Crusading, Power, Points, army design: reflections

[9x19 Parabellum]

So it appears I will be joining a local FLGS's Crusade campaign that one of the FLGS's patrons will be running.

 

I'm still having at the Crusade rules (and his particular house-rules), but it appears all army design and games played are based on power rating.  

 

It's been a while since I designed an army list with power ratings in mind (as opposed to building it out by the more matched-play style "points").  And it's utterly amazing to me how much this changes everything.

 

Let me give you an example.  So I first started digging in to my AS Codex to see what the various points were. I was surprised to see a 5 man BSS at 4 power.  When I started digging in to the options, I came to see why.  Warning: Maths incoming.

 

A naked 5 man BSS is 55 pts/4 power.  This averages to 11 pts/model and 13.75 points per power.  That is to say each point of "power" gets you 13.75 points worth of BSS on the table, which is rough 1.25 naked battle sisters.

 

However, if you add in all the goodies, that 5 man BSS, which is still 4 power, can be as much as 115 points.  (Multimelta, Meltagun, combi-x, power sword, plasma pistol, Cherub and Simulacrum is 60 points.) Now that 5 man BSS is averaging 23 pts. model and each point of power is getting you 28.75 worth of BSS on the table which is 2.6 naked battle sisters. (Of course, they aren't naked, they are packing all kinds of guns, but we are trying to compare apples to apples here).

 

The point is, if you are buying your army by power, you are getting less than 1/2 the efficiency if you don't pack in every goodie into your unit, because the pricing assumes you are going to do that. 

 

Of course, I think we all mostly knew that the all-you-can-eat-buffet style approach is how power ratings were determined, but it's still a shock to me to see that the difference between naked and fully kitted out power ratings were almost double the points efficiency.

 

So my biggest issue here is how this affects army design.  If I were playing a game by points, I would run my sisters naked, and MSU, and run them on to objectives, probably taking "Raise the Banners" as one of my secondaries.  However, as I have to go all-in on options in order to maximize my baked in value, "Raise the Banners" doesn't seem the right secondary, as I'm going to want to be shooting that multi-melta or heavy bolters, along with the Superior's combi and the other special gun in the unit.  This, in turn, demands me to rethink my Order: if I'm going to be running around with max guns in each BSS, maybe I want to do Argent Shroud instead of simply try to surive using Valorous Heart.

 

All in all, it seems like Narrative play (ie, using power rating) actually limits your options as opposed to increasing them, as a result of this. 

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

[Greywing]

Agreed, and this is precisely the reason the guys at Goonhammer recommend using points for Crusade campaigns.

[Dread]

So, played my first and second games of 9th ed.last night. Wow! I didn't realize how much had actually changed. We did crusade missions. My biggest problem came from the terrain rules, holy cow what a big part now. A 5 man unit of rangers camped out on stairs on a dense container in open view got great cover benefits, well. So terrain rules are gonna take some getting used to.

 

As for PL vs points, kind of a nice reprieve for a change. Sit, put together list quick not having to worry about restrictions and making wysiwyg a necessity. This is coming from a long time points building guy who didn't like PL when 8th dropped, so in a way I grew.

 

Crusade makes it fun and challenging but i want the tactical objectives to be added in at some point, they may but haven't looked that far forward yet.

 

I used necrons for first game against tempestus and got tabled. That's when I knew I had to get my girls out. 2nd game was against admech, sisters put up a much more playable experience and fun. Here's what we played on.

 

 

A good table makes the game so much better too, still working on the Los rules too. A bit vague.

 

I have to many armies to choose from which really does make things challenging but I'm fixed on my sisters now. I am doing a crusade at our local store starting first tuesday of October, we'll see how it goes.

[dracpanzer]

We run our Crusade campaign 20 pts per power level. Works just fine.

[ValourousHeart]

First off, don't let your bias toward points, blind you to the flaws inherent in the points system.  Both points and power are equally flawed.  One isn't less flawed than the other because of granularity, otherwise we would all be using the necromuda rules to play 40k.  Any delusion that one system is superior to the other is simply confirmation bias.

 

However, as I have to go all-in on options in order to maximize my baked in value, "Raise the Banners" doesn't seem the right secondary, as I'm going to want to be shooting that multi-melta or heavy bolters, along with the Superior's combi and the other special gun in the unit.  This, in turn, demands me to rethink my Order: if I'm going to be running around with max guns in each BSS, maybe I want to do Argent Shroud instead of simply try to surive using Valorous Heart.

 

Instead of rethinking your order, how about rethinking who Raises the Banners.  You could include a unit of crusaders to run along with your BBS squad.  That is 1 power for 2W with currently 4+/3++ & 5+ vs psychic MW, or under the new Storm Shield rules 3+/4++ & 5+.  The only chance you would take an action is if you were charged, and in that situation, 4 power sword attacks would be helpful to your sisters.  And if you are feeling daring you can make that squad 4 dudes for only 2 power or 6 dudes for 3 power.

 

And in order to take more than one crusader squad, you can take a preacher who would make your repentia better.

 

The squad is really easy to build these days with the release of this unit.  HERE  All you need is to find a few swords in your bits box.  You get 6 out of that box for $42 instead of spending $54 to get 6 of these.  LINK

 

All in all, it seems like Narrative play (ie, using power rating) actually limits your options as opposed to increasing them, as a result of this. 

 

Honestly this is one of those conversations where you either get it or you don't.  Because it is a different paradigm.  And if you are not able to shift your thinking away from your own paradigm you will keep applying the same rules to everything else.

 

Not quite that your options are limited.  It is that what you value is different.

 

The simplest explanation I can give you to show the difference between Matched and Narrative paradigm is Grenades.  GW made a change in the points cost of grenades a few editions back.  At that time to put frag and krak grenades on a unit was +3 points per model.

 

Before that change a narrative player would take a Space Marine with a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Chain Sword, Frag and Krak grenades because that is what the standard equipment for a Space Marine is supposed to be.  You now had a marine that could do anything.

 

A matched play player would take a SM with only a Bolter to save points.  The more points you saved, the more other units you could add to your list, or upgrades you could add to another unit.

 

The only reason that any completive players take the bolt pistol, chain sword, frag and krak grenades now is because 1) they don't have a choice and 2) those items are free.  Maybe I got those backwards.

 

Once you have made that paradigm shift you start looking at other things differently as well.

 

Consider the most common example from 8th edition, taking 15 scouts for +5 CP.  Now the plan for both Matched and Narrative play is that the scouts are to sneak ahead of the main force, locate and secure the objective before the enemy can reach it, then hold that position and wait for extraction.

 

In narrative play you might consider things like "that unit needs to be stealthy" or "how can that unit support my other units without having to move off the objective".  Or my favorite question.  "Do those 15 scouts create an advantage for me or do they distract from the theme of my force, which would fit nicely in an outrider, vanguard or spearhead detachment?"

Edited September 27, 2020 by ValourousHeart

[9x19 Parabellum]

1. What is the flaw in using points that you're referring to?  Do you mean just the inherent inaccuracy associated with it?  Ie, is not always objectively and statistically true that a Tau Breacher is worth only 81.8% of a Battle Sister.  Or do you mean something else?  Because I have no illusions that points are not perfeclty costed...but the by the same token, neither is Power rating.  The worse part for Power rating is that it also assumes you always want to take all the upgrades in a unit.  So, unless there's some other condition by which you're saying that points are flawed, I disagree that they are equally flawed.   They are both equally inaccurate, that is true.  But power rating is also more binding.

 

It's like going to a restaurant and having to pay for the $20 all-you-can-eat buffet when you're just a little hungry and all you want is blueberry muffing for breakfast.  So you pay $20 for the buffet but you only eat $5 worth of food.

 

2. Crusaders, to use your example, do not have objective secured, and take up a precious elite slot, when, at 25-50 power, there's a good chance you're going to be running a patrol detachment and have only 2 elite slots. Yes, I understand I can do it. But frankly if you're picking elites to do raise the banenrs you're probably 40k-ing wrong.  Troop choices are specifically meant to be capturing objectives (with the exception of elite and super-elite armies like Marines and Custodes).

 

3. The rest of your post, about "not getting it"...I guess I don't get it. Because that really didn't make a lot of sense to me.  The bottom line here is that having the option to pay for the things you value (whether because they are objectively well-valued in the game or because they are valuable to you per the list you're trying to make), that the OPTION is always better than not having the option.  The only time the all-you-can-eat-buffet option is better is when it LITERALLY costs nothing more.  

[ValourousHeart]

2. Crusaders, to use your example, do not have objective secured, and take up a precious elite slot, when, at 25-50 power, there's a good chance you're going to be running a patrol detachment and have only 2 elite slots. Yes, I understand I can do it. But frankly if you're picking elites to do raise the banenrs you're probably 40k-ing wrong.  Troop choices are specifically meant to be capturing objectives (with the exception of elite and super-elite armies like Marines and Custodes).

 

Crusaders only take an elite slot if you do not run a Preacher or Missionary in the same detachment, so if you are running a patrol so much the better, because they are elite units that don't take elite slots.  If you are worrying about objective secured, you are already set up to fail raising the banners.

 

The Crusaders are running WITH your BSS, so they are both at the objective at the same time.  Should you need objective secured your BSS provides it.  The Crusaders are there to raise the banners, they don't have guns so you won't be shooting with them.  Your BSS shoots to keep other units away from both the BSS and the Crusader squad.  On the off chance that both of your units are charged while the crusaders are trying to raise the banners, your crusaders stop that action and start chopping up your enemies with their power swords.  Because having them continue to raise the banners while the sisters get slaughtered just means you are losing that objective on the next turn after you opponent killed you because you didn't fight back.

 

Also consider how scoring works.  More models wins and objective secured beats not objective secured.  So you'll have 5, 10 or 15 sister and 2, 4 or 6 crusaders.  We'll assume 5 BSS and 2 Crusaders.  You have 7 models and 5 with objective secured.  Assuming your opponent has a unit of scouts.  If scouts move to elite, you win no matter what.  If scouts stay troops, he wins with 6+ scouts, otherwise you win.

[tychobi]

Power level was a terrible idea that adds nothing to the game other than a fresh hell of min maxed armies built to smash newbs. It is not faster more accurate or more fun. It is just a worse points system. Points are far from perfect but power level just makes the same mistakes but bigger and more often.

[ValourousHeart]

3. The rest of your post, about "not getting it"...I guess I don't get it. Because that really didn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

It is simple question really.

 

A BSS model is 11 points and comes with a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak.

 

If you had to option to field the BBS for 7 points per model with only a boltgun, would you?

 

The point isn't that the bolt pistol, frag and krak are or are not valuable options to have.  But that sacrificing those options on 3 units that will likely not use them even if they had them means you can add an upgrade a Rhino to an Immolator, or fit in an extra Penitent engine.

 

 

1. What is the flaw in using points that you're referring to?

 

Do you mean beyond the fact that GW acknowledges the problem and makes points adjustments at least once a year?

Or the fact that the community marks the the date that the points will change on their calendar like it is a holiday?

 

 

I disagree that they are equally flawed.   They are both equally inaccurate, that is true.

 

Now this I don't get.  If they are inaccurate, wouldn't that be a flaw?  And if both systems are "equally inaccurate" then logically they are "equally flawed".

 

 

Power level was a terrible idea that adds nothing to the game other than a fresh hell of min maxed armies built to smash newbs. It is not faster more accurate or more fun. It is just a worse points system. Points are far from perfect but power level just makes the same mistakes but bigger and more often.

 

Min / Maxing didn't start with 8th and power levels.  This is a strawman argument and ad hominem attack.   Be better than that.

Edited September 29, 2020 by ValourousHeart

[tychobi]

 

 

3. The rest of your post, about "not getting it"...I guess I don't get it. Because that really didn't make a lot of sense to me.

It is simple question really.

 

A BSS model is 11 points and comes with a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak.

 

If you had to option to field the BBS for 7 points per model with only a boltgun, would you?

 

The point isn't that the bolt pistol, frag and krak are or are not valuable options to have. But that sacrificing those options on 3 units that will likely not use them even if they had them means you can add an upgrade a Rhino to an Immolator, or fit in an extra Penitent engine.

 

1. What is the flaw in using points that you're referring to?

Do you mean beyond the fact that GW acknowledges the problem and makes points adjustments at least once a year?

Or the fact that the community marks the the date that the points will change on their calendar like it is a holiday?

 

I disagree that they are equally flawed. They are both equally inaccurate, that is true.

Now this I don't get. If they are inaccurate, wouldn't that be a flaw? And if both systems are "equally inaccurate" then logically they are "equally flawed".

 

Power level was a terrible idea that adds nothing to the game other than a fresh hell of min maxed armies built to smash newbs. It is not faster more accurate or more fun. It is just a worse points system. Points are far from perfect but power level just makes the same mistakes but bigger and more often.

Min / Maxing didn't start with 8th and power levels. This is a strawman argument and ad hominem attack. Be better than that.

I did not say it started there. It just makes that problem and others worse. Read better?

[ValourousHeart]

What no apology for the strawman and ad hominem?

 

You are making an assumption about how people who play using power level behave.

 

a fresh hell of min maxed armies built to smash newbs.

 

While I'm sure you might know people that behave like that, I don't think you are being honest about them using power level.

 

You know, there are people that play this hobby for fun. 

It isn't all about winning at all cost.

 

And I'm surprised that you would claim that the person using power level is the one min / maxing.

When it is the typical tournament player that shoehorns in 15 naked scouts just to pick up the battalion detachment.

I know some people believe that min maxing is only when you take minimum squad size with maximum upgrades.

And it is, for the most part... but all the upgrades don't have to be on the minimum unit, it is also taking minimum units so that you can fit in an over powered option that can't be dealt with it at a low point level unless your opponent is pulling the same shenanigans. 

[9x19 Parabellum]

 

3. The rest of your post, about "not getting it"...I guess I don't get it. Because that really didn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

It is simple question really.

 

A BSS model is 11 points and comes with a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak.

 

If you had to option to field the BBS for 7 points per model with only a boltgun, would you?

 

The point isn't that the bolt pistol, frag and krak are or are not valuable options to have.  But that sacrificing those options on 3 units that will likely not use them even if they had them means you can add an upgrade a Rhino to an Immolator, or fit in an extra Penitent engine.

 

Yes, I would take the basic sister with bolter for 7 pts. if I had the option.  But this isn't a problem with baked-in-costs, perse, or marginal value, or the inherent problem of me getting the OPTION. The problem, in this example, is that the valuation of pistol + grenades is WAY off.  They are not worth 4 points.  If the cost of (Pistol + grenades) was, for example, 1 pt, I would probably take some squads with them, yes.  Now, in reality, that 1 extra ppm of pistol+grenades would not change the calculus for determing the power rating, but the marginal costs of extra options in the codex are changing the power rating for, for example, a BSS (ie, pistol, melee, combi, special and heavy weapon options).  There are times I might want to take those options, and there are times I might not want to take those options. Power rating ignores this desire for options and automatically prices me as if I'm going to take everything.  The problem is not that those guns and options are not worth the points (or at least we could reasonably agree that they are in ball park of having proper valuations).  The problem is that I don't need those options to do the job I have intended for that particular unit...and thus I don't want to pay for them, but I don't have that option in using Power Level.

 

Imagine someone is trying to sell me a brand new Ferrari, and they are willing to sell it for $175,000.  That is a great price by any reasonable MSRP.  But if I don't have that kind of money, or credit, and I'm just struggling to pay my rent and feed my kids, I'm not going to buy the Ferrari at $175,000 even if it's a GREAT DEAL. 

 

Similarly, the Codex is trying to "sell me" a 5 woman BSS for 4 Power.  This includes a multimelta, meltagun, combi-flamer, inferno pistol, power sword, censor cherub and simulacrum imperialis.  "This is a great deal!" declares the codex. "Handle any and all threats at short to medium range with this all-in-one fighting girl squad!"  I'm not saying it's not a good deal.  I'm just saying it's too expensive for the job I want them to do, which is babysit this objective over here.

 

 

 

I disagree that they are equally flawed.   They are both equally inaccurate, that is true.

 

Now this I don't get.  If they are inaccurate, wouldn't that be a flaw?  And if both systems are "equally inaccurate" then logically they are "equally flawed".

 

 

 

No. They may both be "inaccurate". Let's assume, for the sake or the argument, that they are both equally inaccurate. (If, for no other reason than trying to calculate how inaccurate they are would be a mathematical nightmare.)  The power rating has the additional flaw of forcing you to pay for options and goodies you might not otherwise want to, or else lose efficiency. 

 

Analogy: Two vehicle drivers get into a car accident.  Driver 1 breaks his arm. Driver 2 breaks his arm AND suffers a traumatic brain injury. Both drivers can be said to be injured.  Which driver is MORE injured?

 

 

1. What is the flaw in using points that you're referring to?

 

Do you mean beyond the fact that GW acknowledges the problem and makes points adjustments at least once a year?

Or the fact that the community marks the the date that the points will change on their calendar like it is a holiday?

 

Right, so I'm going to assume by this you mean that the flaw in "points" is that they are inaccruate, both inter- and intra-codex comparatively. I agree with that, as I've stated above.

 

 

 

2. Crusaders, to use your example, do not have objective secured, and take up a precious elite slot, when, at 25-50 power, there's a good chance you're going to be running a patrol detachment and have only 2 elite slots. Yes, I understand I can do it. But frankly if you're picking elites to do raise the banenrs you're probably 40k-ing wrong.  Troop choices are specifically meant to be capturing objectives (with the exception of elite and super-elite armies like Marines and Custodes).

 

Crusaders only take an elite slot if you do not run a Preacher or Missionary in the same detachment, so if you are running a patrol so much the better, because they are elite units that don't take elite slots.  If you are worrying about objective secured, you are already set up to fail raising the banners.

 

The Crusaders are running WITH your BSS, so they are both at the objective at the same time.  Should you need objective secured your BSS provides it.  The Crusaders are there to raise the banners, they don't have guns so you won't be shooting with them.  Your BSS shoots to keep other units away from both the BSS and the Crusader squad.  On the off chance that both of your units are charged while the crusaders are trying to raise the banners, your crusaders stop that action and start chopping up your enemies with their power swords.  Because having them continue to raise the banners while the sisters get slaughtered just means you are losing that objective on the next turn after you opponent killed you because you didn't fight back.

 

Also consider how scoring works.  More models wins and objective secured beats not objective secured.  So you'll have 5, 10 or 15 sister and 2, 4 or 6 crusaders.  We'll assume 5 BSS and 2 Crusaders.  You have 7 models and 5 with objective secured.  Assuming your opponent has a unit of scouts.  If scouts move to elite, you win no matter what.  If scouts stay troops, he wins with 6+ scouts, otherwise you win.

 

You're now talking about taking THREE units to secure one objective.  The preacher/missionary (to free up the crusader slot), the crusaders themselves, and a BSS squad for objective secured. This is not a feature of the power rating system. It's a flaw. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by 9x19 Parabellum

[ValourousHeart]

Yes, I would take the basic sister with bolter for 7 pts. if I had the option.  ...  They are not worth 4 points.  ... There are times I might want to take those options, and there are times I might not want to take those options. ...

 

Similarly, the Codex is trying to "sell me" a 5 woman BSS for 4 Power.  This includes a multimelta, meltagun, combi-flamer, inferno pistol, power sword, censor cherub and simulacrum imperialis.  "This is a great deal!" declares the codex. 

 

And now we have your paradigm.  What you value.  You will strip option from certain units to give yourself extra points to spend elsewhere in the list.  Nothing wrong with that.

 

But the people that use power level don't think that way.  I explain this a little more further down.

 

 

 

trying to calculate how inaccurate they are would be a mathematical nightmare.

 

Analogy: Two vehicle drivers get into a car accident.  Driver 1 breaks his arm. Driver 2 breaks his arm AND suffers a traumatic brain injury. Both drivers can be said to be injured.  Which driver is MORE injured?

 

Ok so you want to move the goal posts.  I don't think so.  

 

The analogy would be two drivers cause two similar accidents, neither accident had any fatalities.  Driver 1 was under the influence of alcohol, driver 2 was sleep deprived.  Some states punish the drunk driver more than the sleep deprived driver.  Should they?  Not really a discussion for this board, so let's move back on topic.

 

 

I agree with that, as I've stated above.

 

I know you did, however when people have a preference for one thing over another, they tend to minimize the flaws of their choice and exacerbate the flaws of the other choice.  Which makes any claim of degrees biased.  I have the minor advantage of having been a tournament player who switched over to exclusively narrative play.  But you are correct about it being impossible to mathematically pin down.

 

They are both flawed. PERIOD.  And we each prefer one style over the other.  FINE.

 

However some of what we see as flaws in the other system actually work as a check against player indiscretion.  A common list you would see in 8th is Loyal 32, 3 Shield Captains on Jetbikes and a Knight Castellan.

 

You look at power level and think, man that system is broken because in a 100 power game I could add 3 Helverins or 3 Warglaves, pick up 7 CP (6 for the SH Detachment, and not having to spend the one on the Aux SH Detachment), plus I would fully unlock the rules for a Knight house.

 

I look at that list and think, there is no way that the Noble piloting the Castellan and 3 of the greatest Marine Captains in the Imperium are going to be subservient to a Junior AM Officer in command of less than 40 soldiers.  The most senior of the Captain should be in charge, but it will most likely be decided on hereditary at which point the Noble will take command.  But realistically, the Captains would each be leading their own small armies and the AM units are in the employ of the Noble.  So we are missing at least 70% of the forces involved.

 

 

You're now talking about taking THREE units to secure one objective.  The preacher/missionary (to free up the crusader slot), the crusaders themselves, and a BSS squad for objective secured. This is not a feature of the power rating system. It's a flaw. 

 

There are multiple threads in this conversation, not all of them are about points verse power.  This one is simply addressing how I would solve your dilemma about raising the banner.

 

This isn't taking 3 units to secure one objective.  It is coordinating several aspects of the sister codex to accomplish the mission.

 

In order to raise the banners (which is the objective you said you wanted to do) you have a couple of options with sisters.  1) take a good shooting unit and not let them shoot for a turn, 2) take a character who could be buffing a unit and turn their aura off for a turn, or 3) take a cheap yet durable unit whose special rules are not turned off when performing an action.

 

A unit of Crusaders is only 32 points.  The BSS unit is there to protect the Crusaders while they are doing their thing, or capture a different objective if there is one close by.  And since I like building redundancy into my lists, if everything goes pear shape, I can always fall back on my BSS to raise the banners if the Crusaders die.  The choice here seems pretty clear to me, but you do you.

 

And as a side note at 50 power / 1000 points you get more secondary objectives.  You could choose to pick one of the ones were you need some unhinged units charging across the board to deliver death up close and personal.  Units that do that well are penitent engines, arco-flaggelants and repentia.  And all of those units do that even better with a preacher near by for his +1A aura.

 

That same 35 point preacher that unlocked your Crusaders to help you raise the banners is also helping you with your Purge the Enemy and Battlefield Supremacy objectives.  And yes I included the points to show you that this strategy also works with points, and not just power.

[BluejayJunior]

You can definitely abuse power level more than you can points. But power level isn't for those types of players.

PL is for the players that want to bring their units with a certain loadout and don't care whether it is the most effective combination. They just want to put their units on the table and play with the loadouts they want rather than trying to make a list that fully utilizes every single point to its highest efficiency. 

Neither is better than the other. They just offer different options to different players. If you are looking at your power level options and thinking "I have to take this, because otherwise it isn't the most efficient", then maybe PL isn't for you. And there is nothing wrong with that. 

 

And for Crusade, a unit's wargear and size are chosen when they are added to your roster. It can only be changed using requisition points. So it's not like you can tailor your army to your opponent every time. 

[Joukernaut]

Abusing power level is only giving you an edge if your opponent is not doing the same thing. The same thing can be said about points.

This discussion seems weird to me as crusade is clearly a narrative form of playing. The focus should not be on maximizing efficiency in your army, but building it the way you like, watch it grow and develop its personal character. Not only will maximizing every unit in your army lead to less games because it's no fun playing a list like from a narrative perspective, it will probably also not help to build a strong narrative or theme for your army.

Nothing stops you from taking girl squads without upgrades if that's what you prefer them to be for the task they need to do. If that fits your narrative, all the more power to you.

I'm actually in the middle of building and painting my sisters army that was gifted to me and plan to fully embrace crusade for its narrative. I suggest you try to do the same or just run points to play games. An alternative could be to run crusade with points as suggested earlier.

 

(Somewhat off topic, but the two crusaders are actually very, very useful for helping to achieve objectives. They could raise banners bu they can also get behind enemy Lins and other board control ones for a very small investment.)

[9x19 Parabellum]

You can definitely abuse power level more than you can points. But power level isn't for those types of players.

PL is for the players that want to bring their units with a certain loadout and don't care whether it is the most effective combination. They just want to put their units on the table and play with the loadouts they want rather than trying to make a list that fully utilizes every single point to its highest efficiency. 

Neither is better than the other. They just offer different options to different players. If you are looking at your power level options and thinking "I have to take this, because otherwise it isn't the most efficient", then maybe PL isn't for you. And there is nothing wrong with that. 

 

And for Crusade, a unit's wargear and size are chosen when they are added to your roster. It can only be changed using requisition points. So it's not like you can tailor your army to your opponent every time. 

 

In my opinion you have it exactly backwards. You can't abuse Power Level because power level already assumes you are going to take all the goodies for any given unit that has options.  (Unless, by "abuse" you mean to pay more for a unit with less teeth).

 

In general, though, yes, I agree, PL isn't for me. Unfortunately that is how the Crusade rules are written. 

 

As for your last point, no one mentioned anything about tailoring an army to each opponent. That never came up. We are talking about designing your list with goals (read: objectives) in mind, and not paying more than necessary to achieve those goals. 

[toaae]

=][=
 

At play here are fundamentally different opinions, that each start from and place emphasis on entirely different aspects of the hobby and game. As of right now, I don't see much discussion here about the interactions of those two opinions, or how to approach the game from that different point of view.

At this point, PL vs. Points has had three years of discussion across the internet, and it can often be a contentious topic. Please, if healthy discussion about how Sororitas Crusade lists are built with PL or points is the point of this topic, do so respectfully.

However, if the issue is just "points vs PL", as it as so far been, this thread will be locked. That conversation is neither Sororitas specific, or non-redundant. 

 

=][=

[BluejayJunior]

Power Level is based on the average of the cheapest options and most expensive options, so it doesn't assume you're maximizing the goodies. 

It seems you are much more of efficient matched play player than a narrative player. I would ask why you are joining a Crusade group? That isn't meant to be flippant, but a serious question. Why did you join? What are you hoping to get out of it? What are your goals for it (to win it or just to have fun)?

I think all of those are important questions to ensure you and the rest of the group enjoy this experience.

How does everyone else in the group approach narrative gaming? If they also are going to maximize their units, then there's no problem. If they are building more towards a theme that results in sub optimal builds (from a more competitive view) which results in you completely stomping them, then it might not be fun for anyone.

Is there someone you can talk to in the group that could help you learn to approach the game more from their perspective? Talk to them, tell them you are have difficulty looking at units in any way other than being the most efficient, and ask for advice in building armies a different way.

 

Please do not take any of these questions as argumentative. I genuinely want you to enjoy the crusade experience and want to help you with that. You can still approach crusade building with your current list building mentality and still have fun. And others can still have fun playing against you. 

 

Crusade missions don't use secondary objectives (unless that is one of the house rules you mentioned). So you are just playing to the main mission. With the additional agendas you pick which add experience to your units. So you shouldn't feel the need to build toward the secondary objectives. 

[Schlitzaf]

While true, BlueJay even if you do take MonoExpensive only. Your list would be far worse off. Because many “Most” Expensive Options are well garbage. For example: classic one I use is Sgt w/ THammer vs PowSword. You often shoild take a Power Sword or Non -1 Melee Weapon (or Anti-Tank weapons tend to be more expensive when a squad most often should take HoF Anti-Infantry). Such interactions make the fact power level techenically an average, and doesn’t account for most expensive as option you could take 100%. Doing so is often the wrong decision in listbuilding.

[9x19 Parabellum]

So with the Power adjustment FAQ from August 10th (and nothing in yesterday's huge FAQ changing that), I did a Points / Power ratio analysis for those of you who, like me, will be playing games using Power instead of Points.

The point of this analysis is not to say which units are "good" or which units are "bad"; it simply analyses the point cost for any given unit and evaluates what you are getting when buying that same unit using the Power currency instead of the Points currency. Ergo, it's really a summary of relative efficiency. An imagifier does what an imagifier does, and you may believe they are essential. Just know that when you buy them using Power, you are paying a higher price as a percentage of your total army's resource to get their buffs. Here's the breakdown (the higher the number in column E, the better). The color coordination is simply for me to see at a glance the best units. (Green = great value, Blue = good value, Orange = average value, Red = poor value).

As usual with all things theorycrafting, take this with a grain of salt as it's highly flawed (it assumes, for example, that the points evaluation is "correct" for each unit - whatever that means). Also, in each case, a unit is evaluated with all of the most expensive goodies it can possibly take. Naturally, you might want your Dominions to be armed with 4x storm bolters to take advantage of blessed bolts stratagem, instead of 4x meltaguns, which will lower the Points per Power efficiency, but might actually result in a better overall unit. So keep in mind all these things.

Edited October 6, 2020 by 9x19 Parabellum

[9x19 Parabellum]

Here are a couple examples of what I mean and how you might be able to use this analysis:

 

As an intra-unit comparison:

Using the Imagifier again as an example.  If you were to play a 500 POINT game, the Imagifier would cost 45 points, which is 9% of your army's resource (points).  However, if you were to play a 25 POWER game, that same Imagifier would cost 3/25 or 12% of your army's resource.  The imagifier did not change.  So why is there a 25% increase in her cost?  And more importantly, are you ok with this?

 

An as inter-unit comparsison:

Junith Eruita costs 115 points.  A tricked out 5 woman battle sisters squad also costs 115 points.  Yet Junith is 8 power and the BSS if 4 power.  Why does Junith cost the same in a point-costed game, but twice as much in a power-costed game? And again, are you aware of this and comfortable with that when you make your list?  Or would it be better to leave Junith at home if playing a Power costed game?

Edited October 6, 2020 by 9x19 Parabellum

[Dread]

Hmm? Good points.

[ValourousHeart]

Well first of all you are assuming that 500 points is equal to 25 power.  But the new marine and necron codex disagree with that assumption.

 

According to the 2 codices all of the upgrades that add 1 power are between 15 and 25 points, and the cost of 2 power is 30 points minimum.  So that means a 500 point force would be between 20 and 33 1/3 power or from the other perspective 25 power force would be between 375 and 625 points.  Clearly there is some overlap there, but it is far from definitive that 500 point and 25 power are identical.

 

You also have to consider the rest of the force when attempting to assess the value of a unit, because you can't just compare points without also comparing stat lines, battlefield role, special rules and auras, how all of those stats, rules and auras interact with the rest of your force, along with the more basic questions about what you plan to do with the model on the table.

 

Otherwise you get the popular comparison we had a couple edition ago between a 100 point Predator and a 100 point Land Speeder.  The predator was a terrible choice because it would always die when you raced it across the board first turn and parked it in the middle of your opponents deployment zone.  If only people would have used the more sensible approach they used with Land Speeders and kept them more at a distance and supported by other units.

 

Example time.  While the resource cost remains the same for the Imagifier, the value the model brings to the list is more clearly felt in the first list over the second list.

 

LIST 1 - Battalion

Canoness

Canoness

Imagifier

10 BSS

10 BSS

10 BSS

5 Saraphim

5 Saraphim

5 Retributor

5 Retributor

 

List 2 - Spearhead

Missionary

Preacher

Imagifier

10 Arco-Flagellants

10 Arco-Flagellants

5 Arco-Flagellants

3 Penitent Engines

3 Penitent Engines

3 Penitent Engines

 

In the second list you would be better served taking 6 Crusaders instead of the Imagifer, and have them act as body guards for the Missionary and Preacher.  Or at least that is how I plan to run that list.

 

The same can be said for Junith.  While she might be the cost of 5 BSS, she clearly adds more to the army than just a couple of bolters.  Like her +1 shield of faith aura.  So what do you think the solution should be, double her point cost or cut her power level in half?

[9x19 Parabellum]

I have no wish to engage in this thread with you any further, Valorous Heart. The last time I did I got in trouble with the Moderati.  So I will not be responding to your points.

[Dread]

Played my first store crusade tonight. Had fun, my sisters against primarius. I won, it was assassination scenerio. I delt as much as I got , power creep is always there either way. But the number one thing was having fun with your buds, I did.

 

As for the pts vs pl, it's a good argument both ways but GW never really had good balance either way even in AoS.