Switch Theme:

Minature games without points?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Lurking Gaunt





I think on game design a good bit while at work (monotonous cubicle job with plenty of time for pondering) and have been mulling over some ideas. One thing I have been looking at is how 40k figures out it's points (no one seems to be able to figure out a formula if there is one).

On the train of thinking for balance it got me wondering - are there any wargames that don't use point values for balance, and if so what do they use instead?

I've only had experience with 40k, Necromunda, Mageknight, Warmahordes and Pirates of the Spanish Main and all use points.
I think it would be hard to go some other route, but I am curious if there are any games out there with a different approach to balance.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






Toronto

Points is simplest. Period. However, Star Wars pocket models tcg uses a limit of 30 stars for all their games. PS. A normal tcg unit has two stars, and ultra-heavy ones have five. There are also two star, three star, four star, and the gargantuan six star models.

Adepta Sororitas: 3,800 Points
Adeptus Custodes: 8,100 Points
Adeptus Mechanicus: 8,400 Points
Alpha Legion: 4,400 Points
Astra Militarum: 7,500 Points
Dark Angels: 16,800 Points
Imperial Knights: 12,500 Points
Legio Titanicus: 5,500 Points
Slaaneshi Daemons: 3,800 Points
 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

lliu wrote:
Points is simplest. Period. However, Star Wars pocket models tcg uses a limit of 30 stars for all their games. PS. A normal tcg unit has two stars, and ultra-heavy ones have five. There are also two star, three star, four star, and the gargantuan six star models.

Which basically means 'stars' equals 'points'...

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in ie
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!




Kildare, Ireland

Lots of historical games dont use points... you use a scenario.

Armies are rarely balanced in the real world...

 Strombones wrote:
Battlegroup - Because its tits.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






For balancing you normally have points or lists.

Points might be called points or some other thing which is counted.

Lists are preset, prebalanced groups with minimal options (DBx series being one common rule set that uses lists).

Some games forego balance entirely - because as noted, the real world is rarely balanced. These can have historical battles (Alamo, Thermopylae) that were unbalanced or those which were pretty close to even matches. A few sci-fi and fantasy games follow suit either in using scenarios from books or films or creating there own for the heck of it (often based on historical scenarios with a sci-fi or fantasy bent...300 dwarves making their stand against a horde of orcs and ogres).
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

As big P says, alot of historical games either don't have points, or have really rudimentary points systems that they admit don't really provide a balanced game.

Some non-historical games are like this also. Tomorrow's war's point system is deliberately vague. Battletech and Alpha Strike's "Battle Value" points systems are also not capable of really balancing a battle as there are so many variables.

In that case it's all about scenarios. The point is to see how a scenario works out, rather than a balanced competitive game. That is not to say that the game isn't competitive, just that there's some understanding that the best player might loose. The fun is in seeing what happens and seeing what kind of tactical moves a player can pull off, even if they don't win. Some of these kinds of games do try to balance the game a bit with scenarios that include preset force lists and objectives that are unique to each side. Battletech for example has hundreds of scenarios in it's supplements that include exactly which units should be included, and very specific victory conditions.

The result is that these games are so different from what many gamers are used because there is almost no emphasis on list-building. The challenge is how you play out the game, not what combination of units you work out before the game. In fact, in this type of game it is usually (though not always the case) frowned on to build a competitive army, as that takes away from the focus on the scenario.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/21 00:22:04


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Biloxi, MS USA

Monsterpocalypse doesn't use points.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in ie
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!




Kildare, Ireland

Yes, it comes down to the scenario.

We did a game two weeks ago where I had a platoon of German Volkssturm with two AT guns supporting them, dug in on a ridgeline facing an entire company of infantry and 20 Soviet tanks...

I was never going to win, but that wasnt the point.

My objective was to hold them off for as long as possible and cause as many losses to them as possible.

By the time my last few men were mown down they had knocked out 12 Soviet tanks and killed over two-thirds of the enemy infantry.

Some with regards the scenario I achieved my objecrjve convincingly and 'won'.

 Strombones wrote:
Battlegroup - Because its tits.
 
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt





The ideas of set scenarios instead of list building is interesting. On one hand I like the customization of list building and variety. On the other hand though in 40k I tend to make fluff lists anyway.
Are the armies in a scenario based game usually set in stone or are the options such as "choose 3 of unit A B C to fill this requirement"

Monsterpocalypse seems cool, I need to look into that. I love city wrecking monsters.
   
Made in gb
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

There is quite a good article on this in the latest Wargames, Soldiers & Strategy game magazine written by Rick Priestly which is worth a read.

As Big P says this is fairly common in historical games, because you are often creating a scenario. 'Points' are one way of balancing a game outside of this setting, but actually came in much later in terms of the history of development of wargames. One of my favourite current rule sets is Bloody Barons, for the War of the Roses period, which just gives unit listings for each major battle fought in that period.

Epic 30K&40K! A new players guide, contributors welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
Small but perfectly formed! A Great Crusade Epic 6mm project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/694411.page

 
   
Made in gb
Major





As it happens Miniature Wargames has an article this month of how to play games without points.

It mainly tries to shift away from the obsession with games becoming 'balanced' as real battles are rarely if ever balanced. The attacker is normally doing so because they have some sort of advantage they wish to press. It instead focuses on how to make scenarios fair by shifting the objectives so they player with the advantage in terms of military might has to accomplish more in order to win the game.

One example the writer uses is the 6 day war in 1967, which was a very one sided affair and as a game could never be 'balanced' but could however be made fair by setting the objectives correctly. For example the Arabs win if they survive seven days.

It's a far more difficult matter for tournaments or pick up games, but that doesn't mean it's not possible for more causal gentlemanly play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/21 11:01:06


"And if we've learnt anything over the past 1000 mile retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation!" 
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

Graxous wrote:
The ideas of set scenarios instead of list building is interesting. On one hand I like the customization of list building and variety. On the other hand though in 40k I tend to make fluff lists anyway.
Are the armies in a scenario based game usually set in stone or are the options such as "choose 3 of unit A B C to fill this requirement"


It depends. Some scenarios are quite vague, listing aproximate units or suggestions for proportional relationship of the forces used and many scenarios will list specific units. However, substitution to accommodate a person's miniatures collection or even tweaking the scenario is common among those who enjoy this kind of gaming. Playing a scenario rather than a points value is a gentleman's agreement that usually involves players cooperatively clarifying grey areas, setting up terrain, etc. For players used to this kind of game, adjusting the units or details of a scenario is par for the course.

This type of mindset is not exclusive to games with no points systems. Our club mostly plays games that have points systems, as we do enjoy knowing with some approximation how the forces compare. However, we play ALOT of scenarios. In fact we rarely play a simple line-up-and-kill type of game anymore. None of us are much into list-building as a way to gain a competitive advantage, rather for the most part we use point systems and unit creation (most of our games have unit-creation-mechanics) to create statlines that best reflect the miniature or unit based on it's appearance.

In our current Song of Blades and Heroes Campaign, we were very keen to not have alot of fight-until-break games so we have a list of about 18 different scenarios that the players usually roll randomly for, as well as a few custom scenarios that players wrote for the campaign and a binder with a further 50 or so that we got from the internet that players are welcome to use if both agree to it.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in au
Anti-Armour Swiss Guard






Newcastle, OZ

 Eilif wrote:

Some non-historical games are like this also. Tomorrow's war's point system is deliberately vague.


TW, and the entire Force On Force family, are scenario driven primarily - as was their spiritual predecessors (for TW, anyway) Stargrunt I and II.
The forces are rarely balanced except BY the scenario. Asymmetric warfare is a fact of history. Not just confined to regular forces v irregular disorganised mob of recent history.

Scenario driven games DO require a different mindset to those that use points, though - and can seem unsatisfying to those who've ONLY ever played points system games.

I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.

That is not dead which can eternal lie ...

... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

I will give three examples of different approaches to the problem of organising games without points:

De Bellis Antiquitatis is a set of fast play, small army ancients rules.

The game contains army lists for every known army between 3,000 BC and 1500 AD. Each list consists of a standard set of units appropriate for that army. For example a Macedonian army will always contain a certain number of pike units, an Imperial Roman army will always contain a certain number of Legionary units. Each army also has access to a variable number of optional units such as light infantry, elephants, cavalry and so on that depend on the historical original.

To make a side for a game you take the standard units and choose optional units up to a total of 12 units.


Fire & Fury is a set of big battle American Civil War rules for corps level play.

To set up a game you choose a battle, say Gettysburg, and look up the order of battle of both sides. For each infantry brigade you divide the strength by 80 (I think, it might be 100 or something but the principle is the same -- cavalry and artillery are done basically the same).

This gives you the number of infantry stands for that brigade. Repeat until all the brigades, divisions and attached cavalry and artillery units have been worked out and organised. There is your army.


Polemos Marechal de l'Empire is an army level game of Napoleonic combat.

To set up a game you choose the nations involved and the campaign to play, for example Russian versus French 1812. Each army involved in the campaign has a set of dice tables to give the number, size and quality of units, and the quality of the general, for each corps. You do a mega dice rolling session and end up with say 10 corps consisting of various mixtures of units.

You then dice again to see which of your corps actually turns up for the battle in time and that is your army.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/21 14:37:56


I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Sergeant First Class



Northern VA

Many examples have been given of games with no points, but I'll mention something a little bit different.

By Fire and Sword (which currently has a kickstarter for their first expansion going on) does use a points system, but the game is designed for armies where the points don't match up. You make up for having lower points by gaining additional effects during the game, and customizing the scenario to benefit you beforehand.
   
Made in us
Myrmidon Officer





NC

Haven't played it myself, but I believe MERCs doesn't use points.

You have 6-7 models to choose from in a faction, and you pick 5 unique models.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Victory at Sea V1 has an interesting system, sort of points but sort of not. You have '5pts', and pick a scale of battle, do you want a raid? a skirmish or all out war? ships also have a priority level, with the same range of names.

A ship of the same priority as the scenario costs 1pt, a higher priority costs more, lower costs less.

So you can bring Bismark to a smaller game but will be alone, and can get a good few smaller escorts with a single point in a larger game.

Key feature, a battleship is a battleship is a battleship, some are better than others but they are all based on what was actually built, or at least designed with the H series and Montana/Lion classes. Some factions are just better at some things.

Micronaughts has no point values, just a scenario generator, you get maybe a light cruiser and a couple of destroyers, again go find out what your faction actually had in that year and pick something interesting.

Taking point values away in historical games is easy, base on historical scenarios very few of which are 'fair', given both sides did all they could to avoid a fair fight - you balance by trying to do better than history.

It requires a different mindset to play a game that way, its like playing 40k with 500pts against an enemy who has maybe 1,000pts, you are almost certainly going down, but can you last longer than they do when the roles are reversed?

If you play the game both ways balance is no longer anything like as important.

Many of the Warlord systems have point values, but they are very much an optional extra (Pike & Shotte, Black Powder etc, not Bolt Action which seems aimed at 40k players)


GDWs "Battlerider" had an interesting take, you have 3k to build a fleet, you then draw a scenario which will permit you to actually use somewhere between 750 and 3k points chosen from your fleet - your enemy does the same, missions are kept secret and you can elect to have a smaller fleet. Your victory conditions now vary depending on who has the larger fleet or if they are roughly equal - but you only find out the size of the enemy fleet in points at the end - so you can think you have won and find out you didn't. Interestingly you are not really playing your enemy at all, you have a mission to carry out and are scored on your success or lack of it - to "win" you must carry out your mission and correctly guess your enemies and prevent them from completing it. Most games are very unbalanced say a 750 point scout fleet against a 3k full invasion force, but the scouts may only have to scan a few ships then leave..
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

 Absolutionis wrote:
Haven't played it myself, but I believe MERCs doesn't use points.

You have 6-7 models to choose from in a faction, and you pick 5 unique models.


You are absolutely correct. I had forgotten about that one.

Each faction has 6 models with individual powers and you choose five for your team.

There is one faction that only has five models and it has the power that you can choose a model from any other faction.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






Minnesota, land of 10,000 Lakes and 10,000,000,000 Mosquitos

Been a while since I've read the book, but I believe Chain of Command doesn't use points in the traditional sense. You choose which type of army you're playing (if you use, say, the USA, then you can choose between a slower, more defensive army or one that's more mobile) and then that army has a specific list of units that are used. I think you can swap some out for others, or choose from multiple options for certain slots, but you don't actually "buy" things, you just choose from things that are available for that specific list. Once you have it set, there's then a system for adding additional things to balance the difference between sides, things like artillery barrages or special characters.

The game itself was way too clunky for my tastes, but I did think it had an interesting way of doing the whole list-building thing.

My Armies:
Kal'reia Sept Tau - Farsight Sympathizers
Da Great Looted Waaagh!
The Court of the Wolf Lords

The Dakka Code:
DT:90-S+++G+++MB-IPw40k10#++D++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ 
   
Made in ie
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!




Kildare, Ireland

...and you can do what we did with Battlegroup which is to have lists with points, but they then get used in fixed scenarios.

So you get to choose an army, from lists that restrict and push a player to historical style forces, and then its used in a randomly generated scenario where you have to make the best of things, hope units arrive quickly etc, so it aims to give the best of both worlds - the ease of points lists for pick up play, combined with the exciting nature of scenario basdd games.

 Strombones wrote:
Battlegroup - Because its tits.
 
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt





I didn't realize there were so many out there - thank you all for the responses!

The idea of a scenario based game is really growing on me. Really that is how my group used to play with Necromunda and some 40k games we would just make some stuff up. For example, Tyranids vs. CSM. The CSM had a small force held up in this fort like terrain as the Tyranids attacked. The rest of the CSM army was in reserves but we made up a scenario rule that they would come out at the start of turn 4 as backup (the calvary coming to save the day type of situation)

As the Tyranid player I ended up loosing in the end, even though at first my opponent had much less models (think we did a 1500 pt game and only 500 CSM started in the fort) but it was very close and a lot of fun.

I wonder if something could work like MERCs on a larger scale. Have a variety of units that have different strengths/weakenesses but are balanced on a per unit basis and then you choose so many units.

I've been thinking a lot on this part because of a love/hate relationship with 40k right now and mulling over game design in general. Again, the responses have been great.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Myrtle Creek, OR

A helpful thing to do with scenarios is to play both sides.
That is, you play side A this time and next time you play side B.
You set up the same both games, same side goes first, etc.
That helps (beyond wild dice throwing fluctuations) differentiate whether it's the army or the general who is contributing most to winning.

Thread Slayer 
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt





Good idea privateer4hire

Im generally not a fan of historicals (I like my lasers and aliens and magic throwing goblins), but may have to get my feet wet since they seem to be common choice in the scenario based games.
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

The switching sides idea is a very good one if you have time for it. I suggested such a thing for tournaments a few years back, but the consensus was that no one whated anyone else touching their models. Still, I think it's a great way to see if it's the general or the list.

Graxous,
If you're having a tough time with your 40k relationship, scenarios could be just the thing. Near the end of my tenure with 40k, we played some scenarios with the "Battle Missions" book. They are pretty simplistic as missions go (historical folks would probably laugh at them) but it did add a nice change of pace to the game.


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

I play a small Indie game called "Zynvaded" that I found at Gen-Con three years ago, which works like MERCS.

A basic force is a squad of three men, filling three roles called "Leader, Support, and Scout". However, each slot can be filled by several different types of fighter, like "Support" can be either a missile launcher or HMG-armed trooper. Scout can be either a melee-oriented Assassin, or a Sniper.



"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Graxous wrote:
Good idea privateer4hire

Im generally not a fan of historicals (I like my lasers and aliens and magic throwing goblins), but may have to get my feet wet since they seem to be common choice in the scenario based games.


In historicals a "scenario" is often a real life battle.

A neat idea is to take a the basic setup from a well documented historical battle and use it in a different context. You can take a battle and swap the sides, or move it to a different theatre or even a completely different time period.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Kilkrazy wrote:
Graxous wrote:
Good idea privateer4hire

Im generally not a fan of historicals (I like my lasers and aliens and magic throwing goblins), but may have to get my feet wet since they seem to be common choice in the scenario based games.


In historicals a "scenario" is often a real life battle.

A neat idea is to take a the basic setup from a well documented historical battle and use it in a different context. You can take a battle and swap the sides, or move it to a different theatre or even a completely different time period.


There is also no shortage of alternative history games and scenarios. One of the very first "wargames" I had played was a scenario were you play a fantasy based army and take on WWII era Nazis (forget the name off the top of my head - but it was written by Gygax in either late S&T or early Dragon magazines).

There are also Napoleonics with ogres and elves fighting with somewhat conventional artillery and weapons as well as wizards and Pegasus mounted cavalry... Stuff like Slaughterloo and Flintloque.

Granted, even within the confines of straight historical games - you have a whole lot of room. Pretty sure you could quite easily do a different scenario every week for the rest of your life without ever repeating yourself if you wanted to.
   
Made in gb
Twisting Tzeentch Horror



Bridgwater, somerset

Warlord games black powder don't use points

It makes it really tough to play a pickup game, but is more scenario based. Or it allows for the reality that points don't exist in real life

   
Made in th
Fresh-Faced New User




GW's own Inquisitor didn't use a points system (well, unless you count the ready reckoner at the back of the book, which is explicitly stated in its own blurb to be a terrible thing only included to sate certain players' points-lust). It just kind of gave you some rules and a few vague scenario/character ideas, and told you to have at it.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

The points based army creation system comes out of Wargames Research Group's series of Ancients rules for competition play.

Whenever someone says 40K has never been designed for competitive play ask them why it has points.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: