for them because they and their ilk are the measuring stick for 40k and all other units, weapons and rules are measured against them. Hell, half my Ork units are just orky versions of Marines stuff. Back in the day orks were armed with bolters!

Aecus Decimus wrote:
It's not like GW is publishing PL-only options for units.

Clearly you are not an Ork player.

Quick, tell me the pts value for the following:
*Goff Rocka
*Looted Wagon
*Looted 'eavy Wagon
*Battle Fortress
*Grukk Face-Rippa
*Skrakk's Skull Nobz

I'm sure other factions have similar units that only have PLs listed that people would like to use in matched play.

ccs wrote:
Quick, tell me the pts value for the following:

"This unit is not allowed in matched play" is not the same as PL unlocking narrative options.

(And I don't think any other factions have anything equivalent to the weird crusade-only ork units.)

Aren't the Skull Nobz just Nobz except they get an extra attack being next to a specific character LMAO

Aecus Decimus wrote:

ccs wrote:
Quick, tell me the pts value for the following:

"This unit is not allowed in matched play" is not the same as PL unlocking narrative options.

I didn't say it was.
But in the Ork players case it literally is for the vehicles listed. Because not only do you need PL, but you also need Scrap Points. And Scrap Points are a mechanic found only in Crusade - wich is Narrative.
True, since you need scrap as well, PL alone isn't the limiting factor for Looted Wagons, Looted 'Eavy Wagons, & Battle Fortresses. But you need the PL to get the Scrap (you don't start with any scrap), to spend on the Looted Vehicle Req. These 100% are narrative locked units.

And if you run your Crusades on Pts? Then you have a real problem as you're cheating the Ork player out of using part of their Crusade rules - because these vehicles don't have a pts value listed. Only PL - with the added requirement of scrap points.
So what's the pt value of a Looted Vehicle?

Otherwise? You are the one who claimed that:
"~and any choice that can be made in a PL army can also be made in a normal army. It's not like GW is publishing PL-only options for units."
Clearly since I cannot include my Goff Rocka - who only has a PL - in a Matched Play game, you are incorrect.

ccs wrote:
I didn't say it was.

Then it has nothing to do with the comment you replied to. The original claim was that PL as a system enables narrative choices, not that some units which are not legal for matched play are only available in a game type where PL is the default point system. If you're playing a matched play game with PL those units are not legal. If you're playing a non-Crusade narrative game with PL those units are not legal. And if GW moved Crusade over to the same point system as the rest of the game and assigned those units appropriate point costs (but kept the scrap requirement and did not allow them outside of Crusade) you'd have the exact same narrative choices available, you wouldn't gain any narrative choices by going back to PL for your Crusade games. All of the additional gain here is that Crusade offers many additional narrative choices that do not exist in matched play games.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
It's not like GW is publishing PL-only options for units.

Artefacts and Warlord Traits beg to differ.

The reason these cost CP instead of points is because the PL system is otherwise incapable of pricing them.

 vipoid wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
It's not like GW is publishing PL-only options for units.

Artefacts and Warlord Traits beg to differ.

The reason these cost CP instead of points is because the PL system is otherwise incapable of pricing them.

Why cant PL price them? Things like Tank Aces or High Command have both points and power prices right next to each other.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
It's not like GW is publishing PL-only options for units.

Artefacts and Warlord Traits beg to differ.

The reason these cost CP instead of points is because the PL system is otherwise incapable of pricing them.

Why cant PL price them? Things like Tank Aces or High Command have both points and power prices right next to each other.

Because in the very vaguest and general sense, PL is equivalent to about 15-20pts each. So if an upgrade doesn't breach that value, you really can't assign it a PL point, you can start assign fractions of a PL but really quickly its going to devolved into....points.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
It's not like GW is publishing PL-only options for units.

Artefacts and Warlord Traits beg to differ.

The reason these cost CP instead of points is because the PL system is otherwise incapable of pricing them.

Why cant PL price them? Things like Tank Aces or High Command have both points and power prices right next to each other.

Warlord traits and relics cost CPs in crusade too. Each one you take increases your crusade points and for every 2 crusade points you have more than your opponent they get a CP.

SemperMortis wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
It's not like GW is publishing PL-only options for units.

Artefacts and Warlord Traits beg to differ.

The reason these cost CP instead of points is because the PL system is otherwise incapable of pricing them.

Why cant PL price them? Things like Tank Aces or High Command have both points and power prices right next to each other.

Because in the very vaguest and general sense, PL is equivalent to about 15-20pts each. So if an upgrade doesn't breach that value, you really can't assign it a PL point, you can start assign fractions of a PL but really quickly its going to devolved into....points.

OK, so why are relics and Warlord traits free? They're not all made equal. Even if they're all 1cp, I don't see you decrying free stuff for everyone here.

Dudeface wrote:

OK, so why are relics and Warlord traits free? They're not all made equal. Even if they're all 1cp, I don't see you decrying free stuff for everyone here.

I wish they'd add a points cost for them, even if it was in addition to the CP *shakes fist at sky*

For those not familiar with crusade, you have to spend requisition points to give a unit in your force relics/warlord traits (you only have to pay this once for each relic/trait) but they do not DIRECTLY cost CP (taking a warlord trait doesn't mean I start with less CP than usual). As Black Adder mention though, they do increase your crusade points (a measure of how experienced/tricked out your crusade force is; it's GW's method for allowing random strangers to pit their crusade forces against one another despite the likely differences in experience or purchased wargear), which can give bonus starting CP to your opponent.

 vipoid wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
It's not like GW is publishing PL-only options for units.

Artefacts and Warlord Traits beg to differ.

The reason these cost CP instead of points is because the PL system is otherwise incapable of pricing them.

Um, what? How are relics and WLTs a PL-only option when they are used in normal games with normal points?

He might be referred to the Crusade-only relics?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
He might be referred to the Crusade-only relics?

But that's still not something unlocked by using PL instead of points. It's unlocked by playing Crusade, not by which point system you use. If you play Crusade with points you get to use them, if you play matched play or non-Crusade narrative games with PL you don't get to use them.

The original claim seemed to be something like "PL encourages narrative choices over list optimization choices", but in reality it doesn't. It just sometimes changes what the optimal build for a unit/army is. And as predicted the PL advocates haven't been able to answer my request for examples of how PL supposedly adds more or better choices.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
The original claim seemed to be something like "PL encourages narrative choices over list optimization choices", but in reality it doesn't. It just sometimes changes what the optimal build for a unit/army is. And as predicted the PL advocates haven't been able to answer my request for examples of how PL supposedly adds more or better choices.

In the way how weapon profiles are structured today, making everything cost the same can't lead to more narrative over competitive choices. I'd even say it is the opposite, as weak weapons got worse and good weapons got better. Weak weapons have to be cheaper than good weapons. Otherwise there is no incentive to ever consider them at all. And the guy who wants to play more fluffy is probably now losing more than before, unless the army's fluff is using all the current meta weapons by chance.

In a better balanced system, you would have an incentive to take a "bad" weapon because it performs better than the "good" weapon against a specific target that you are likely to come across, or because you make the decision to take a worse but cheaper weapon against a specific defensive profile, because you'd like to take more of the more expensive but better weapons against a different kind of defensive profile. (Or you just want to have more on the field so you take the cheaper version to save points and vice versa)

In that theoretical system, even if you go fluffy with your choices and for example take flamer / melta on your Salamander Tacticals, you would still need to incorporate more diverse weapons and units that are better suited to counter specific profiles. Like something to counter mass 2 wound infantry, or long ranged artillery.

Y'all are thinking about this wrong. If you're using points in a crusade and you want to change your weapons loadout (and everything isn't free in the points system; I too am disappointed by that trend), you have a narrow selection of changes you can make (unless you implement some method of doing it yourself, WHICH IS A TOTALLY LEGIT OPTION). With PL, you don't have those constraints.

Example situation: Your imperium crusade force wins a battle where the goal was to secure a cache of archeotech. You want to reflect this in your list. In a points system where plasma weapons cost more than what you currently have you can't do that unless you have spare points in your crusade force (which you can purchase with a requisition point, but it also costs a requisition point to change your loadout). It also could change what you are able to take into battle (you don't always take your entire crusade force into battle). Under power levels, you don't have this issue.

To be crystal clear, I'm not saying PL or points encourages narrative play, only that power level gives you more freedom to play with the narrative. PL is far easier to make an overpowered list than points because it's less restrictive. If you're group can't help but min/max everything, making modifications to the system to use points in crusade is probably the way to go. It's hard to break that mindset (it's something I'm struggling with in trying to tailor my crusade list plans and why I'm playing a test game with a crusade force). Personally, I'm a little excited by the challenge of letting go and embracing the narrative. We'll see how that goes after my tanks start accruing battle scars

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Y'all are thinking about this wrong. If you're using points in a crusade and you want to change your weapons loadout

Your argument of "I can list tailor" isn't as strong a point as you'd like to think it is.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Y'all are thinking about this wrong. If you're using points in a crusade and you want to change your weapons loadout

Your argument of "I can list tailor" isn't as strong a point as you'd like to think it is.

That example is the opposite though. The unit voluntarily starts out with a sub-optimal choice then swaps to a better one as a reward for successfully completing an objective.

If they were list tailoring they'd just pick the better weapons on day one and have no reason to do narrative changes like that.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Y'all are thinking about this wrong. If you're using points in a crusade and you want to change your weapons loadout

Your argument of "I can list tailor" isn't as strong a point as you'd like to think it is.

xttz summed it up nicely. I'll just add that I'm not trying to convert people to PL or anything (my take is that points are probably the better option in most conditions). Just making the point that PL is a valid tool and has benefits over points in certain circumstances.

 xttz wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Y'all are thinking about this wrong. If you're using points in a crusade and you want to change your weapons loadout

Your argument of "I can list tailor" isn't as strong a point as you'd like to think it is.

That example is the opposite though. The unit voluntarily starts out with a sub-optimal choice then swaps to a better one as a reward for successfully completing an objective.

If they were list tailoring they'd just pick the better weapons on day one and have no reason to do narrative changes like that.

Sooooo why didn't they just start with the better weapon to begin with? Either you just start with the best weapon or what is described here is attempting to list tailor.

Because the unit has earned the better weapon through battlefield performance? Found a box with the better guns after looting a recently conquered location?

Doesn't have to be list tailoring...