Jump to content

which one...power ranking or points?


Torg

Power Ranking or Points?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you prefer the Power Ranking system or the Points system for making your 40k armies ... and matching up for playing games.

    • Power Ranking
      10
    • Points Costing
      20


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ish said:

It is what it is. As long as we all keep in mind that it's meant to be a "fast and loose" approach to balancing forces and we don't get too hung up on it.

Oh, absolutely. This was just a tweak I would have pushed for if I had been in charge, not something that I feel strongly needs to be changed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Threejacks said:

Was just reading through the matched play rules..I dont see any provision to use PL for the points system in Matched play,Certainly it could be done but it seems perhaps that the PL system is supposed to be just for narrative and open play.

I think you're looking at it backwards. It's more that Matched Play only works with the few specific missions designed for it.

Power Level and Narrative Themed armies are more open to missions that might not be balanced well (or indeed might be deliberately unbalanced), Matched Play armies intended to be used more for the narrowly designed, better balanced missions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ish said:

I think you're looking at it backwards. It's more that Matched Play only works with the few specific missions designed for it.

Power Level and Narrative Themed armies are more open to missions that might not be balanced well (or indeed might be deliberately unbalanced), Matched Play armies intended to be used more for the narrowly designed, better balanced missions.

Yeah I see were ya coming from,,,just was wondering about,if using PL was noted in the rules for matched play.I can see the instance were im all,"hey lets try a matched play scenario using PL" but is countered by ."Noooo!,,cuz ROOLS!

  Im on that only does the competative scenarios because thats all that most others want to play,,I always prefer the more casual sessions with casual type scenarios such as Narrative in 40k or Published Tome Battleplans in AoS.Doing the same few scenarios over and over gets old fast for me,so im always wanting to try a new approach,heh.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think anyone whose reaction to such a suggestion is "No! Muh roolz!!!" is probably already too deep into That Guy territory that the very idea of anything other than strict points system in full compliance with the latest tourney comp package is anathema to him to begin with.

Which is cool, 'cuz I don't want to play him anyway. ✌️

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spaceork said:

As I tend to build my armies with points and have done so for the last decade, I'll stick to points. However I have been using PL for starter games to teach the employees and my FLGS.

Crystal plays, doesn't she? Oh yeah, there's that guy that is always completely disinterested and a pretty sheit customer service representative for Aaron. 

I love Aaron, Megan, and Crystal. The rest of the crew can stand to use some training in people skills and handling customers. "That's not my hobby" is a bull[big bad swear word] excuse for not being able to look an item up in the computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted points just because "prefer" only required me to be 51% of the way in that camp.  

I ENJOY Power more for a quick game set up.  I love it in fact.  

Power is definitely super easy though when you just wanna empty a shelf onto the board and go.  SOOO easy to do.  I own so many forces that its nice if someone says "Hey can I try playing against X" which has happened and does happen to me a lot, and I say "Sure if you wanna play by Power, we can do that just so I dont have to sit here and list smith".

One other fun thing about Power.  It allows me to try out the units the way that you'd "ideally" play them and see without much effort what they can do that way or this way.  Kind of a built in excuse to go "kitchen sink" on the unit and just see what happens.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ish said:

I think you're looking at it backwards. It's more that Matched Play only works with the few specific missions designed for it.

Power Level and Narrative Themed armies are more open to missions that might not be balanced well (or indeed might be deliberately unbalanced), Matched Play armies intended to be used more for the narrowly designed, better balanced missions.

Actually the recent developers commentary was very clear that you can use power levels or points in whatever mission you want. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dusldorf said:

Actually the recent developers commentary was very clear that you can use power levels or points in whatever mission you want. 

  Thats good to hear:)

  Im actually thinking that PL will be the mainstay in a few years if not sooner as this is what GW would like to see.Its much easier for new players to grasp and in the long run,with this new more streamlined and dare I say "simplified" version of the rules,,,its not likely to make alot of difference balance wise playing points vs PL.Sure,there are a few rare instances were an army can really take advantage of the PL system,Deathwatch for example.But  my son and I were puting together 1k lists last night to match up over the weekend..between Space Wolves,Death Guard and Blood Angels,,they are all within one PL point of each other.Ive also seen on fb were players have done spreadsheets for the various armies and came up with,what basically amounts to armies ranging from an average of 21.25 points to PL to 23 points per PL...certainly not scientific but still shows theres not a huge difference.

  Its also likely the main reason why when GW came out with the official AoS points, they didnt do individual wargear point values and I hope they never do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Threejacks said:

  Thats good to hear:)

  Im actually thinking that PL will be the mainstay in a few years if not sooner as this is what GW would like to see.Its much easier for new players to grasp and in the long run,with this new more streamlined and dare I say "simplified" version of the rules,,,its not likely to make alot of difference balance wise playing points vs PL.Sure,there are a few rare instances were an army can really take advantage of the PL system,Deathwatch for example.But  my son and I were puting together 1k lists last night to match up over the weekend..between Space Wolves,Death Guard and Blood Angels,,they are all within one PL point of each other.Ive also seen on fb were players have done spreadsheets for the various armies and came up with,what basically amounts to armies ranging from an average of 21.25 points to PL to 23 points per PL...certainly not scientific but still shows theres not a huge difference.

  Its also likely the main reason why when GW came out with the official AoS points, they didnt do individual wargear point values and I hope they never do.

The difference can be considerable. In a recent power level game of mine we computed the points and found a 175pt disparity. That's about a full marine squad or a flyer. To me that's way too big a difference. Also see my previous post in this thread on how power levels were computed: they started with points and binned average unit costs to create power levels. The only reasons to use power levels are laziness (or as you say, to save a little time) or because you like adding variance to your game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and your opponent really need to be on the same page in order to play power level. Power level is fine if you want to run stock lists with no changes in wargear. Otherwise, it is far too easy to take all of the costly upgrades that have significant impacts on the units capabilities, and yet you aren't paying for it. If someone brings a "friendly" list and the other person brings a "competitive" list, then that is not going to be a good game.

Due to that fact, it is not a good way to research lists. If you end up with 200+ points above your opponent, how is that a fair battle representation? Power level games are really only for games where you don't care if you win or lose. I know for myself and how I play, I'd rather do points. It would be a very specific scenario for me to play power level.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see how folks feel about the difference after they have 10-20 games or at least a few months play under their belts.  At least it seems that a lot of the discussion is based on "math-hammer" than play.  But then again I have yet to play myself lol.

My intention is to primarily play power level mostly in the beginning (I guess because I am lazy lol) - mostly because I abhor the traditional tourney / competitive scene.  I just want to have some fun - and play games with my mini's

-d

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, power level can be fine as long as you and your opponent agree to how you use it. However, lets say you and I get a game in. If I run mostly stock units, and you upgrade the hell out of yours, then that game might not be very even.

I want to use points not because I want to build a competitive list, but because I'll know that our two armies are somewhat equal to each other (as proposed by the designers). I don't agree at all that points equals WACC or "tournament level" armies. I just think it is a truer representation of the capabilities of the army. That is important to me. If you bring a super soft fluffy list at 1000pts, then your army has a better chance of having a good game against another 1000pt list. But if that same fluffy list is power level 50, then it could end up having a very lopsided game vs another 50 PL army that was designed to win.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Torg said:

I'd like to see how folks feel about the difference after they have 10-20 games or at least a few months play under their belts.  At least it seems that a lot of the discussion is based on "math-hammer" than play.  But then again I have yet to play myself lol.

My intention is to primarily play power level mostly in the beginning (I guess because I am lazy lol) - mostly because I abhor the traditional tourney / competitive scene.  I just want to have some fun - and play games with my mini's

-d

I'm exactly 12 games in, soon to be thirteen.  I have not lost so a pretty good start.

I'm mostly repeating myself but Power is so easy.  It lets you bring the kitchen sink.  It is not incredibly accurate.  WYSIWYG is important when playing Power. I think WYSIWYG avoids a lot of bad feelings midgame in Power games; I also think it can be to the advantage of someone like me who owns so many models.  We both had fun doing it but it wasn't untrue that I had an advantage in my last game.  I think for testing ideas and the like, Power is a really good way to go in order to see the impact of units played at their optimal levels.  I found it extremely valuable in that regard and its a good laboratory mode.

Points are more accurate.  It's so much slower to get a game going on the spur of the moment and it requires you to make tougher choices as it always has.  List building is such a chore that the Power system is seductive; but for Matched Play it makes sense to play with Points.  It will be more fair to both of you and if you're not just playing to play, then I'd recommend the points. 

I have already said that a Power limitation might be a good idea in addition to points.  Certain units are definitely not as friendly, as I have learned, and Power does seem to help identify those pretty easily.  I find that anything over Power 13 is going to be fairly nasty and the Power mechanism is super useful, like i suggested, for smaller points games, like 1K games.  The smaller the game gets the more useful Power gets as a "limiter" on unfriendly units.  I know instantly when i say it that the super competitive crowd will jump me for saying it because they already have.  Oh well.  Cap your units at 13 power in smaller games and it will actually BE a game.  Otherwise its more like a race to initiative.  There are some epically good units above that line.  It can make for kind of a boring contest at lower points if you don't.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Power level is great for Narrative Gaming and I hope to see that take off more for casual pick up games.  I'm tired of every game of 40k feeling like prep for the next tournament.

I'm very happy with the points and matched play as well, but it's been done to death by the community.  I'm hoping the variety can sustain it's self past the first 'oh shiny' mark

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you're playing a narrative game, it's not like power levels make the game more narrative. The only things they do are save a little time and give you less control over the relative strength of the armies involved. If I'm playing a narrative game and want your army to be twice as strong as mine (as some of the narrative missions recommend), using points guarantees that you get the desired ratio. 

 

Tldr- points and casual/narrative play are *not* incompatible; in fact, in many situations they are *more* compatible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Threejacks said:

 Anectodal evidence here,actually could be an oversight but A WGPL for Bloodclaws costs 2 PL points but  is free in the points system.WGPL in Termy army costs more in points though.

Not free, costs the same as a standard model from the parent unit. But yeah still an example of where the noise in PL comes from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dusldorf said:

I hate this way of framing it. 99% of the games I play are casual. But I don't like additional variance in my games. Using points does not turn you into some waac dick bag monster

I was being a just little facetious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dusldorf said:

Even if you're playing a narrative game, it's not like power levels make the game more narrative. The only things they do are save a little time and give you less control over the relative strength of the armies involved. If I'm playing a narrative game and want your army to be twice as strong as mine (as some of the narrative missions recommend), using points guarantees that you get the desired ratio. 

This is true, but what I want to get out of Power Level is the ability to pick some random schmoo at the shop say "hey lets play the ambush mission" and throw together some cool armies for that scenario in less than 5 minutes.  It's not about balance (for me) but doing some cool [big bad swear word] on the table, and not having to dick around with figuring out how to fit my tanks and tac squads in there and how many melta bombs can i afford??!!!?? while trying to get in a fun game on my 40k night.
 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...