Crusading, Power, Points, army design: reflections

[toaae]

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.

 

Should be noted that the #1 reason people associate 20points = 1PL is because that's how the game sizes are established. A Combat Patrol is 25PL or 500 Points, an Incursion is 50PL or 1000 Points, a Strike Force is 100PL or 2000 Points, ect.

[Joukernaut]

Very valid point. I think everyone agrees that points/power can be very swingy depending on unit and upgrade choice. I think GW demonstrates with the game sizes that 1PL is roughly equivalent of 20 points. Parabellum's analysis indeed is an analysis in a vacuum and does not take into account what a unit can do on the battlefield. What it does help with is choosing between units with the same battle role, and then complete the list with useful roles with might be somewhat less points efficient.

 

As an example for a 50 power list:

5 man battle sisters and 5 man celestials are very efficient according to parabellum's work.

So let's start a list with 3 battle sister squads, decked out with melta and a power sword on the superior and add 3 units of celestians decked out the same way. You now have 24 power and still need HQ's. From the HQ's Celestine and the canoness are the most efficient in power level vs points and both contribute to the list. There is a point to be made for Junith in this list if you decide to go martyred lady, since Junith adds to the invuln and allows Reroll 1's to wound with is quite exclusive at this moment for sisters. She is also the same power level as Celestine. So by choosing her you win rerolls and loose a counterpunch unit. To me this is a matter of taste. Let's say we go with Celestine since we also like to punch someone in the face occasionally. we now have 34 power and can add flavor in any way. Since celestians are amazing as bloody rose, we continue as a bloody rose batallion. You can now go different ways to flesh out the army. add a missionary or priest for more attacks, an imaginer for +1S and ignore AP-1, bigger celestial squads for maximum stratagem support, sisters Repentia, because they are amazing as bloody rose and who doesn't like crazy women wielding giant chain swords to redeem themselves, or adding the third most efficient unit with are retributors with multimeltas. 

 

I would personally never go this way when playing crusade, because to me crusade is about fun and taking whatever you like most, but if you do want to go that route than parabellum's analysis can be helpful to decide on what unit to pick. You do have to realize that it will set you up with a very one-sided list and might have some very strong counters.

[ThePenitentOne]

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.

 

It is WAY faster to build a list using PL. To argue that a process which requires no consideration of equipment is no faster than one that does... I'm just not sure how you can justify that.

 

You are correct that PL is hard for new players, because they seldom have the full complement of upgrades that veterans accumulate over decades, and through that lens alone, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

 

But I am the kind of player who always liked upgrades- from a character/ theme/ aesthetic/ narrative point of view. Lean squads have always bored me to tears... They're just so... Basic. And it frustrated me that in points games, I didn't get to have the cool squads full of options that I really wanted because volume of shots was compromised by the cost of the upgrades. I either had to play flavourless, boring, lean squads or have my awesome, kitted to the teeth elites get mowed down by any opponent who was willing to put 30% more models on the table at the expense of fielding an interesting army.

 

Funny thing is I didn't realize how much I was constrained from playing what I actually wanted to play by the points system until Crusade forced me to  give PL an honest try. Your experience and playstyle  likely differ considerably from mine, but after actually trying PL, it's now my preference. 

[Hannibal]

 

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).

 

 

I absolutely disagree here. In fact, I think that the reason to design "Power Level" was to give the beginners an easy to use "points system" in which you can use your units/models "out of the box" just fine.

 

Let´s say you buy a box of Tactical Space Marines and you build the models so that they look cool. No matter what the equipment does on the tabletop. Then you use the Power Level to have an easy way to actually field that unit.

As long as your opponent does the same, ie buildung units out of the box with no min maxing in mind, then power level works quite well.

 

If your mind is to absolutely min maxing, then you can do it in both systems: power level and points. It´s just an other way of min maxing. In a points system you´re going to max out the number and quality of shots per points while in power level you max out the number and quality of shots per unit. That´s all. And everyone can do it, not just you. Therefore there is no more imbalancing in power levels than in points.

 

People often say that their 100 PL forces equal in 2134 points (for example), but this just says nothing. As long as your opponents 100 PL force also equals in 2134 points or something similar, there ist just no problem what so ever.

 

Problems start when one force is cleary stronger than their opponents force. And that happens all day in WH40k, it is not solely based on power levels. I have to strongly agree with ValourousHeart here: it´s just a different point of view.

[9x19 Parabellum]

Yes, Power Level works ok like you're describing when neither player is experienced and really knows what they are doing.  You said it yourself in in paragraph 2: "...as long as you're opponent does the same."

 

I also agree that either system can be min-maxed.  But consider this: "pointing" a model is the (we all agree) very flawed attempt to give a numerical, universal, static value to the overall worth of a model, considering every possible dimension of it's worth (offensive capability, durability, manueverability, board presence, ability to surprise, ability to score objectives, etc.)  Let me say this again so I don't get accused of making an assumption or being biased: it is a flawed system. In the event I wasn't heard, let me repeat, it's a flawed system. Points are a flawed abstract representation of the value of a model in the game.

Points are a flawed system. 

 

However if Points are an abstraction of a model's worth, then Power is a further abstraction of the already existing abstraction of a model's worth.  That means, yes, it's even less accurate.  It's kind of like taking a number (let's say 5.5) and then rounding to the nearest whole number, so you call it a "6". Then someone says "eh. single digit numbers are too granular, so let's just round everything to the nearest ten."  now that 6 becomes a 10. Well a 14.4 also gets rounded to a 10 using that system.  Thus, both "things" are regarded as a value of "10", when in the original measurement of the two things, one of them was almost 3x the value of the other.   And this is exactly the point I was trying to make with the kitted-out BSS vs. Junith comparison.   Whatever value the actual, true, in-game value of a BSS is compared to Junith, it must be the same regardless of which unit of measurement is used.  yet in "Power" Junith is twice as valuable as a BSS, and in "Points" they are (or can be) the same. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by 9x19 Parabellum

[Schlitzaf]

Because Power Level an average for squads first. In which case 80 which is 115 + 75 = 190/2 = 95. Argueballg BSS still undercosted or in this case they choose base squad instead of base with cheapest point base upgrades. And the fully loaded multi-melta BSS squad is garbage.

[MasterDeath]

My gaming group had some strong opinions on PL vs. P. We talked about, voted and now we play Power Level. It is a fine system if you just want to play a game. As soon as you look on it with a competitive lense, you see "I can give thunderhammers to everyone with now extra cost" or "I can give the most expensive weapons to my knight and get 100+ points more". There is a very simple solution to these theoretical problems: Just don´t. Just don´t do these things. Play a game. Its very simple. If their is someone in your group, cheesing the system: Talk to him. Explain how a more relaxed attitude is more fun for everyone. If he insists on more cheese, talk to your group and refuse to play him.

[Slasher956]

My gaming group had some strong opinions on PL vs. P. We talked about, voted and now we play Power Level. It is a fine system if you just want to play a game. As soon as you look on it with a competitive lense, you see "I can give thunderhammers to everyone with now extra cost" or "I can give the most expensive weapons to my knight and get 100+ points more". There is a very simple solution to these theoretical problems: Just don´t. Just don´t do these things. Play a game. Its very simple. If their is someone in your group, cheesing the system: Talk to him. Explain how a more relaxed attitude is more fun for everyone. If he insists on more cheese, talk to your group and refuse to play him.

theres a paragraph in the Great Escape Games' historical rulebook clash of empires which covers this nicely...

 

shared in one of the BA facebook groups... cant post it here due to firewall /site rules

[dracpanzer]

We are using points over PL because our league is playing for money and it just doesn't seem to sit right that a squad of Doms sporting bolters is the same cost as one with four meltas, a combi-melta, power sword and all the fixings.

 

Narrative sure, doesn't mean players aren't competing for every point they can get. The narrative is about fighting where death lies just beyond the edge of cover. Why does that have to be casual?

[toaae]

We are using points over PL because our league is playing for money and it just doesn't seem to sit right that a squad of Doms sporting bolters is the same cost as one with four meltas, a combi-melta, power sword and all the fixings.

 

Narrative sure, doesn't mean players aren't competing for every point they can get. The narrative is about fighting where death lies just beyond the edge of cover. Why does that have to be casual?

 

This thread is about Crusade, though.

[9x19 Parabellum]

That is true, but I'm glad to see someone is using Points for their league (league = crusade?)

 

Part of the point (no pun intended) of this thread is to talk through whether my intuitions are right, and if they are, to recommend to others that points are a better way to go, even possibly, yes, in narrative play.

[tychobi]

Points is better for any style of play. Narrative play does not need points or power level, but points are less abusable than power level. The idea that no one will take advantage is frankly hilarious. Part of learning the game is finding efficient units and builds, same as target priority and playing to the mission. Power level makes that part of the game more unbalanced and unfair, mostly for new players.

[ThePenitentOne]

Points is better for any style of play. Narrative play does not need points or power level, but points are less abusable than power level. The idea that no one will take advantage is frankly hilarious. Part of learning the game is finding efficient units and builds, same as target priority and playing to the mission. Power level makes that part of the game more unbalanced and unfair, mostly for new players.

 

For me the idea isn't that NO ONE will take advantage; it's that EVERYONE will take advantage.

 

In which case, there is no advantage.

[9x19 Parabellum]

 

Points is better for any style of play. Narrative play does not need points or power level, but points are less abusable than power level. The idea that no one will take advantage is frankly hilarious. Part of learning the game is finding efficient units and builds, same as target priority and playing to the mission. Power level makes that part of the game more unbalanced and unfair, mostly for new players.

 

For me the idea isn't that NO ONE will take advantage; it's that EVERYONE will take advantage.

 

In which case, there is no advantage.

 

 

Thank you. Yes, we've come full circle now. This is exactly the point I was trying to make at the onset of this thread.  And that in doing so, I actually have more constraints imposed on me than using points.

Edited October 14, 2020 by 9x19 Parabellum

[ValourousHeart]

And that in doing so, I actually have more constraints imposed on me that using points.

 

Here I strongly agree with you.  The ability to admit that one is inclined to act in an undesirable way and therefore chooses a path that helps them avoid those situations where they are likely to act in that undesirable way shows a real depth of character.

 

For you it is using points to impose constraints on your choices.

 

For me it is avoiding tournaments because when I would compete in tournaments in the past, the hyper-competitive side of me would be let loose and I would start acting like a real jerk.  Now I focus on a more story driven aspect of the hobby and while I still tend to make strong lists, they are now based on strong themes and I play them with a better spirit with more focus on my opponent.

[toaae]

And we get to the crux of the "points v power level" debate: each is for people approaching the game from fundamentally different places. This is how every thread about the subject has gone in the Amicus, and much of how this one has gone.

[tychobi]

And we get to the crux of the "points v power level" debate: each is for people approaching the game from fundamentally different places. This is how every thread about the subject has gone in the Amicus, and much of how this one has gone.

Who are these people? If you want fun and fluffy points is better. If you want competative you want points. If you can't count to 2k how are you going to remember the rules? If you have so many models you need to save time with your list building just hire somebody to make your list. Power level is the same system as points ie numbers to represent effectiveness. It just does a worse job of the same task.

[toaae]

 

And we get to the crux of the "points v power level" debate: each is for people approaching the game from fundamentally different places. This is how every thread about the subject has gone in the Amicus, and much of how this one has gone.

Who are these people? If you want fun and fluffy points is better. If you want competative you want points. If you can't count to 2k how are you going to remember the rules? If you have so many models you need to save time with your list building just hire somebody to make your list. Power level is the same system as points ie numbers to represent effectiveness. It just does a worse job of the same task.

 

 

Obviously, ValourousHeart is one such person. Another example are the hosts of the Independent Characters, whom used Power Level for most of 8th edition (when they did start using points, it wasn't because of points being better, but because points had had adjustments and PL hadn't).

[tychobi]

 

 

 

And we get to the crux of the "points v power level" debate: each is for people approaching the game from fundamentally different places. This is how every thread about the subject has gone in the Amicus, and much of how this one has gone.

Who are these people? If you want fun and fluffy points is better. If you want competative you want points. If you can't count to 2k how are you going to remember the rules? If you have so many models you need to save time with your list building just hire somebody to make your list. Power level is the same system as points ie numbers to represent effectiveness. It just does a worse job of the same task.

Obviously, ValourousHeart is one such person. Another example are the hosts of the Independent Characters, whom used Power Level for most of 8th edition (when they did start using points, it wasn't because of points being better, but because points had had adjustments and PL hadn't).

I think you just proved my point. They realized power level is bad and broken and moved on. People make bad choices all the time. Some learn from their mistakes.

[toaae]

No, you didn't read what I wrote. Their problem wasn't with power level as a system, but the fact GW didn't adjust it. Even after switching to points, they continued to extol the virtues of power level. With power levels adjusted, they'll probably be back to it (once the pandemic allows).

 

Now, before you respond, I urge you to heavily consider my previous and earlier point: the virtues of both systems are apparent to people who have a different fundamental approach to the game. It isn't wrong to like one over the other. Personally, I have zero interest in PL and would prefer my narrative and crusade games in points, but I can obviously empathize that for different people, they might feel the opposite.

 

There are people that enjoy PL. That's just a fact.

[Slasher956]

 

 If you can't count to 2k how are you going to remember the rules?

 

I'm going to bite on this line.... theres these things called SLDs which include dyscalculia which affects peoples ability to do maths but not their intelligance or ability to recall information ie remember rules!

 

Now I've given up playing 40k for over a year... when my new shiny codex sisters list was outgunned, out ranged, out numbered and out CCd by a space marine army - now I could have taken that except for the local tournament guys (points fanatics) who kept interfearing with my game(s)...and yes it wasnt the only time.

 

IF there where more people down the club who wanted to play PL and/or fluff/scenario lists rather than pickup pointed tournament then Id look at playing more

[9x19 Parabellum]

Yeah but I mean if you're a competitive jerk...then you're a competitive jerk.  I don't really understand how using power level or points is going to change that.  Now I think what changes is whether or not you're in a tournament, and glory and prizes and ego is on the line.  By extension (usually), tournaments usually use points rather than power.  But I daresay if you entered a tournament using power instead of points, your jerky competitive side would still come out.

 

I say this absolutely as one who is guilty of being a competitive jerk.  I get salty and frustrated with dice rolls. I think there is something to spending hours and hours painting your models only to see them blasted off the table that is emotionally discouraging in a way that most games never trigger because they never have that emotional investment.   Forgive me, I beg you; I'm flawed.

[9x19 Parabellum]

No, you didn't read what I wrote. Their problem wasn't with power level as a system, but the fact GW didn't adjust it. Even after switching to points, they continued to extol the virtues of power level. With power levels adjusted, they'll probably be back to it (once the pandemic allows).

 

I will attempt this argument one more time as I'm not sure I've successfully made the point (or maybe I have and it's just been ignored). And by the way, toaae, I'm just using your last post here as the stand-in interlocutor for my argument; I'm not suggesting that you alone have made this argument, so my response is really at the entire audience of individuals who essentially agree with what you said.

 

____________________________________

 

 

You have a model with a gun.

That model has x value in the game so we cost it at x points.

You have 10 of those models in the unit so we cost it at 10x.

 

You have an option to give those 10 models different guns.

Now that same model with that different gun has a value of x+5

10 of those models thus have a cost of 10x+50.

 

The range of value of this unit is between (10x) and (10x+50) depending on what gun you give them.

 

As an alternative, you allow the player the following option: "Hey player, to make the bookeeping easier, we're going to just say that unit costs "10 power" regardless of what gear or gun you give them.

 

non-rhetorical question that I believe deserves an answer:  How can one number (10) properly reflect the resource value of a set of models (ie, a unit) that has an extremely variable range of value?

 

 

I have seen 2 "sorta" answers:

 

1. I have to change my paradigm of understanding the game and that others have a fundamentally different approach to the game. I honestly have no idea what this means.  I'm not trolling here, guys, I really don't understand this and I would like to because maybe there is something I'm missing.

2. The value "x" of a given model+gun was never accurate to begin with.  While I agree with this, it doesn't address the point that if system 1 of valuing a thing is off by, let's say for argument's sake, 10%, then system 2, which is a further abstraction of system 1 is off by at least as much, and, given the issues presented above, is likely to be off by considerably more.

[toaae]

1. I have to change my paradigm of understanding the game and that others have a fundamentally different approach to the game. I honestly have no idea what this means.  I'm not trolling here, guys, I really don't understand this and I would like to because maybe there is something I'm missing.

 

This is because people that like Power Level aren't looking for a number to "properly reflect the resource value of a set of models (ie, a unit) that has an extremely variable range of value". That's the fundamental difference. Power Level is a rough balancing tool, it's not meant to be precise. It's meant to be a simple way to throw together armies of roughly the same value, and to provide as little friction between how a unit is built and how it plays on the table as possible.

 

Power Level requires that both players approach it the same. Either they both are maxing out every possible ounce of value that can be derived, or they are both avoiding that in the name of building units the way they want to, much like the infamous "standard" loadout for Tactical Squads was a missile launcher and a flamer. The idea is, over the whole army, whatever efficiencies and inefficiencies the player has baked into their units will largely even out between the two players.

 

Asking the question of "what's the most efficient unit for their Power Level?" is a question a PL player wouldn't even ask. That's how they are approaching the game from a fundamentally different place than you or I.

 

(though, as we learned over the course of 8th and the lack of adjustments to PL, even those players will eventually feel the imbalances. But then, that's why they are playing a game with a value system at all, and not just "Open Play")

[ValourousHeart]

I don't really understand how using power level or points is going to change that.

Simply switching to power doesn't change the way you are approaching the game. You asked questions about efficiency before, and you continue to ask questions about efficiency. Toaae is correct, that isn't the question we ask when putting a list together.

This is the army I set up for crusade. Yes it's Knights, I know I'm a jerk. My Knight army is built on a Voltron theme.

I just need to collect 4 more RP to "find the Den of the Black Lion" and recruit the Black Knight.

Right now we are playing 50 power, 1000 point games, but if I take Blue or Yellow, and then both of Red and Green that is only 40-41 power or 835 points. If I was going for efficiency then I would take one of the armigers from my pile of shame and add it to this list. But there were only 5 Voltron Lions so I'm not adding a 6th to my list just because I have points left over.

Now you might think that is dumb to not spend those points or include that extra k. But for me the theme of the army is more important that the points efficiency.

And since the import part for me is story, I've even offere those extra points/power to my opponents. Fielding my 40-41 power list vs their 60-59 power list.

Something interesting happen after my last match, Red leveled and got a battle scar because he tanked over half of the damage and whittled down the 30 man blob of conscripts and killed Greyfax. He got the battle trait enhanced engines which gives +2 movement, which is on top of the household tradition Stromstriders which is also +1 movement. The battle scar is Angry Machine Spirit which means he can't use stratagems. I don't know if I'm ever going to get rid of that battle scar because it is perfect for the personality I want the Red one to run with. Being reckless and charging headlong into melee.