Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The whole "spirit of the game" thing is so hopelessly vague that it tells you nothing about how the game is meant to be played. The only meaning anyone can agree on is "not like my opponent is doing it".

 Peregrine wrote:
The whole "spirit of the game" thing is so hopelessly vague that it tells you nothing about how the game is meant to be played. The only meaning anyone can agree on is "not like my opponent is doing it".

It might even be the case that the 'spirit of the game' isn't a universal constant and varies by who's playing.

I thought it meant "we couldn't be assed to write a tight set of rules so why don't you goobers take a crack at it?".

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The whole "spirit of the game" thing is so hopelessly vague that it tells you nothing about how the game is meant to be played. The only meaning anyone can agree on is "not like my opponent is doing it".

It might even be the case that the 'spirit of the game' isn't a universal constant and varies by who's playing.

Perish the concept of different people approaching the same thing in a multitude of ways and getting what they want out of it. The game isn't meant to be played in any particular way.

Martel732 wrote:
I personally find obj sec motivation enough to bring troops, but never 40%.

The motivation goes to zero if your codex or supplement provides you with a strong formation like decurion.

Formations were and are a disaster. An obvious and egregious mistake that should be removed with 8th Edition, but won't be, because it's a great sales pitch.

Actually, that's probably the main issue.

They write rules to sell their figures and vehicles. They're not bothered about balance so long as the next release is going to sell like hot cakes.

What formations need is a cull. Cut down all the formations that are just three Riptides/Lords of Skulls/Ork Flyers, add points costs to run formations, and fix the bonuses for existing formation. Example for one that did it right, Tau Retaliation Cadre. One that did it wrong, Optimized Stealth Cadre. The first one's bonus makes sense, and isn't too intrusive or powerful. OSC is a game-breaker against mechanized armies, and the bonus makes no sense. How do stealth fields give you +1 BS, Ignores Cover, and hitting rear armor on vehicles?

I remember playing apocalypse, where you had to have the models and still pay points for the formation bonus!! That's all they need to do - add points to formations - to fix 40k. This will add balance and no one will get skyhammered/alpha struck to death.

Points = balance. Remember age of sigmar and the complaints about balance and points? Folks are so glad to have points now. 40k is the same. It's not fair to give free uber abilities for free, without the tax of the foc.

 Verviedi wrote:
What formations need is a cull. Cut down all the formations that are just three Riptides/Lords of Skulls/Ork Flyers, add points costs to run formations, and fix the bonuses for existing formation. Example for one that did it right, Tau Retaliation Cadre. One that did it wrong, Optimized Stealth Cadre. The first one's bonus makes sense, and isn't too intrusive or powerful. OSC is a game-breaker against mechanized armies, and the bonus makes no sense. How do stealth fields give you +1 BS, Ignores Cover, and hitting rear armor on vehicles?

I like my Dakkajet Skwadron

GW needs to focus on game balance and design more so you don't end up gak like Decurion being massive power creep that doesn't offer any real gameplay variety. As much as I love the way the Hunter Contingent, Hunter Cadre, and Ret Cadre play they are incredibly powerful and really kick the Tau army up a few notches when they already are a strong codex. Points cost would probably be a good thing for some formations so that they can get more powerful rules but at a cost that helps balance them. Something like Decurion having a ppm increase for all the units in it to get those special rules would make things more reasonable instead of it just being "have a bunch of free power". (I like picking on Decurion because its an easy example to make and Decurion has such a nice ring to it Its not that I think Necrons are OP).

 Peregrine wrote:
The whole "spirit of the game" thing is so hopelessly vague that it tells you nothing about how the game is meant to be played. The only meaning anyone can agree on is "not like my opponent is doing it".

Anyone talking about spirit of the game are likely just closet competitive individuals with too much cognitive dissonance to navigate and use the convenient social camouflage of being "casual", selling cultural relativism while also evangelizing the one true way to play, which is always the vague "within the spirit of game". As if whatever that is will give someone the emotional strength of a buddhist monk in the face of S10 AP2 pie plate removing a whole squad.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
Formations were and are a disaster. An obvious and egregious mistake that should be removed with 8th Edition, but won't be, because it's a great sales pitch.

Actually, that's probably the main issue.

They write rules to sell their figures and vehicles. They're not bothered about balance so long as the next release is going to sell like hot cakes.

Exactly, it's dlc for real life and gw just uses it to push random collections of models with zero thought to what effect it has on the game.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The whole "spirit of the game" thing is so hopelessly vague that it tells you nothing about how the game is meant to be played. The only meaning anyone can agree on is "not like my opponent is doing it".

Anyone talking about spirit of the game are likely just closet competitive individuals with too much cognitive dissonance to navigate and use the convenient social camouflage of being "casual", selling cultural relativism while also evangelizing the one true way to play, which is always the vague "within the spirit of game". As if whatever that is will give someone the emotional strength of a buddhist monk in the face of S10 AP2 pie plate removing a while squad.

#sithdealinginabsolutes

What 40K needs is to remove super heavies and formations from the game. I understand some people like them though, so why not separate them off into another game ? Call it Apocalypse for example ?

 455_PWR wrote:

Points = balance. Remember age of sigmar and the complaints about balance and points? Folks are so glad to have points now. 40k is the same. It's not fair to give free uber abilities for free, without the tax of the foc.

GW are glad to have the money from people paying for points.

Seriously, if people aren't able to eye up a game and "balance" it, then no wonder GW has to act as a nanny state for them.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:

Points = balance. Remember age of sigmar and the complaints about balance and points? Folks are so glad to have points now. 40k is the same. It's not fair to give free uber abilities for free, without the tax of the foc.

GW are glad to have the money from people paying for points.

Seriously, if people aren't able to eye up a game and "balance" it, then no wonder GW has to act as a nanny state for them.

If it is so easy, why isnt GW doing it ?
Eyeing up a game has a lot of issues and is why most games on the market actually think about design and what the rules are supposed to achieve.
Right now even if there was better balance, there would still be far to much general bad design.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:

Points = balance. Remember age of sigmar and the complaints about balance and points? Folks are so glad to have points now. 40k is the same. It's not fair to give free uber abilities for free, without the tax of the foc.

GW are glad to have the money from people paying for points.

Seriously, if people aren't able to eye up a game and "balance" it, then no wonder GW has to act as a nanny state for them.

How does a new player 'eye-up' any system that has no points system - it is impossible.

Unless a person is a veteran of a system for many years 'eye-up' is just uneducated guess work.

To 'eye-up' 40k a person would need to know the relative strengths of thousands of units and weapons and know how any special abilities or special rules effect that relative strength.

Most table-top games have their points system built into them from the very beginning. Without such systems even developers would find it hard to balance their scenarios or offer balanced matches.

Even the original 40k came with a detailed points system to help players balance games. And that game system came with GM support. Without GM support points are even more critical to balancing a game.

Impossible? Bit of an overstatement.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Impossible? Bit of an overstatement.

Not for a new player. A new player looking at no-points 40k is going to have no idea how to balance a game because they're still going to be struggling to understand how the rules work.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Impossible? Bit of an overstatement.

For a new player certainly not. Even veterans will have great difficulty eyeing-up any force they are unfamiliar with in any given system. The more sprawling the game the less chance anybody can eye-up a fair match with all available forces within that system.

Take a large system you know next to nothing about - Battletech, Bolt Action, GoA, FoW, Warmachine - and imagine starting them from scratch and trying to eye-ball balance between opposing forces. It's nothing but hard work for - at best - mediocre results because the developer decided to be either lazy or inept.

Well, then we're doomed then aren't we?

Not for a new player. A new player looking at no-points 40k is going to have no idea how to balance a game because they're still going to be struggling to understand how the rules work.

You've then got to get two players to agree what 'balance' is.
As had been said countless times in this thread, 40K is fine for casual games amongst close friends.
It's awful for pick-up games in club/shops and tournaments.

Bartali wrote:

Not for a new player. A new player looking at no-points 40k is going to have no idea how to balance a game because they're still going to be struggling to understand how the rules work.

You've then got to get two players to agree what 'balance' is.
As had been said countless times in this thread, 40K is fine for casual games amongst close friends.
It's awful for pick-up games in club/shops and tournaments.

I'm not sure why this line is constantly trotted out. Why is a complete lack of balance fine for casual players?

I've never played in a tournament in any system. All my gaming is with friends or within a club setting. I've found points to be vital in designing balanced one-off games, fluffy scenarios and campaigns for multiple systems within those confines. In many ways lack of points or badly designed points leads to as many problems for casual gamers as pick-up or tournament gamers.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Well, then we're doomed then aren't we?

Totally. 100% doomed.

Good thing other companies have figured out the basics of game design and do things like 'playtest' and ask for 'feedback'. Revolutionary concepts, I'm sure.

And seconding the point about poor balance being good for casual players. Balanced, well written games are good for all types of players with no disadvantage to any play style. Poorly balanced, poorly written games don't benefit anyone, especially casual gamers.

niall78 wrote:

Bartali wrote:

Not for a new player. A new player looking at no-points 40k is going to have no idea how to balance a game because they're still going to be struggling to understand how the rules work.

You've then got to get two players to agree what 'balance' is.
As had been said countless times in this thread, 40K is fine for casual games amongst close friends.
It's awful for pick-up games in club/shops and tournaments.

I'm not sure why this line is constantly trotted out. Why is a complete lack of balance fine for casual players?

I've never played in a tournament in any system. All my gaming is with friends or within a club setting. I've found points to be vital in designing balanced one-off games, fluffy scenarios and campaigns for multiple systems within those confines. In many ways lack of points or badly designed points leads to as many problems for casual gamers as pick-up or tournament gamers.

Whoaa there, didn't say anything about doing away with points in casual games.

I find 40K fine in casual games between a few close friends. We've played together long enough that we know each other and our armies, and we haven't really changed that much since 5th. This is in spite of the balance issues, and I'm absolutely in favour of making the game balanced. I'm having fun despite the game system, not because of it.

Or bite the bullet and use a new system (e.g. Tomorrow's War, Stargrunt II, DropWing, etc), or write one's own... I'm thinking of doing that.

Bartali wrote:

niall78 wrote:

Bartali wrote:

Not for a new player. A new player looking at no-points 40k is going to have no idea how to balance a game because they're still going to be struggling to understand how the rules work.

You've then got to get two players to agree what 'balance' is.
As had been said countless times in this thread, 40K is fine for casual games amongst close friends.
It's awful for pick-up games in club/shops and tournaments.

I'm not sure why this line is constantly trotted out. Why is a complete lack of balance fine for casual players?

I've never played in a tournament in any system. All my gaming is with friends or within a club setting. I've found points to be vital in designing balanced one-off games, fluffy scenarios and campaigns for multiple systems within those confines. In many ways lack of points or badly designed points leads to as many problems for casual gamers as pick-up or tournament gamers.

Whoaa there, didn't say anything about doing away with points in casual games.

I find 40K fine in casual games between a few close friends. We've played together long enough that we know each other and our armies, and we haven't really changed that much since 5th. This is in spite of the balance issues, and I'm absolutely in favour of making the game balanced. I'm having fun despite the game system, not because of it.

Sorry mate in no way was I getting at you personally I just find the whole casual/tournament divide a bit of a red herring. Points make sense for all types of play. The better the points system the more useful it is to the whole player base.

As a player who was using a modified Mighty Empires rule-set to run WFB campaigns for years I found the lack of points in AoS to be disastrous for my groups casual campaign system. Luckily we shifted pretty quickly to Kings of War that does have a highly competent points system that integrated quite successfully with Mighty Empires. Many casual styles of play are simply impossible or made many times harder by lack of points.

niall78 wrote:
...I just find the whole casual/tournament divide a bit of a red herring. Points make sense for all types of play. The better the points system the more useful it is to the whole player base...

THANK you. Getting into arguments about who plays the game 'correctly' isn't particularly helpful when there are practical solutions that would help everyone.

I don't think anyone is stating that there shouldn't be mathematically applied "balanced" point costs. People are simply indicating that while the current game lacks any form of balance --- the easiest solution outside of a tournament is to simply not make cheesy/beardy lists. That would be the "spirit of the game" argument.

Player A plays Army A.

Player B plays Army B.

Both players are roughly of the same intellect and can play the game at a similar skill level. Let's assume they play 20 games and Player B's army wins 18/20 games --- playing perfectly balanced missions using the points system as it is.

This sucks. The easiest solution is to simply have Player B adjust his list and minimize the things which both players agree are too powerful or inexpensive for their capability etc. If the players feel compelled and can agree, sure, reduce or increase points costs, etc. It's not a perfect solution, but it works. Same thing goes for new players. If a new player is slowly building up an army and is starting with basic troops - don't be a cockhead and crush the dude with your most powerful super armored heavy-heroes.

I fully understand the complaints about game balance, particularly in tournaments, pick-up games with strangers, etc. Amongst friends it can be negated and balanced out by simple choices made by the players.

Sorry mate in no way was I getting at you personally I just find the whole casual/tournament divide a bit of a red herring. Points make sense for all types of play. The better the points system the more useful it is to the whole player base.

Absolutely. Looking forward to a hopefully more balanced 8th ed 40K. If done right it may even tempt me back to pick-up and tournament play

 Elbows wrote:
I don't think anyone is stating that there shouldn't be mathematically applied "balanced" point costs. People are simply indicating that while the current game lacks any form of balance --- the easiest solution outside of a tournament is to simply not make cheesy/beardy lists. That would be the "spirit of the game" argument.

Player A plays Army A.

Player B plays Army B.

Both players are roughly of the same intellect and can play the game at a similar skill level. Let's assume they play 20 games and Player B's army wins 18/20 games --- playing perfectly balanced missions using the points system as it is.

This sucks. The easiest solution is to simply have Player B adjust his list and minimize the things which both players agree are too powerful or inexpensive for their capability etc. If the players feel compelled and can agree, sure, reduce or increase points costs, etc. It's not a perfect solution, but it works. Same thing goes for new players. If a new player is slowly building up an army and is starting with basic troops - don't be a cockhead and crush the dude with your most powerful super armored heavy-heroes.

I fully understand the complaints about game balance, particularly in tournaments, pick-up games with strangers, etc. Amongst friends it can be negated and balanced out by simple choices made by the players.

"Spirit of the game" is as nebulous as "happiness". It means completely different things to different people even in a casual play. In no way do vague statements about the spirit of the game absolve GW from designing a game in which the forces can be balanced properly for all types of play. Dumping such work on the player base and then expecting everyone to agree with each others arbitrary thoughts about what the actual spirit of the game should be is a recipe for disaster.

On the most basic level your suggested solution is a complete nightmare for the player base. They'll buy hundreds of Euro worth of product for their army, more cash on books, will spend weeks painting it up and when they bring it to a game they'll potentially be a 'cockhead' depending on the local meta. In my opinion it's better to just have reasonably balanced rules that negate such nonsense and make all the very expensive plastic pieces usable in the games at the appropriate points cost.

Martel732 wrote:
Dropping GH in pods in the face of a 40% troop list will be catastrophic for the non GH list. Most troops don't have the firepower to handle them and GH are functionally immune to assault from other troops.

Well, I have about 3 years of experience playing in a 40% Troops environment. I think I can safely assume you have 0 years experience playing in a 40% Troops environment. I think I can safely say I'm more of an authority on how it plays than you, and it's been my experience that it has made for very tight games, with very few blowouts.

But, okay, let's test your assertion with a little theoryhammer. 40% of a 1500pt list is 600pts. So, let's look at 600pts of IG Troops vs 600pts of podding Grey Hunters.

IG
Infantry Platoon
Platoon Command Squad
3xInfantry Squads with flamers
+1 Commissar
Special Weapons Squad, 3x plasma guns
Conscript Squad: 30 Conscripts
+1 Commissar

Veterans Squad
10 Veterans, 3x plasma guns, Grenadiers
Chimera

Space Wolves
2xGrey Hunter Squad
Wolf Guard Pack Leader wt combi-melta, 9 GHs: meltagun, flamer, drop pod
Grey Hunter Squad
7 GHs, flamer, drop pod

I am going to make one non-Troops assumption here for the IG army - I'm giving them an ADL, because if you're playing foot IG, of course you'd take an ADL. In return, we can fill up the last GH squad, give it a Wolf Guard Pack Leader and a meltagun.

The Guard are deployed behind the ADL, using the Conscripts to bubble wrap the more valuable units. From experience, I know IG can bubble wrap their harder hitting units well enough to keep a podded unit from dropping in and destroying it on arrival.

2 GH squads pod in first turn. The flamers are only apt to be able to reach the Conscripts, so we'll say the SW player targets them for maximum casualties. The Conscripts go to ground, giving them a 2+ cover save behind the ADL. We'll say each template can hit 5 Conscripts. 10 hit total, resulting in 6-7 dead. We'll say 7. Then they fire with bolters. 32 shots, 22 hits, 14 wounds, with the aforementioned 2+ cover save 2.3 dead Conscripts. We'll say 3 to take into account the meltaguns - highballing a little even so.

IG turn. The combined platoon moves up on one GH squad, as does the special weapons squad. The Vet Squad moves up on the other, disembarking to bring their full firepower to bear. The PCS issues FRFSRF on the combined platoon. They fire with flamers. We'll say each flamer catches 4 GHs. That's 12 hit, 6 wounded, 2 dead. They open up with 27 lasguns - 81 shots, 40 hits, 13 wounds, 4 dead. The Special Weapons squad opens fire with their plasma guns - 6 shots, 3 hits, 2 dead. That squad is down to 2 members now.

Now, the Vets open up on the other squad. 6 plasma shots, 4 hits, 3 dead. 14 lasgun shots, 9 hits, 3 wounds, another 1 dead. For brevity, I'm simply going to tell you the combined shooting of the Chimera, the Company Command Squad, and snap shooting from the Conscripts kills another GH. The other squad is now down to 5.

So, so far the GHs have killed about 10 Conscripts, and in return have lost 13 of their number. Hardly the one-sided affair in favor of the GHs you're suggesting. I could go on, and the theoryhammer of the third pod coming in, who they shoot, who the other units shoot, who they assault, Overwatch, close combat attacks, etc would all be very interesting. I'm going to refrain, because I didn't start this exercise to prove one side superior to the other, or to see who's likely to come out on top in the end, just to show that it's a game and not an automatic rollover.

Peregrine wrote:Mandatory troops requirements are bad. Requiring 40% of your army to be troops is essentially saying "we know these units are boring as hell and the only reason you're taking them is because we won't let you play the game otherwise, but you have to take them". Why would anyone think that it's a good idea to, in a game that is supposed to be fun, require everyone to waste half their army on things that aren't fun? If you want to see more troops on the table then make troops viable and interesting units that people want to take.

I used to think Troops choices were boring. Then GW introduced Kill Team in 4th edition. After seeing the conversions staffers had done for IG, Ork, and Chaos kill teams, I decided I wanted a cool team for my Dark Angels. Choosing a Tac Squad, I did all kinds of interesting conversions to make the individual members more interesting than the standard pose. That made the squad much more interesting right out of the gate.

Also, I suspect a lot of the "Troops are boring" attitude stems from a global meta where Troops can't do much against uber units. While that's understandable, in an environment where everyone has to take a hefty chunk of Troops, there's always going to be something on the table even basic, non-upgraded Troops can affect. Add to that upgrades so they can pitch in against other units as needed, and using them on the tabletop isn't so boring at all.