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.

Not a ten man squad-a five man squad.

But you seem to agree that five Bolters are worth less than one Bolter and four Heavy Bolters.
So why are they valued the same, under the current points cost? Why are they valued the same, under PL? Hell, I'm sure there are a lot of people who used to have a five-strong Tactical squad with a heavy weapon. They can't run them as Tacs anymore, but they can as Devastators-but four Bolters and one Heavy Bolter is not close to the same as four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter.

Andykp wrote:
Painting owl here is guilty of exactly what he is so upset at Jervis for doing, this thread has been the painting owl show for the last dozen pages of them rant about he is objectively right, his way is objectively better than anyone else’s and we are all having fun wrong. They must be seriously irony impaired not to see that.

I am objectively right about this. It is a simple matter of fact that a LRBT with sponsons is more powerful than one without sponsons and assigning them both the same point cost is an error. It is also a simple matter of fact that this is a systemic error caused directly by how PL functions.

Do you dispute that this error exists? Or do you dispute that it is a systemic error inherent to PL?

The very fact that there are loads of people on here arguing that match play style points are the “best” way to play and all other systems should be measured against that is a proof that what jervis foretold has come to pass.

PL is matched-play style points.

Its entire concept is used exactly the same way as the conventional point system: to provide an open-ended force construction system by evaluating the strength of each option, assigning a numerical value to it, and allowing balanced forces for each side to be constructed by taking options up to an equal point total without strict constraints from historical force lists or similar scope reductions.

There is nothing innovative here about PL that makes it anything other than a standard matched play style point system for generic points-based games between random armies. If you want to complain about the dominance of matched play style point systems then you should also be advocating for the removal or marginalization of PL in favor of something more narrative based.

Andykp wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is worth more: A squad of five Devastators with five Bolters, or a squad of five Devastators with four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter?

Current points system they are the same.

They're not. The first five with the heavy weapons are 120, the second optional five with the bolters are 80. Unless we're cherry picking the kid who only has 1800 points of minis but wants to play 2,000 and pretend that's a problem with points vs PL and not a problem with Timmy's allowance running out before he got to 2K.

Andykp wrote:
Current points system they are the same.

Which is indisputably a systemic error caused directly by PL's inability to handle certain choices.

Breton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is worth more: A squad of five Devastators with five Bolters, or a squad of five Devastators with four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter?

Current points system they are the same.

They're not. The first five with the heavy weapons are 120, the second optional five with the bolters are 80. Unless we're cherry picking the kid who only has 1800 points of minis but wants to play 2,000 and pretend that's a problem with points vs PL and not a problem with Timmy's allowance running out before he got to 2K.

And a sponsonless Lascannon Predator is the same thing? Just leave it on the shelf all edition, because it's generally between one third and one half as effective as the sponsoned version?

Breton wrote:
They're not. The first five with the heavy weapons are 120, the second optional five with the bolters are 80. Unless we're cherry picking the kid who only has 1800 points of minis but wants to play 2,000 and pretend that's a problem with points vs PL and not a problem with Timmy's allowance running out before he got to 2K.

We are talking about two five-man squads. Please stop trying to move the goalposts and talk about 10-man squads. There are two units with identical point costs under PL:

A 5-man squad armed with bolters.

A 5-man squad armed with four heavy bolters and a bolter.

Yes or no, is it an accurate evaluation of these two units (and ONLY these two units) that they have the same point cost?

Breton wrote:


They're not. The first five with the heavy weapons are 120, the second optional five with the bolters are 80. Unless we're cherry picking the kid who only has 1800 points of minis but wants to play 2,000 and pretend that's a problem with points vs PL and not a problem with Timmy's allowance running out before he got to 2K.

Read out what equipment that the first five devastators come stock with. Not the options, but what they come with to start.

I could equally say that the extra 40 points are to pay for the sergeant. After all, it doesnt matter which of the 9 other marines you switch out bolters for heavy weapons, nothing says you can only do that on the first 4 you buy.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Painting owl here is guilty of exactly what he is so upset at Jervis for doing, this thread has been the painting owl show for the last dozen pages of them rant about he is objectively right, his way is objectively better than anyone else’s and we are all having fun wrong. They must be seriously irony impaired not to see that.

I am objectively right about this. It is a simple matter of fact that a LRBT with sponsons is more powerful than one without sponsons and assigning them both the same point cost is an error. It is also a simple matter of fact that this is a systemic error caused directly by how PL functions.

Do you dispute that this error exists? Or do you dispute that it is a systemic error inherent to PL?

The very fact that there are loads of people on here arguing that match play style points are the “best” way to play and all other systems should be measured against that is a proof that what jervis foretold has come to pass.

PL is matched-play style points.

Its entire concept is used exactly the same way as the conventional point system: to provide an open-ended force construction system by evaluating the strength of each option, assigning a numerical value to it, and allowing balanced forces for each side to be constructed by taking options up to an equal point total without strict constraints from historical force lists or similar scope reductions.

There is nothing innovative here about PL that makes it anything other than a standard matched play style point system for generic points-based games between random armies. If you want to complain about the dominance of matched play style point systems then you should also be advocating for the removal or marginalization of PL in favor of something more narrative based.

Error is an odd choice of word, it implies you somehow know the intention of the designers and that somehow did not see the sponson issue.

I think it’s more they were aware that a tank with more guns on would be more powerful, but it doesn’t matter because it is not the intention of this system to represent that. So no, it’s not an error, it’s a design choice and one that you don’t like.

Just to be clear as well, you know power levels went with that last edition?

And that is for telling me what I should think as well, appreciate the help. And you are wrong, it is not objectively worse. That’s stupid no matter how much you shout about it.

Power level is just points but less accurate. If we really wanted to play the game Jarvis wanted we wouldn’t either use points or power level. Remember when GW made open play that didn’t use points and you could just use whatever you had? Which I’m cool with, but some people want to have points. I used to play power level because it essentially let me set a vague size for the game, but that isn’t for everyone.

Andykp wrote:
I think it’s more they were aware that a tank with more guns on would be more powerful, but it doesn’t matter because it is not the intention of this system to represent that. So no, it’s not an error, it’s a design choice and one that you don’t like.

Let me again quote you the purpose of a point system:

The goal of a point system is to provide an open-ended force construction system by evaluating the strength of each option, assigning a numerical value to it, and allowing balanced forces for each side to be constructed by taking options up to an equal point total without strict constraints from historical force lists or similar scope reductions.

A system which deliberately refuses to represent significant differences in strength between options is an objectively worse system.

Just to be clear as well, you know power levels went with that last edition?

The current system is PL in all but name, but thanks.

And you are wrong, it is not objectively worse.

Car A has flat tires and a broken engine.

Car B is a normal functioning car.

Every normal person: "Car A is objectively worse than B."

You: "that's just your opinion man."

Dandelion wrote:
Power level is just points but less accurate. If we really wanted to play the game Jarvis wanted we wouldn’t either use points or power level. Remember when GW made open play that didn’t use points and you could just use whatever you had? Which I’m cool with, but some people want to have points. I used to play power level because it essentially let me set a vague size for the game, but that isn’t for everyone.

Precisely this, much preferred the option, now neither camp has it how they like.

Breton wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

PL creates inherent systemic errors where the only possible fix is "don't use that model anymore".

The conventional point system does not.

Never in the history of points has a model ever been consigned to the shelf due to its points vs rules?

And somehow the current system doesn't do so on a far more massive level? Despite being as pointed out systemically less granular in a system that is lacking the core that would facilitate through list design opportunity cost factors that would balance differing weaponry? NVM baseline vs Specials and heavies being priced equally.

You know what, this borderline deserves "the" tropic thunder clip. No actually not just borderline, this deserves it.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Painting owl here is guilty of exactly what he is so upset at Jervis for doing, this thread has been the painting owl show for the last dozen pages of them rant about he is objectively right, his way is objectively better than anyone else’s and we are all having fun wrong. They must be seriously irony impaired not to see that.

I am objectively right about this. It is a simple matter of fact that a LRBT with sponsons is more powerful than one without sponsons and assigning them both the same point cost is an error. It is also a simple matter of fact that this is a systemic error caused directly by how PL functions.

Do you dispute that this error exists? Or do you dispute that it is a systemic error inherent to PL?

Once again, yes the error exists, not it is not systemic inherent to PL. In 9th, The 185 point Redemptor got tournament play. The 170 point Gladiator Valiant did not. I've seen a lot of Redemptors as I click random lists from BOK. I don't see any Valiants. I don't see any Intercessors. I see a Gladiator Lancer but not a Predator Annhilator. I see a lot of Incursors, Desolation Squads, and Guillimans. Do you think that with value box after value box people just didn't have Intercessors and Infiltrators? Or do you think they got pushed on the shelf?

As a side note, do you think claiming never in the history of points have units been relegated to the shelf because their points costs were so out of whack they weren't worth taking is objectively good or bad for your credibility?

You can prefer something that is objectively worse than something else.

That does not change that the thing you prefer is objectively worse than the alternative.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I think it’s more they were aware that a tank with more guns on would be more powerful, but it doesn’t matter because it is not the intention of this system to represent that. So no, it’s not an error, it’s a design choice and one that you don’t like.

Let me again quote you the purpose of a point system:

The goal of a point system is to provide an open-ended force construction system by evaluating the strength of each option, assigning a numerical value to it, and allowing balanced forces for each side to be constructed by taking options up to an equal point total without strict constraints from historical force lists or similar scope reductions.

A system which deliberately refuses to represent significant differences in strength between options is an objectively worse system.

Just to be clear as well, you know power levels went with that last edition?

The current system is PL in all but name, but thanks.

And you are wrong, it is not objectively worse.

Car A has flat tires and a broken engine.

Car B is a normal functioning car.

Every normal person: "Car A is objectively worse than B."

You: "that's just your opinion man."

That’s the purpose of points, the purpose of power levels was to do all that but very vaguely and worth less granularity in order to make the process more simple. It was for those that did not care about the granularity or perfect balance. It existed for a different purpose and did it pretty well. It was better than points, but I am happy to accept that is only because of the subjective opinion on what I want from a points system, it’s not objective fact because what you want is clearly different so for you it is a much worse system.

What you want is not the standard, what you want is not the benchmark all facts are measured against. What you want has no bearing on my life at all.

PL wasn’t a broken car, it is more like comparing my hatch back to a Ferrari. Most would say that the Ferrari is objectively better than my Nissan, but I couldn’t fit my dog in the boot of the Ferrari, so I’ll stick with my Nissan thanks.

Again, since you are willfully obstuse Breton, NOBODY CLAIMED POINTS TO BE PERFECT.

The problem is, that we are talking GW, and the PL system requires due to lower available granularity (systemic) a higher granularity through core mechanics, which friendly reminder GW HAS fething REMOVED OUT OF THE GAME.

No, the goal of power level was the same as points. The goal was to be a metric of list strength.

It was an objectively worse metric of list strength due to the things it did not take into consideration.

If you disagree with that, then tell me what crisis suit loadout is correctly balanced for power level in 9th edition and why isn't it triple CIB?

The last two pages is just breton angrily refusing to answer a simple question and dismissing facts they don't like as opinions. Just hit ignore and move on I'd say, else it'll easily become two more.

Breton wrote:
Once again, yes the error exists, not it is not systemic inherent to PL. In 9th, The 185 point Redemptor got tournament play. The 170 point Gladiator Valiant did not. I've seen a lot of Redemptors as I click random lists from BOK. I don't see any Valiants. I don't see any Intercessors. I see a Gladiator Lancer but not a Predator Annhilator. I see a lot of Incursors, Desolation Squads, and Guillimans. Do you think that with value box after value box people just didn't have Intercessors and Infiltrators? Or do you think they got pushed on the shelf?

Ok, I see where you are misunderstanding. You are missing the difference between "use error" and "systemic error".

A use error is caused by a system which CAN get an accurate result being used badly. For example, GW believes the Redemptor is weaker than it really is and assigns it a point cost of 160 points. But there was nothing that forced them to make the error, and nothing prevents them from fixing the error and assigning the correct point cost.

A systemic error is one which is inherent to the way the system works. For example, a LRBT with sponsons and a LRBT without sponsons are assigned the same point cost despite their obvious significant difference in power because PL does not allow upgrades to cost points. The system forces the error to happen and prevents it from being fixed (unless the system itself is changed).

Both PL and the traditional point system have use errors where units are evaluated incorrectly and given the wrong point costs, but PL also has additional systemic errors where the PL approach is incapable of giving a correct answer. This makes PL an objectively worse system.

As a side note, do you think claiming never in the history of points have units been relegated to the shelf because their points costs were so out of whack they weren't worth taking is objectively good or bad for your credibility?

I suppose if someone made that claim it would damage their credibility. Fortunately I have made no such claim, so please do not dishonestly imply that I did.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You can prefer something that is objectively worse than something else.

That does not change that the thing you prefer is objectively worse than the alternative.

I love WHTW 3 over Napoleon TW.

Napoleon TW is mechanically FAAAAR superior to WHTW. Just from a gunpowder warfare perspective... FFS the only faction that has reload animations is a DLC race the chaos dwarfs, hence why using the right moment for a charge is fundamentally not readable against ALL other factions making for an inferior tactical gameplay experience.,,

But WHTW is the only place i can get WHFB in a decent enough RTS style.

That doesn't mean that the permanent stagnation in mechanics that the TW series has since Rtw 2 is something i condone.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
Once again, yes the error exists, not it is not systemic inherent to PL. In 9th, The 185 point Redemptor got tournament play. The 170 point Gladiator Valiant did not. I've seen a lot of Redemptors as I click random lists from BOK. I don't see any Valiants. I don't see any Intercessors. I see a Gladiator Lancer but not a Predator Annhilator. I see a lot of Incursors, Desolation Squads, and Guillimans. Do you think that with value box after value box people just didn't have Intercessors and Infiltrators? Or do you think they got pushed on the shelf?

Ok, I see where you are misunderstanding. You are missing the difference between "use error" and "systemic error".

A use error is caused by a system which CAN get an accurate result being used badly. For example, GW believes the Redemptor is weaker than it really is and assigns it a point cost of 160 points. But there was nothing that forced them to make the error, and nothing prevents them from fixing the error and assigning the correct point cost.

A systemic error is one which is inherent to the way the system works. For example, a LRBT with sponsons and a LRBT without sponsons are assigned the same point cost despite their obvious significant difference in power because PL does not allow upgrades to cost points. The system forces the error to happen and prevents it from being fixed (unless the system itself is changed).

Both PL and the traditional point system have use errors where units are evaluated incorrectly and given the wrong point costs, but PL also has additional systemic errors where the PL approach is incapable of giving a correct answer. This makes PL an objectively worse system.

As a side note, do you think claiming never in the history of points have units been relegated to the shelf because their points costs were so out of whack they weren't worth taking is objectively good or bad for your credibility?

I suppose if someone made that claim it would damage their credibility. Fortunately I have made no such claim, so please do not dishonestly imply that I did.

So you are saying I should buy a Ferrari and do what with my dog?

Andykp wrote:
That’s the purpose of points

No, that is the purpose of ANY point system. In any genre, in any game, you use a point system to enable open-ended force construction where you give each side a total point budget and get two equal forces. And PL does an objectively worse job of this. It has significant systemic errors and offers next to nothing in return.

PL wasn’t a broken car, it is more like comparing my hatch back to a Ferrari. Most would say that the Ferrari is objectively better than my Nissan, but I couldn’t fit my dog in the boot of the Ferrari, so I’ll stick with my Nissan thanks.

No, it's like comparing your Nissan to a Ferrari that has 0.1 cubic inch less trunk space and can still fit your dog just fine. Saving 30 seconds in adding up point costs (and only if you don't use a list builder) out of a 2-4 hour game is the sole advantage PL offered. The only reason anyone cares about those 30 seconds is that PL became a symbol for "casual players" to rally around.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
That’s the purpose of points

No, that is the purpose of ANY point system. In any genre, in any game, you use a point system to enable open-ended force construction where you give each side a total point budget and get two equal forces. And PL does an objectively worse job of this. It has significant systemic errors and offers next to nothing in return.

PL wasn’t a broken car, it is more like comparing my hatch back to a Ferrari. Most would say that the Ferrari is objectively better than my Nissan, but I couldn’t fit my dog in the boot of the Ferrari, so I’ll stick with my Nissan thanks.

No, it's like comparing your Nissan to a Ferrari that has 0.1 cubic inch less trunk space and can still fit your dog just fine. Saving 30 seconds in adding up point costs (and only if you don't use a list builder) out of a 2-4 hour game is the sole advantage PL offered. The only reason anyone cares about those 30 seconds is that PL became a symbol for "casual players" to rally around.

I’ve been through the advantages I found in power levels and you can ignore them all you want. But why should I spend time doing something I don’t want to when I can get the same effect for doing something simpler. And that’s the key here, I did not have worse games with PL than I had had with points for the 7 editions before it. I did not lose out at all.

Back to my dog,

Some dogs can detect cancer, guide blind people safely around busy cities, rescue people lost on mountains. Mine does mostly this. But somehow he is better than any other dog. Objective fact!

Andykp wrote:
So you are saying I should buy a Ferrari and do what with my dog?

PL = You buy your Nissan but pay for the Ferrari anyway. Despite one being unable to transport your dog in the same way, they are not equal. Don't let the salesman and his price tag fool you.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Breton wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

PL creates inherent systemic errors where the only possible fix is "don't use that model anymore".

The conventional point system does not.

Never in the history of points has a model ever been consigned to the shelf due to its points vs rules?

And somehow the current system doesn't do so on a far more massive level?

No, it doesn't. This edition has more stuff coming off the shelf for personal preferences than on the shelf for lack of value. People aren't loading up on min units of incursors for the cheapest possible troop tax anymore. Some of those units are no longer "troops" even in spirit. But most of the 5-10 Power Armor Infantry are now all within 5/10 points for 5/10 models. Now the choices between Incursors, Infiltrators,, Intercessors, Assault Intercessors, Tacticals, and to a lesser extent Devastators and Heavy Intercessors comes from their bespokes not their throw-away value. Sniper Scouts are back off the shelf in a big way. I won't give PL direct credit for the Tanks/Vehicles - the primary driver for that one is the changes to the S/T bands.

Andykp wrote:


So you are saying I should buy a Ferrari and do what with my dog?

You car analogy breaks down as cars have multiple uses whereas a points system only has one. Cars can be better in some situations for reasons such as mileage, parkability, road clearance, boot capacity etc. It is the interplay of those which makes one car more suitable to a given need.

That means there are more ways to evaluate the qualities of a car than there are for a points system. There is no 40k equivalent difference between city-running and a track day. The game is the game, the rules are the rules.

There isn't a separate rules system where there isn't the 40k equivalent of parking, or going over a speed bump, like there is with cars and driving. There isn't a 40k equivalent of needing to drive through a foot of mud or plough a field.

The intended use of both power level and points is the same. They are metrics for measuring list strength to try to make a game fair. One takes more things into account than the other, and that makes it objectively better at the job as it can take into account more variables.

Andykp wrote:
I’ve been through the advantages I found in power levels and you can ignore them all you want.

We've been through the advantages you claim. The time savings is minimal and the formatting "advantage" only exists if you ignore the fact that GW invalidated the PL values on datasheets and replaced them with PL in the exact same format as the conventional point system, as well as the fact that the issue people have with PL/pseudo-PL is the systemic errors in point costs and not the formatting.

But why should I spend time doing something I don’t want to when I can get the same effect for doing something simpler.

Because the time savings is negligible. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that for all your concern about saving time you've now spent more time arguing in defense of PL on a random internet forum than the additional time required to use the conventional point system for every game of 40k you will play for the rest of your life.

Now, I suppose it's purely subjective opinion that you're squandering any supposed time savings in a pretty silly way given how important you find those precious few minutes, maybe forum arguments are genuinely what give you joy in your life. But your posting habits here certainly look to me like someone who has plenty of spare time to spend on frivolous things

And that’s the key here, I did not have worse games with PL than I had had with points for the 7 editions before it. I did not lose out at all.

And now we're back to something I've said over and over again here: "PL is better" and "PL is not worse" are not the same thing.

I think the real question here is why can you have a unit of 5 bolter armed Devastators? Seems an oversight not to make the first 4 guys forced to pick a heavy weapon.

So how is pl not better for me?? Baffling.

It did the same job but for less effort and bother, not just in maths but in book keeping and admin. For exactly the same end result, the game.

So it is as effective (as in I enjoyed my game as much as with points) but easier.

That’s clearly better. The only way you can argue against this is to say I didn’t enjoy my games as much (????) Or to say I didn’t spend less time and effort in army list making.

So I’m either right or you are calling me liar?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

Andykp wrote:
So you are saying I should buy a Ferrari and do what with my dog?

PL = You buy your Nissan but pay for the Ferrari anyway. Despite one being unable to transport your dog in the same way, they are not equal. Don't let the salesman and his price tag fool you.

Yeah that doesn’t work, because I pay the same for points or power levels. I’m not out of pocket here.

Andykp wrote:
So how is pl not better for me?

Because the "advantage" it offered you is negligible. If you talk about how you love your Nissan more than a Ferrari because it has 0.1 cubic inch more trunk space pretty much anyone is going to think you're either weirdly attached to defending something that gives no meaningful advantage or there's some other advantage you're not willing to mention openly.

And because you've rejected using a system which does an even better job of accomplishing your claimed goals. If the things you say about PL are sincere then "take X units and Y characters each" is an even better system than PL. It's faster, it's simpler to keep track of, and its balance issues are no worse than the issues with PL in the context of your narrative-focused games where list optimization is not relevant. Since you reject the system which is better for your claimed goals I have to be skeptical about how much you actually value those goals.