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 also think people are overestimating the importance of points. It’s a very minor bit of the game experience really, which is why I can live with it which ever way they go. The current system isn’t as good as powerlevel was but it’s far from a deal breaker. It’s a very minor irritation.

It's minor as long as your particular army isn't hurt by the errors. If you have crisis suits built the wrong way, LRBTs without sponsons, etc, it's a ~30-40% error on those units and you're going to struggle to win because of it. And even on other units those little 5-10% errors from missing plasma pistols, hunter-killer missiles, etc add up. Add 10% value to one player's list, subtract 10% value from the other player's list, and now you're playing 1800 points vs. 2200 points. IOW, I get to add a free Baneblade to my list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Trying to convince people you can do things differently from them and still have a good time, while in no way invalidating their experience is a totally different thing that has been done.

That's still trying to convince people, and "PL isn't damaging my fun" is not a defense of PL. For PL to have any reason to exist it needs to be better than the traditional system and so far the entire argument in defense of PL is an appeal to a very minor time savings which doesn't exist at all for most people.

"Better for some" is not the same as "universally better", but it's still better.

Unless you want to insist that those who enjoyed PL and found it better for themselves are lying or mistaken, you should take them at face value.

And hecaton,

When I play someone who has sponsons on their leman Russ I dont say anything at all, I would be very surprised if that was a deciding factor in the battle and don’t really care either way if they have sponsons or not. That’s their choice.

The fact that that is what you think would catch me out shows just how far from the point you are. You really don’t get it at all.

And as for devotion, that’s a word you have chosen and that is quite ridiculous. I have a devotion to a few things and an army design mechanic is not one of them. Hence why I am happy to use points as they are now and was happy the 7 editions before PL existed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Better for some" is not the same as "universally better", but it's still better.

Unless you want to insist that those who enjoyed PL and found it better for themselves are lying or mistaken, you should take them at face value.

I’ve already said that I enjoyed my PL games better but have already been called a liar for it. Flogging a dead horse here.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Unless you want to insist that those who enjoyed PL and found it better for themselves are lying or mistaken, you should take them at face value.

I take them at face value. I accept that for a small minority of players PL produced a minor time savings in some cases. The question though is not "has PL provided non-zero value to any player ever", it's "should the game have multiple point systems to cater to a small minority who doesn't even get any significant benefit from the additional point system". And the answer to that is a pretty clear "no".

(And there's still the question, which I haven't seen any PL advocate answer, of why there should only be two point systems. Why not 5-10 point systems, or even more? Why should PL be the only alternative system?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
When I play someone who has sponsons on their leman Russ I dont say anything at all, I would be very surprised if that was a deciding factor in the battle and don’t really care either way if they have sponsons or not. That’s their choice.

You don't think a 30-40% increase in value of a major unit like a LRBT, repeated across multiple tanks, is something that makes a significant difference in the outcome? As a guard player I can tell you that it 100% does make a difference and if sponsons are free not taking them is crippling your list.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I also think people are overestimating the importance of points. It’s a very minor bit of the game experience really, which is why I can live with it which ever way they go. The current system isn’t as good as powerlevel was but it’s far from a deal breaker. It’s a very minor irritation.

It's minor as long as your particular army isn't hurt by the errors. If you have crisis suits built the wrong way, LRBTs without sponsons, etc, it's a ~30-40% error on those units and you're going to struggle to win because of it. And even on other units those little 5-10% errors from missing plasma pistols, hunter-killer missiles, etc add up. Add 10% value to one player's list, subtract 10% value from the other player's list, and now you're playing 1800 points vs. 2200 points. IOW, I get to add a free Baneblade to my list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Trying to convince people you can do things differently from them and still have a good time, while in no way invalidating their experience is a totally different thing that has been done.

That's still trying to convince people, and "PL isn't damaging my fun" is not a defense of PL. For PL to have any reason to exist it needs to be better than the traditional system and so far the entire argument in defense of PL is an appeal to a very minor time savings which doesn't exist at all for most people.

1. Powerlevel doesn’t exist anymore.
2. When it did you did not have to use it.
3. Your maths there is assuming that you are playing someone with a “perfect” list optimised to 100%. If your opponent is like minded and playing a list of models they think of as cool the percentages cancel each other out.
4. Equally, if you are playing someone who is like minded a few hundred points doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t. Get over it.
5. I don’t have to defend my experience to you. I don’t have to justify my enjoyment to you simple because you have taken it upon your self to be the judge of what is best.

Take some of the time you were going to spend beating people, with the perfect net list and read up on some phenomenology, it’s fascinating and might help you under stand other peoples perspective a bit.

And my leman Russ tanks don’t have sponsons.

Andykp wrote:
1. Powerlevel doesn’t exist anymore.

The current system is PL in all but name.

3. Your maths there is assuming that you are playing someone with a “perfect” list optimised to 100%. If your opponent is like minded and playing a list of models they think of as cool the percentages cancel each other out.

Sometimes they cancel out. How exactly do they cancel out between my army where the lore is advanced weapons are in short supply so everyone gets laspistols and chainswords and infantry squads only get basic lasguns vs. your army which is a regiment on great terms with the admech and well supplied with plasma pistols and power weapons and all the special/heavy upgrades you can legally take?

4. Equally, if you are playing someone who is like minded a few hundred points doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t. Get over it.

If a few hundred points of balance error in a 2000 point game is acceptable then why do you reject the "take X units and Y characters" system? Its balance errors are no worse than the few hundred points of error you're willing to accept and it's far faster and easier to use than PL.

5. I don’t have to defend my experience to you. I don’t have to justify my enjoyment to you simple because you have taken it upon your self to be the judge of what is best.

You don't. At any time you're free to walk away from this thread and stop engaging with people who disagree with you. But it's absurd to come in here and continue to post arguments for your position while simultaneously objecting when people post their own arguments instead of accepting whatever you say.

Take X units and Y characters-what if I want a character heavy list? Or a character light list?
What if the armies are significantly different in unit strength-like Custodes vs. infantry Guard or Cultist CSM?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
1. Powerlevel doesn’t exist anymore.

The current system is PL in all but name.

3. Your maths there is assuming that you are playing someone with a “perfect” list optimised to 100%. If your opponent is like minded and playing a list of models they think of as cool the percentages cancel each other out.

Sometimes they cancel out. How exactly do they cancel out between my army where the lore is advanced weapons are in short supply so everyone gets laspistols and chainswords and infantry squads only get basic lasguns vs. your army which is a regiment on great terms with the admech and well supplied with plasma pistols and power weapons and all the special/heavy upgrades you can legally take?

4. Equally, if you are playing someone who is like minded a few hundred points doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t. Get over it.

If a few hundred points of balance error in a 2000 point game is acceptable then why do you reject the "take X units and Y characters" system? Its balance errors are no worse than the few hundred points of error you're willing to accept and it's far faster and easier to use than PL.

5. I don’t have to defend my experience to you. I don’t have to justify my enjoyment to you simple because you have taken it upon your self to be the judge of what is best.

You don't. At any time you're free to walk away from this thread and stop engaging with people who disagree with you. But it's absurd to come in here and continue to post arguments for your position while simultaneously objecting when people post their own arguments instead of accepting whatever you say.

Because your arguments are “you’re wrong my way is better”. That’s just stupid. Just as stupid as you saying you like powerlevels so you should play this way I just invented and then going on about it for 30 pages. I have no interest in designing my own army creation system, as I said a few comments ago, it really isn’t that big a deal. Army lists making is a very tiny part of the experience for me. I’m not that bothered.

And you can’t disagree with me, that’s the whole point, you can’t say I’m wrong because all I’m saying is I prefer this way not that. YOU CANNOT DISAGREE WITH THAT. You are literally saying, no you don’t you prefer this way”.

It’s like me saying I like tea, and you shouting for 80pages that coffee is better and I don’t like tea, I actually like coffee but don’t realise it.

So go on, keep telling me I don’t like tea, while I sit here with my brew.

And seriously, take a look at phenomenology, I think it will really help you.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Take X units and Y characters-what if I want a character heavy list? Or a character light list?
What if the armies are significantly different in unit strength-like Custodes vs. infantry Guard or Cultist CSM?

Good question. It's obviously not a perfect or balanced system but that's why I only suggest it for people like Andykp or PenitentJake who claim to not care about balance. If you want a balanced matched play system you clearly need more structure beyond a very rough guide for how large the game is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Just as stupid as you saying you like powerlevels so you should play this way I just invented and then going on about it for 30 pages. I have no interest in designing my own army creation system, as I said a few comments ago, it really isn’t that big a deal.

You keep being aggressive and insulting by calling my system stupid but you still haven't provided any serious argument for why you don't like it. It's simpler and faster to use than PL, the things you claim to like about PL, and its drawback of poor balance is one you claim to not care about. Are you objecting to it for the sole reason that it isn't Official GW Approved Warhammer, or is there something else about your reasons for liking PL that you aren't willing to admit?

And you don't have to design anything. I already designed the whole system for you, all you have to do is use it.

Army lists making is a very tiny part of the experience for me. I’m not that bothered.

Then why do you keep advocating the two system (but only two, not a point system for everyone else who wants a different one) solution? If it's not a big deal then the obvious answer is a single unified point system using the traditional approach to upgrade and per-model costs.

It’s like me saying I like tea, and you shouting for 80pages that coffee is better and I don’t like tea, I actually like coffee but don’t realise it.

It's like me offering you a 50% off coupon for your favorite tea store and you calling me an idiot for suggesting something so stupid.

You’re going to have to explain the 50% off thing at the tea store?

Are you saying, if I listened to you I would enjoy the game more, if I did things your way? Cos that’s crazy, that’s just saying I’m playing the game wrong, the very thing you lambasted jervis Johnson for. Surely you wouldn’t dare do that.??

And again for your made up on the spot army design system that would be “perfect me”, it could work, it could be interesting. But I have no interest in trying out your home brew rules. Thanks though.

I suggest the two system solution, because we had that and it worked. It pleased most folk most the time.

They system we have now, I can live with. I will use that rather than try and invent my own based on your idea.

And keep ignoring the fact that your whole argument is based on telling me I don’t like what I like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


I’ll answer the questions. Because it doesn’t matter. The cost of these things doesn’t really matter. If you don’t build your armies to be as optimised a possible, someone having a few more toys here and there for free makes no real difference. And then you start rolling dice, and all plasma pistols blow up and kill their owners and all of a sudden me with my suboptimal laspistols are ahead, and all for free. If you and all your opponents have a similar mind set then these “advantage” disappear.

Now if you are in a competitive game or such a thing then yes it matters. But we do not play that way.

So for you, 10th edition points aren’t as good. For me, they are ok.

There, answered! You won’t like or accept the answer but that’s the truth of it. It doesn’t matter.

Andykp wrote:
Are you saying, if I listened to you I would enjoy the game more, if I did things your way? Cos that’s crazy.

There you go again, dismissing my attempt at listening to what you claim to want out of the game and offering you a solution that accomplishes those things even better than PL.

Cos that’s crazy, that’s just saying I’m playing the game wrong, the very thing you lambasted jervis Johnson for.

It's not at all the same. Jervis said "if you want balance and symmetrical missions you're having fun the wrong way", I'm saying "if you want simplicity and don't care about balance here's a system designed to meet those goals". I'm not telling you simplicity and lack of concern for balance are bad things.

But I have no interest in trying out your home brew rules.

Why not? Is your goal to get the best game for your needs or to find excuses for why PL is a good thing?

Andykp wrote:


I’ll answer the questions. Because it doesn’t matter. The cost of these things doesn’t really matter. If you don’t build your armies to be as optimised a possible, someone having a few more toys here and there for free makes no real difference. And then you start rolling dice, and all plasma pistols blow up and kill their owners and all of a sudden me with my suboptimal laspistols are ahead, and all for free. If you and all your opponents have a similar mind set then these “advantage” disappear.

That leaves no room for tactics, gameplay, or sportsmanship.

If the "game" part of the miniature wargaming hobby is what you're trying to avoid, then take this bit of advice - no system cannot be optimized by the people willing to do so. The system you advocate for can be optimized *more fully* because the gulf between the optimal and non-optimal options is larger. Trying to pretend that you can create a system without optimization will just make the problem worse.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:


I’ll answer the questions. Because it doesn’t matter. The cost of these things doesn’t really matter. If you don’t build your armies to be as optimised a possible, someone having a few more toys here and there for free makes no real difference. And then you start rolling dice, and all plasma pistols blow up and kill their owners and all of a sudden me with my suboptimal laspistols are ahead, and all for free. If you and all your opponents have a similar mind set then these “advantage” disappear.

That leaves no room for tactics, gameplay, or sportsmanship.

If the "game" part of the miniature wargaming hobby is what you're trying to avoid, then take this bit of advice - no system cannot be optimized by the people willing to do so. The system you advocate for can be optimized *more fully* because the gulf between the optimal and non-optimal options is larger. Trying to pretend that you can create a system without optimization will just make the problem worse.

Or just don’t play with those people. You see the bit where I talk about “similar mindset”. That matters. Which is also why I say for competitive games, or pick up games, old points is probably better than 10th or PL.

Andykp wrote:
And then you start rolling dice, and all plasma pistols blow up and kill their owners and all of a sudden me with my suboptimal laspistols are ahead, and all for free.

Are you really suggesting that extreme outlier dice luck favoring the player with a weaker list is somehow a solution to balance problems? What about the far more common scenario where the plasma pistols roll even close to average and you're behind with nothing to make up for it?

It seems nuance is lost in this thread. Middle grounds don’t exist, either you must use points for the best possible balance or you must play completely open ended games with no thought or care at all.

Or I could like that an approximate system is… approximate. If I played a 50 PL game it doesn’t bother me if my opponent ends up with 52 PL, because it’s all rounded anyway. But at the same time a baneblade is worth much more than a sentinel, and getting close to those values is good enough. Could I run max sponsons? Yes. Would I? No.

And despite the claims otherwise, PL does save me noticeable time, particularly if I’m already at the table or with a newer player just trying out the game. I’m not out there theory crafting lists for fun.

I still think points are better for balance, but not everyone cares that much about it. And it may also depend on the day and one’s mood.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


I'm sure all of that is a lot of fun. The question though is why you're still committed to points-based list construction for matched play when your goals are all about the story? Why do you care so much about which system makes it easier to get to exactly 500 points when balance matters so little that you'd rather lose the game than fail to accomplish your story-related objective? Why not use the simple "X units and Y characters" system I gave you to give a rough estimate for the size of the game and then build appropriate forces for the story? It's even simpler and easier to use than PL and balance isn't any worse for a situation like yours.

It's been answered at least once. In a 90 page thread though, one can be forgiven for forgetting, so here it is again:

The first problem with your "Increase supply limit by adding a unit" suggestion is that units can range from a pair of Crusaders, coming in at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30pts, or a Forgeworld superheavy coming in at 500+. While the difference between a unit having gear upgrades or not having gear upgrades isn't going to bother anyone playing in our campaign, somebody who takes that pair of Crusaders is likely to be at a real disadvantage and maybe feel bad when another player spends the same RP to raise supply limit and gets a Knight out of the deal. People who like PL like it because it's "Balanced enough" for their needs. This does not automatically imply that they would be happy with something less balanced than PL.

The second problem with your proposal is that it prevents someone from taking more than one weaker unit instead of one more powerful one... Which they might want to do for a wide variety of reasons (ie. they want to use models they already have, it suits the narrative, or it gives them that feeling of Balanced Enough).

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

And really this goes for all of Crusade in general. Why embrace a matched play system where the narrative is constrained by balance concerns and an emphasis on the rules working well for pickup games against random strangers? Why have a balance constraint of having to spend RP to change equipment or add units when those are things that can be done based on if/when they're appropriate for the story? Why play symmetrical matched play missions when you can dump the entire primary scoring system and only have each side's story-related goals? Why track an arbitrary point system for the Tau and GSC fighting over the planet when you can have the GM decide based on the outcome of games (which only have story-related objectives) and set up the next games based on the consequences? Which is more engaging from a story point of view, the Tau taking the planet because they reached 5 military points or the Tau taking the planet because you collectively agreed that the next game should be a Tau assault on the planetary governor's palace?

I was going to break this down a line at a time to try and provide greater clarity, but I figured I could probably still say the most important things and keep the post length down if I tried to do it all at once:

The short and the long is that we didn't find it broke, so we didn't bother to fix it. If the system as written hadn't been fun enough for us, believe me, we would have taken it into our own hands- we've done it before, and depending on how the release schedule breaks down compared to our painting schedules, we might have to do it for 10th. But 9th ed Crusade as written felt great for me and the people in the campaign.

But to respond specifically to the Tau/ GSC mechanics question, and the notion of using mechanical systems to achieve stories rather than just making it pure story: sometimes, that works- like when people DO decide by mutual agreement that the next game should be a Tau assault on the governor's palace. And with our crew, a lot of the time- certainly more often than not- this way WOULD work. But even with my crew of close, like-minded family and friends, there will be times when it doesn't work- not always because of a failure of compromise; sometimes a story idea just might not suggest itself. And in those times, the system is always there for you. When the story isn't coming, just roll the dice, play the Agendas VS Victory conditions based on what feels right, and the system will allow a story to emerge. When the creativity is right there, feel free to ignore the system for a game or two and sure, run pure story... But the system is always available to do the work when you don't have the creativity, or the energy or the time.

Hecaton wrote:

Especially given that in 9th you could play Crusade with points rather than PL and it was much better. There was nothing you could do with PL that you couldn't do with points.

I don't doubt that for many people playing Crusade with points did feel better, and I was happy for all of them to be able to do that. I think players should always be able to choose between a PL system or a costed equipment system according to their own needs and preferences, but for me, the experience felt better with PL.

And I've answered this before too, though I wasn't responding to you when I gave the answer... So here it goes again:

The thing that PL systems can do that costed equipment systems can't is allow you to change the load out of one unit without impacting the rest of the army. There are several story situations which may change an equipment load out for one unit, when no story situation exist to cover the changes you'd have to make to all the other units in order to accommodate the cost of the new equipment (in 9th, my wych cults fought a special mission to find Wych weapons and get them off the board; PL allowed us to do this without figuring out what we would have to give up in order to do that).

The other thing we like better about PL is that it was only updated once or twice over the entire lifespan of 8th and 9th, while points where updated a MINIMUM of twice per year every year. And unfortunately, that is something that EVERYONE has to put up with in 10th. But in 8th/ 9th? It was the primary reason why we preferred PL.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Are you saying, if I listened to you I would enjoy the game more, if I did things your way? Cos that’s crazy.

There you go again, dismissing my attempt at listening to what you claim to want out of the game and offering you a solution that accomplishes those things even better than PL.

Cos that’s crazy, that’s just saying I’m playing the game wrong, the very thing you lambasted jervis Johnson for.

It's not at all the same. Jervis said "if you want balance and symmetrical missions you're having fun the wrong way", I'm saying "if you want simplicity and don't care about balance here's a system designed to meet those goals". I'm not telling you simplicity and lack of concern for balance are bad things.

But I have no interest in trying out your home brew rules.

Why not? Is your goal to get the best game for your needs or to find excuses for why PL is a good thing?

As for jervis, that’s exactly the same, what you just said there, they are the same thing. You are telling me I am playing the game wrong, for like a million pages now.


You clearly have no idea of what my needs are. No idea at all, you do not seem to be able to understand them at all. Why would I try some system you came up with to try and prove a point when I have perfectly suitable functioning systems that weren’t thought up in a moment by some rando off the internet. Why would I invest any of my time in trying out your system.

But I tell you what, you try it and feedback how it goes. It might have some merit, it might work. Try it, tweak and feedback, maybe in the proposed rules forum. And if it s good I may try it. But you put the work in to make it a functioning system and not just a brain fart to try and win an argument we aren’t even having. I will look forward to seeing your work in the proper forum. Until then let it go, I am not trying your half wrested idea.

I can tell you powerlevel did work and worked well. I know because I used it and enjoyed my games thoroughly. More so than I did when I used points in 8th. And that, is not something you can argue with. (But I am sure you will )



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just read penitentjakes comment and it sums it up brilliantly. PL was balanced enough. That’s the whole point. Thank you.

Hecaton wrote:

If the "game" part of the miniature wargaming hobby is what you're trying to avoid, then take this bit of advice - no system cannot be optimized by the people willing to do so. The system you advocate for can be optimized *more fully* because the gulf between the optimal and non-optimal options is larger. Trying to pretend that you can create a system without optimization will just make the problem worse.

You have misunderstood the argument. Nobody (as far as I'm aware) has argued that lists built with Power Levels can't be optimised. The point being made is that Power Levels are a list building system designed for people who don't optimise their lists.

Yes, that can absolutely be abused by people looking to build the most powerful list, and that's a good argument for the rules writer to make at least some effort to keep the PL system at least somewhat balanced. The ideal system, to my mind, is one where all of the options are free, but also equally useful, as that would satisfy both camps. But what keeps being overlooked in this thread is that imbalance in the system only actually matters to those people who care about lists being equal. For those who just want a rough framework to throw together a force, it's just not an issue.

So pointing out that, for example, a leman russ with sponsons is more effective than one without is not the slam dunk that it's been presented as. Yes, the leman russ with sponsons is more effective. But if you don't care that it's more effective, that simply doesn't matter.

Andykp wrote:
As for jervis, that’s exactly the same, what you just said there, they are the same thing.

They are in no way the same. Jervis says "if you want X from a game you are wrong". I am saying "If you want X from a game here's the best way to accomplish X".

You clearly have no idea of what my needs are.

Then why don't you explain them better? All I have to work with is the things you've said here: that you value simplicity and speed of use, and that you don't really care about balance. If there's something else you need from a system then you need to tell us what it is.

Why would I try some system you came up with to try and prove a point when I have perfectly suitable functioning systems that weren’t thought up in a moment by some rando off the internet.

Because it is better suited to your needs than PL? Because you're open-minded and want make your game as good as it can be, not look for reasons to ad hominem your way into "winning" an online argument?

But I tell you what, you try it and feedback how it goes.

Or not. It's a system suited for your needs, not mine, and it does a very poor job of the things I want in a game. Me playing a bunch of test games to satisfy your arbitrary demands, a list of demands created just so you can dismiss my suggestions, would accomplish nothing.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Why would I try some system you came up with to try and prove a point when I have perfectly suitable functioning systems that weren’t thought up in a moment by some rando off the internet.

Because it is better suited to your needs than PL? Because you're open-minded and want make your game as good as it can be, not look for reasons to ad hominem your way into "winning" an online argument?

But I tell you what, you try it and feedback how it goes.

Or not. It's a system suited for your needs, not mine, and it does a very poor job of the things I want in a game. Me playing a bunch of test games to satisfy your arbitrary demands, a list of demands created just so you can dismiss my suggestions, would accomplish nothing.

Excellent, so now that we've established that, you can move on. The topic of this thread is the current system. If you want to design a new one, take it to Proposed Rules.

PenitentJake wrote:
The first problem with your "Increase supply limit by adding a unit" suggestion is that units can range from a pair of Crusaders, coming in at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30pts, or a Forgeworld superheavy coming in at 500+.

Not a problem at all. Supply limit is a matched play balance restriction that should not exist in a narrative context. Which units are in your pool should be based on which units are appropriate to the story, not how many arbitrary resource points you have accumulated.

(And it's not even a particularly good matched play restriction as increased supply limit is of minimal value. Putting more units into your pool is inherently balanced by the game size limit on how many of those units can be actively participating in games and gaining levels. But it's clearly a rule that exists for matched play purposes.)

The second problem with your proposal is that it prevents someone from taking more than one weaker unit instead of one more powerful one... Which they might want to do for a wide variety of reasons (ie. they want to use models they already have, it suits the narrative, or it gives them that feeling of Balanced Enough).

Also not really a problem. Averaged out over an entire force most units are roughly equivalent in power. Sure, you'll have that 30 point unit of crusaders but you'll also have a 300 point tank, a couple of 150 point infantry squads, etc. It's certainly not exactly balanced but you've already clearly said that you're willing to accept 30-40% balance errors without any concerns at all. If you put together forces based on what the story says is appropriate rather than maximizing the most value you can get from "one unit" it's certainly going to be good enough balance. And if it sometimes isn't, so what? Sometimes you encounter a superior force and get massacred, that's just how war works. That shouldn't be an issue at all if the story is what matters.

And in those times, the system is always there for you. When the story isn't coming, just roll the dice, play the Agendas VS Victory conditions based on what feels right, and the system will allow a story to emerge. When the creativity is right there, feel free to ignore the system for a game or two and sure, run pure story... But the system is always available to do the work when you don't have the creativity, or the energy or the time.

That seems like a lot of bookkeeping to create what is essentially a random mission table. Why bother tracking, say, Tau planetary control points if you're going to ignore what the planetary control system says and play a "capture the governor" mission instead to decide the fate of the system? It seems like a simple D66 table would be just as good at creating the starting point for a story and involve a lot less tedious bookkeeping.

The thing that PL systems can do that costed equipment systems can't is allow you to change the load out of one unit without impacting the rest of the army.

But why does this matter? Why is it so important that your army exactly match the 500 point limit that you're willing to strip away the meaning of the numbers just to make them match? Instead of saying "I know my army is only 500 points because of deliberate errors in assigning point costs but it's very important that it be 500 points" why not just add stuff to your list without taking anything out and play 525 points vs. 500 points? It's the same end result, why does it matter so much that the numbers be equal?

I get that point limits are a hard limit in a tournament context but we aren't talking about tournament games, those constraints don't apply in a narrative context where balance is a minor concern at best.

 insaniak wrote:
But if you don't care that it's more effective, that simply doesn't matter.

Just because you don't care about a problem, does not mean it is not actually a problem.

Andykp wrote:


Or just don’t play with those people. You see the bit where I talk about “similar mindset”. That matters. Which is also why I say for competitive games, or pick up games, old points is probably better than 10th or PL.

If you're already playing with people with similat ideas about optimization, then why do you need PL?

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
I was a little presumptuous attributing H.B.M.C.'s usage of the phrase as a derogatory slur towards comparisons between the systems, so I will recant that he used it as a slur, until proven otherwise.

Sigmarine and Sigmarines are simple and effective methods of ridiculing GW's attempts to put Space Marines into Warhammer Fantasy. That is what those words have always been.

It has never has been and never will be a "slur". What an absolutely absurd notion.

PenitentJake wrote:


I don't doubt that for many people playing Crusade with points did feel better, and I was happy for all of them to be able to do that. I think players should always be able to choose between a PL system or a costed equipment system according to their own needs and preferences, but for me, the experience felt better with PL.

I would question the validity of your feelings then. I played more Crusade than any other format in 9th and PL always made it objectively worse. How did it handle someone spamming 9e Voidweavers at 5 PL each?

And before you say "ugh you can't question my feelings," *you* made them a topic of discussion and are using them as a justification for your viewpoint.

PenitentJake wrote:

And I've answered this before too, though I wasn't responding to you when I gave the answer... So here it goes again:

The thing that PL systems can do that costed equipment systems can't is allow you to change the load out of one unit without impacting the rest of the army. There are several story situations which may change an equipment load out for one unit, when no story situation exist to cover the changes you'd have to make to all the other units in order to accommodate the cost of the new equipment (in 9th, my wych cults fought a special mission to find Wych weapons and get them off the board; PL allowed us to do this without figuring out what we would have to give up in order to do that).

Not true. You can do the same thing in points by just setting aside enough points for the most expensive option you're willing to take. What's more, you could always spend RP to increase your supply limit, so you'd never have to necessarily give up anything for those Wych weapons.

The effects you're describing are basically modeled by granting a free Rearm & Resupply requisition, which is a common effect among victor bonuses in the Crusade missions.

PenitentJake wrote:

The other thing we like better about PL is that it was only updated once or twice over the entire lifespan of 8th and 9th, while points where updated a MINIMUM of twice per year every year. And unfortunately, that is something that EVERYONE has to put up with in 10th. But in 8th/ 9th? It was the primary reason why we preferred PL.

Well, I don't see thatbas a good thing, since as I mentioned upthread the power levels were oftentimes very imbalanced. I liked games that were fair, not ones where one side had a massive unearned advantage due to GW failing to update their PL. People who complained about that were, in my experience, looking to score some easy wins and weren't interested in being sportsmanlike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
I was a little presumptuous attributing H.B.M.C.'s usage of the phrase as a derogatory slur towards comparisons between the systems, so I will recant that he used it as a slur, until proven otherwise.

Sigmarine and Sigmarines are simple and effective methods of ridiculing GW's attempts to put Space Marines into Warhammer Fantasy. That is what those words have always been.

It has never has been and never will be a "slur". What an absolutely absurd notion.

An attempt at claiming victimhood, I think.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Why would I try some system you came up with to try and prove a point when I have perfectly suitable functioning systems that weren’t thought up in a moment by some rando off the internet.

Because it is better suited to your needs than PL? Because you're open-minded and want make your game as good as it can be, not look for reasons to ad hominem your way into "winning" an online argument?

But I tell you what, you try it and feedback how it goes.

Or not. It's a system suited for your needs, not mine, and it does a very poor job of the things I want in a game. Me playing a bunch of test games to satisfy your arbitrary demands, a list of demands created just so you can dismiss my suggestions, would accomplish nothing.

Excellent, so now that we've established that, you can move on. The topic of this thread is the current system. If you want to design a new one, take it to Proposed Rules.

He's using the idea of it to point out a contradiction in the pro-PL argument, so it's relevant.

Andykp wrote:
1. Powerlevel doesn’t exist anymore.

Although the mods nuked most of my post on the last page, likely because I was quoting alextroy and his entire post was wiped from existence, I did point out the lack of honesty from the pro-PL side.

This right here is an example of that dishonesty.

The current points system in 40k is just a different form of Power Level. Saying otherwise indicates either a staggering lack of reading comprehension on your part, or a wilful misrepresentation of the truth to the point of being a deliberately malicious deception.

Pick one.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Just because you don't care about a problem, does not mean it is not actually a problem.

In the English language it most assuredly does.

 insaniak wrote:

You have misunderstood the argument. Nobody (as far as I'm aware) has argued that lists built with Power Levels can't be optimised. The point being made is that Power Levels are a list building system designed for people who don't optimise their lists.

That point is incorrect.

It's not just incorrect, it's nonsensical.

Hecaton wrote:
He's using the idea of it to point out a contradiction in the pro-PL argument, so it's relevant.

Exactly. The point is not to develop the perfect alternative point system here, it's to illustrate the weakness and arbitrariness of the pro-PL arguments. PL advocates claim that PL is good and desirable because it offers X/Y/Z feature, but then when presented with a system that does those things even better they are suddenly no longer worth caring about and the pro-PL side flips to wanting features A/B/C that are the things the traditional point system does better than PL.

Or, in short: PL is an awkward middle ground system that doesn't meet any specific design target other than "be PL" and even if you think there should be an alternative to the traditional point system it shouldn't be PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Just because you don't care about a problem, does not mean it is not actually a problem.

In the English language it most assuredly does.

It most assuredly does not. "I don't care that my house is on fire" means you are, at best, severely underestimating the consequences of the problem you have. You still very much have a problem even if you say those words in the moment.