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.

Andykp wrote:
I kept out of this discussion for nearly 40 pages because joining it is pointless (see what I did there!).

The people who want more granular points systems are entitled to that want. But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way. Wanting PL and that style seems so alien to them they cannot begin to understand it. There is no point in me trying to explain my position to them. Perhaps the biggest difference is I don’t play war games to win, I dont care who wins or loses. When you can grasp that basic principle, that the game is about the story not a victory, then how much a las pistol costs over a bolt pistol becomes less important.

The issue is that the PL-advocates like yourself don't have anything to back up why they find the system fun. If you say "you don't care who wins or loses" would you be ok with playing someone who gamed the PL system to take advantage of free upgrades and beat you every time? I don't think you would. There's a threshold for fairness you want, and points would deliver it better than PL, but you have some kind of attachment to PL that goes beyond its utility, it seems.

Andykp wrote:
Hecaton, when I say they weren’t a problem, I mean I dint remember either of those things benign an issue at all, let alone one we had to do anything about. I remember at one point I had a knight (the one with the plasma cannon and volcano cannon thing) that each time I brought it it dominated games, so I stopped bringing it. I was fine with this by the way. Didn’t mind at all.

Ok, so what about people who don't have a large enough collection to just leave a $200 model at home? Wouldn't they be better served by a system where that knight wasn't dominating games?

Regardless, it seems like your group doesn't run into those problems - given that points would serve you just as well as PL, and points would serve people in other groups better, which system is objectively better is clear.

Andykp wrote:
Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me.

But why? Why is it less fun for you that the value of your units is more accurately represented by their point costs? I presume you aren't some kind of WAAC TFG that can only have fun if your stuff is overpowered and you win 100-0 every game so what exactly is it that makes those errors fun?

This is what it always comes down to with PL advocates: "it's more fun, I can't/won't tell you why, and that should be all you need to justify the existence of PL".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:
Ok, so what about people who don't have a large enough collection to just leave a $200 model at home? Wouldn't they be better served by a system where that knight wasn't dominating games?

Yeah, I really don't see how "leave the cool model you bought and painted at home because it's too overpowered" is a better solution than "have the appropriate point cost for the unit".

Andykp wrote:
Disagree, I have had many a fair game without the points being that granular, there are many ways to make a fair game, points being one. Can’t comment on iron hands in particular, never played them but I am sure someone could have made an iron hands Army that wasn’t all conquering. If I remember right there were certain builds of these powerful armies that were the problem.

Sure but a teenager can't just pivot into an alternate collection when they're supporting this hobby with the spare money from their job at (in this case) an ice cream shop.

And sure, you *can* have fair games with a less granular points system, but you are much less likely to have an unfair game with a more granular points system. And that's better for the game.

The other methods you mention all seem to involve having surpluses of both money and time, where you have a large enough collection to just be able to swap in whatever, and play enough games to where you can identify overperforming units and re-balance the game by banning them. Not everyone has that level of time and investment, so you're advocating for something that is *worse* for new players.

Andykp wrote:
Everyone can say it objective as angrily as you all like, it just isn’t.

No. It is. Conclusively. Demonstratively. Points systems, where upgrades and items are paid for with points rather than everything being free and treated the same is 100% a better system than Power Level ever was or could be, because they allow the relative power/utility of units to be shown numerically and comparatively in a system that creates better balance* and more player choice.

Power Level does nothing that Points don't do in a superior manner.


*That doesn't make points systems perfectly balanced, before anyone tries that one again...

Andykp wrote:
My group using it was because we liked it better.

But why?

I have used PL for reasons that amount to ease of use. Easier to throw armies, easier to swap out units, easier to get to a rough starting point so then my buddies and I can heuristically adjust to produce the desired scenario.

I wouldn't argue that it's better for balance, let alone pull the 'you just don't get it!' card on people who rightfully point out its limitations.

Andykp wrote:
Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me. And that what’s I liked about pl, you had the choice. Pick which worked best for you.

But points in 8th and 9th were always *more* balanced than PL... the only thing I can take away from this is that you dislike balance, honestly. Which means you're likely lacking in sportsmanship. You want the outcome of games to be decided by social contract rather than gameplay or tactics.

Andykp wrote:
The new system I don’t mind the lack of upgrade costs at all, I don’t like that the points will change every 3 months. I would rather have power levels back and points more granular for those that want that.

Were you willing to play against the 9e Tyranids codex at release, or release Votann, once a week for a year because fast change is bad, m'kay? I think not. This is a red herring.

Andykp wrote:
No, me liking it is all that matters to me.

If you like it for bad reasons then it shouldn't matter to anyone else.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Everyone can say it objective as angrily as you all like, it just isn’t.

No. It is. Conclusively. Demonstratively. Points systems, where upgrades and items are paid for with points rather than everything being free and treated the same is 100% a better system than Power Level ever was or could be, because they allow the relative power/utility of units to be shown numerically and comparatively in a system that creates better balance* and more player choice.

Power Level does nothing that Points don't do in a superior manner.


*That doesn't make points systems perfectly balanced, before anyone tries that one again...

Which comes back to: GW points are objectively worse at present and subjectively bad for the reasons shown.

So to complete the circle, we cannot say that 40k is an objectively bad game at present. It's too broad of a statement and too extreme in the choice of wording.

It's in a worse place in some ways, better in others. (Subjectively)

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me.

But why? Why is it less fun for you that the value of your units is more accurately represented by their point costs? I presume you aren't some kind of WAAC TFG that can only have fun if your stuff is overpowered and you win 100-0 every game so what exactly is it that makes those errors fun?

This is what it always comes down to with PL advocates: "it's more fun, I can't/won't tell you why, and that should be all you need to justify the existence of PL".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:
Ok, so what about people who don't have a large enough collection to just leave a $200 model at home? Wouldn't they be better served by a system where that knight wasn't dominating games?

Yeah, I really don't see how "leave the cool model you bought and painted at home because it's too overpowered" is a better solution than "have the appropriate point cost for the unit".

The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me.

But points in 8th and 9th were always *more* balanced than PL...

Moreover, points in 8th and 9th were the same way points were done in 7th. And 6th. And 5th. And every edition of the game thus far except 10th.

Dudeface wrote:
So to complete the circle, we cannot say that 40k is an objectively bad game at present. It's too broad of a statement and too extreme in the choice of wording.

I don't know if 40k is currently a bad game - I unfortunately have not had the chance to play 10th Ed yet (and not for lack of trying... believe me! ) - but the "points" system in 10th, which is just Power Level by a different name? That is awful and it is objectively worse than an actual points system, like the game has had for 9 of its 10 editions so far.

Granular points didn't stop Riptides, Wraithknights, and Ynarri from ruining my fun of 6th and 7th.
Comparatively, I had more fun playing power games in 8th and these first games of 10th have been quite enjoyable (if frustrating against the ever-resurrecting Necrons).
Game balance doesn't come from points, it comes from army rules. A broken army will be broken regardless of whether it's a flat cost or granular cost.

Game balance does come from points, because it's a measure or a lever of control. What it doesn't do is just come from points. There are multiple factors. Points allow for more immediate non-rules based fixes, and whilst they cannot do the whole job, they can often do a good job.

Points are not the great leveller, but the Riptides, Wraithknights, and Ynarri you were worried about would have been more unbalanced under Power Level, that much is assured.

And yet in the past, that granularity hasn't stopped the most broken lists or helped struggling armies. Holding it up as some holy grail of balance is just wrong.

 Gert wrote:
And yet in the past, that granularity hasn't stopped the most broken lists or helped struggling armies.

And it is still completely superior in every aspect to Power Level, a system of army construction that has no granularity whatsoever and would allow for even further abuses (as we can see with 10th and how strong things cost the same amount of points as weak things).

 Gert wrote:
Holding it up as some holy grail of balance is just wrong.

And when someone here does that, you can call 'em on it.

Andykp wrote:
The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.

When I play casually with my buddies we're not super concerned about winning or losing, but 'leave your cool centerpiece model at home because it breaks the game' is still a gakky solution to balance problems.

You can get together with like minded people to play a wargame without caring about winning/losing and still use points. I really don't understand why you keep insisting everyone else just doesn't understand casual play, as if cutthroat competitive play is the only reason to value a Leman Russ with sponsons differently from one without.

 Gert wrote:
And yet in the past, that granularity hasn't stopped the most broken lists or helped struggling armies. Holding it up as some holy grail of balance is just wrong.

I see the conversation has once again returned to this idea that if points weren't perfect, they must have been worthless.

I can think of a number of times that a specific model, unit, or upgrade got a price adjustment that nerfed broken builds or helped struggling armies. Can't you? Nobody's treating it like a 'holy grail'.

For those who insist on asking why, these are my reasons for not wanting to bother with points for every upgrade and model etc,

Most of the time, the point or two paid for an upgrade don’t matter, makes no difference, so why bother.

As all my gaming group are like minded and playing with the same objective, a fun narrative game, winning or losing doesn’t matter. So optimising units and armies to eke out every point doesn’t matter. It’s a waste of time.

We don’t care if he forces are perfectly balanced points wise, chances are we have discussed the game and what units we want to bring before hand so the points were only ever a rough guide anyway. Terrain, the mission and the conversation were the keys to balancing the game as we saw fit (it’s not always balanced evenly).

Keeping track of constant changing and tweaking of points became tiresome and complicated, what were the most up to date, etc.

Main reason we used power levels, it came along as a system and did all we wanted it to, without ever having to download an update or worry about the meta or any of that bollocks. So we used it. And we kept using it because it worked, we still had our battles and still enjoyed them but did not have to worry about how much single gretchin cost or if you could squeeze in one more guardian.

Because we are all nice people who want the same thing from a game 5e issues around people gaming the deficiencies or power levels did not arise. I dint have sponsons on my leman Russ tanks. They still don’t two editions of power levels later. Because I like them without and I’m not dick.

It meant adding up an army was easy, not as in the maths was easier, but finding the points was easier, you don’t have to work out the cost of a unit, it was right there in the datasheet. Say what you want about the maths, but 5 is a lot more simple than 14x6+9+3+6+1. Say you have 20 units, that’s 20 less bits of adding up to do. Simple.

Now we don’t have power level or choice, we just have points as 10e has them, but we are used to building armies in blocks of troops like 5 or ten man chunks, and not lying for upgrades is normal for us. To keep track of points I might have to start using an app. I would prefer the choice again of power levels or points.

I can see that in pick up games there would be people that would take advantage of power levels to gain an advantage. I don’t play pick up games.

In tournaments it would mean there was only ever one or two optimum build for units and anything else would be “worse”. But I don’t play in tournaments.

So. FOR ME. They work better than points.

PS.

I played with points since first edition. It was fine. But power level worked better when it came along. And this isn’t for all casual players. It is literally what worked FOR ME.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me.

But points in 8th and 9th were always *more* balanced than PL...

Moreover, points in 8th and 9th were the same way points were done in 7th. And 6th. And 5th. And every edition of the game thus far except 10th.

Dudeface wrote:
So to complete the circle, we cannot say that 40k is an objectively bad game at present. It's too broad of a statement and too extreme in the choice of wording.

I don't know if 40k is currently a bad game - I unfortunately have not had the chance to play 10th Ed yet (and not for lack of trying... believe me! ) - but the "points" system in 10th, which is just Power Level by a different name? That is awful and it is objectively worse than an actual points system, like the game has had for 9 of its 10 editions so far.

No they weren’t. In first and second edition, the points weren’t updated every 3 months.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Game balance does come from points, because it's a measure or a lever of control. What it doesn't do is just stem from points. There are multiple factors. Points are not the great leveller, but the Riptides, Wraithknights, and Ynarri you were worried about would have been more unbalanced under Power Level, that much is assured.

This is where we see the same thing, but our views differ. You have faith in points as a balance mechanism while I don't; at least not as something that can be improved by introducing greater granularity. Points to me are more of a stat on the card just like any other, but one who's primary function is to define the structure of lists. Part of the reason I don't like granularity is because it messes with composition, particularly when they're increased. It suddenly becomes a Lego set where some of the pieces are a millimeter longer than they should be.

I have rarely seen a scenario where changing points improves balance. I've seen it change balance, sure, but only in the sense that something taken is no longer taken. Often times its specifically because there's not a way to take something out to make up the additional cost. In my experience, changing the rules has almost always provided a better change for players as long as the game has an easy way to distribute those rule changes. That's what's so egregiously bad about the Towering change. They identified a rule problem and made a points change and the results make absolutely no sense.

I think the Wraithknight is interesting, but its the obvious problem child and the current hill to die on. The neat thing about it in my mind is its a perfect exercise for the new system. Okay, so Towering makes the shooting WK better than expected and needs to cost more. The goal of all of this is the make Wargear options equal, so.... how much do you need to buff the sword and board version to make it as good as a towering gun platform? Personally, I think that's a way cooler question that has far more exciting answers than trying to figure out how much less it should cost. To me, that's what I find really appealing about the new system, but also why seeing their go to fix be points again has me so disappointing with the change.

It's too much like shopping at a grocery store that only accepts $10 bills and can't give out change. You only want to buy $13.58 worth of goods but you'll have to use two 10 dollar bills to cover the cost. Or add to your cart.

It's a simpler transaction - no change, no fuss & easier to pay and go. Checkout lanes are really fast too!

Sadly, there IS a downside...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way.

Because Power Level is always more imbalanced. Because PL offers no advantages over a points system. Because PL is always inferior to a game where more granular choices and representing things with points. It is an objectively inferior system, and the points changes that we got this week prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You liking it better is largely irrelevant.

I brought up in the now closed news thread why this is not a workable situation.

Basically for a PL type system you'd need the core rules facilitating enough mechanics and classes that there is a debate between a flamer, nade launcher, sniper rifle , melta and plasma gun. A debate between what you require in your list and what job that unit fills in that list. That an upgrade turns into an actual side grade.

Since GW' doesn't have currently the necessary mechanics in the game. (Armor values, functioning T S table, decent cover mechanics and weapon classes that migitate that, and not least of all surpression) it is failed from the get go.

and i don't trust the rules designer GW has to actually be capable of writing such a core game, they couldn't do so with granular points which would allow to tax overperforming and underperforming weaponry, they certainly won't with opportunity costs through core mechanics alone now. Because that would require a far more stringent and fundamentally better designed game, one which would mechanically punish skew armies like knights to unplayability due to a lack of infantry f.e. The lack of a propper FoC also doesn't help this endeavour at all.

 LunarSol wrote:
I have rarely seen a scenario where changing points improves balance.

Why are you lying?

...please ignore, I misunderstood this post

 amanita wrote:
It's too much like shopping at a grocery store that only accepts $10 bills and can't give out change. You only want to buy $13.58 worth of goods but you'll have to use two 10 dollar bills to cover the cost. Or add to your cart.

It's a simpler transaction - no change, no fuss & easier to pay and go. Checkout lanes are really fast too!

Sadly, there IS a downside...

Except you don’t actually lose anything, because it’s a game we play for fun, not money and goods. So similar, but also nothing like that at all. Because this has no real world consequences.

Andykp wrote:
The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.

Again, you keep saying "PL is better for me" but all of the things you say in defense of that statement are really arguing "PL is not worse for me". The two are not the same.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.

Again, you keep saying "PL is better for me" but all of the things you say in defense of that statement are really arguing "PL is not worse for me". The two are not the same.

There are two options, a and b. A is points, a is ok but has always been a pain in the ass, b is PL. b comes along and does all I need it do but is less of a pain in the ass. A is worse than, b. Therefore b is better than a.

Trust me I know what I mean. PL is better for me. It’s simpler, does not change as often and was right there on the data sheet, not hidden away in numerous downloads of in a book you had to buy. All points that made it better. And not worse. But definitely better. But thanks for trying to explain how feel about things.

Andykp wrote:
There are two options, a and b. A is points, a is ok but has always been a pain in the ass, b is PL. b comes along and does all I need it do but is less of a pain in the ass. A is worse than, b. Therefore b is better than a.

Trust me I know what I mean. PL is better for me. It’s simpler, does not change as often and was right there on the data sheet, not hidden away in numerous downloads of in a book you had to buy. All points that made it better. And not worse. But definitely better. But thanks for trying to explain how feel about things.

I'm not explaining how you feel about things, I'm explaining what your words are saying. When you say "points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people" that is not a statement that PL is better, it is a statement that PL is not worse. And those are two very different things.

And some of what you are saying is factually wrong. PL not changing as often is not an advantage for PL. Even if you reject the idea that changes are desirable to deal with problems ASAP you still gain no advantage from a reduced update cycle. If points update four times per year you as a player group can always agree to only use the first update of the year and keep using it all year. You gain nothing from the other three updates not existing. OTOH the opposite is not true. PL updating less frequently can be a disadvantage for the people who want faster resolution to problems. So once again we have an example of points doing everything PL does and also doing more things, making PL entirely redundant.

As for the supposed advantage of PL being on the datasheet I'm pretty skeptical of that. Are you really building a list faster by flipping through multiple pages of datasheets to find each point value vs. looking at a single 1-2 page points document for your faction? I doubt it. One of the best things GW did for PL was that when they finally updated the point values in 9th they published a single points document in the same style as the conventional points document, where you could see all of your faction's point costs at a glance and build a list without having to go searching through the book.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
There are two options, a and b. A is points, a is ok but has always been a pain in the ass, b is PL. b comes along and does all I need it do but is less of a pain in the ass. A is worse than, b. Therefore b is better than a.

Trust me I know what I mean. PL is better for me. It’s simpler, does not change as often and was right there on the data sheet, not hidden away in numerous downloads of in a book you had to buy. All points that made it better. And not worse. But definitely better. But thanks for trying to explain how feel about things.

I'm not explaining how you feel about things, I'm explaining what your words are saying. When you say "points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people" that is not a statement that PL is better, it is a statement that PL is not worse. And those are two very different things.

And some of what you are saying is factually wrong. PL not changing as often is not an advantage for PL. Even if you reject the idea that changes are desirable to deal with problems ASAP you still gain no advantage from a reduced update cycle. If points update four times per year you as a player group can always agree to only use the first update of the year and keep using it all year. You gain nothing from the other three updates not existing. OTOH the opposite is not true. PL updating less frequently can be a disadvantage for the people who want faster resolution to problems. So once again we have an example of points doing everything PL does and also doing more things, making PL entirely redundant.

As for the supposed advantage of PL being on the datasheet I'm pretty skeptical of that. Are you really building a list faster by flipping through multiple pages of datasheets to find each point value vs. looking at a single 1-2 page points document for your faction? I doubt it. One of the best things GW did was that when they finally updated PL in 9th they published a single points document in the same style as the conventional points document, where you could see all of your faction's point costs at a glance and build a list without having to go searching through the book.

Again thanks for explaining my feelings and thoughts to me, and pointing out I am not enjoying things right and enjoying some things wrong.

I was really happy to not have PL change at all, all edition. Never felt the need for it to change. None of us in our group wanted to “resolve” issue that didn’t matter to us quickly, we also didn’t want to have to check we were all using the right era of points, which of 7 or 8 versions of points we could have used.

As for designing armies from a list of points downloaded from the internet of bought at extra cost, no thanks. I actually enjoy flicking through the book, looking at the datasheets, reminding myself of the models, rules and options….and the not having to find the points somewhere else. Honestly, I like that and still do it. It’s fun.

Ways PL was better for us, as simply as I can as you seem to be struggling.

1. On the datasheet (definitely better for me).
2. Didn’t change often (factually better for me, still a bug bear with points now, I’m old and can’t be arsed with changes all the time).
3. Simpler maths. (Note the “s”). As pointed out before. Having to calculate a cost of a unit and then add those up, definitely easier to just add up the power level.

In a purely subjective way, these made PL better.

That said, some of this is missing now that PL has gone. Not 3, 3 is still there but 1 and 2 sadly gone, so new points worse than power levels (or, power levels better than new pints, and old points).

Nobody's invalidating your subjective experience, they're pointing out that (1) putting costs on the datasheet isn't an advantage for PL since you can do that for points too, and (2) not updating is, again, not specific to PL, and you are free to ignore updates to points or PL as you see fit.

(3) Simpler math is legitimate, if you find double-digit arithmetic taxing and are unwilling to use a calculator or listbuilding app to assist. That's the only actual advantage to PL; it's coarser and simpler and easier to add up in an era where adding up numbers has never been easier. The other two are basically just coincidence that GW chose to implement PL that way, and not intrinsic to PL as a system.

Couching your preference for PL as subjective opinion doesn't make your reasoning immune to criticism. Most of us here are not hardcore tournament players. We're casual players who like having decent odds in pick-up games or being able to set up narrative scenarios without having to put on our game designer hats to balance it out. We can imagine casual play just fine; it's the tradeoff of saving a few seconds of brainpower in exchange for a worse play experience that isn't all that appealing.

 catbarf wrote:
Nobody's invalidating your subjective experience, they're pointing out that (1) putting costs on the datasheet isn't an advantage for PL since you can do that for points too, and (2) not updating is, again, not specific to PL, and you are free to ignore updates to points or PL as you see fit.

(3) Simpler math is legitimate, if you find double-digit arithmetic taxing and are unwilling to use a calculator or listbuilding app to assist. That's the only actual advantage to PL; it's coarser and simpler and easier to add up in an era where adding up numbers has never been easier. The other two are basically just coincidence that GW chose to implement PL that way, and not intrinsic to PL as a system.

Couching your preference for PL as subjective opinion doesn't make your reasoning immune to criticism. Most of us here are not hardcore tournament players. We're casual players who like having decent odds in pick-up games or being able to set up narrative scenarios without having to put on our game designer hats to balance it out. We can imagine casual play just fine; it's the tradeoff of saving a few seconds of brainpower in exchange for a worse play experience that isn't all that appealing.

It’s not about casual vs tournament pay, it’s about the we my group play. That’s all. I’m not saying PL was the perfect system. In a counter to your points,

1. It is an advantage for power level because they used to do it for points but stopped. So at that time the only points on the datasheet were power level. They could have done a lot of things, but didn’t. A possibility doesn’t trump what actually happened.

2.I addressed this before. Having updates of points every few months just creates confusion if you don’t keep up with it. You could ignore it and use the points at the back of the codex and I would probably would have if it wasn’t for power levels right there on the datasheet. Handy and constant. Ignoring updated points is what I did before power levels.

3. Maths isn’t taxing, I am reasonably proficient at the basics, but less is better, it’s not something I do for fun. As for the 1 and 2 being a coincidence, I didn’t sit dreaming of power level or ask Gw to create it, I just used them and liked them. Now they are gone and I won’t use them anymore, I will use the new system, probably on an app.


I am not stating power was done perfectly, or should have replaced points. Just how we reacted to what was actually happening. GW could have done a lot of things and used to have all the points for all the stuff upgrades and all on the datasheet, sometimes it was on separate tables. Lots of options, some better than others.

I’m not arguing for all casual players, not saying they should all use PL, everyone should do what works for them. I imagine if I had to play pick up games at a club or store I wouldn’t like or use power levels at all, but I would pine for the days of points being on the datasheets.

So if you want to criticise my opinion do so by all means, but don’t tell me my experiences were wrong (what ever that means) or that I am wrong for enjoying something, or as Karol said that I could not have enjoyed it because so many others didn’t??? Accept them for what they are, opinions. And to your last point, the one that turns your post from a reasonable response into just telling me I’m wrong.

I did not have a worse gaming experience for using power levels, in fact I enjoyed 40K more than I had in some time. So FOR ME the trade off of simpler maths and easier book keeping included a better gaming experience, so win/win.

I will wait for people to tell me I am wrong and I didn’t actually enjoy myself at all….

Andykp wrote:

I will wait for people to tell me I am wrong and I didn’t actually enjoy myself at all….

People enjoy themselves with garbage all the time, but at least those people usually understand it's trash.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.

Again, you keep saying "PL is better for me" but all of the things you say in defense of that statement are really arguing "PL is not worse for me". The two are not the same.

Okay... Let me explain my interpretation of Andy's point in different words:

My buddies and I agree on a 1k game. I pick units that I like that add up to 1k. And that's all I do, because regardless of what equipment I put on them, the list is going to work. Like Andy's crew, my circle don't optimize- some are rule of coolers, some make odd choices for story reasons, and some build on a budget and can't afford to buy an extra box.

But with a PL, regardless of what load-out you bring, or why you choose to bring that load out, once you've picked your units, you're done worrying about achieving the desired point threshold.

With costed equipment, once I've chosen the units I want to use, I'm not yet done with list building- I now have to figure out whether or not the load out I want for one unit interferes with whether or not I can get the ideal load out for the next unit and the next, and the wrong choice could mean I have to drop a unit in order to get the loadout I want on another unit.

I get where Andy's coming from, because I loved PL in 9th ed escalation Crusade play.

However, I still think that the two-system solution is the best option, and I think it was a HUGE mistake to try to make EVERYONE swallow PL-style-points or rage quit. The little time it took GW to derive a PL number from points was well worth the effort to keep the greatest number of people reasonably happy.

If the best of both worlds solution wasn't on the table and I had to pick one or the other though?

I'd pick points... Because even though I see where Andy's coming from, and I lived there for all of 9th, I don't believe that this PL-style-point system is good for the health of the game. Even if you just assign costs for vehicle load-outs that would be something... It would solve the melee Wraith Knight and the sponson problem, which are the most egregious issues. And if GW decided to take it all the way back to costed upgrades for infantry? Well, that's certainly better than doing nothing.

PenitentJake wrote:


However, I still think that the two-system solution is the best option, and I think it was a HUGE mistake to try to make EVERYONE swallow PL-style-points or rage quit. The little time it took GW to derive a PL number from points was well worth the effort to keep the greatest number of people reasonably happy.

I think they tried to nudge us to PL, and we weren't willing to go. I think they tried a couple different ways, then decided they were going to tell us to go. I think that was a mistake.

If the best of both worlds solution wasn't on the table and I had to pick one or the other though?

I'd pick points... Because even though I see where Andy's coming from, and I lived there for all of 9th, I don't believe that this PL-style-point system is good for the health of the game. Even if you just assign costs for vehicle load-outs that would be something... It would solve the melee Wraith Knight and the sponson problem, which are the most egregious issues. And if GW decided to take it all the way back to costed upgrades for infantry? Well, that's certainly better than doing nothing.

I think if they actually stick with these points disguised as PL long enough, then it is better for the health of the game. Its getting them to do a deeper more thorough balancing at the unit vs unit and wargear vs wargear level. When Boltstorm Aggressors vs Flamestorm Aggressors (and so on) are a thematic choice not a mathematic one we're better off.