Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.

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.

**tag8833**

GW is pushing 3 ways to play to 40K. But I'm confused by how they are setting them apart from one another.

1) I don't see "Competitive" and "Narrative" as mutually exclusive. I always write fluff for my tournament armies. Some tourneys award points for fluff, most don't, but it is always there. I build armies to win a tourney while also keeping them looking like an army that could plausibly exist in universe, and I think most other tourney attendees do likewise.

2) Narrative games have winners. Narrative campaigns have goals and winners, too. I've never seen a narrative campaign where the outcome of games didn't matter. One thing I see frequently in Narrative play is some amount of "List Tailoring". This can take the form of making sure you are ready for the type of army your opponent brings, or underpowering your own units to give your opponent a chance, or ruthlessly min/maxing to make sure you win. List Tailoring is all about Competition, and making games "Competitive".

3) I don't understand how poorly balanced rules are good for narrative play. I've played in lots, and lots of narrative games. Far more narrative games than competitive games, and I've never found crappy balance to be an asset. When people say, "GW didn't support competitive play until 8th", I think they didn't really support narrative play either. Maybe your average narrative player doesn't speak out as vocally when GW dumps a pile of garbage rules onto their tabletop, but bad rules are just as bad in narrative play as they are in competitive player, right?

4) I don't see how the "Power Levels" are for Narrative Play. One of the challenges for building a Narrative Campaign system is setting up parameters to foster interesting games, as well as mechanics to reward victories, and punish defeats. Points are an excellent way to do that. It's been challenge to make it work in 7th because points were so badly out of balance, but still, points are in my experience the best tool to coordinate a multi-player Narrative Campaign.

5) I don't see why "Power Levels" aren't for Casual gamers. It seems like GW is terrified of vocally supporting Casual Garagehammer types. We all know this type of gamer exists, and I think GW should just support them openly, rather than try to pass something off as "Narrative" that is really about "Casual"

6) I don't understand how army Comp has anything to do with narrative play. Let me be specific with this. I see why narrative games might use their own specially designed army comp. I don't see why they need a special one from GW. Narrative play is much more about missions than armies. When it is about armies, it is about how those armies relate to the narrative, so you can't have a general purpose army comp that works well for narrative play.

7) I don't see how "Open Play" is for anyone. Don't get me wrong, I see many reasons to ignore army comp restrictions, for instance completely new players putting whatever they want on the table to play their 1st games, or an Apoc game where you don't have restrictions on force Org slots. However, that isn't "Open Play". That is "ignoring the army comp." It appears open play has its own rules and restrictions to it just like Unbound did. Nobody ever played unbound, they just ignored the rules for army comp. Sometimes they called it "Unbound", but they weren't actually using the rules and restrictions for unbound, they were just ignoring them. Wouldn't GW be better off just granting permission to ignore the rules, rather than making it a "Way to play"

8) I don't understand GW's ideology when it comes to Open Play. If you listen to their twitch feed, one thing you will hear repeated over and over and over again is "It's Open Play, Stop Me." Which is their argument for building truly dickish, unbalanced, over powered lists, and then challenging an opponent to have fun playing against it. When I think of the sort of players who should ignore army comp rules and restrictions they aren't experienced players looking to kick the crap out of an opponent with a min/maxed dickish list. At the start of 7th we had lots of people we called "Baby Seal Clubbers" that we players that claimed "Unbound" was a viable way to play, and would bring crazy OP lists to try and snag new / casual players into getting stomped. Experienced players knew better, and would just refuse to play them, but Casual / New players didn't think of that as an option. Is this GW's purpose for Open Play?

Can anyone help me better understand what GW is trying to do here?

**Tamwulf**

I'll wait until June 17th before trying to understand the differences between the three kinds of games GW is providing the framework for. The cool thing here? We have the choice.

**MechaEmperor7000**

For GW, Narrative Play isn't really for building stories, but rather reliving existing stories. They're more or less pre-built scenarios with canonical winners; you're just there to experience it. It's sort of like historical re-enactments of sorts. Most likely this train of thought came from the various scenarios that appeared in supplements detailing notable battles from the narrative. In all likelihood Narrative Play will be balanced by the extra rules various factions get, rather than points. Another thing, as I understand it, is that Narrative play will be extremely restrictive in what you can bring, since it should be largely analogous to the event in question. Like say a scenario taking place in Warzone Fenris would likely involve the Thousand Sons and Space Wolves. The Space Wolves, being their planet, might get extra rules in the scenario that gives them an unfair advantage over the Sons if it were a competitive enviroment. To compensate, the Sons might be allowed to bring far more troops to the field and/or the wolves lose access to various units that could use the ability better (say they get assault from deepstrike, but only Wolf Scouts can utilize it).

Matched Play is what we all know and love. And the idea here is that even in pick up games, the two sides should be roughly equal to each other. These battles are suppose to be nondescript skirmishes between forces and to see who is a superior tactical commander when the playing field is even.

Open Play is simply for the kiddies and the compulsive buyers; we've all bought models we liked, only to regret it once we realized we need to build an entire army around them to play. This is the ultimate beer-n-pretzels version of the game, where aside from unit profiles there are no other rules. It's sort of a sandbox playground where as long as you agree with your opponent, anything goes.

Overall, these are merely "authorizations". I see how Narrative Play seems out of place among the two, but I think it's an artifact of GW's love of writing scenarios and wish to encourage that. Open Play, instead, is simply a validation of people wanting to jump straight into the game. We've all played games where we houseruled things just because we didn't want to be bothered to go through FoCs, missions, and so forth. These two "plays" is simply an official validation of the concept.

I know that the validation is merely ceremonial and not necessary, but at least this way it gives the new and casual a chance to at least expect it. Not many other types of games outside of tabletop games uses house rules this much, so newcomers will either think the veteran player is pulling a fast one, or be simply scared of going outside the rules.

Also the "Baby Seal clubbers" will always exist. It's simply a fact of life. No amount of rules will stop them, as they will either continously argue for house rules or simply start bending the rules to their breaking point (Rule-lawyers are infamous for this). GW's acceptance of Open play isn't them catering to that demographic.

**BomBomHotdog**

To keep it simple:

Open play is, mostly, for first timers who drop into a store and pick up a few models. They don't necessarily care about how equal in points they are (or points at all), they just want to play. It's more for learning the game then anything. Open play has no real restrictions beyond the base game rules and is the simplest form of the game.

Narrative play is just that. Play a mission or a campaign and have fun with it. Narrative lets you use either form of points but leans more towards Power Levels which is just a quick way for players to figure out what they are bringing with out having to worry about every little point upgrade for their units.

Competitive would be the current form of 40k. Veterans of the game will, mostly, be playing this form of the game. There's no really need to think of it beyond that.

Power Levels are a very simple way to point out your army. It also lets you take different loadouts on units that you might not normally take and try without having to worry about moving points around on a list. I see it as a nice, quick way for a pickup game

Play the game you and your friend want to. House rules are a thing after all. Don't think too hard on it and have fun, it is a game.

**BlaxicanX**

Matched play is normal play.
Narrative play is for campaigns.
Casual play is for people who only have like 377 points of models or are too drunk to list-build but still want to roll some dice and have some fun.

You're welcome.

**Gloomfang**

I think the big difference is in matched play you are stuck with your list. What you have is what you have. The units, points and wargear are all set. If your kitted up for hordes and you fight knights your stuck. If you bring 2k army and someone wants to play 1500 unless you have a list for 1500 you have to rebuild your list on the fly.

Narrative play let's you quickly tailor army. You can quickly swap out wargear or add or subtract units for a particular points level. It helps minimize bad matchups and helps a lot to make pickup games more interesting and easier to play.

**Earth127**

That may be a consequence but not the reason. List flexibility as Gloomfang dexcrivbes

Matched play is supposed to put 2 as close to equal in power armies in an envirement to duke it out. To ensure greater equality there are moer limitations and more granular list building (you pay points for everyhting.

Narrative is supposed to be all about the well narrative or story. Inequal scenarios, wonky special rules and in general fluff above gameplay. Powerlevels are meant to give a general rough notion of how powerfull a unit is suppposed to be.

also @op casual has nothing to do with narrative and this toxic attitude shut down the other thread about this.

"Casuals" are mostly people who (for several reasons ) mostly just don't have the time for the game. There is no reason they would gravitate towards the endles discusiions/ less carefully balanced scenarios from narrative. In the thread I mentioned earleir a poster made a very good point why matched and not narrative is the "easier" game. The 'level" of gameplay has little to do with the gmae mode. Matched is easier to get an equal playing field. Theoretically you only have to agree to a points limit with your opponent and the "game" takes care of the rest of the balancing act.

PLS let's kill this narrative= casual/bad player narrrative?

**BunkhouseBuster**

tag8833 wrote:
GW is pushing 3 ways to play to 40K. But I'm confused by how they are setting them apart from one another.

1) I don't see "Competitive" and "Narrative" as mutually exclusive. I always write fluff for my tournament armies. Some tourneys award points for fluff, most don't, but it is always there. I build armies to win a tourney while also keeping them looking like an army that could plausibly exist in universe, and I think most other tourney attendees do likewise.
They are not mutually exclusive, but so many players are not interested in one of the other, and are antagonistic to a playstyle that is different than what they like.

2) Narrative games have winners. Narrative campaigns have goals and winners, too. I've never seen a narrative campaign where the outcome of games didn't matter. One thing I see frequently in Narrative play is some amount of "List Tailoring". This can take the form of making sure you are ready for the type of army your opponent brings, or underpowering your own units to give your opponent a chance, or ruthlessly min/maxing to make sure you win. List Tailoring is all about Competition, and making games "Competitive".
To some of us Narrative players, the victory is in playing the game and having a good time, regardless of the outcome on the tabletop. List tailoring is a thing, yes, but the point of a Narrative game is on the story, not the outcome of the battle.

3) I don't understand how poorly balanced rules are good for narrative play. I've played in lots, and lots of narrative games. Far more narrative games than competitive games, and I've never found crappy balance to be an asset. When people say, "GW didn't support competitive play until 8th", I think they didn't really support narrative play either. Maybe your average narrative player doesn't speak out as vocally when GW dumps a pile of garbage rules onto their tabletop, but bad rules are just as bad in narrative play as they are in competitive player, right?
Poorly balanced rules are not good for anyone. But just because a player can break a game in order to win doesn't meant that they should; there is an amount of respect and consideration for your opponents that need to be considered in planning and playing a proper Narrative game.

4) I don't see how the "Power Levels" are for Narrative Play. One of the challenges for building a Narrative Campaign system is setting up parameters to foster interesting games, as well as mechanics to reward victories, and punish defeats. Points are an excellent way to do that. It's been challenge to make it work in 7th because points were so badly out of balance, but still, points are in my experience the best tool to coordinate a multi-player Narrative Campaign.
Power Level is just a rough indicator for a unit's strength, and can be used for any mode of play. Think of it more as a way to build an army without spending several minutes going over points and individual upgrades - you just have your unit and you know how strong it is. Really, Power Levels are for quick pick up games. Points can still be used for Narrative games.

5) I don't see why "Power Levels" aren't for Casual gamers. It seems like GW is terrified of vocally supporting Casual Garagehammer types. We all know this type of gamer exists, and I think GW should just support them openly, rather than try to pass something off as "Narrative" that is really about "Casual"
I agree, GW should openly support all their customers, not just the competitive players that tend to dominate the conversations.

6) I don't understand how army Comp has anything to do with narrative play. Let me be specific with this. I see why narrative games might use their own specially designed army comp. I don't see why they need a special one from GW. Narrative play is much more about missions than armies. When it is about armies, it is about how those armies relate to the narrative, so you can't have a general purpose army comp that works well for narrative play.
It is giving options for players to use. There are many players who are hesitant to come up with anything or use custom, home-brewed rules for their games. Having something published and provided by GW gives those players a sense of validation, that they can start coming up with new ideas and not be shunned for it.

7) I don't see how "Open Play" is for anyone. Don't get me wrong, I see many reasons to ignore army comp restrictions, for instance completely new players putting whatever they want on the table to play their 1st games, or an Apoc game where you don't have restrictions on force Org slots. However, that isn't "Open Play". That is "ignoring the army comp." It appears open play has its own rules and restrictions to it just like Unbound did. Nobody ever played unbound, they just ignored the rules for army comp. Sometimes they called it "Unbound", but they weren't actually using the rules and restrictions for unbound, they were just ignoring them. Wouldn't GW be better off just granting permission to ignore the rules, rather than making it a "Way to play"
Unbound is not the same as Open Play; there are similarities, but even Unbound had some limitations (points values for one). Open Play is for newbies who have just a small force of models, or for someone putting together a demo game to show the basic rules. Or it is a chance to have a no-holds barred mega-Apocalypse-bring-ALL-the-models game and see what happens.

8) I don't understand GW's ideology when it comes to Open Play. If you listen to their twitch feed, one thing you will hear repeated over and over and over again is "It's Open Play, Stop Me." Which is their argument for building truly dickish, unbalanced, over powered lists, and then challenging an opponent to have fun playing against it. When I think of the sort of players who should ignore army comp rules and restrictions they aren't experienced players looking to kick the crap out of an opponent with a min/maxed dickish list. At the start of 7th we had lots of people we called "Baby Seal Clubbers" that we players that claimed "Unbound" was a viable way to play, and would bring crazy OP lists to try and snag new / casual players into getting stomped. Experienced players knew better, and would just refuse to play them, but Casual / New players didn't think of that as an option. Is this GW's purpose for Open Play?
I didn't watch their video, but I will repeat myself: Unbound is not the same as Open Play; there are similarities, but even Unbound had some limitations (points values for one). Open Play is for newbies who have just a small force of models, or for someone putting together a demo game to show the basic rules. Or it is a chance to have a no-holds barred mega-Apocalypse-bring-ALL-the-models game and see what happens.

Can anyone help me better understand what GW is trying to do here?

I hope this helps. In Age of Sigmar, all three Ways to Play work for players, but not everyone is playing them the same way.

First thing to remember is that Matched Play =/= Competitive games, and Narrative Play =/= to Casual games, and Open =/= Unbound. It will take a bit of effort to figure out just what kind of game you may want to play, but it will be worth it to look at the different game modes and give them a chance. So many people are harping on a single aspect of the different modes of play, and are becoming rude to each other over what boils how some people like to play with their little plastic toys. Let me go into my thinkings, based on my experience with Age of Sigmar...

Competitive play is for players who want to play hard and see who is the best strategist/tactician/player/dice roller. They focus on the game at hand, looking for ways to maximize their score in order to win the battle.

Casual play is for players just wanting to have a relaxing time with friends over a game. They aren't here to win, they are here to wind down, de-stress, and enjoy their gaming time.

Matched Play is a modular set of points values, army composition requirements, and other rules to give players new options on how to play their armies. It is well equipped to handle Competitive play, but that is not the only way it can be used.

Narrative Play is a modular set of rules and guidelines to give players additional ways to come up with scenario games, campaigns, or themed armies. It encourages players to take on the role or GM and organize players together to tell a story, not just focus on winning games.

Open Play is for players who just want to put down models on the table and throw down without any limitations, restrictions, or other things - just the units against other units. This can be down for special occasions or as a way to teach players the game, or even just to try out a new unit against an enemy for practice.

It's a matter of intent and what your desired experiences are from the game. If any of the items I mentioned appeal to you, then you need to look at how to use the 3 Ways to Play to how you can best enjoy your games. Want to use Matched Play points in a narrative campaign? Go for it! Want to teach a newbie how to play with a really small game? Go for it! Want to host a tournament that just uses Power Levels and just assume that everyone will bring their preferred options for the unit's upgrades? Go for it! Want to play strictly within the confines of one play mode? GO FOR IT!

It is going to take a little more effort to figure out exactly what you like, but I recommend giving it a shot. I am speaking from my experience with the 3 Ways to Play in Age of Sigmar, and I can tell you that it works great there, and is in fact my absolutely more favorite aspect of that game. The fact that GW is incorporating it into 40K is a tremendous value to the game, as it gives players more options on how to play, and will hopefully open players's eyes to the fact that there are different ways to play the game than they thought.

**Earth127**

Link to the previous thread that was closed for flaming, let's not do that again.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/726090.page

A little bit of context. The discussion started when it was anounced that you had to put half your army on the table in matched and people complained it broke the narrrative of their army not to be allowed all drop podding/ flyers from reserve list. OP started a new thread being angry about that.

**BlaxicanX**

I maintain that narrative players are filthy casuals because A) I'm a malicious person and B) lord knows that the distinction between "competitive" and "WAAC" ceased to exist on this forum many years ago, so it's only fair.

**Earth127**

But to quicky remind people because they seem to forget:There are more differences between narrative and matched than points vs powerlevels. . The scenarios from Cities of death, planetrike, stronghold assault , etc are all narrative scenarios.

**Purifier**

Earth127 wrote:
But to quicky remind people because they seem to forget:There are more differences between narrative and matched than points vs powerlevels. . The scenarios from Cities of death, planetrike, stronghold assault , etc are all narrative scenarios.

And there are additional balancing rules in matched. Such as the "have to start with half your army on the table."

**Peregrine**

To make it simple:

Matched play is the standard way to play 40k, and how 99.99999% of games will be played. It uses points, standard army construction rules, etc.

Narrative play replaces points with "power levels", which are just a point system that doesn't accurately reflect the value of the unit. Therefore there is no reason to use it. Some missions may in theory be for narrative play, but they will primarily be used with the point system and army construction rules of matched play.

Open play is an idiotic idea that might as well not exist. Each player buys an amount of GW models, and then the player who spent the most money wins. Nobody will ever play this, except possibly a few "casual at all costs" players who consider it a point of pride to masochistically endure the worst possible rules.

**Blacksails**

I generally agree with the OP. I'm happy for people to do as they please, but I feel the game would have been better if it was Matched only (in that Open was not codified, and the power level system didn't exist), and then support narrative gaming with campaign books like FW does, and have an in depth generic campaign system.

**Marmatag**

Peregrine wrote:

Narrative play replaces points with "power levels", which are just a point system that doesn't accurately reflect the value of the unit. Therefore there is no reason to use it. Some missions may in theory be for narrative play, but they will primarily be used with the point system and army construction rules of matched play.

Why is it that the "negative" crowd on here shouts so loudly about everything, and with such overflowing contempt?

I'm curious what you gained from writing this.

You could literally replace your entire post with "I'm upset!" and it would be more tolerable.

**Peregrine**

Marmatag wrote:
Why is it that the "negative" crowd on here shouts so loudly about everything, and with such overflowing contempt?

I'm curious what you gained from writing this.

You could literally replace your entire post with "I'm upset!" and it would be more tolerable.

Why is it that the "positive" crowd on here shouts so loudly about everything, and with such overflowing white-knighting?

I'm curious what you gained from writing this.

You could literally replace your entire post with "I'm upset!" and it would be more tolerable.

**Marmatag**

Peregrine wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Why is it that the "negative" crowd on here shouts so loudly about everything, and with such overflowing contempt?

I'm curious what you gained from writing this.

You could literally replace your entire post with "I'm upset!" and it would be more tolerable.

Why is it that the "positive" crowd on here shouts so loudly about everything, and with such overflowing white-knighting?

I'm curious what you gained from writing this.

You could literally replace your entire post with "I'm upset!" and it would be more tolerable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdC_1Doqq7U

**Polonius**

Marmatag wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Why is it that the "negative" crowd on here shouts so loudly about everything, and with such overflowing contempt?

I'm curious what you gained from writing this.

You could literally replace your entire post with "I'm upset!" and it would be more tolerable.

Why is it that the "positive" crowd on here shouts so loudly about everything, and with such overflowing white-knighting?

I'm curious what you gained from writing this.

You could literally replace your entire post with "I'm upset!" and it would be more tolerable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdC_1Doqq7U

There's something to be said about doubling down on being a tool when you're called out. I guess it's a certain consistency.

How about we all agree that Peregrine's e-Peen is mighty, and we can talk about the new 40k like adults?

**Peregrine**

Polonius wrote:
There's something to be said about doubling down on being a tool when you're called out. I guess it's a certain consistency.

How about we all agree that Peregrine's e-Peen is mighty, and we can talk about the new 40k like adults?

Nice rule #1 violation there. And how is point out 8th edition's flaws "being a tool" or not "talking about the new 40k like adults"? Pointing out that the power level system is just a worse version of the conventional points system is entirely legitimate criticism even if you don't agree with it, and it's pretty clearly true. The power level system seems to have all of the supposed flaws of conventional points, except with the added flaw that the power level of a unit doesn't account for things like choosing more powerful upgrades, having different numbers of additional models added to the unit, etc. Based on everything we've seen so far it's a badly designed mechanic that should not exist. But apparently only praise and hype are acceptable when discussing 8th...

**hobojebus**

I really don't get why people can't accept matched is going to be the standard, open is going to get zero traction and narrative used only amongst friends.

Against people you don't know its matched or nothing.

**Polonius**

Peregrine wrote:
Polonius wrote:
There's something to be said about doubling down on being a tool when you're called out. I guess it's a certain consistency.

How about we all agree that Peregrine's e-Peen is mighty, and we can talk about the new 40k like adults?

Nice rule #1 violation there. And how is point out 8th edition's flaws "being a tool" or not "talking about the new 40k like adults"? Pointing out that the power level system is just a worse version of the conventional points system is entirely legitimate criticism even if you don't agree with it, and it's pretty clearly true. The power level system seems to have all of the supposed flaws of conventional points, except with the added flaw that the power level of a unit doesn't account for things like choosing more powerful upgrades, having different numbers of additional models added to the unit, etc. Based on everything we've seen so far it's a badly designed mechanic that should not exist. But apparently only praise and hype are acceptable when discussing 8th...

Do you really want to hide behind rule #1? Do you think, morally, strategically, and philosophically, that deciding to suddenly adopt a concern about polite conversation is a wise choice? Maybe reflect for a minute, look at what you wrote, and think about how people are likely to react to that. Then, see the way they actually did react to it. And then ask yourself... "was what I did polite?"

Anyway,

I think power levels is a fine idea. There are plenty of events for which specific points costs simply don't matter. Slow grow leagues, campaigns, apocolypse battles, and plain old casual pick up games.

If we're running a campaign using power levels, it allows for wargear swaps between battles without redoing points, so you can take more appropriate wargear.

I think it will be a small minority of games played, but it's an option that in no way interferes with matched play.

**Peregrine**

Polonius wrote:
Do you really want to hide behind rule #1? Do you think, morally, strategically, and philosophically, that deciding to suddenly adopt a concern about polite conversation is a wise choice? Maybe reflect for a minute, look at what you wrote, and think about how people are likely to react to that. Then, see the way they actually did react to it. And then ask yourself... "was what I did polite?"

I see nothing in my original comment that justifies rudeness and spammy youtube memes. If people can't deal with criticism of 8th without taking it as a personal attack then that's their problem, not mine.

I think power levels is a fine idea. There are plenty of events for which specific points costs simply don't matter. Slow grow leagues, campaigns, apocolypse battles, and plain old casual pick up games.

And I disagree about all of these. All but Apocalypse games benefit from more accurate point costs, or at least gain nothing from having less accurate point costs. I'll grant that Apocalypse games are an exception to the rule, but only because Apocalypse is not a game in any conventional sense of the term. When there's no strategy or gameplay beyond covering a table in models and then putting them back into their boxes of course point costs don't matter. But that's a thing that is much better handled by putting specific army construction rules into the Apocalypse expansion for the few masochists who are interested in them, not by integrating the system into the standard rules.

If we're running a campaign using power levels, it allows for wargear swaps between battles without redoing points, so you can take more appropriate wargear.

Alternatively, you could run the same campaign with point costs under the standard system, and just pay the appropriate points for your wargear swaps. The only time your supposed need for power levels exists is when you have a weird campaign where the units in your army can never change, but you're free to change all of their upgrades however you like and you don't make the correct choices to begin with. And even then you don't need a whole additional system to do this, you can just set the initial lists and then let people go over the point limit later in the campaign as their units get new upgrades.

I think it will be a small minority of games played, but it's an option that in no way interferes with matched play.

Of course it doesn't interfere with matched play, since you can completely ignore the power level system. But that doesn't mean that we should pretend that the power level system is a meaningful or desirable addition to the game, or refrain from criticizing it.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

I don't think "narrative" = "casual".

I also think you could play a narrative game just fine using points, or a matched game using power levels.

The way I see it, power level represents the fast way to make lists, while points represents the detailed way to make lists.

I know my Leman Russ Battle Tank is 165 as modeled, and my Leman Russ Tank Commander Vanquisher is 205 per tank.

If I get to the game store and want a pick up game, and my opponent wants to play 2500 instead of 1850 or whatever I have prepped, I go "well, I'll add in a Command Tank for 205, a regular tank for 165, and a Basilisk for 125. Tank plus Gun is just under 300, TC is just over 200, Together they're about 500.

**Marmatag**

Peregrine wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Do you really want to hide behind rule #1? Do you think, morally, strategically, and philosophically, that deciding to suddenly adopt a concern about polite conversation is a wise choice? Maybe reflect for a minute, look at what you wrote, and think about how people are likely to react to that. Then, see the way they actually did react to it. And then ask yourself... "was what I did polite?"

I see nothing in my original comment that justifies rudeness and spammy youtube memes. If people can't deal with criticism of 8th without taking it as a personal attack then that's their problem, not mine.

You didn't write a criticism. You wrote a complaint, and made a statement about the balance of power levels without having any real evidence to support it. "I don't like it" isn't a criticism.

I see this on these forums a lot. People make super negative comments and then hide behind "oh it's criticism," like someone saying Narrative was the shallow kiddy pool, and how he was being "critical of 8th." I'm sorry but that dog won't hunt, you have *not* supplied a criticism of 8th, you've just spouted off about how you don't like narrative.

Personally I can count 5 people I play with regularly that are looking forward to the narrative power levels. Faster setup time, easy to vary the same list between games, easier to restrict powerful units, etc. And again, this is a "don't like it, don't use it."

**Peregrine**

Marmatag wrote:
You didn't write a criticism. You wrote a complaint, and made a statement about the balance of power levels without having any real evidence to support it. "I don't like it" isn't a criticism.

What evidence is needed? It's self-evidently obvious that power levels are just a point system with less accuracy, and any criticism of point systems applies just as much to power levels. I don't think every post needs to get into game design 101 explanations of even the most obvious concepts before it can be considered legitimate criticism.

Faster setup time

Only by a tiny amount, only if you regularly bring enough extra models to make a new list each time, and only if you want to make up random lists before each game instead of having standard lists for standard point totals. Most of the time adding up power levels is going to take just as long as adding up point costs. The only time savings would come from using power levels as a rough approximation and not insisting that both players fit within a preset limit, but you can apply that same principle to point costs if you want to.

easy to vary the same list between games

Only in very superficial ways, since you can't swap units for other units without adding up the power levels again. And this is of marginal value, since most people will quickly figure out the optimal way to equip a unit and always bring that configuration. After all, with no difference in point costs for different upgrade choices, there's no reason to take a list where you had to make choices like "I can't afford plasma for this squad so I'm taking flamers instead" and therefore very little incentive to update the squad's equipment if something else in your list changes.

easier to restrict powerful units

Not at all. Any restriction on "no units above X power level" can work just as well as "no units above Y point cost". And that kind of restriction is rarely relevant, the total point cost of a unit is much less important than it's power relative to its point cost and that can only be restricted by imposing limits on specific units. If anything exchanging point costs for power levels makes it harder to restrict powerful units, since a unit's cost no longer represents its actual power as accurately.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Peregrine wrote:

Faster setup time

Only by a tiny amount, only if you regularly bring enough extra models to make a new list each time, and only if you want to make up random lists before each game instead of having standard lists for standard point totals. Most of the time adding up power levels is going to take just as long as adding up point costs. The only time savings would come from using power levels as a rough approximation and not insisting that both players fit within a preset limit, but you can apply that same principle to point costs if you want to.

I build lists right before I play.

Especially is points are going to be off multiples of 5, then power levels will be far faster. I can know that 205+165+125 is 495 in my head, but not what 187+156+139 is.

My tank is kitted out the same way every time anyway.

**hobojebus**

Your not doing it by hand are you? I assumed most of us have apps on some form of mobile device to take the pain out of list building on the fly.

**Peregrine**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I can know that 205+165+125 is 495 in my head, but not what 187+156+139 is.

I don't really see how either of those is significantly easier, especially once you start adding up a whole army worth of points and can't keep track of everything in your head. Pull out your phone and add up your points on the calculator, it's faster than trying to do it mentally and more accurate. And as a nice bonus you can use conventional points instead of having to use a less-accurate point system.

Also, power levels don't seem to be in nice neat 5-point increments. So it's not 205+165+125 vs. 187+156+139, it's more like 29+13+47 vs. 187+156+139. Adding 100 to each of the numbers you're adding up doesn't make them meaningfully harder to add.

**ross-128**

While I agree that there's basically no reason to ever not use points unless you're REALLY in a hurry, power levels are definitely a faster way to get a pick-up-game rolling if you don't have a list handy.

It's not even about the size of the numbers you're adding up, it's how many steps you're using and how many times you're checking the rulebook. Which directly translates into how many times you have to carry, and carrying is the slowest part of doing addition by hand. Even if you're using a calculator you'll get a slight speed boost by using fewer steps, simply because you won't have to push as many buttons.

For example, instead of:
CCS - 60
PCS x2 - 60
Inf x10 - 500
Conscript x2 - 300
Missile Launcher x10 - 150
Vendetta x3 - 510
Commissar x4 -100
Primaris Psyker - 50
Grenade Launcher x21 - 105
Regimental Standard 15

The PL math for a similar list would just be along the lines of:
CCS - 6
PCS x2 - 6
Inf x10 - 50
Conscript x2 - 20
Vendetta x3 - 14
Commissar x4 - 7
Primaris Psyker - 5

(note that these are all 7th ed numbers rather than 8th ed, the purpose is to illustrate the difference in procedure, not to create an actually valid list)

As you can see the points list has quite a few more steps. Equipment usually results in rulebook checks more often than units as well, the base cost of a unit is easier to remember because it's always relevant.

Of course, the cost of that is that the fight might end up being a good deal less balanced, since those power levels might be hiding a bit more than a few grenade launchers and missile launchers.

Personally I would prefer to still use points if at all possible, and would likely roll with a pre-made list with at most a couple sideboard options to avoid having to do the math on the spot, but if someone has different priorities than me there certainly are tangible advantages to them using power levels instead.

**ERJAK**

Peregrine wrote:
To make it simple:

Matched play is the standard way to play 40k, and how 99.99999% of games will be played. It uses points, standard army construction rules, etc.

Narrative play replaces points with "power levels", which are just a point system that doesn't accurately reflect the value of the unit. Therefore there is no reason to use it. Some missions may in theory be for narrative play, but they will primarily be used with the point system and army construction rules of matched play.

Open play is an idiotic idea that might as well not exist. Each player buys an amount of GW models, and then the player who spent the most money wins. Nobody will ever play this, except possibly a few "casual at all costs" players who consider it a point of pride to masochistically endure the worst possible rules.

Wow, this manages to be both hateful AND useless, kudos kido.