Three ways of gaming: discussion

[apologist]

(This started as a reply to another topic, but it ended up getting a bit discursive, so I've moved it here, in the hope it'll generate some interesting discussion.)

 

Gaming is often split into diametrically opposed groups – competitive gamers and casual gamers; tournament games and friendly games; beer-and-pretzels and serious business; painters and gamers.

 

Usually, these are grouped: there's a lot of assumption that expect tournament games to be cut-throat competitions played with models that are rigidly wysiwyg, for example, or people who prefer to paint than game being inherently casual when they do come to the table.

 

That's not my experience, and I think GW's direction for 40k is broadening to shine a light on the differences – and similarities – between approaches. I hope that this leads to more gamers finding new ways of enjoying the hobby, and finding more similarities between the traditional opposing camps.

 

Below, I focus mainly on Power Level and narrative gaming – not because it's the only way I like to play, but because it's here where the fuzzy edges between the binary groups above become clearer.

 

+++

 

I said this in the sisters forum.... but with all the points for units now being derivatives of 5 are we seeing the last edition with points?  and the next will only have power levels?

 

The momentum seems to be towards diversifying ways to play the game. Explicitly making Chapter Approved the vehicle for competitive-style Matched Play, and Crusade for collaborative-style Narrative Play indicates that GW are putting support behind both (and Open Play, too, I hope). 

 

That's different to (say) Rogue Trader and second edition, where there was no real support for what's now called Matched Play; and 6th–7th, where Narrative Play had no support.

 

With an expanded development team and an expanded, more diverse audience of gamers, I think the future's going to better serve all elements of the hobby.

 

+++

[...]Too many people, me included, are not willing to trade a system [Points] for the same but worse [Power Level] just for the sake of easy calculating in a time almost everyone has a portable computer with them.

 

I'm a champion of Power Level these days; despite being a bit sceptical of it at first. We ended up using it as a quick ready-reckoner because one of the gang hadn't yet got his Codex (well, Index at the time), and it worked quite nicely. So nicely, in fact, that after using points for a few games, we opted to return to Power Level for the advantages below.

 

I've seen Power Level criticised as being neither fish nor fowl. I agree that it's not truly open and reliant on discussion with the other player (the 3D roleplay approach suggested for Rogue Trader, Inquisitor, and first edition AoS), nor is it as granular and precise as points (championed by every other version of Warhammer and 40k, and most other GW games). 

 

On the face of it, that's a negative: I get Panzer's viewpoint that regards Power Level is just a 'worse' system – it's still limiting, but isn't as precise.

 

I argue that this is actually one of the strengths of Power Level. Achieving perfect balance is a moving goal, and chasing it through points results in unhappy players (just look at the huge amount of complaints and discussion that circle around points).

 

At root, additional precision isn't always practical; nor is it always useful; nor is it always desirable. There are inherent margins of error within any system, and a rigid system of Points exacerbates rather than resolves these. A points-based approach works beautifully in a closed, relatively small system like Blood Bowl, but it's badly-suited to the ever-expanding and more woolly world of 40k. The additional precision required of Points in a game as complex as 40k means that the system has diminishing returns and requires a constant cycle of revision (Blood Bowl, in comparison, updates less than once an edition). 

 

Game balance also has to be weighed against novelty: adding new armies and units inherently unbalances a points system. The result is what we see in the Chapter Approved model – essentially a subscription fee to play in a particular way, that has the potential to cause conflict or confusion. (That result, I hasten to add, isn't inherent.)

 

+++

 

I'm very much a proponent of the maxim 'don't let the perfect get in the way of the good', and Power Level takes a step back from the minutiae. Being less granular, there's less expectation of perfection. Of course, that's not a reason in itself for championing the system – taken to absurdity, you'd just make everything cost the same Power Rating. Close enough, right? That vision of everything costing the same is esentially the 3D-roleplay approach of Open Gaming; and while that can be fun (look at traditional roleplay, for example, where there is no end-goal beyond the continuation of the story), it relies heavily on experience and pre-game discussion (or a third party) to create a compelling game that's interesting for all players. The goal there is fairness and exploration – everyone has fun – but not necessarily balanced – not everyone has an equal chance of winning. 

 

That sense of exploration and collaboration works beautifully in a co-operative roleplay situation; of 'us against the game', but it's not well-suited to a simulation of a wargame, where however friendly the players are, the models are enemies. 

 

Power Level is thus an attempt to tread a thin line between freedom (no limits) and guidance (highly restrictive limits), and on combative balance, Power Level is – in my experience at least – good enough for a certain type of gaming: collaborative, rather than highly-competitive gaming.

 

+++

 

As mentioned at the start, collaborative gaming is often conflated with not being bothered about the result – about not wanting to win; but I think that's false. You can have a combative game and aim to win while not promoting that over everything else, as the stereotypical tournament game does. Collaborative gaming aims to create a conflict within the game, not with the rules themselves.

 

The 'soft stuff' that makes 40k something different to (say) historical gaming or other sci-fi settings – background, art, out-of-universe history – is important, and adds to certain gamers' wants from a game. Wanting to field a particular unit doesn't have to stem from competitive value, but perhaps from a simple liking of the model. Matched Play favours the former; Open Play the latter; and Narrative Play strikes a tricky balance between the two. These out-of-game desires are quite separate from the combative aim within the game itself – i.e. to win the scenario.

 

Power Level makes a virtue of being a blend of the combative urge and the desire to have fun with another player. It has other advantages that relate to this. It's more modelling friendly than strict points, for the simple reason that small practical changes (swapping a hammer for an axe, for example) don't affect the theoretical list. Without such a push to optimise, players don't have to make so many decisions that feel awkward in terms of models or background: fielding a nine-man unit because you wanted to have melta bombs on sergeants, for example..

 

This is a small thing on the face of it, but 40k is very model-driven. Power Level better supports the visual aspect of the game than points. Without the push to optimise (perfect becoming the enemy of the good), players explore more, try new things, and have gentle push to try new things. Armies start to look more like they do in the artwork and novels and background.

 

+++

 

Of course, all of those things can be done with Points, too – I don't want to imply that I'm anti-points. My point (ho ho) is that Narrative Gaming and Power Level are a meeting ground that GW have shone a spotlight on. Ultimately, I think Points and Power Level are better suited to different styles of gaming (which is why I'm very happy to see Matched, Narrative and Open Play receiving directed support from GW); but, crucially, these styles are not inherently opposed. There are lots of areas that all share.

 

It's my very sincere hope that by making the distinctions more clear, gamers are encouraged to try new things, and find commonalities with people they might not have enjoyed playing against before.

 

+++

Edited July 17, 2020 by apologist

[Charlo]

Ultimately, points are a more inherently balanced system. Having costs for every granulart detail right down to esoteric wargear means that those special rules have a set cost. One that can be evaluated both internally and externally from the codex it's present in.

 

However points also creates oddities and leads to min-maxxing (if I remove this squad member, I can take a plasma gun here... etc) but that is by no means a bad thing. In a competetive environment every factor needs to be regulated to ensure as fair a competition as possible. Disregarding the fact that 40k is a game with far too many moving parts to be "balanced", it does a pretty great job for the most part and in the world of 2 week FAQs we now live in, outliers are (usually) addressed quickly.

 

However Power Levels, as apologist rightly lays out; are a more inclusive system. Within a fraction of the time you can build a list and just bring the options your units have modelled without worry of the granularity. I also think it's quite fluffy, why wouldn't a Tactical Squad head into battle without it's token special/ heavy weapon or sergeant gear? Or a Battle Sister's squad without thier Simulacrum? Having these options baked into the unit cost represents unit potential and flexibility.

 

Where PL falls down is, actually, when dealing with older units that hail from a time when they game was more open (hey, heres 100 points to spend on your character; go nuts!) and accomodating those units. Things like Death Company with a full unit of Thunder Hammers, Chaos Terminators with max Combi's and Fists, Tau Crisis Suits with every support system going - these things can take advantage of power level. However, in my experience, this is a rare case. Why, you ask?

 

Because the people min-maxxing their units were already using points, and will continue to do so.

 

Back when 8th ed was revealed all the armchair generals got very uppity about PL and all "not in ma 40k", but like most of these things, it's not aimed at them. It's for newer or more casual players.

 

Ultimately though, you just need to determine what is right for your group of friends. Regardless of what cost system you subscribe to, above all else you should maximise one thing in your list:

 

"Will this give my opponent a good game?"

 

To clarify, that's not "give my opponent the win", "make it easy for them" or even "tone down my list", it's all about engagement. No one wants to be shot off the table turn one and at the same time, a stomp is often just as boring for the winner. With the above attitude in mind, you can have games that are a lot more fun and cinematic. Of course, none of this applies in a competetive setting however.

 

I'm not entirely sure what my point was, but thems some good ramblings!

[Marshal Loss]

This is a small thing on the face of it, but 40k is very model-driven. Power Level better supports the visual aspect of the game than points. Without the push to optimise (perfect becoming the enemy of the good), players explore more, try new things, and have gentle push to try new things. Armies start to look more like they do in the artwork and novels and background.

 

Power level doesn't support the "visual aspect" of the game more than points. Using points does not push one to "optimise", or prevent exploration. It certainly does not prevent armies from looking like they do in the artwork and novels and background any more so than PL. All it does is attempt to provide a more accurate evaluation of the relative worth of e.g. a piece of wargear. That's it. I'm not looking to be confrontational or imply that you're saying people that use points are all hyper-competitive loonies, but this is still a gross oversimplification.

 

Honestly, PL is merely an attempt to simplify the list-building process and make it more open to a wider audience and less intimidating for those who dislike such things. That's all it is. It certainly accomplishes that goal, and I would agree that it is good enough for casual gaming. But the problem here - the primary issue I have with your post - is that you both simultaneously note the vast spectrum of 40k gaming styles and approaches while also trying to lock down and quantify a niche to give your argument an actual cohesive point. In a truly collaborative environment, is PL any better than points? No. The kind of person who wants to take a power sword because it is cool over a thunder hammer because it is competitive is generally going to do so regardless. People who play PL aren't floating around in a magical stress-free environment where the only thing that matters is their imagination.

 

TLDR: both PL and points have their pros & cons, but I don't think that PL has successfully carved out a realm for itself or has any concrete advantages over just being a much faster system for calculating the relative strength of an army than the slightly denser but far more accurate points system, despite GW's attempt(s) to push/link it with narrative game modes like crusade.

[apologist]

Ultimately though, you just need to determine what is right for your group of friends. Regardless of what cost system you subscribe to, above all else you should maximise one thing in your list:

 

"Will this give my opponent a good game?"

 

To clarify, that's not "give my opponent the win", "make it easy for them" or even "tone down my list", it's all about engagement. No one wants to be shot off the table turn one and at the same time, a stomp is often just as boring for the winner. With the above attitude in mind, you can have games that are a lot more fun and cinematic. Of course, none of this applies in a competetive setting however.

 

I'm not entirely sure what my point was, but thems some good ramblings!

 

Ha-ha! And if they are ramblings, they're very much in the rather discursive spirit of the opening post. I think you've made the point better than my opening post.

 

The 'points versus power levels' thing is not really what I'm trying to get at. Almost all the discussion I've heard and seen is based around an assumption that the two camps are diametrically opposed. I'm not really looking to answer that unanswerable question of which camp (Points or Power Level) is right, because the distinction between the two systems of measurement is a red herring.

 

Rather, I wanted to start a bit of discussion about what lies beneath that surface division – that idea of engagement that you identify. 

 

 

 

This is a small thing on the face of it, but 40k is very model-driven. Power Level better supports the visual aspect of the game than points. Without the push to optimise (perfect becoming the enemy of the good), players explore more, try new things, and have gentle push to try new things. Armies start to look more like they do in the artwork and novels and background.

 

Power level doesn't support the "visual aspect" of the game more than points. Using points does not push one to "optimise", or prevent exploration. It certainly does not prevent armies from looking like they do in the artwork and novels and background any more so than PL. All it does is attempt to provide a more accurate evaluation of the relative worth of e.g. a piece of wargear. That's it. I'm not looking to be confrontational or imply that you're saying people that use points are all hyper-competitive loonies, but this is still a gross oversimplification.

 

Honestly, PL is merely an attempt to simplify the list-building process and make it more open to a wider audience and less intimidating for those who dislike such things. That's all it is. It certainly accomplishes that goal, and I would agree that it is good enough for casual gaming. But the problem here - the primary issue I have with your post - is that you both simultaneously note the vast spectrum of 40k gaming styles and approaches while also trying to lock down and quantify a niche to give your argument an actual cohesive point. 

 

Stepping back, then, is it fair to say that your objection is that I'm trying to lock down a niche for using Power Level? If so, I'd agree: I've over-egged the relative advantages of Power Level – I can only ask forgiveness: the opening post came from a separate discussion on the relative virtues of the two. 

 

However, the broader point I'm making is that it's these distinctions – between points and power; between competition and collaboration; between one style and another – that get in the way of meaningful engagement (thanks, Charlo!) with other players. By hanging a hat on the approach in between the extremes (Matched and Open), Narrative Play highlights the fact that gaming has a full spectrum of ways to interact and engage; not a series of binary oppositions.

 

 

 

In a truly collaborative environment, is PL any better than points? No. The kind of person who wants to take a power sword because it is cool over a thunder hammer because it is competitive is generally going to do so regardless. People who play PL aren't floating around in a magical stress-free environment where the only thing that matters is their imagination.

 

That's certainly not my contention (nor my experience!), and I agree with your point about swords and hammers. That's, in part, what I'm getting at: that being a competitive, Matched Play enthusiast should not – and has never – meant that you are inherently uninterested in other aspects of the game like the story, modelling, or painting; aspects which have no direct link to the rules, but nevertheless affect the experience of the game.

 

 

TLDR: both PL and points have their pros & cons, but I don't think that PL has successfully carved out a realm for itself or has any concrete advantages over just being a much faster system for calculating the relative strength of an army than the slightly denser but far more accurate points system, despite GW's attempt(s) to push/link it with narrative game modes like crusade.

 

I partially agree. Power Level is, on one hand, just a quick ready-reckoner. On the other hand, it's also something more subtle – an invitation to trying something different; a stepping stone that – as my argument runs above – leads to a richer overall hobby environment. 

 

Look, I don't want to get hung up on the Power Level vs Points thing; it's just the most familiar and easiest to quantify aspect of that amorphous experience of playing a game. Another – equally prone to heated argument – illustration might be a requirement for painted models. Can you play without painted models? Sure.  Are there good reasons for not painting your models? Again, while I think they're fairly niche, there are exceptional reasons. 

 

However, all other things being equal, is it a richer experience – one that offers more engagement – when all the models are painted? Painting's frequently a requirement for certain styles of play (akin to Points/Power Levels), but has no direct relevance to a particular mode of play. You're just as likely to find someone who plays with unpainted models in an Open Play or Narrative Play environment as in Matched Play.

 

TL;DR: I'm not particularly interested in Points vs Power Levels or painted versus unpainted; and while I think I'm unsuccessfully circling my argument being all flowers and rainbows, my fundamental point is that the splitting of the game into three ways of playing is a positive move for 40k specifically and the hobby is general.

 

This is because GW delineating and supporting different game modes will show gamers of all stripes that they don't need to fit neatly into a particular box; but can try different things. It's certainly opened my eyes – by being given new language to explain the way I like to game, it's opened up new approaches and ideas.

[mughi3]

just from my anecdotal experience-

.i stopped playing tournaments because it brings out the worst in players, everybody wants to win in any wargame, but when there is money or prizes on the line it isn't about fighting a fun new opponent. in almost every case, it is about the win alone, no matter how you achieve it-power list building/combos, rules lawyering etc...

 

Many of those games can be fun but there is always a few players there that make the experience unpleasant.  since this is a social activity for me as a casual player it is not the kind of social interaction i want. 

 

.Points VS power level

 

In a standard game 2k or less it becomes a major issue. if you are playing apocalyptic/epic  scale there is more than enough redundancy it doesn't really matter. 

 

The real problem at "normal" points levels in my experience is that PLs do not effect all armies the same. giving some armies huge upgrade advantages over others for the same PL. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by mughi3

[Marshal Loss]

Thanks for the reply, apologist. Your second post clarifies things a lot better than the first. I hope I'm not appearing overbearing, there are some very fair points floating around here, but the lack of a clear and concise hypothesis harms the end product and I still find myself trying to grasp at what exactly the overall point is here, because the evidence does not always gel with your argument(s), and sometimes even stands in opposition. Maybe it's just me.

 

On the other hand, it's also something more subtle – an invitation to trying something different; a stepping stone that – as my argument runs above – leads to a richer overall hobby environment.

 

I don't think that's true precisely for the reasons you yourself outlined below it. A "richer overall hobby environment" will take many forms depending on the perspective of a given player. Ultimately you are attributing to PL a subtlety that, I feel, it does not deserve. I see this a lot when marking essays written by very smart people. Sometimes a stick is just a stick.

 

my fundamental point is that the splitting of the game into three ways of playing is a positive move for 40k specifically and the hobby is general.

 

Potentially, sure. But to illustrate again why this argument is a little porous, one could make a very compelling case along the lines of "splitting the game into three ways of playing imposes arbitrary barriers and distinctions between modes of play which may be harmful to the community in certain contexts". This isn't one I necessarily believe myself, but I do think GW's promotion of narrative vs. competitive modes of play does come with some very real and tangible downsides, leading to a scenario where players might consider themselves one or the other when there is great potential for finding middle-ground between extremes. Associating PL with one and points with the other is extremely problematic for reasons that others have outlined elsewhere.

 

This is because GW delineating and supporting different game modes will show gamers of all stripes that they don't need to fit neatly into a particular box; but can try different things. It's certainly opened my eyes – by being given new language to explain the way I like to game, it's opened up new approaches and ideas.

 

That's fair. Look, I won't begrudge anybody their own personal gaming awakening and I think the fact that GW is incentivizing variety is a great thing. Like I said, I'm excited to try crusade out. Ultimately however everybody's personal experience of the hobby is going to be the product of innumerable variables which are largely unrelated to whether GW offers 1 or 2 or 96 modes of play. It has never been my experience that people felt pressed into a certain style as a result of the way 40k was designed. Narrative play and love of the lore has been flourishing for as long as 40k has existed. I remain skeptical that the existence of (e.g.) PL is going to have any major impact whatsoever on how the community has functioned for the last few decades. Time will tell.

[Cleon]

A lot of things that are benefits of power levels are also (in my mind at least) a consequence of the scale change of 40k from when it started (or at least when I started back in 2nd ed) to now.

 

For example, there is no real good reason why you need to be able to select a squad of Marines at 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 man strong. If you weren't originally playing with them at 30 points each and 1200 point games and had instead started at 16 points and 2000 point games, the standard would probably be 'buy 5 or buy  10' and the selection rules would by consequence look closer to power levels.

[ThePenitentOne]

Interesting discussion.

 

I myself never considered playing PL, because I did perceive it to be less accurate than Points.

 

However, I have played Crusade style for as long as I've played 40k. My entry into "gaming" (versus merely playing occasional games of whatever) began with role playing games, which I started playin in about grade 3. It was no wonder that once I got into tabletop games that I wanted my models to gain experience, equipment, ranks and other upgrades as part of the game play experience. I wanted the same thing in my collectible card games.

 

My original idea, when they announced Crusade, was to do what some others here are going to do; play Crusade, but convert it to points for greater accuracy. Then I actually read the leaked rules for Crusade, and once I learned how Requisition points, Crusade Points and Blessings work, I don't think the added hassle of conversion between one system and the other is worth the effort. Thus, I will use PL for Crusade, but I have to be prepared to spec for points if that's what my opponent wants. I'm still going to want to count the game for my Crusade, so I want to run the post battle sequence, even though we played based on points and I used matched play secondaries instead of my agendas.

 

Having delved into PL as a result of Crusade though. I do see how it encourages alternate builds. I can play a squad of 10 sisters with every possible equipment build without changing the value of the unit, which means I don't have to adjust the rest of my list. And that really does free me up, because the equipment choices I make for one unit does not at all affect any other units.

 

But there are, as OP points out, many dichotomies within the game- not just PL vs. Points.

 

Narrative vs. Matched is an interesting one, because something called narrative play existed in 8th, but it was never what I thought of as a narrative game. Now that Crusade has become narrative, it feels like what I've always thought the words "narrative play" actually mean; however, it's come to my attention that some people took 8th's "narrative play" and carved out space for it in their hearts, and they don't particularly feel that Crusade is "narrative play" but would be more likely to define it as "campaign play". They want to be able to play stand alone games that have a narrative feel.

 

I never really noticed a huge difference between narrative and matched in 8th. Different missions, for me, did not equate to a different style of play. For me, even though a mission does provide a narrative touch to battle, I never though of a battle as a story. To me, stories were things made up of multiple battles. I mean, there's a lot of narrative details going on the "To be or not to be" scene in Hamlet, but that scene isn't the play, it's just a scene. Your battle may be a rescue operation, but it's just a battle; the narrative is how the captive came to be under enemy control in the first place (a different game), the daring rescue (the current game), and what role the captive plays once rescued (yet another game).

 

Even within narrative though, the dichotomy between stand alone and campaign exists. I only became aware of it after watching a youtube review of the Crusade system where the reviewer said he thought Crusade was bad for narrative play, and went on to detail how he would have done it differently.

 

The divide between competitive and non-competitive is stronger on other forums than it is on B&C, but sometimes it comes up here too. My issue with the dichotomy tends to be semantics. When there are two choices for a given role and one of those choices has even a slight edge, competitive players will often say the lesser unit is "useless". I hate the term. There is literally no such thing as a useless model; if you had fun painting it, that's a use. If it inspired you to write a story, that's a use. If the unit you perceived to be better falls off the table and shatters into a million pieces, so you use the sub par unit to fill the hole until you have time to repair, guess what? That's a use.

 

I would say that on other forums, where that die-hard competitive spirit has greater representation, it seems from my experiences that those competitive players seem to want to change the game for everyone, whereas the few outnumbered narrative folks tend to have a more "you do you, I'll do me philosophy". That certainly isn't fair to say of all competitive minded folks, but again, in my experience it's true more often than not. 

[Noserenda]

 

 

Power level doesn't support the "visual aspect" of the game more than points. Using points does not push one to "optimise", or prevent exploration. It certainly does not prevent armies from looking like they do in the artwork and novels and background any more so than PL. All it does is attempt to provide a more accurate evaluation of the relative worth of e.g. a piece of wargear. That's it. I'm not looking to be confrontational or imply that you're saying people that use points are all hyper-competitive loonies, but this is still a gross oversimplification.

 

Im sorry but this is manifestly not true, points absolutely do favour certain weapons or builds which in turn tend to warp the armies around them. Like the absolute dominance of Grav in 7th ed Marine armies or how the power axe inexplicably became almost standard issue for Imperial guard sergeants (or indeed basically everyone) around that time, rules certainly influence that too but a lot of it is tied into the rules cost. Take the sergeants example above, a power fist (Or some variant thereof)  was superior in every way to a power axe but it carried a consummate cost which made it less desirable unless the bearer could make a better use of it. 

 

Similarly heavy weapons were very marmite in previous editions and i certainly dropped them from "Tactical" type units to fit in a few more bodies, something im sure would make Guiliman shudder, in fact the whole "boys before toys" maxim is generally fairly unfluffy outside of a few Imperial Guard regiments but it generally makes sense in a wargaming context.

 

Now this isnt to say PL isnt exactly as abuseable, like ive said elsewhere PL works as a system when you trust your opponents not to take the Michael with it where it has its flaws like older super flexible units, characters or just sticking a Powerfist on anyone with stripes. 

 

Wysiwyg helps a lot with that too, if your group is generally building fluffy armies or obsessively filling To&Es you are unlikely to run into any problems with PL, its building armies to optimise/gamify which is the problem there and if your opponents want to do that then stick with points, there is nothing inherantly wrong with a death company all armed with thunderhammers, or say a deathwatch squad loaded with toys (One of which i have in front of me being worked on as a display piece :D )  but thats a different kind of game.

 

Anyhow im unusually medicated right now (Arthritis is fun after a busy day) so this may be rambly, my core point being PL or points is fine, your group should go with what suits but PL really needs you to be actually playing narratively, and the conceit that points values dont affect army building is tosh :P 

[chapter master 454]

Power Level and Points Cost (PL and PC) are systems that have their up and down elements and for each element, generally they are directly opposed to each other which balances them out.

 

PL is quicker and easier to calculate for making your army while PC is time consuming and can be prone to errors due to how much there is, easy to forget a storm bolter or Hunter Killer Missile.

PC allows for more control over balance while PL is extremely inflexible relating to this as you can only modify by whole numbers, with 1000 points represented by 50PL games being a bar, which equates to 20 Points to every 1 Power Level.

 

These are the core arguments that come up for this debate that hold water and are true. Saying Power Level works for every unit in the game would be a massive overstatement as any unit then that comes along with many options can completely throw it out of wack. This is where Power Level Struggles: Customisation. It would work well if there wasn't external factors and all units are hard locked to whatever weapons they are given (which is something GW are slowly working on and I personally don't like it. That is a topic for another day and has ups and downs as well) but when a unit can have anything from 0 to over 50 points extra worth of wargear, how can you account for that?

 

While that is a fun question, I personally find another element about having a dual system that no-one really touches on: Stratagems interacting with PL. This is an element that has happened already and adds a layer to stratagising units when considering stratagems. While a contentious addition by some, stratagems have become a core part of 40k and I would like to see more stratagems interact with PL, and not just in relation to buffs or the like. Would be interesting to see more creative ways of using PL in that manner.

 

Ultimately the crux of the issue is something that puts a hole in any and all arguments (ironic) is that every group is different. Some find PL to be extremely fair and balanced while others find it completely dumb, broken and should never of gotten off the train. Some find PC fair and balanced while others find it tedious, near meaningless and should never of set up camp. It will be down to you to come to an understanding with your play group. Speaking from my point of view, I got brought up on PC. Its my bread, butter and prayer to the Emperor. I find it fun playing with points, trying to haggle an extra wargear here or there. Yes, you could call me a dirty filthy incorrigible Min-Maxxer -GASP- I know, a terrible curse to enjoy messing with lists, theorising builds and trying to squeeze as much out of them. How dare I try hard at making units do well...-as you gaze over and watch him rock back and forth trying to reason that striking scorpions are good with all those extra attacks they can get-

It is always a good addendum to add that nothing is black and white. Each player will be unique and have certain sticking points with things you love and hate and so you must align what you are both trying to do. In my case: My objective is the win with the point being it was fun. If we can have a good laugh and a well fought game, good enough for me. Heck, I enjoy facing tournament lists because at that point if my rogue brew list with gimmicks manages to make it sweat, then I count a close loss or draw a win for me because you had the best there was and I still managed to make you have to work for it. To me, that is where the fun lies: Making Jank good and making the Good look like jank!

[MegaVolt87]

Power level based systems are not granular enough if there is extreme variance in options for everything. I'll cite Flames of War as an example. The WW2 era moved to a 100 point system that matched its modern counterpart, however the WW2 version had a variety of different weapons, units etc, compared to team yankee, so hit a balance wall eg Tiger vs Elephant/Ferdinand, under traditional points was ok, new points, elephant won out for a harder to kill unit in comparison. Modern Team Yankee era it worked, equipment is homognised common weapon systems etc, it doesn't need the granularity of traditional points systems. 

 

40k is like the WW2 era of flames of war, diverse units, weapons and equipment. Power level will only make sense if the factions are homogenised + streamlined, cut options. If anything, moving to an apocalypse style with just modifiers that change the entire unit profile, eg, heavy weapon choice, lascannon, +1 to hit or dmg vehicles etc would make sense for a power level system. Or if the game played more like gates of antares/ bolt action, a power level system would work there as well, those two are more skirmish games which is what 40k traditionally was.

 

The only way people will ditch points is if GW gets rids of them completely and moves to power level across all three modes of play. I think that decision will rest on which groups buy more models in the end. 

[Marshal Loss]

 

 

 

Power level doesn't support the "visual aspect" of the game more than points. Using points does not push one to "optimise", or prevent exploration. It certainly does not prevent armies from looking like they do in the artwork and novels and background any more so than PL. All it does is attempt to provide a more accurate evaluation of the relative worth of e.g. a piece of wargear. That's it. I'm not looking to be confrontational or imply that you're saying people that use points are all hyper-competitive loonies, but this is still a gross oversimplification.

 

Im sorry but this is manifestly not true, points absolutely do favour certain weapons or builds which in turn tend to warp the armies around them.

 

I'll cut you off right here and set things straight because what I said was, actually, manifestly true. Yeah, sure, some people do choose to build units or armies in a certain way because of points. But, as you yourself identified, it is also true that some people will abuse the PL system to build broken armies. You can accuse the former (points) of incentivizing something due to relative cost just as you can accuse the latter (PL) of incentivizing something due purely to the abilities or strength of the variable in question. The points system is no more guilty of incentivization than the PL system is; both just go about their respective tasks in different ways. Points may well favour certain weapons or builds; a gun of mediocre ability becomes mathematically superior to a gun of superior ability because it does more damage per point, or something along those lines. The flipside is, of course, that PL as a result favours the gun of superior ability because there is no metric for evaluating the respective strength of each item. Both systems harbour the same flaws.

 

This is my point: neither system, points or PL, better supports the "visual aspect" of the game. It's really that simple. Players make a choice as to how they want to interact with the setting. Both points and PL are exploitable, just like any system, but neither is better than the other for representing the narrative aspect of the game, nor does either push one to optimise, because anybody wanting to play a game will make conscious decisions when building their army that reflects their underlying motivation for playing in the first place.

 

Summary: the idea that PL supports the "visual aspect" of the game more than points is pure nonsense. That's all. People can debate the merits of both systems all they like but you can't undermine a fundamental truth.

[Dr. Clock]

For me it basically boils down to 'do I want to field units in 'codex' sizes'. As soon as the size of the game or the army you have makes you start thinking 'should I take 3x7/8 or 2x10 guys', a change to points is called for.

 

And on a similar note, PL is great for larger games where you just don't care to add up and micro-manage across a full Brigade or whatever.

 

Both will have their exploits of course, so it's not surprising that in general people in a given community will tend to build units and armies in either one way or the other - PL being completely new for me after 7 editions means I'm most comfortable with points, although my converter impulses mean that I am never shy of upgrades if they're suddenly 'free' lol.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

PL has no granularity. A five man squad is 5 PL but a 6 man squad is 10... meh

[smileyjim]

I think if GW can tweak PL for a bit more accuracy then it would be fantastic. Points would be there for competitive play and a quicker more generalised (but improved) PL system for a more generalised and streamlined play style

[MARK0SIAN]

I kind of feel like we’ve done this discussion several times and it always boils down to:

 

If you prioritise balance or it’s an important factor then use points, if you don’t then use power levels.

 

One thing I will say from a personal angle is that I really dislike it when I see people equating points with competitive/tournament matches. Tournaments just use points, the points aren’t for tournaments.

 

It’s like saying cars are for motorsport because motorsport uses cars when in reality only a fraction of cars are for motorsport :)

 

Points are for balanced, fair matches. Whether those matches are competitive or not doesn’t matter.

[jaxom]

I think one aspect of this conversation that needs to be acknowledged is that if we focus on what is abusable about each system then we have less of a spotlight on what each system brings to the table and is good. We all know how "aggressively pointed units" make their way into many "top lists" and how Vanguard Veterans with all thunder hammers are the default argument against power levels.

 

If I'm thinking of myself, I know I like to bring lists that will challenge my opponent and tend to be a grab bag of units to handle a variety of challenges because most of my games are pick-ups where I don't know the mission going into it. The options I have going into list building are the units I have. That I think is the vital crux when discussing different ways of gaming. Why does one have the units available one does? The follow up question being, how straightforward is it to bring those units to the table? The follow up follow up being, do they feel worthwhile on the table top?

 

If one designs a list first, then the units are available because they were acquired as part of a larger, overall plan. They come to the table as part of the same plan. Theorycrafting (and possibly proxy practice games) usually leads to a collection of units acting in way that feels worthwhile in performance. 

 

If one acquires units on the basis of aesthetics or emotional resonance then the questions become more difficult to answer. Making a list from what's available can be a challenge for a variety of reasons (and as a game designer the number one I'd be thinking about is a small collection regardless of why the collection is small). 

 

I also want to bring up variance, significant figures, and false security. Points are more granular, but that doesn't necessarily mean as much as one might think for many units. All units have performance based on dice rolls. We often see discussions of average performance; e.g. a Wyvern quad mortar has an average of 14 attacks. Yet, one must also acknowledge there are minimum and maximum results and a level of distribution; e.g. a Wyvern quad mortar has a standard deviation of 3.416. Dice only have one significant figure so that becomes 3. That means 70% (one sigfig again) of results are equal to or between 11 and 17. This range gives a more precise measure of probable results than the average. However, most players have experiences a hot or a cold game with a unit (Failbaddon dies turn 1, the brave little Conscript that could, etc) that comes at the extreme's of deviation. Yet, a unit's price cannot be a range... except it can. Significant figures are ranges of plus or minus one on the last significant digit. A 100. point unit could be viewed as actually worth somewhere equal to or between 99 and 101 points. A power level 5 unit could be viewed as between power level 4 and 6. What does this have to do with false security? It's very common (from my observations of students) to add more, unwarranted, digits to artificially add more digits to feel more secure about results. Point granularity, as a sense of a unit's worth, fits that very well. However, if we view points from a different perspective then they join together with power level very well: "how many of these should comfortable fit in an army?"

 

Tweaking granular point values is effectively the same as power level from the starting point of faction design (if one goes with a reverse work flow - what an army looks like on the table: say 60% line troops and 15% HQ and the rest for other units). "We want X number of Intercessor Space Marines in the average list, so they cost Y points and 5 of them have a power level of Z. Oh, people say they're too points expensive to match how many we think they should be taking, trim the point value." 200 (199-201) points of Intercessors [PL 10 (9-11)] becomes 180 points of Intercessors (179-181) points of Intercessors [PL 9 (8-10), still overlapping with the same range as it was originally].

 

[Panzer]

It's not even about min-maxing for me. I just dislike the mere thought that my cool Vanguard Veteran unit I build with full Thunderhammer + Shield has the same value as my opponents cool Vanguard Veteran unit he build with full Flamer pistol + Chainsword. Two people not caring about min-maxing, just using their unit the way they build them because they think it's cool. Two units costing the exact same in the PL system but being vastly different in strength. Neither makes it sense for me to use such a system nor does it feel good to me.

I want at least the merest base level of fairness from a system that's supposed to help building armies that are roughly similar in strength and that has nothing to do with being a competetive or casual player since the vast majority of games I play are beer&pretzels games. My Intercessor Sergeants have Power swords, I use Reivers, I use Flamer Aggressors, I didn't switch all my Bolt rifles to Assault Bolt rifles when they got buffed, and so on and on.

 

 

PL works great for armies with units that don't have lots of options or options that are roughly similar in strength (like they tried to achieve in AoS). Unfortunately that's not the game we are playing though.

[Marshal Rohr]

PL has no granularity. A five man squad is 5 PL but a 6 man squad is 10... meh

You’re not supposed to take 6, you’re supposed to take 10. Power Levels are designed around the new ‘everything in the box’ release policy. So if you buy one box of Seraphim you’ve got the minimum, 2 you’ve got the maximum, and they aren’t concerned with people buying two boxes and using 8 models for seraphim and the remain 2 for conversions, they want you to buy a third box for conversions. That’s why their pricing structure is moving into what it is. 10 Modes is X Power Level for 60 bucks. Points can be used with granular conversion focused army building.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Marshal Rohr

[Fajita Fan]

This is only a balanced game when both people take balanced, take all comers lists regardless of what points system you use. When people bring rock, paper, scissors lists then someone will usually lose badly.

[MegaVolt87]

This is only a balanced game when both people take balanced, take all comers lists regardless of what points system you use. When people bring rock, paper, scissors lists then someone will usually lose badly.

Not all factions are created equal though. It is still possible for rock, paper, scissors even if both players show up with balanced/ all comers lists. If the design team loved every faction as much as SM or Eldar, then maybe we see true balance in 40k.

[Fajita Fan]

 

This is only a balanced game when both people take balanced, take all comers lists regardless of what points system you use. When people bring rock, paper, scissors lists then someone will usually lose badly.

Not all factions are created equal though. It is still possible for rock, paper, scissors even if both players show up with balanced/ all comers lists. If the design team loved every faction as much as SM or Eldar, then maybe we see true balance in 40k.

 

Oh for sure and it feels like races like Nids don't have, for example, a paper.  Just squinting and throwing a PL number at it won't fix that either and GW just keeps making horde armies fewer points but more money per model.  It doesn't make a ton of sense for Nids to get good ranged units and IG get good melee units so I don't see every army getting a perfectly balanced rock, paper, or scissor either.  Strategems could be used to help balance a factions general weakeness and I want to love PL but I don't think it's having the intended effect when things like primaris look undercosted...

 

...unlesss...

 

*dons tin foil hat*

 

...that is the intended effect...

[Panzer]

Actually it makes a lot of sense for Tyranids to get good ranged units as well. They evolve whatever traits are useful.

[The Yncarne]

I played narrative mode for 6 games against my friends Skaven AM army. I found it more fun than the normal points approach and missions played during the same timeframe. 
 

I started in Rogue Trader and have gone through many phases of playing 40k. In the end I accept that 40k must be 40k, and I will seek out similar minded people to play as I wish. 

[nanosquid]

I've finally looked into PL a bit deeper with Crusade on the horizon, but I find myself even more disappointed than I expected. One of the most frustrating things for me is how wide the variance is compared to points. Some units have their PL increased in increments of 5 models, some in 10. This is obnoxious as a single group of 30 chaos cultists somehow costs less than two groups of 15 (as the PL only goes up every 10 models, so you're "paying" for 5 more than you actually have in each unit).

 

On the OTHER hand, I noticed something particularly in the CSM datasheet that piqued my interest - the increasing PL for larger units actually is smaller steps when you hit 15 and 20, so you get a slight discount for taking 15-20 man squads (in increments of 5 marines, the PL goes 4-8-11-14 - or a difference of 4-4-3-3). Since MSQ is so common and so often the best option, it really got my noggin joggin'. It's a method of encouraging somewhat suboptimal options by letting you "buy in bulk" when it comes to big groups. This also is different for different units across books.

 

I wonder if there's any design space to be explored in something that uses two separate "budgets" - a broad PL style number for your number of models, but a granular points-like system for the wargear thereafter. It could be that the best of both worlds could be achieved. Quick, easy math for the broad strokes, then slightly more tweaking once you get that down.