Three ways of gaming: discussion

[Doctor Perils]

I think that last idea would be counter productive for PL - after all, it's meant to get rid of the tweaking altogether because some players don't want to be bothered with thinking "oh, if I scrap the meltagun on this squad, I can buy a multimelta on this tank": I appreciate playing 40k, not spending hours planning a list I'm going to lose with anyway. Points actively take away my enjoyment of the experience, but for other people it's the be all and end all, which is just as valid a position - why create a hybrid system which would be the worst of both worlds?

 

While I'm not particularly good at game theory, I do think (instinctively) that 15+15 squads are better than a 30 squad, because they are tactically more flexible. When you're just playing broad strokes, 5 cultists also aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things, but 10 can begin to make a difference. Perhaps I'd personally prefer it if they gave the cost of NB of cultists per power level (add one PL and you are allowed to take eg 3 more cultists, capped at 30), but then you'd have to reverse the calculation again for marines (they're not going to say "pay 1PL to get .333 CSMs, capped at 20")... So yeah, it's not something I find so egregious in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

 

I just want to be able to throw an army together with the things I fancy taking on such and such a day, and know I'm not going to be facing 50 WAAAGHllion orks or two Titans, but instead a force that might outclass me by 50% but no more.

 

And yes, I do play with regular playing friends with whom I discuss the sort of thing I'm looking at playing and whom I trust not to put up the optimised death list of doom just to be able to win, and yes I know I'm lucky in that regard. Just, I'd like people to stop advocating for the removal of the way I like to play in the same way I'm not advocating for the removal of the way they like to play :)

 

EDIT: I will say that PL do need rebalancing at least as often as points - if PL really are calculated based on average point values of a squad's potential upgrades there's no reason to not update them at the same time

[Rik Lightstar]

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.

AoS has a "discount" for Max Strength units for armies and units that should fluffwise appear that way.

 

For example Crypt Ghouls are 100 points per 10 up to 30 for 300, but if you take the maximum of 40 it's reduced to 360 points.

 

Liberators are 100 points for 5, but if you take the full 30 it's only 520 points.

 

For things like a Chaos Marine Squad or Ork Mob this could work well to encourage larger squads despite missing out on additional Sergeants or Nobz.

 

Rik

[jaxom]

It also helps deal with the utility of MSU versus taking feet, but larger units.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 

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.

 

That is invalid especially considering room available in transports. If they really want 5 or 10 then that should be the rules. I like to run six Hellblssters for example and the extra shots can make a big difference. Also consider the cults - 6, 7, 8 and 9.

[Marshal Rohr]

It’s not invalid for power levels. It’s entirely how power levels are designed. There’s still matched play, which has granular points associations. 5 or 10 is in the rules right where it says 5 models is X PL and up to 10 is X PL. if you need a source there’s plenty of vox and stormcasts as well as Twitch Streams where they talk about datasheets being bespoke sets of rules for what comes in the box. Specifically, where they talk about taking the laser from the chaos knight on a loyalist knight. Jim Gallagher’s, Jes’, Jervis’, and several of the sculptors. Narrative and Matched Play are two separate ways of Playing the game and building your army, as explicitly stated in the rule book. Edited July 22, 2020 by Marshal Rohr

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Wow this to me is part of the sheer stupidity of PL. I’ll never buy into this dumbing down of 40k .

[MegaVolt87]

I think the intent for primaris vehicles being 6/10 instead of the traditional 5/10 is GW caving to us complaining for years we couldn't fit a character in a razorback. You can combat squad a primaris unit and stick in a character, hop in an executioner for instance. I think GW was expecting people to combat squad primaris and add a character as backup/ support, not a 6 man power amour primaris squad. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by MegaVolt87

[Fajita Fan]

Wow this to me is part of the sheer stupidity of PL. I’ll never buy into this dumbing down of 40k .

AoS follows that template with their normal points.  Every unit can be expanded based on the number of guys in the box and they just sorta squint at the stats to come up with a point value.  I'll bet money you eventually won't be able to take 5+X marines in a squad with normal points, everything will be in chunks so you buy more boxes as the business end of the two systems continues to converge.

 

This spy photo was shot in the GW rules department:

 

 

Something I've been wondering is whether power level games work better at higher or lower points? Maybe this depends on the army?  At higher power level games does the lack of granularity start to become marginally less significant?  

Edited July 23, 2020 by Fajita Fan

[Panzer]

I think the intent for primaris vehicles being 6/10 instead of the traditional 5/10 is GW caving to us complaining for years we couldn't fit a character in a razorback. You can combat squad a primaris unit and stick in a character, hop in an executioner for instance. I think GW was expecting people to combat squad primaris and add a character as backup/ support, not a 6 man power amour primaris squad. 

 

If that's the case then 11 would have made a lot more sense than 10. More likely it's because Gravis type units come in 3s instead of 5s. Admittedly the Impulsor is an odd one since it can't transport Gravis, but then again it in general is a rather weird transport with it being able to deploy a unit after moving but not allowing that unit to charge that turn etc. so the truth is probably somewhere inbetween.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Panzer

[tychobi]

Power level is needless complexity. If its all casual who cares what you bring. If there is competitive balance to be had points are the way to go. Power level is like a separate currency in a freemium game designed to confuse the new and uninitiated. If you can not count to 2000 you are going to struggle with so much in this actively complex hobby. How many rules for "deepstrike" are there at this point? How many bolter varieties are there? How many out of date incorrect publications are needed for a comprehensive rules set? Power level is a symptom of modern 40ks obsession with stupid complexity, complexity for its own sake. Sorry for the rant

[Doctor Perils]

Something I've been wondering is whether power level games work better at higher or lower points? Maybe this depends on the army? At higher power level games does the lack of granularity start to become marginally less significant?

That's the wrong question to be asking, because that's not the aim of PL. If you are worried about granularity, play points. PL is if you just want to have a fun time with a like-minded friend with toy soldiers that look cool but that you don't spend hours optimising.

 

Team PL aren't saying it's for everyone, or even every game. Just accept not everyone wants to play the game the way you do ;)

[Panzer]

 

Something I've been wondering is whether power level games work better at higher or lower points? Maybe this depends on the army? At higher power level games does the lack of granularity start to become marginally less significant?

That's the wrong question to be asking, because that's not the aim of PL. If you are worried about granularity, play points. PL is if you just want to have a fun time with a like-minded friend with toy soldiers that look cool but that you don't spend hours optimising.

 

Team PL aren't saying it's for everyone, or even every game. Just accept not everyone wants to play the game the way you do

 

 

That's also not quite right though. I never spend hours optimising with points either.

[Doctor Perils]

Power level is needless complexity. If its all casual who cares what you bring. If there is competitive balance to be had points are the way to go. Power level is like a separate currency in a freemium game designed to confuse the new and uninitiated. If you can not count to 2000 you are going to struggle with so much in this actively complex hobby.

You're missing the level in between: a rough semblance of balance, or even knowledge of how powerful a model can be. For example, I have no knowledge whatsoever of the Tau codex, and so if an opponent comes up to me playing a hammerhead, I want to know sort of how much I should be scared of it. However, I don't want to be bothered about knowing if it has 3 smart missiles 2 heatseeker missiles and a fusion Gatling because that combination of weapons let him get to precisely 2000 points.

It's not an issue about being able to count to 2000 - it's an issue of being able to find the right combination of wargear on each squad which will get you as close to the limit as possible which I find to be a headache.

 

And frankly, if you're worried about being able to separate the idea of power levels and points when they're not even listed in the same sections of your rulebooks, then I don't see how you're supposed to be comfortable with coming up with a 2000 point list :shrug: (note: I don't mean this to be a jab at you or anyone, I just fail to see how power levels are supposed to be _more_ complex than points)

 

Again, I'm not advocating getting rid of points: it's a playstyle that appeals to many people. GW have come up with a tool that appeals to other people, why is that supposed to be a problem for you, since it doesn't affect you?

 

How many rules for "deepstrike" are there at this point? How many bolter varieties are there? How many out of date incorrect publications are needed for a comprehensive rules set?

These are separate issues, with which I might mostly agree

 

Power level is a symptom of modern 40ks obsession with stupid complexity, complexity for its own sake.

It really is less complex than points, and a massive relief for those who aren't interested in optimization or winning - that's why it exists in the first place. It's just a tool you are free to ignore if it doesn't suit you.

 

----

 

Another thing in PL's favour: when playing points you are actively encouraged to select a specific weapon for your squads which will be advantageous in the current meta, but then when the meta changes, what do you do - swap the weapons on the model? Magnetise? Run proxy? Buy a new box?

In PL, you don't need to worry about all that, because you aren't chasing the "best" option.

 

----

Edit:

That's also not quite right though. I never spend hours optimising with points either.

By that do you mean you don't care about optimising and slap a list together, or that you optimise but it takes you way less long?

 

Edit 2: just gone back to your post on the previous page about the vanguard veterans: I don't know quite how different they are in strength, but yeah, I could be convinced this is the kind of edge case where PL aren't currently quite balanced enough. However, that doesn't mean I'm admitting defeat: GW definitely have to address Power level levels on units that haven't been updated for too long, and perhaps accept that some options lists need to be re-written with some power level modifications (like, up to three vanguard veterans may replace their Chainsword with a thunder hammer for +1 PL, up to 6 etc.)

But then, I'd also say it's not too bad having a stronger unit here or there than the equivalent on the other side, because the other side might have stronger units in other places. If on the other hand there's one side that's still obviously unbalanced... Then just award the other side an extra command point of two.

Is it perfect? Throne, no. Does it work for pickup games? No. Does it work when two (or more) like-minded individuals can speak about it? Yeah, it really can.

If you and your other casual mate really are of the mindset that you play for fun, try PL again when they are updated - if you still don't like it, then continue having fun with points :)

 

Edit3: I hadn't seen Panzer's next answer before posting Edit 2 :)

[Panzer]

 

That's also not quite right though. I never spend hours optimising with points either.

By that do you mean you don't care about optimising and slap a list together, or that you optimise but it takes you way less long?

 

 

I don't min-max, no. I play beer&pretzels hammer. I take what I like. Why don't I use PL then? Because it's an inherently flawed system as I said multiple times before.

[Doctor Perils]

And if you like playing points that's great :) I'd personally be happier playing PL, but I'm also happy points are there for people who don't like it :)

[Panzer]

That's fine. I was just taking an issue with you implying that everyone who uses points takes hours optimising their lists and can't be in there just to have a fun time with friends and their cool looking toy soldiers. ;)

[Doctor Perils]

That's fine. I was just taking an issue with you implying that everyone who uses points takes hours optimising their lists and can't be in there just to have a fun time with friends and their cool looking toy soldiers. ;)

Indeed, sorry for wording it poorly :D

[apologist]

To spin things back on the original topic – and I do apologise that it wasn't all that clear – I was hoping to provoke some discussion on how successfully GW's new approach will have on breaking down the traditional 'either/or' mentality that's crept into the game.

 

As I say in the opening post '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'; and that's borne out by the comments here, with some mentioning things like 'team points versus team power level.'

 

It's clear that there is a lot of entrenchment in how gamers view themselves, and this is mainly expressed in binary terms.

 

The topic in question is 'how successful do you think 9th edition's 'three ways of gaming' will be at getting people to try new ways of gaming'?

[Panzer]

To spin things back on the original topic – and I do apologise that it wasn't all that clear – I was hoping to provoke some discussion on how successfully GW's new approach will have on breaking down the traditional 'either/or' mentality that's crept into the game.

 

As I say in the opening post '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'; and that's borne out by the comments here, with some mentioning things like 'team points versus team power level.'

 

It's clear that there is a lot of entrenchment in how gamers view themselves, and this is mainly expressed in binary terms.

 

The topic in question is 'how successful do you think 9th edition's 'three ways of gaming' will be at getting people to try new ways of gaming'?

 

I don't think it did anything like breaking down any such tradition. It just put a label on something and that's it. Competetive gamers will stick to Matched Play with tournament houserules as always and casual gamers will play however they think it's best, be it Matched Play or Narrative Play or whatever else.

 

Especially Open is quite hilarious since having what's basically a rule that tells you it's okay to ignore most rules if you and your opponent agree to is pretty pointless. :sweat:

 

So to answer the question in your last sentence ... not even remotely successfull I'd say.

[Marshal Rohr]

To be honest I’ve never seen anyone do an open play game or even what GW thinks open play should be.

[MARK0SIAN]

In terms of breaking down barriers, I’m strictly a matched play guy (not competitive though) but 9th is definitely tempting me to have a go at Crusade, although even there I’ll probably use points.

 

In terms of getting people to try new things etc I’m not sure the three ways to play will be that successful. Mainly because I think they’re additions to the game that no one asked for.

 

Now whatever criticisms you can throw at 7th edition and earlier (and there are a lot of them) I don’t think the fact that it used points to balance things was ever One of them or something lots of people wanted an alternative to. So Power levels and open play didn’t really solve any problems people were having and as a result, People don’t really feel any need to try them.

 

Now I’m not saying those modes don’t have people who enjoy them or anything (although to be fair I’ve never met anyone who uses open play), just that they have nothing that tempts a lot of people away from points because people don’t really have a problem with points.

[WrathOfTheLion]

In one of the recent warcom articles, they said that power level would be updated in a new document in a few weeks. I don't know in what format that will be.

 

I don't think I have an issue with PL, but it's not really playable for DA or SW as of now before the update, especially compared to C:SM, whose has been updated.

[MegaVolt87]

In one of the recent warcom articles, they said that power level would be updated in a new document in a few weeks. I don't know in what format that will be.

 

I don't think I have an issue with PL, but it's not really playable for DA or SW as of now before the update, especially compared to C:SM, whose has been updated.

 

Super weird, so making power level update(s?) essentially free. That would have been a good opportunity to up-sell casual players on the new app sub or to CA if they were the only places to get revised power levels. I'm tagging the tin foil hat theorists on this one to explain. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

 

In one of the recent warcom articles, they said that power level would be updated in a new document in a few weeks. I don't know in what format that will be.

 

I don't think I have an issue with PL, but it's not really playable for DA or SW as of now before the update, especially compared to C:SM, whose has been updated.

 

Super weird, so making power level update(s?) essentially free. That would have been a good opportunity to up-sell casual players on the new app sub or to CA if they were the only places to get revised power levels. I'm tagging the tin foil hat theorists on this one to explain. 

 

I think CA is being markerted here for tournament/matched play, so they want to keep what a customer has to purchase more focused based on their method of play.

[apologist]

In terms of breaking down barriers, I’m strictly a matched play guy (not competitive though) but 9th is definitely tempting me to have a go at Crusade, although even there I’ll probably use points.

 

I think there's a box-out in the rules for the different ways of playing that makes it clear that points values and power level can be used for any type of gaming. Whereas 8th had Points = Matched and Narrative, and Power Level = Open; 9th is making it explicit that you can use either (or none) of the valuing systems for any type of gaming.

 

In terms of getting people to try new things etc I’m not sure the three ways to play will be that successful. Mainly because I think they’re additions to the game that no one asked for.

 

To look at it from another angle, it's not so much that no-one asked for these additions as it is codifying things that already existed.

 

When teaching a new player, for example, lots of people play without points or force organisation – that's now codified as Open Play. When a relative sees the models and asks how it works, you don't break out the rulebooks; you pop a squad or two on the board and start rolling dice. 

 

It's not just those starting out, either. Giant games in clubs – like 'bring and battles' at GWs ~ as often as not had very loose structure, if any at all. Again, that's Open Play. I'd expect most players (who think of themselves as Match Players only) have had at least one game like that.

 

Sure, perhaps it's nowhere near as common as typical equal points-led games (Matched Play), but by giving it a name, it's easier for people 'deep in' to get their heads around. It also goes some way to 'legitimising' things, which is important for people who are a bit socially unsure. If power level and points don't appeal, there's now a mode to invite them in.

 

I think Open Play is actually surprisingly common – it's just that, by its nature, it generates less material to discuss.