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.

PenitentJake wrote:
No it wouldn't, because both Knights and min-sized canon-fodder infantry are "units" - by your rules, one person could bring 3 generic Ork bosses 6 minimum sized units of grots while the other brings three named character and six super heavies. PL isn't accurate to the minutiae, but it's accurate enough to prevent THAT kind of imbalance, while your proposed solution solution is not.

Except how often is that happening in a story-based game where people are making their lists based on what makes the most sense for the story and not getting the most possible advantage out of the list building rules? And TBH why does it matter? So what if the grot mob gets annihilated by the Baneblade company, war isn't fair. Sometimes the story of a battle is "wow they got slaughtered".

In a real story-based game these outliers don't matter. It's very easy to say that if exceptionally big units are present for a battle they count as 2-4 units each because of how important they are. Or maybe some of the cheapest cannon fodder gets to be counted as half a unit, because everyone knows grots are weak and pathetic and should be taken in huge numbers to do anything. Even accounting for these things you still have a far simpler and more appropriate system than PL.

I'd still need a rating system in order to grow my army via the supply limit crusade mechanic.

Why? Why are you making expansion choices based on what an arbitrary point system says instead of what is best for the story?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
We all know GW botches the execution of PL when they made stupid mistakes like free Sponsons

Except it's not a botch, it's a deliberate choice by GW to have the system work that way. PL by definition can't have a price for sponsons, if you have upgrade costs you no longer have PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
After all, based on impact in the game, how many points should a wargear upgrade for an AM Infantry Squad for a Bolt Pistol over the standard Las Pistol? Remember you are backtracking from a fully upgraded squad 9-10 model squad at 65 points.

I don't know exactly. What I do know is that the traditional point system is capable of assigning an appropriate cost to the indisputable non-zero value added by taking the upgrade, while PL is by deliberate design incapable of doing so.

I am pleased that the current system encourages the use of wargear on units.

"The balance issues in PL favor the kind of army I want to take" is not the defense of PL you think it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arschbombe wrote:
Whereas the narrative gamers are seeking legitimacy and recognition that they exist from GW and happily embrace whatever narrative framework they can get however flawed it may be.

This the heart of the issue I think. PL isn't valued because of its practical function, it's valued because it's seen as validation of a certain player/play style and even if it's the most dysfunctional mess of a system ever its mere existence is important. No amount of debate over the merits of a system will ever convince someone when the reason they care about a system has nothing to do with those supposed merits.

Real News wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:


Dude it ain't about lazy, it's about the story.

A unit has an experience on the battlefield that necessitates a change in its load out out for the next game. None of the other units have an experience that require a change of load out. A costed equipment system does not allow me as a storyteller to deal with this. If I change the equipment of the affected unit as required by the story, I must also change at least one of the other units, even though there's no story based reason to do this.

A PL type system does allow me to change the load of one unit without affecting the load out of the others. If all you ever play is stand-alone pick-up games, you'll never encounter a situation like this, but it's quite common in the campaigns we play, so we prefer a system that lets us deal with it when it happens.

Laziness has nothing to do with it. Time has nothing to do with it. We put a fair amount of work into our campaigns... Ain't one of us I'd call lazy, and if time was an issue, I'd just avoid spending as much time as I do feeding trolls on the Internet to make up the difference.

So it works for the games you play. Maybe it doesn't work for the games other people play. I think it's better to have both options available, instead of GW forcing people to do things your way. Instead GW is pushing a points system that's just a multiplicative of the PL system, which isn't useful for anybody.

So how can a system that works for Jake ,
maybe doesn't work for others,
Not be usefull for anybody?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or to rephrase it:

"A PL type system allows you to take upgrades without having to account for the additional utility, power or advantage it provides in any way, and you don't have to give anything else up in your army, or sacrifice any other choices you have made, to achieve this increase in ability/power."

That ain't a "pro"...

Really?

So as a storyteller and campaign player and a dude who has written for Role Playing games, you're seriously telling my that when my Inquisitor shows up after the Sisters break the investigation threshold they need to report confirmed Cult activity, and that Inquisitor outfits a Sister superior with a Condemnor Boltgun so that she can more effectively lead the Chamber Militant bodyguard unit against the cult is a story that somehow makes more sense if one of the other Sisters in the army, for no reason at all decides to trade in her meltagun for a bolter?

To quote a guy who I respect, and was recently polite to after he checked my statements and called me out:

"You're better than that. Be better."

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


"Once you dismiss every example of PL's failures as an 'edge case' there are no examples of PL failing" is not nearly as compelling an argument as you seem to think.

And once YOU dismiss every instance of someone explaining their preference for PL, your argument that there are no situations or types of play where PL does a better job to meet the needs of subset of of the playerbase is not nearly as compelling an argument as YOU seem to think.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Then why are you using a point system at all?

This going to sound harsh, but it's sort of a serious question: Can you read?

Because I wrote this literally seven posts before you asked this question (again):

PenitentJake wrote:
because both Knights and min-sized canon-fodder infantry are "units" - by your rules, one person could bring 3 generic Ork bosses 6 minimum sized units of grots while the other brings three named character and six super heavies. PL isn't accurate to the minutiae, but it's accurate enough to prevent THAT kind of imbalance, while your proposed solution solution is not.

Also, as I explained to everyone else above, the PL/Point rating has significant impacts on escalation and Crusade play that go beyond list construction, meaning that even IF I accepted your proposed solution (which I don't), I'd still need a rating system in order to grow my army via the supply limit crusade mechanic.

There's no point in me answering any of your questions if you aren't going to read or acknowledge the answers I give you.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Why are you adding a character to your SoB army for the sole purpose of matching the arbitrary point total of the DE force? If the character wasn't already in your force for lore reasons why should she suddenly appear just because the DE have more points in their force?

The Crusade hasn't started yet- this is the first dive into 10th ed for me, so it's not like there was a story in progress other than the backstory, which is the story that gets written before the game begins. Furthermore, I had always planned to have an Imagifier join the Crusade eventually. If throwing her into game one instead of adding her to the roster once I raise my supply limit brings the first game closer to balance than it already was, there's no reason not to, because the game I'm prepping for is the first game of the Crusade.

To be fair to you, I didn't explain that very well in the previous post, so this one's on me, not you.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Play the game with the force dictated by lore even if the point totals don't match and you're at a disadvantage.

You keep saying "it's all about the story" but you are remarkably reluctant to break out of the matched play with points-based list construction mindset and do something genuinely story-focused.

There will definitely be times were the story puts players at disadvantage, and we will play with the armies dictated by the story when that happens, but there's no point in doing so in the very first game when a simple addition of a single character model which I always planned to use eventually would allow the first game of the Crusade to be closer to balanced.

Real News wrote:


So it works for the games you play. Maybe it doesn't work for the games other people play. I think it's better to have both options available, instead of GW forcing people to do things your way. Instead GW is pushing a points system that's just a multiplicative of the PL system, which isn't useful for anybody.

Your level of participation in this thread isn't is high as some of the other folks I've responded to, so you might not know this, but I've been saying that since the very beginning of the thread. In fact, my official position is this:

I prefer PL because it suits the specific needs of the campaign games I play with my small circle of friends better than points, but I believe that the coexistence of both system, points and PL, is the best option. I also believe that if GW insists on forcing us to use only one or the other, they should have chosen granular points DESPITE my personal preference because that would be better for the health of the game and would satisfy a larger portion of the playerbase.

I'm not going back through 64 pages to quote the number of times of said this, but my estimate is 5-8. Again, you haven't been as active as others in here, so I don't expect you to have read any of those posts, but now you know: you and I are officially on the same page.

The reason I debate ThePaintingOwl and a few others over this is that THEY aren't cool with the two system solution, because they insist that granular points are better for ALL players in ALL cases, regardless of how often other people explain their reasons for preferring a game where we are allowed to choose a PL system while they are free to choose a granular point system.

The second that PaintingOwl or EP say "Yeah, you know what? I'd rather have a game that allows people to choose between points and PL than the system we have now," you'll never see me in this thread again.

And to be totally honest, this probably IS the last time you'll see me in this thread anyway; I've already put more effort into all of this than it was worth.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
After all, based on impact in the game, how many points should a wargear upgrade for an AM Infantry Squad for a Bolt Pistol over the standard Las Pistol? Remember you are backtracking from a fully upgraded squad 9-10 model squad at 65 points.

I don't know exactly. What I do know is that the traditional point system is capable of assigning an appropriate cost to the indisputable non-zero value added by taking the upgrade, while PL is by deliberate design incapable of doing so.

Really? I'm pretty sure the long going consensus has been a Bolt Pistol is not worth 1 point as an upgrade over a Las Pistol, but must be assigned 1 point because you can't have a free upgrade in a granular point system. So basically, the granular points system fails in this instance because it can't go low enough.

Well, I suppose we could assign it 0.25 points that lets you take 4 of them over your army for just 1 point, but I've yet to see that in any points system for any game.

Anyway. Given all the other comments since my last post that have fun proving me wrong but not actually discussing anything, I'll retire knowing you guys would rather win an argument than have a discussion.

Both systems have merits depending upon the desired results of the game designer. Neither system holds up well if the game designers don't implement them well. GW has long been able to fail in execution regardless of which path they travel.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

A PL TYPE SYSTEM ALLOWS YOU TO MODIFY THE LOADOUT OF A SINGLE UNIT WITHOUT AFFECTING THE REST OF THE ARMY AT ALL

It benefits the lazy? Is that the argument?

Dude it ain't about lazy, it's about the story.

A unit has an experience on the battlefield that necessitates a change in its load out out for the next game. None of the other units have an experience that require a change of load out. A costed equipment system does not allow me as a storyteller to deal with this. If I change the equipment of the affected unit as required by the story, I must also change at least one of the other units, even though there's no story based reason to do this.

A PL type system does allow me to change the load of one unit without affecting the load out of the others. If all you ever play is stand-alone pick-up games, you'll never encounter a situation like this, but it's quite common in the campaigns we play, so we prefer a system that lets us deal with it when it happens.

Laziness has nothing to do with it. Time has nothing to do with it. We put a fair amount of work into our campaigns... Ain't one of us I'd call lazy, and if time was an issue, I'd just avoid spending as much time as I do feeding trolls on the Internet to make up the difference.

If all you're trying to do is add a piece of wargear, or even several pieces of wargear, then just add the piece of wargear. If the minutiae of balance is not an issue for your games. . . then it should not matter.

PenitentJake wrote:
To folks who ask why I use a point system at all, there are two answers: a) while I don't care about the minutiae of balance that points are better at providing, I do care to have the approximate balance that PL provides... More importantly though, Crusades escalation mechanic (supply limit) is predicated upon PL/ points. Furthermore, game size rules, such as number of allowable detachments, table size, and starting CP were also based on PL.

PenitentJake wrote:
a) while I don't care about the minutiae of balance that points are better at providing,

PenitentJake wrote:
points are better

That is all.

This hammer is better at pounding nails in.
Oh, you need a drill to handle these screws? Sorry, hammer is better.

 alextroy wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
After all, based on impact in the game, how many points should a wargear upgrade for an AM Infantry Squad for a Bolt Pistol over the standard Las Pistol? Remember you are backtracking from a fully upgraded squad 9-10 model squad at 65 points.

I don't know exactly. What I do know is that the traditional point system is capable of assigning an appropriate cost to the indisputable non-zero value added by taking the upgrade, while PL is by deliberate design incapable of doing so.

Really? I'm pretty sure the long going consensus has been a Bolt Pistol is not worth 1 point as an upgrade over a Las Pistol, but must be assigned 1 point because you can't have a free upgrade in a granular point system. So basically, the granular points system fails in this instance because it can't go low enough.

You were literally proven wrong via a prior thread that proved the effect of the S4 was worth a 1 point upgrade but not mandatory. Get over it, you're wrong.

 alextroy wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
After all, based on impact in the game, how many points should a wargear upgrade for an AM Infantry Squad for a Bolt Pistol over the standard Las Pistol? Remember you are backtracking from a fully upgraded squad 9-10 model squad at 65 points.

I don't know exactly. What I do know is that the traditional point system is capable of assigning an appropriate cost to the indisputable non-zero value added by taking the upgrade, while PL is by deliberate design incapable of doing so.

Really? I'm pretty sure the long going consensus has been a Bolt Pistol is not worth 1 point as an upgrade over a Las Pistol, but must be assigned 1 point because you can't have a free upgrade in a granular point system. So basically, the granular points system fails in this instance because it can't go low enough.

Well, I suppose we could assign it 0.25 points that lets you take 4 of them over your army for just 1 point, but I've yet to see that in any points system for any game.\

Make armies in the 200,000 point range, Bolt Pistols are 25 points a pop. 10 Assault Terminators are something like 4,000 points.

PenitentJake wrote:
So as a storyteller and campaign player and a dude who has written for Role Playing games, you're seriously telling my that when my Inquisitor shows up after the Sisters break the investigation threshold they need to report confirmed Cult activity, and that Inquisitor outfits a Sister superior with a Condemnor Boltgun so that she can more effectively lead the Chamber Militant bodyguard unit against the cult is a story that somehow makes more sense if one of the other Sisters in the army, for no reason at all decides to trade in her meltagun for a bolter?

Or you add the upgrade weapon to go from 500 points to 510 points (or whatever it is) and now all of your opponents get to bring 510 points against you. There's no reason to assume the least-flexible implementation of the point system, and PL allowing you to pretend that your 500 point army is still 500 points is not a virtue.

This going to sound harsh, but it's sort of a serious question: Can you read?

I read. I also explained very clearly that it's trivial to account for those issues by treating knights/baneblades/primarchs/etc as 2-4 "units" each, and that imbalances on that level would never appear in real narrative-based games because you don't have players building lists to maximize the value per "unit" they take. I guess you missed that post.

Also, as I explained to everyone else above, the PL/Point rating has significant impacts on escalation and Crusade play that go beyond list construction, meaning that even IF I accepted your proposed solution (which I don't), I'd still need a rating system in order to grow my army via the supply limit crusade mechanic.

I guess you also missed my post questioning why you need a supply limit at all, given your claim to be concerned with the story. Supply limit is a matched play element that exists for ensuring balanced forces, if you are playing a narrative-focused campaign you have no need for it whatsoever. Add new units to your force if and when the story dictates, not when you have an arbitrary point total.

(And TBH the supply limit mechanic is one of the worst ideas from Crusade so if a new point system eliminates it then good riddance.)

brings the first game closer to balance than it already was

But why does it matter? Why do you care about the balance of adding the character but not the balance of subtracting the melta guns? Both are very comparable changes to the strength of your force, it seems like a pretty blatant double standard that only the balance issues which are problems for PL are dismissed while the balance issues PL can still solve are important.

because they insist that granular points are better for ALL players in ALL cases

Correction: I acknowledge that the traditional point system is not better in every single case, only in the vast majority of them. But in the few cases like yours where it isn't the objectively superior system there is a system that is even better than PL. Traditional points may not always be the correct answer but PL is never the correct answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
Really? I'm pretty sure the long going consensus has been a Bolt Pistol is not worth 1 point as an upgrade over a Las Pistol, but must be assigned 1 point because you can't have a free upgrade in a granular point system. So basically, the granular points system fails in this instance because it can't go low enough.

Even if you assume the premise that 1 point is too much it's still not an argument against traditional points. Nothing about the system itself requires units or upgrades or typical game sizes to have any particular value. You could very easily multiply everything by 10 and play 20,000 point games instead of 2,000 point games, making the smallest point increment for a bolt pistol 1 point out of a 650 point infantry squad. And I'm pretty sure that's enough resolution to solve the problem.

PL, on the other hand, can not solve the problem at all, under any circumstances. The bolt pistol is better than the laspistol but can not have an increased cost, meaning the bolt pistol is automatic correct choice and the laspistol is de facto removed from the game. This makes PL an objectively inferior system.

 alextroy wrote:
Those are defiantly Pros for Points and Cons for PL. But that isn't the end of the story. You are concentrating on you and those specific models. But you are ignoring any other Cons for Points or Pros for PL because PL specifically hurts those models. You are too busy looking at your personal trees to even look at the forest.

We all know GW botches the execution of PL when they made stupid mistakes like free Sponsons and removing Sinistrous Hand from the Keeper of Secrets. Those execution errors do not mean Points are objectively better, although they definitely start the case.

Here's a simple set of Pros and Cons that expanded could prove (or disprove) the case for Granular Points being objectively better:

Granular Points
Pro: Can account for power difference in major not taken options (Sponson or no Sponson).
Con: Has major issues determining value for minor wargear differences (Las Pistol or Bolt Pistol).

There are three options for balancing las/bolt/plas. 0/0/0 0/1/3 0/5/10. At either of the extremes there is only one viable option, on the left hand side the plasma pistol is strictly better so you take it every time, this also happens in PL, at the right side the upgrades are overcosted and never taken so only one option (the weakest default) is viable. No matter how badly GW feths up the pts for Infantry Squad pistols they can never do worse than PL, there cannot be fewer viable options in pts unless weaker options cost more than more powerful options. But look in the middle, if this isn't perfectly imbalanced then the difference between the pts efficiency between options is at the very least lesser than either of the other options. Pts are by this logic superior to PL.

Power Level Points
Pro: Prevents ruthless optimization of armies through fixed unit sizes (You get 5 or 10, not 7 because that is just enough to do the job and saves you points)
Con: Poor Datasheet design can result in units with drastically different effect on the game for a fixed point value (Sponson or no Sponson)

You missed the con/pro of using up all your points ending up being a puzzle at the end of list building so you need to add and remove units to get there because you can't add/remove a couple of single models. It's been a long time since I've seen units of 7, usually you go min for morale or you go max for Stratagems, saving a few pts by taking models away at the end of list building is a feature, not a flaw, if you don't want 7-man units you don't need to take them in pts. There is no advantage to doing it other than saving time, there aren't magical numbers of models in 10th because GW got rid of actions being done in a superior way for 6-man units. PL has nothing to do with datasheet design, why make 6 datasheets for Predators when you can have 1 work in pts? You'll be replacing one con with another, imbalance with bloat.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Pro: Prevents ruthless optimization of armies through fixed unit sizes (You get 5 or 10, not 7 because that is just enough to do the job and saves you points)

You will have to prove this to me for me to believe it, especially since it can also go in the Pro column for points (points has nothing to do with unit size- as you can see from 9th when IG infantry squads were 10 models and 10 models only without using PL).

So try picking a pro that is actually a result of PL and not just a game design change that has always been the case for some armies, points/PL or not.

Edit:
Heck, basic IG squads were 10 models and 10 models only back in 4th edition, well before PL was even conceived

Ghost Arks are single entity units whether you use PL or pts, you can only get 7 Immortals in pts. I don't think your post makes sense.

PenitentJake wrote:
I was planning on not logging in tonight and ignoring forums. I came home and built my Simulacrum Dom. I had four more plain bolter women I was planning to build- two with Celestian helmets to rep the Chamber Militant group and two with bare heads to rep the Palatine's escort.

And then I ran out of freakin' glue. So now I'm bored and here I am.

To folks who ask why I use a point system at all, there are two answers: a) while I don't care about the minutiae of balance that points are better at providing, I do care to have the approximate balance that PL provides... More importantly though, Crusades escalation mechanic (supply limit) is predicated upon PL/ points. Furthermore, game size rules, such as number of allowable detachments, table size, and starting CP were also based on PL.

Obviously, some of that is no longer relevant in 10th (starting CP, allowable detachments)... But the point is that the PL/Point value isn't just used for army construction- it has other in game effects.

Just decide whether you are playing Strike Force or whatever else. Getting within 10% of your opponents list value is probably pretty easy, so just do it at the table, PL apologists all seem willing to cheat and change your rosters on the fly to take more special weapons anyway it seems.

 alextroy wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
After all, based on impact in the game, how many points should a wargear upgrade for an AM Infantry Squad for a Bolt Pistol over the standard Las Pistol? Remember you are backtracking from a fully upgraded squad 9-10 model squad at 65 points.

I don't know exactly. What I do know is that the traditional point system is capable of assigning an appropriate cost to the indisputable non-zero value added by taking the upgrade, while PL is by deliberate design incapable of doing so.

Really? I'm pretty sure the long going consensus has been a Bolt Pistol is not worth 1 point as an upgrade over a Las Pistol, but must be assigned 1 point because you can't have a free upgrade in a granular point system. So basically, the granular points system fails in this instance because it can't go low enough.

Well, I suppose we could assign it 0.25 points that lets you take 4 of them over your army for just 1 point, but I've yet to see that in any points system for any game.

Anyway. Given all the other comments since my last post that have fun proving me wrong but not actually discussing anything, I'll retire knowing you guys would rather win an argument than have a discussion.

Both systems have merits depending upon the desired results of the game designer. Neither system holds up well if the game designers don't implement them well. GW has long been able to fail in execution regardless of which path they travel.

I think Karol did the math against certain types of units it's viable, Genestealers I think it was, just not against Space Marines. 1 point is very little anyways, there is no actual loss if you pay 6 pts too much for your 8 bolt pistols, you still get 8 bolt pistols. When I take a bolt pistol in PL I get nothing in return for not taking a plasma pistol.

 JNAProductions wrote:
This hammer is better at pounding nails in.
Oh, you need a drill to handle these screws? Sorry, hammer is better.

That analogy doesn't work, because both PL and points-for-upgrades exist for the same purpose, which is to govern force value. One just does it at better resolution.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
This hammer is better at pounding nails in.
Oh, you need a drill to handle these screws? Sorry, hammer is better.

That analogy doesn't work, because both PL and points-for-upgrades exist for the same purpose, which is to govern force value. One just does it at better resolution.

It is mathematically true that points is better than powerlevels (at the goal of representing any given force in a single abstract number that measures its relative worth compared to other forces) because points can do everything that powerlevels can do, and then some while the reverse is not true. In a points-based system, nothing prevents you to have specific equipments be free, swapable against each other or be a pick of one out of three etc. Thus, points allow for more options than powerlevels, because the option to have any given upgrade cost points comes in addition to, not as a replacement for, everything that's possible in a power level system.

vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Pro: Prevents ruthless optimization of armies through fixed unit sizes (You get 5 or 10, not 7 because that is just enough to do the job and saves you points)

You will have to prove this to me for me to believe it, especially since it can also go in the Pro column for points (points has nothing to do with unit size- as you can see from 9th when IG infantry squads were 10 models and 10 models only without using PL).

So try picking a pro that is actually a result of PL and not just a game design change that has always been the case for some armies, points/PL or not.

Edit:
Heck, basic IG squads were 10 models and 10 models only back in 4th edition, well before PL was even conceived

Ghost Arks are single entity units whether you use PL or pts, you can only get 7 Immortals in pts. I don't think your post makes sense.

The point (which alextroy has conveniently not addressed) is that unit sizes are "army structure pricing system agnostic" - you could conceive of a PL system that charges per-model (5 immortals =35, 6 immortals =40, 7 immortals=762.379) and you can conceive of a points system that works in chunks of models but still charges for wargear.

The "ruthless optimization by model numbers doesn't happen in PL" claim is dumb, because you can turn that off with points too. As illustrated by conventional guard squads that were unoptimizable on the model count front even in points regimes.

PenitentJake wrote:
So as a storyteller and campaign player and a dude who has written for Role Playing games, you're seriously telling my that when my Inquisitor shows up after the Sisters break the investigation threshold they need to report confirmed Cult activity, and that Inquisitor outfits a Sister superior with a Condemnor Boltgun so that she can more effectively lead the Chamber Militant bodyguard unit against the cult is a story that somehow makes more sense if one of the other Sisters in the army, for no reason at all decides to trade in her meltagun for a bolter?

It's a wargame. Wargames are played between two players with a specific objective in mind, and armies are constructed to play the game.

I've done plenty of narrative games, and if it's purely for story then I ignore points (and have done) and just take whatever fits for the story being told - didn't even use a power level system (not that one existed at the time). Just took what felt right. But if I'm playing 40k like a game of 40k is pretty much designed to be played - which doesn't mean competitive, BTW, and my competitive days are long behind me - then points will always always always be better than power level. Power level does literally nothing that a points system doesn't do better.

And when I played RPGs, even the ones I wrote, I used the rules that were written, and as none of them had points or power levels it doesn't feel especially relevant to the conversation. But, if we're using story, then we'll look at my Guard army - the 444th Cadian Mechanised.

I organised and my group played a series of "tournaments" over many years that were really just structured narrative events. Everyone had lead characters, and there was an overarching plot line that I wrote the individual missions to fit with. They even led to a few "climactic event" games where we played Apocalypse games before Apocalypse was even a thing, and then several after Apocalypse was a thing. That army started off with loads of Chimeras, and then as per my narrative, came under Inquisitorial review for potential heresy, which at the time involved allying with the Witch Hunter Codex and not taking transports, and then were cleared any wrong-doing and were given their transports back, showing a shift in army list. And at every point of this evolving story, told in part by the outcomes of the games we played, we still used points.

Every army was built to be the same points level (1850, as was the style at the time (/Grandpa Simpson)). Even for the giant pre-Apoc and Apoc games, we still used points. Points allowed us to gauge the relative strengths and weaknesses of our armies, to account for upgrades and wargear, and show the flexibility of list construction.

If Power Level had existed then as it did in 9th and as it does now in 10th, I still would have ignored it as the less accurate, less granular, less flexible and objectively inferior system that it is.

PenitentJake wrote:
"You're better than that. Be better."

Points are better.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Pro: Prevents ruthless optimization of armies through fixed unit sizes (You get 5 or 10, not 7 because that is just enough to do the job and saves you points)

You will have to prove this to me for me to believe it, especially since it can also go in the Pro column for points (points has nothing to do with unit size- as you can see from 9th when IG infantry squads were 10 models and 10 models only without using PL).

So try picking a pro that is actually a result of PL and not just a game design change that has always been the case for some armies, points/PL or not.

Edit:
Heck, basic IG squads were 10 models and 10 models only back in 4th edition, well before PL was even conceived

Ghost Arks are single entity units whether you use PL or pts, you can only get 7 Immortals in pts. I don't think your post makes sense.

The point (which alextroy has conveniently not addressed) is that unit sizes are "army structure pricing system agnostic" - you could conceive of a PL system that charges per-model (5 immortals =35, 6 immortals =40, 7 immortals=762.379) and you can conceive of a points system that works in chunks of models but still charges for wargear.

The "ruthless optimization by model numbers doesn't happen in PL" claim is dumb, because you can turn that off with points too. As illustrated by conventional guard squads that were unoptimizable on the model count front even in points regimes.

No, I can't. Because if a unit has a PL of 4 for 5 models, then what is the power level for each additional model? The roughness of the points prevented taking an extra model or paying a fair price for upgrades. Whether a thing costs 0/2000 pts, 0/100 PL or 0/40000 micropoints is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether a bolt pistol costs 1/2000 pts 0/100 PL or 5/40000 micros. If bolt pistols were 0,05/100 PL then people wouldn't save those 2 awful minutes of calculation during list building. GW could decide to make Space Marine Tactical Squads work like Astra Militarum Infantry Squads with set sizes under pts, that is true, but PL cannot have 7-man units so if you hate fluffy unit sizes for CSM Cult Marines then PL can indeed ensure no fun is allowed.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
This hammer is better at pounding nails in.
Oh, you need a drill to handle these screws? Sorry, hammer is better.

That analogy doesn't work, because both PL and points-for-upgrades exist for the same purpose, which is to govern force value. One just does it at better resolution.

It is mathematically true that points is better than powerlevels (at the goal of representing any given force in a single abstract number that measures its relative worth compared to other forces) because points can do everything that powerlevels can do, and then some while the reverse is not true. In a points-based system, nothing prevents you to have specific equipments be free, swapable against each other or be a pick of one out of three etc. Thus, points allow for more options than powerlevels, because the option to have any given upgrade cost points comes in addition to, not as a replacement for, everything that's possible in a power level system.

So since specific options can be set to zero pts, the argument is actually wich ones & how many....
GW just chose ALL of them.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Pro: Prevents ruthless optimization of armies through fixed unit sizes (You get 5 or 10, not 7 because that is just enough to do the job and saves you points)

You will have to prove this to me for me to believe it, especially since it can also go in the Pro column for points (points has nothing to do with unit size- as you can see from 9th when IG infantry squads were 10 models and 10 models only without using PL).

So try picking a pro that is actually a result of PL and not just a game design change that has always been the case for some armies, points/PL or not.

Edit:
Heck, basic IG squads were 10 models and 10 models only back in 4th edition, well before PL was even conceived

Ghost Arks are single entity units whether you use PL or pts, you can only get 7 Immortals in pts. I don't think your post makes sense.

The point (which alextroy has conveniently not addressed) is that unit sizes are "army structure pricing system agnostic" - you could conceive of a PL system that charges per-model (5 immortals =35, 6 immortals =40, 7 immortals=762.379) and you can conceive of a points system that works in chunks of models but still charges for wargear.

The "ruthless optimization by model numbers doesn't happen in PL" claim is dumb, because you can turn that off with points too. As illustrated by conventional guard squads that were unoptimizable on the model count front even in points regimes.

No, I can't. Because if a unit has a PL of 4 for 5 models, then what is the power level for each additional model? The roughness of the points prevented taking an extra model or paying a fair price for upgrades. Whether a thing costs 0/2000 pts, 0/100 PL or 0/40000 micropoints is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether a bolt pistol costs 1/2000 pts 0/100 PL or 5/40000 micros. If bolt pistols were 0,05/100 PL then people wouldn't save those 2 awful minutes of calculation during list building. GW could decide to make Space Marine Tactical Squads work like Astra Militarum Infantry Squads with set sizes under pts, that is true, but PL cannot have 7-man units so if you hate fluffy unit sizes for CSM Cult Marines then PL can indeed ensure no fun is allowed.

Again, that is a granularity problem, not a Points vs PL problem.

How much would a bolt pistol cost in a system where it was 4 points for a 5 man squad?

Like... yes, if you dial the granularity on points so badly that it becomes de-facto PL, then it stops working right.

Which is the point - PL is just a crappy points system...

Again, I would like to see the pros and cons list for Points vs PL, not the pros list for 'points the way they are' vs 'points the way they could be'.

The philosophy behind PL is all upgrades and model options are free. What are the pros for that philosophy from a game design perspective? Because the Cons are huge and empirically demonstrable.

But they aren't free under PL. GW litteraly creates a point costs for an entire unit and writes the rules, as if the upgrades were taken/used. They don't care if people take them or even if the options are wanted, because they don't leave an option aka point cost of the unit without at least some of them.
Lemman Russ with and without sponsons should not have the same cost.

I am not even sure what pros PL have, unless someone has deep problems with basic math.
PL don't remove any of the problems regular points have, but create new ones, the point system doesn't. They litteraly make the game worse.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The philosophy behind PL is all upgrades and model options are free. What are the pros for that philosophy from a game design perspective? Because the Cons are huge and empirically demonstrable.

Unit sizes being stuck is another key flaw. That's what allows you to see whether your unit of 5 Immortals is PL 4 or unit of 6-10 is PL 8 without doing any math like 0,8 PL*[5-10].

Asking the other way around, what advantage does PL give?

Being faster on the unit level vs slower on the army list level if if you are above or below you need to switch units instead of options around
So that equals it out and is relevant only if you don't play always the same list

Balance is only given if one is investing the necessary work, which is the same with points

So what is left that makes PL better?

 kodos wrote:
Asking the other way around, what advantage does PL give?

Being faster on the unit level vs slower on the army list level if if you are above or below you need to switch units instead of options around
So that equals it out and is relevant only if you don't play always the same list

Balance is only given if one is investing the necessary work, which is the same with points

So what is left that makes PL better?

That's what I've been trying to figure out after a previous post talked about honestly evaluating the pros and cons of each system. I'm really struggling to come up with a genuine pro for PL that isn't just another way of saying "I don't really care about balance via points". Even then, the question becomes why use either system?

I don't buy the speed argument since I've experienced the annoyance of the current system when it comes to trying to rework lists to get close to the limit and it actually takes longer due to the inflexibility. Also, even if you were genuinely saving a couple of minutes in list building that doesn't qualify as a pro to me because the time saved building the list versus the time spent playing is so miniscule it seems like a desperate attempt to justify a preference for any reason at all.

Slipspace wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Asking the other way around, what advantage does PL give?

Being faster on the unit level vs slower on the army list level if if you are above or below you need to switch units instead of options around
So that equals it out and is relevant only if you don't play always the same list

Balance is only given if one is investing the necessary work, which is the same with points

So what is left that makes PL better?

That's what I've been trying to figure out after a previous post talked about honestly evaluating the pros and cons of each system. I'm really struggling to come up with a genuine pro for PL that isn't just another way of saying "I don't really care about balance via points". Even then, the question becomes why use either system?

I don't buy the speed argument since I've experienced the annoyance of the current system when it comes to trying to rework lists to get close to the limit and it actually takes longer due to the inflexibility. Also, even if you were genuinely saving a couple of minutes in list building that doesn't qualify as a pro to me because the time saved building the list versus the time spent playing is so miniscule it seems like a desperate attempt to justify a preference for any reason at all.

PL fans cannot accept having a guilty pleasure.

Any extra time you save on army assembly using power level is nullified by the extra time it takes to resolve all the different weapons that someone can take under that system. That's a fair chunk of extra rolling.

Also, there is no universal rule that points have to be integer values. If a bolt pistol isn't worth 1 point, then is it worth 0.5?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Any extra time you save on army assembly using power level is nullified by the extra time it takes to resolve all the different weapons that someone can take under that system. That's a fair chunk of extra rolling.

What do you mean you don't LOVE rolling for four separate weapons in your Skitarii Rangers? WAAC scum!

Pro PL:
- It is faster to write an army list / Less micro in how you equip your stuff, as it won't effect the total cost of the unit.
- Units get to use wargear that was underutilised before.

Con PL:
- The time saved during army list creation is negligible and somewhat countered by the fact that it is harder to achieve exactly the desired points value.
- Unit size is locked in many places now where you are unable to add or remove a single model to accomodate spare points over or under your game size.
- Since not all upgrades are created equal but cost the same, there now exist optimal loadouts, which in turn means less variety on the field.
- As units are pointed with upgrades taken in mind, you get less bang for your buck unless you take the "most expensive" things.
- Depending on how much leeway you get for WYSIWYG, you might have to get new models or modify existing ones, if you don't have the best loadout and don't want to be handicapped for taking a missile launcher instead of a lascannon (silly you).
- If a specific wargear option is too strong on a unit, all other options will be nerfed alongside, which only helps to exacerbate the aforementioned problems.

I want to write a neutral list, feel free to add your points if I forgot something.

a_typical_hero wrote:

- Units get to use wargear that was underutilised before.

this just means they had the wrong point costs and not something PL do better

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Any extra time you save on army assembly using power level is nullified by the extra time it takes to resolve all the different weapons that someone can take under that system. That's a fair chunk of extra rolling.

Also, there is no universal rule that points have to be integer values. If a bolt pistol isn't worth 1 point, then is it worth 0.5?

Ultimately what 'a point' is is more a question of convenience and habit - 'We play Warhammer at 2000 points' is something everybody has a pretty clear picture of, but of course nothing would hinder you from taking everything x5 and having a 10.000 points battle at the same size. In 40k, '1 point' was about the worth of the smallest possible upgrades for most of the time (so bolt pistols or frag grenades, for example), 2nd edition had fractional points, but only for bottom of the barrel stuff like bows and clubs for cultist and such. If you want more granularity, you can always up the points overall, or as an alternative make upgrades for the whole unit cost e.g. 5pts or whatever even if it concerns 30 models. Of course, nowadays everything is divisible by 5 anyway, which means that now you don't even use all of the granularity you already have available.

 kodos wrote:
this just means they had the wrong point costs and not something PL do better

I would like the list to only contain points how "PL as they are" have been implemented compared to "points how they were". In a theoretical better version, some of the cons could be handled by PL. For example by having a baseline unit without any upgrade and then having a fixed cost to unlock upgrade line x. But this is not the rules that people have to put up with, so I leave it out of (or in, if you will) my list.

I haven't finishing reading all the replies but I think many good points have been made in the first two pages.

In theory, the system can work and it has worked for many other games. In practice, the implementation is not great.

Take lascannon and flamer as an example, say we put them into a tac marine section. Technically they have different profiles and are meant for very different roles, but in practice the lascannon simply has far greater value in most situations: shoot a tank, a marine in cover, a nid monster, a battlesuit, whatever. The flamer is better in certain situations like against large amount of GEQs in close range, but that's far too situational to justify being put at the same price. If lascannon is not a good example think of a plasma, a melta. The previous 9 editions have different points for them for a reason. If we are to make them equal their profiles must be changed accordingly. So far, many options do not feel like equals.

As for Leman Russes, I often take naked ones. Mostly to make them cheap. I mean they are not exactly the best damage dealers aren't they, especially the regular ones hitting on 4+ in the recent two editions. I want the T8 (or 14 front/T11) tanks as mobile LoS blockers. If someone wants to shoot them to get to things behind or for whatever reason, perfect, shoot the tough ones. If not, just push forward and so something annoying. For this reason I don't want to pay for the extra guns, yet now I have to. It's integrated into the units, making them really, really expensive. 180 for the cheaper models and 220 for a LRD is just too much comparing to guard SPGs and other tanks in other factions. Of course You may not play the same way as I do. I am not a good competitive player nor is this the only way for casual games. But the fact that now I have to pay for the guns feels wrong. And that's only for the tanks, for things like battlesuits, fully loaded out ones are practically different units. It's really difficult to get a single point to represent both.

I am editing a lot but I think they can get things to work, eventually. This 'can' work, even in GW's hands, it just doesn't work well at the moment.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Even if you assume the premise that 1 point is too much it's still not an argument against traditional points. Nothing about the system itself requires units or upgrades or typical game sizes to have any particular value. You could very easily multiply everything by 10 and play 20,000 point games instead of 2,000 point games, making the smallest point increment for a bolt pistol 1 point out of a 650 point infantry squad. And I'm pretty sure that's enough resolution to solve the problem.

I like how one side of the argument basically boils down to 'yes we know the system is gak and the attempt to make it right would force both players to spend 10 hours in Excel just to field what used to be 500 pts army, but you're having fun wrong so STFU, Excel it is'

PL, on the other hand, can not solve the problem at all, under any circumstances. The bolt pistol is better than the laspistol but can not have an increased cost, meaning the bolt pistol is automatic correct choice and the laspistol is de facto removed from the game. This makes PL an objectively inferior system.

Wrong. It makes it vastly superior system when it comes to speed, ease of use, and fluff adherence. Which, for a lot of people, is much more important than considering if bolt pistol upgrade is worth √2 points but only if it's Monday and the amount of terrain on table does not exceed 35.7% of coverage, because then you need to multiply this value by π

"Brother Sternguard Sergeant?"
"Yes, Chapter Master?"
"I am afraid I have to confine two of your finest warriors to their chambers for the duration of the battle."
"Huh? Why?"
"This dude next to them picked up a meltagun. Sorry, the Codex Astartes dictates this exceeds the deployment budget of usual Demi-Company, and makes the battle unfair to the enemy. Or something. Anyway, the point is, house arrest. On the double!"
"..."

"Brother Captain?"
"Yes, Chapter Master?"
"I see you made a petition to upgrade your mighty Predator from the usual auto-cannon to twin lascannons. All right, approved. Do surrender your power fist and plasma pistol into this box now."
"Huh? Why?"
"Don't you know? The lascannons are apparently powered with spare batteries of both. Brother Techmarine will be along shortly to hotwire them as turret power source, just after he finishes debating if Company Champion's extra training this evening necessitates the removal of storm bolters from the whole complement of your company transport pool. Because all of this makes sense somehow. Don't ask me how, though."
"..."

Gee, that sure sounds like something that happens in-universe a lot

Tsagualsa wrote:
It is mathematically true that points is better than powerlevels (at the goal of representing any given force in a single abstract number that measures its relative worth compared to other forces) because points can do everything that powerlevels can do, and then some while the reverse is not true. In a points-based system, nothing prevents you to have specific equipments be free, swapable against each other or be a pick of one out of three etc. Thus, points allow for more options than powerlevels, because the option to have any given upgrade cost points comes in addition to, not as a replacement for, everything that's possible in a power level system.

This is really dumb argument. It's same as saying everyone should code in assembly (for the uninitiated, raw machine code, basically typing nothing but 0s and 1s) because it's faster, uses less memory, and is cleaner than any of the higher level programming languages. Except, while this is 'technically' true, it's also 100x times harder, slower, and vastly more prone to bugs outside of really niche, expensive custom project, so guess what, in real life, virtually every single programmer uses languages that separate them from hardware. With (very popular for some reason, imagine that) really high level ones trading lots of memory and computing speed for ease of use, debugging, and speed of writing. And if this wins in a field where a lot of money is at stake, arguing we should ruin what is supposed to be our entertainment and turn into unpaid Excel drones because some people don't want to accept that 0.001 pts difference in points is really meaningless is rather stupid

Now, the side argument that with free upgrades some options are obsolete is completely separate one, not linked to points, and it can be solved in many different ways. Limit the amount of upgrades unit can take, with more elite units being able to take more upgrades. Make upgrades binary choice (model X can take A or B, but not both). Make upgrade D be worth two picks on upgrade list, like in 7th edition Deathwatch book. Give unit list of generic enhancing traits like +1 to stat if you skip bits-worthy upgrades altogether. It's not a problem, really, and trying to somehow pin it to worth of points discussion (because one side has zero good arguments besides that straw bolt pistol) is kinda dishonest, IMO.