BA and Power Levels

[Thoridon]

I've been playing friendly games with the new Power Level system since 8th hit as it's quick and easy to put an unplanned list together when deciding to have a game at short notice, and noticed various others here comment that they've been doing the same. After a few games, and while working on building new units, I've had to have a look closer at how our power levels stand.

 

First off, a couple of points.

 

1. This is looking at how many points worth of stuff we get for the power level of units, not the points cost itself. Whether units are over-costed in points is a different matter, I'm looking at how that translated into power level.

2. Obviously power level can't be as balanced as points, and serious games need to use the full points system, but I'm interested in seeing how much we need to equip on our units to make them cost effective in the power level system - not just for myself but maybe to help others using it.

 

To start I needed a baseline, so I settled on Intercessors. As a fairly uniformly equipped unit they're 100pts for 5 barebones up to a max of 125 pts with full upgrades (power sword, grenade launcher and upgraded bolter patterns) and a medium upgrade total of 113. As GW have said that the Power Level : Points ratio should be roughly 20 : 1 with 'middleish' upgrades factored in, I wanted to see how many upgraded to give each unit to match that ratio. The principle being that if you keep a squad barebones using the Power Level system you might be overpaying a lot for what you get, while max upgrades should be underpaying (and thus being too cheesy/exploiting). I'd expect a unit of DC all running Hammers to be exploiting the fixed cost, for one thing, and need some basic models mixed in.

 

Here's a quick set of numbers I ran, looking at the Power Level and equivalent Points cost of units and then how many points-worth of upgrades they'd need to match the Power Level:Points ratio of Intercessors. Ideally everything should be run around the 'Med' level to keep the ratio balanced, given what has been said about how the levels are assigned. Most units are 5-man for the smaller size and 10 for larger but I've noted in brackets where sizes are different. I didn't include other Primaris units as I don't have any, but as they're all fairly uniformly equipped they shouldn't differ much from intercessors.

 

 

For the upgrade points required,

 

Min = To match the Power Lvl : Points ratio of bare Intercessors

Med = To match the Power Lvl : Points ratio of half-upgraded Intercessors (the target)

Max = To match the Power Lvl : Points ratio of fully upgraded Intercessors

 

Anything below the Min point should be seriously overpaying (and thus weakening yourself) while reaching the Max should mean you're underpaying and potentially cheesing the system for advantage.

 

The first thing that stands out is that pretty much all the non-Primaris units need upgrades to match the Intercessors ratio, as running them with basic equipment you're overpaying for what you get. That's perfectly fine and expected, as the normal range has the wider set of upgrade options that have to be factored in. The simple fact here is that if you use non-Primaris with Power Level you really need to have at least some upgrades, compared to Points games where running barebones is a perfectly viable approach.

 

Anyhow, the basic units like Tacticals aren't too far off. With a heavy weapon or special per 5 and the ability to run both a combi-weapon (or pistol) and a melee upgrade on the Sergeant you can pretty much hit any of the 3 upgrade levels depending on the exact choices, so you just have to make sure they have weapon upgrades. Assault Marines also look fine if you're using them to run a couple of special weapons (my current setup of 2x Meltagun and a Power Fist on the Sergeant fits nicely between Min and Med).

 

Scouts are more cost efficient in the Points system but are worse off with PL, especially with a 5-man unit costing 6 PL. The only way I see to get the value in PL is to run the full 10 (so you get the second set of 5 at only +4) and split in two groups. Run half as snipers with camo cloaks and the other half with a heavy weapon and upgraded sergeant. All that is still going to below the 'Minimum' level unless you run a Missile Launcher as the heavy and give the Sergeant a Fist+Inferno. Running basic scouts, especially as a single 5-man unit, is just paying higher PL for stuff you don't have.

 

Going down the list, Sternguard and Vanguard are very overcosted for PL if you run them bare. While that's perfectly fine for the Points system, if you use these units in PL games you're paying for a significant amount of points-worth of upgrades. For Sternguard you're looking at 50pts worth of added weapons for a 5-man unit just to each the minimum ratio, or 100pts worth for 10-men. That is going to mean Heavy Weapons added and a Melee upgrade for the Sergeant, even if you'd ignore those in a Points game. Similarly Vanguard need weapon upgrades, and probably across the whole squad (+90 points worth per 5 is +18 per model to reach the 'Med point', and that's not far off from TH/SS on pretty much all of them). Devastators clearly need a full set of heavy weapons even in a minimum size squad, as you pay the PL from them in the first 5 and extra bodies are much cheaper when going to 10.

 

Tactical Terminators seem to be in a tough spot as they can't reach the mid-point with a single Heavy as the only real upgrade. The expensive Cyclone still only just gets the squad above the minimum point while the Assault Cannon or Heavy Flamer both fall short. Assault Terminators fare a bit better as the points-worth of upgrading from Claws to TH/SS puts them between Min and Med, though keeping them running Claws sees sub-par PL efficiency.

 

It generally seems that the more 'elite' the unit is, the more you're expected to run near the max possible upgrades, with even basic units expected to run medium upgrades. Anything less is hurting yourself.

 

BA-Specific Units

So where do our unique units stand?

 

Death Company seem to be in a bad position here. Never mind whether or not their points are too high in the full system, their power level seems far too high. At 20pts per model with jump packs that means each model then needs an extra +20pts worth of upgrades for the unit to reach the mimimum point, which is something you can't do by giving them all Hammers as the most expensive option as the points per hammer are below 20. The only way to do that, and indeed the only way to reach the Med point is to give each model something like a Fist plus Plasma Pistol or Power Sword/Axe plus Inferno Pistol to each.

 

That means having thought a full unit of Hammers would be taking advantage and exploiting the PL system it's actually still below the minimum. DC clearly have their PL assigned with the expectation that they're all equipped with near max possible upgrades, and the only way to model them above the balance/Med point is to go both Fist+Inferno on each.

 

Unfortunately my newly built Axe + Chainsword unit, despite being very fluffy and efficient in points games, is massively too low in upgrades to use in PL games. I have to look at models with almost max upgrades to make DC viable here.

 

Sanguinary Guard on the other hand are essentially balanced for PL games without much tweaking, given they have non-basic weapons by default. Interestingly they get more efficient in PL games when going from a smaller 4-man unit to the full 10-man, where they're bang on the Minimum point with no upgrades at all and a couple of Inferno Pistols sprinkled around are enough to get to that Med point.

 

So while for Points games I can run bare squads, Axe+Chainsword DC and the like, for Power Level games my unit selection has to be very different. Even basic units need at least a couple of upgrades, and the only way I should consider running DC is if I have the models configured to run them geared to the teeth, and unfortunately that means doing so on 1W 3+ models. It's something I'd never do under points, and they die just as easily in PL. While I've added extra DC recently and have several squads with different configurations now I think I'm simply going to have to leave them for Points games. Maybe run a unit of Hammers in PL, but even then they'll be overcosted and not have the efficiency.

 

SG, on the other hand, seem to be the BA-Unique unit that is efficient in power level games, and almost the only unit we can risk gaining an advantage with (if each gets an inferno pistol, for example). You can run a unit of SG mostly bare with just a few upgrades spread around, the same as you would with Points, and have their power ratio be where it should be given the underlying points of the models.

 

Maybe others can find this useful, maybe it's just a wall of text and me rambling, but it's helped me think about PL army building a bit better.

 

Again, this is only looking at the cost efficiency and level of upgrades needed to reach the expected cost effectiveness in Power Level games, which can require a considerably different approach than building a list for Points games. I also only looked at the main squads, not vehicles or characters, but it's not supposed to be a comprehensive analysis of every possible selection.

 

Wall of text over.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Thoridon

[brother_b]

Amazing. This seems like a theme in this edition. Elite armies aren't able to field enough bodies and now their armor just wasn't what it used to be as it seems most armies have access to multiple types of -AP weapons.

 

Edit: GREAT write up, thanks for that! My poor DC =/

Edited October 4, 2017 by brother_b

[Thoridon]

With DC I find their power level pricing odd compared to VV.

 

Vanguard are 8 PL per 5 with a jump pack in both the Index and new SM Codex. Death Company with jump packs are 10 PL per 5. We're being charged an extra 2 PL despite the specific points cost only being a difference of 2 pts. You can say that 2 PL factors in both the +1A on the charge and the 6+ FnP but both those are factored into the points difference too.

 

In Points a DC squad is 11% higher pts cost than an equal size VV squad (before weapon upgrades).

In PL a DC squad is 25% higher pts cost than an equal size VV squad (before weapon upgrades).

 

As both systems take the black rage and FnP into account, the only reason for that extra PL cost could be that DC have better possible upgrades. But do they?

 

- The most expensive melee weapon (a TH) can only be taken alone by DC. VV can take a TH/SS or TH+Pistol which is more points-worth.

- As BA, both DC and VV can run a Fist + Inferno Pistol for the same points worth. As mentioned above, VV could actually run a more expensive setup with TH + Inferno Pistol (and the Sergeant gains access to the more costly Relic Blade).

 

I see absolutely no reason why DC cost 2 extra PL when they're so close in specific points cost. If they were 1 PL less (and thus 9 PL per 5 with jump packs) they'd still be 12.5% higher PL cost, but that would be much more in line with the 11% points difference.

 

Hopefully DC get the 1 PL reduction when our codex hits, or something added to make them stronger. As it is, I think unfortunately my DC will mostly remain shelved for Pl games. In points games there are many options for running them, but for PL they're currently grossly overcosted considering VV get more weapon upgrade options.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Thoridon

[tychobi]

I think you are missing the point of power levels.  The power levels are broad generalizations that allow for quick fun games.  They do not in any way represent fair and appropriate cost of the units.  If you were to go to tournaments run in power levels there would be a whole lot thunder hammers and melta flying around and the units that have the largest variance of load out and roll with all the big options will win.  The power level system was never intended for close scrutiny or gamesmanship.  If you want fair you need to use points. Well even then you are pretty screwed if you use Blood Angels anyway (Death co are not efficient with any load out).  If you want fair use codex doc for your red marines and points!  Come on GW we need that codex!

[Thoridon]

That's not my point. I already said that PL cannot be as balanced as Points and neither do I expect it to be. I clearly said this is nothing to do with competitive play as that's always going to need the exact points.

 

What I do expect is that, as PL is based on the underlying points cost of the unit, units have a PL assigned that's around the same PL : Points ratio. There's clearly going to be a wider variance with units that have a large set of available upgrades but some units seem to have extra cost assigned for no reason - the case in point being DC vs VV, which are fairly close together in exact points cost but have a much wider gap in PL cost despite the fact that VV can actually equip more points-worth of upgrades.

 

Now for experienced players who just use the full points systemn anyway this isn't an issue. The thing is, they introduced PL for a reason. The intention may be to make setting up a game less complex but that doesn't mean it can't be as balanced as the system allows. With an integer set of levels that's not easy but a lot of units are not far off. Indeed, Sanguinary Guard actually translate very well from points to PL. DC seem to have additional inflated PL assigned that does not reflect the same PL:Points ratio that all the other units get and would still have a worse ratio than VV if dropped by 1 PL, but that would bring them much closer given the similar upgrade potential.

 

My reason for making this thread is because not everyone plays full points, and some play points in some games and PL in others. For anyone playing with PL there's a general feeling that we want to get our cost-worth from units but not equip so much that we're exploiting it too much and being cheesy (eg. not Hammers on everything), and I wanted to see how many upgrades we could be looking at for each unit to achieve that.

 

Many units have the 3 tiers: No (or minimal) upgrades make them underperform, medium upgrades are about on track, max upgrades you're into 'cheesing' territory. That's how it should be, and can still give a reasonably balanced game. Sure, when translated into points one player might be at 1980 and the other 2020 but that's in the same ballpark.

 

With DC currently you just can't do that - in fact with what's in the boxes, even if you give them as many upgrades as possible you can't even reach a fair point given their inflated PL cost. There's no question of cheesing them, you have to go hunting for bits to model everything insanely overgeared to even be near the 'balanceed / middle' region. With units like DC, when you translate a 'balanced' build into points there's going to be a much bigger gap.

 

This lets others using PL know that if people consider DC bad in the full points system (I disagree, but that's another issue), in PL they're far worse off, and we're essentially handicapping ourselves to run them for fluff reasons. If you run various DC you could end up with that equivalent points translation being more like 1780 vs 2020.

 

So yes, for a more balanced/serious game we obviously need Points, but new/casual players shouldn't end up being depressed when their army with fluffy units like DC simply handicap them in PL games. Especially when there's room to adjust them without being too cheap compared to the PL assigned to other comparable units. In this sutuation it just ends up with people not wanting to play or switching to a different army.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Thoridon

[Thoridon]

Just as a final point on DC vs VV...

 

5x Bare VV with jump packs = 8 PL / 90 pts

5x Bare DC with jump packs = 10 PL / 100 pts

 

PL Difference: +25% cost

Points Difference: +11% cost

 

5x TH/SS VV with jump packs = 8 PL / 195 pts (5x TH/SS)

5x Hammer DC with jump packs = 10 PL / 180 pts (5x TH)

 

PL Difference: +25% cost

Points Difference: -8% cost

 

The gap widens when Hammers are factored in as DC have to run them 2-handed while VV can run something in the other hand. And that's looking at the cheaper SS compared to special pistols with the hammer. Not only that but DC only get 1 hammer in the box while VV get a bunch, so most people playing casually (and thus only using the box content instead of hunting for extra bits to min-max) are actually going to have much weaker builds of DC than is possible with VV. With Hammers vs TH/SS you're actually paying 25% more PL for a unit that would cost 5% less points.

 

That's my issue with DC and Power Level. VV can run a higher points setup much easier with the box contents while the DC box is going to give casual players much weaker setups typically, but the DC cost much more points for that casual player to run.

 

With the box contents the most you can squeeze out of DC is 1 Hammer, 1 Fist, 1 Axe, 2 Swords, 2 Inferno and 2 Plasma. That's 195 total points.

 

5x Max Box Contents VV with jump packs = 8 PL / 197 pts (1 SS swapped to plasma pistol)

5x Max Box Contents DC with jump packs = 10 PL / 195 pts

 

PL Difference: +25% cost

Points Difference: -1% cost

 

Again, this is just to highlight how much overcosted DC are for those playing PL games. With the max box contents builds the VV get the equivalent of 24.5 points per PL while DC are down at 19.5 - that's below the 20:1 ratio even with everything you can give them from a box. Yet in the full points system the difference is considerably smaller, and quite even in many cases.

 

As a final reference, my 'fluffy' DC unit of 3x Axe/Chainsword and 2x Sword/Chainsword clocks in at 123 points. They're a fun and effective unit to run in points games. In a PL game? They'd be down at 12 points per power level - that's almost half the 'minimum ratio' of 20:1, and that's with 4 weapon upgrades.

 

With most units we can run sensible builds and be in the right ballpark. Tacticals, Assault, Vanguard, Sanguinary Guard... some need more upgrades than others but there are setups where we can hit the minimum point, find a mid ground or go a bit over the top. That's perfect and as it should be, with player sensibility making sure you don't take it too far and try to keep things reasonable rather than running every model with the max possible. With DC there's no worry of going too far, it's more the case that you can't go far enough - even if you max out every model.

 

Again, just highlighting the point that if we do play PL games, by using DC we're doing so knowing we're at a significant cost efficiency loss and knowingly handicapping ourselves for fluff reasons. With most other infantry based units there's plenty of scope to hit the right levels and keep things fair, in which case the PL system works fine for other units. The DC costing is just inflated.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Thoridon

[olcottr]

What I get from this is the codex needs to drop both PL and points of DC, but PL more.

[tychobi]

Sorry to OP if I came across a bit blunt earlier.  I am going to come at this from another angle. 

 

What if the power levels (and points for that matter) are perfect?

 

What future doctrine/rule/power could justify the present costs?  Can we glean something of the future rules by analyzing the information we have?  I have to say the OP is immensely better suited to such a search than myself but I will put forward a theory: red thirst = reroll failed to wound rolls. . . . . Thoughts?

[Thoridon]

All good :)

 

I had wondered before if the Index costs were assigned with future Codex buffs already known, but I'm not sure about that given that other codices have seen points adjustments along with the extra rules. As DC already have the black rage and FnP I'm not sure they'll then be given a 3rd bonus rule. As for their cost factoring in the upcoming chapter tactic, that's possible but all the basic Codex-based units would get it too. I can see the point that if we get something melee based as our tactic, whether extra strength on the charge or a wound reroll, that would have synergy with the +1A from black rage and justify their bit higher points cost.

 

As olcottr says though, DC need a PL price drop even if the points cost doesn't change to bring them in line for both systems. It feels like points were assigned, then they did a run of converting the points to power level with someone hastily thinking "oh, they have that +1A on the charge... they need an extra PL!" forgetting that's already factored into their base points cost.

 

I don't really have a problem with DC costing 11% more points than VV given that difference includes the +1A and 6+ FnP, it just makes them the more aggressive choice. I do object to the unnecessary PL cost inflation when it's at an unreasonable level, and even a singlle PL reduction would bring both the points and PL closer in line.

 

One of my main concerns with this is that DC are probably our most signature unit. A lot of new BA players tend to start with something like Start Collecting and then add to that with DC, even the DC strike force box (or whatever it's called) with a whole bunch of them. Unfortunately while the models look awesome, if that new player uses the PL system (which is sort of intended for new players) those shiny awesome new elite units they invested in are going to feel weak compared to if they'd used the same PL on more 'normal' units. It's yet more fuel for the whole "BA sucks, just go Red Marine" argument they'll run into... and then they end up as another Ultramarines player :p

[Thoridon]

This may end up as my own rambling thread, but hey. This might also help anyone else.

 

I've done a quick look at Tyranid ratios as my usual opponent. Not because I want to point and go "unfair!" but because I want to make sure I don't model my units over the top in comparison - along with not selling myself short, obviously. As I figure others here might play PL games against Tyranids I'll post it here for reference:

 

 

I've highlighted the 'upgrade required' cells in orange for those units that have no upgrade options, and added the ratio calculation for each unit with their basic options. I've also added at the top that based on the baseline unit of Intercessors the ratios to match them are 20:1 for Minimum, 23:1 (actually 22.5 rounded up) for Med and 25:1 for High.

 

Their list has a bit of a difference. Cheaper/basic units have a lower PL efficiency and clearly need to run a bunch of upgrades to reach the required value. That's not too tricky for most as they have both weapon upgrades and biomorphs, and on a cheap squad having 10 models with +2 each here and +2 each there adds up. It does mean even Termagants, Hormogaunts and Gargoyles really need at least something extra taking, but it's really only Termagants and Warriors that have a poor base ratio - and they have upgrade potential to make up those points.

 

At the other end their monsters and elite units have a typically much higher ratio than ours at the base gear level, with little or no upgrades required to reach the 20:1 ratio and indeed quite a few already close to the Medium 23:1. With a few upgrades added it's quite possible that their big nasties can be up in the Med-High range closer to 25:1. Their special characters with no upgrade potential seem mostly balanced at the 20:1 'min' point, though the Red Terror is extremely efficient for PL.

 

Anyhow, short version: If you play against Tyranids and want to have a balanced force against them it depends what their style is.

 

1. If they play mass horde-style with basic weapons and minimal biomorphs and barely any big monsters that's the only situation where they could be below the Minimum 20:1 ratio overall. If you go up against someone who likes masses of cheap gants without upgrades this is where we don't need many upgrades ourself, and in fact if we run an upgraded list we could easily have the converted points advantage. Obviously some weapon upgrades are expected/required but nothing overly fancy. Just be aware of the biomorphs: Hormagaunts go from 17:1 to 27:1 if they run both toxin sacs and adrenal glands and there's even more variance with Termagants, as they have the potential to reach 33:1 with both biomorphs and Devourers, so that easily skews the efficiency way up and moves the list from minimal to insanely cost effective. If they do it's a level of cost efficiency we simply cannot realistically reach, so there's a huge potential variance in this type of list.

 

2. If the Tyranid opponent uses a mix of cheap units and Monsters it could be around the Minimum 20:1 or the Medium 23:1 overall depending on their exact mix and level of upgrades taken. This is where we really need to start taking a reasonable number of upgrades ourself - not over the top, we don't need everything maxed out, but particularly on our units with a lower base ratio we need to be adding weapons. Quite a few of our units need a fair few upgrades just to reach 20:1. Again, a caveat that if those cheap units taken utilise weapon upgrades and max biomorphs they can push the overall ratio to 25:1.

 

3. If the opponent plays a "Nidzilla" type with loads of big monsters and minimal cheap stuff we're going to need upgraded weapons on many of our units. We might not need max weapons on absolutely every unit but you can't go too cheap here. I'm revising this to say the upgrade potential on most of their big units is more limited in terms of points value. A lot of their monsters already come with points-expensive weapons and though they can make switches and add biomorphs, in a lot of cases that's maybe +5 pts on a 200pt model (which is a lot less of an increase than +5 per model on a cheap unit that only cost 4 each to begin with). So we certainly need to make sure our units reach the Min 20:1 and maybe up to the Med 23:1 ratio but we don't need to get too carried away and put inferno pistols on anything possible.

 

It seems their cheap horde units have the most potential for Points per Power Level gain, along with the potential to be the weakest ratio - it's all about those biomorph options. Their big monster types tend to be more stable around 20-22:1 with a few that can be around 25:1 but there's less variance as their big units mostly have expensive weapons by default, with biomorphs having minimal cost impact. We still need plenty of upgrades to reach 20:1 though, as many of our units are only 10:1 - 13:1 with default gear.

 

So while this post might not be of much use to most, it lets me know what level of upgrades to aim for based on how the Tyranid player selects their list. Generally it's going to mean lots of upgrades for us, unless the Tyranid player opts to keep a lot of units basic. Getting our overall ratio between 20:1 and 23:1 should work fine in most cases.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Thoridon