Play Apoc at lower point levels to be equivalent to a regular game of 40k. More balanced. Better rules. feth power bloat, codexes, supplements, etc etc...
Martel732 wrote: I just find the appeals to authority of gw to be laughable.
If you don't need GW's missions then you certainly don't need their point costs either.
Or unit rules. Or statlines.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good houseruled mission as well as anyone else. Can be quite fun. But a houserule is a houserule, whether it's ostensibly done for "competition" or "just for fun".
Ishagu wrote:If the community isn't using official rules they can't complain to GW.
In this we are in completely in agreement. If one has a problem with the ruleset being used, DON'T PLAY and direct the complaints at the appropriate target.
If one does not like ITC ruleset, don't play in tournaments that use them. If you do like the changes ITC makes, then you will you pursue those events. Rather simple.
If not enough people use the ITC rulse, they will either change to attract more people, or they will become irrelevant.
Martel732 wrote:I dont want to use any of gws rules. But the community seems to want to use the points fairly universally, as well as the gwbrb. So im a bit stuck. Only the missions see variance.
True. The choice is either play with what your group wants, or seek to develop a group that agrees with you. That's the way it's always been in social gaming atmospheres.
Which is precisely the problem with the core game itself. If the game were at least slightly balanced to begin with, house rules don't need to have the effect of balance. New tournament packs wouldn't be claiming more balance, but just a different way to play. GW created that divide (not the competitive jerk players, not the filthy casuals, not the "why can't you just meet me in the middle because I don't want to take a side" people, but GW) and expects us to do the fixing for them.
Some, but most were asking for a whole lot more than just point changes.
They could have stopped at Combat Doctrines and left it there, that in itself is a huge buff. When they got several other layers bolted on for absolute no cost it just compounded the issue. (some more than others, compare Iron Hands to White Scars lol)
PA is a stop gap to sell books and raise relative power level. Wait 6 months and when several other factions receive their "2.0" you'll see marines sink back into a mid-tier footnote and Dakka will once again be flooded with "OMG marines suck" threads.
NurglesR0T wrote: Some, but most were asking for a whole lot more than just point changes.
They could have stopped at Combat Doctrines and left it there, that in itself is a huge buff. When they got several other layers bolted on for absolute no cost it just compounded the issue. (some more than others, compare Iron Hands to White Scars lol)
PA is a stop gap to sell books and raise relative power level. Wait 6 months and when several other factions receive their "2.0" you'll see marines sink back into a mid-tier footnote and Dakka will once again be flooded with "OMG marines suck" threads.
And thus the cycle of the codexes shall go on. May the glorious power churn go on forever.
The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah im not sure why they dont put out their own points values and rules of play. Not like the bar is very high.
Well volunteered, let us know when you have a draft ready.
Well with ITC's track record they would just make balance worse. After all ITC tournaments are provenly worse balanced than non ITC with gap between strongers and weakest increasing...
ITC point costs would just be even more marine favouring just like ITC scenario is.
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
By all means, please show us how it's done.
GW haven't balanced it properly. The ITC guys haven't done it with their homebrew, neither have the ETC guys.
Go on, write us a balanced set of rules. It's not that hard, as you say.
Ishagu wrote: A game with 600 different units, 20+ factions, countless weapon, deployment and terrain options is nearly impossible to balance fully.
Realise that this game has more unit and faction variety than any competitor, and even RTS video games.
40k really does not have any meaningful faction variety over there competitors that would make this such a more impossible task, there bigist issues would come from poor and inconsistent design.
Considering this is a issue in other GW games as well, even if 40k seems to be the worst. It would seem more likely it is something to do with the company.
40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.
Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it in record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol
40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.
Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it on record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol
This is true, the forbes numbers put workshop at year to date 1st December (their first halve of their financial year) at $17.8m up pre tax profits.
Their shares are records high not just for workshop but for any tabletop company out there.
I get there is room for improvement but I agree with Ishagu. Workshop do, do alot of things right. Otherwise the numbers wouldn't back them up.
40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.
Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it in record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol
Lots of poor design can sell great, wow is doing great as far as we know. Even as it bleeds away players, it just puts new things to sell ones left. Is it well designed, no. A lot of it is awful, but it keeps those left paying and putting more into a cash shop.
It could collapse or keep going, or even find a way to bring new players back.
But that does not set 40k out that far from other games, you described warmachine and hordes right with that opening.
One of the big things that set them apart, is no faction in warmachine is left out of the core design.
40k has a few factions that are left out, as well as new design ideas introduced often at random and with little ideas on how to bring them inline before at times new editions to the game.
Warmachine also, for the most part ties there bigist faction rules to the warcasters themselves, which offer a type of points system to balance them out.
If some models perform drastically different under different rules, it’s on the design and development to understand and catch that.
It’s why players have taken things to there own to fix these issues. It’s a failure of GW and why this thread even exists now.
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
But the problem is there are a great many people up in arms on these forums about the shoddy rules writing, proofing and testing claiming it's easy to better and the bar is low. These same people then aren't able or willing to do the task they deem "easy" and instead continue to perpetuate the GW cycle they hate and just spend time pouring complaints out. All that does is erode the validity of their statements and frustrate others.
40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.
Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it on record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol
This is true, the forbes numbers put workshop at year to date 1st December (their first halve of their financial year) at $17.8m up pre tax profits.
Their shares are records high not just for workshop but for any tabletop company out there.
I get there is room for improvement but I agree with Ishagu. Workshop do, do alot of things right. Otherwise the numbers wouldn't back them up.
Do we know how much of that is them in the last few years picking up pace with everything else, from where I sit. I see so much more from there other games now The company could be very healthy in other places as well now, considering how bad other games where doing for them for years it seemed.
40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.
Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it on record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol
This is true, the forbes numbers put workshop at year to date 1st December (their first halve of their financial year) at $17.8m up pre tax profits.
Their shares are records high not just for workshop but for any tabletop company out there.
I get there is room for improvement but I agree with Ishagu. Workshop do, do alot of things right. Otherwise the numbers wouldn't back them up.
Do we know how much of that is them in the last few years picking up pace with everything else, from where I sit. I see so much more from there other games now The company could be very healthy in other places as well now, considering how bad other games where doing for them for years it seemed.
If you're so against GW, you could just...you know...not play and buy their stuff.
If you do like their stuff but want it to be better. Then offer constructive alternatives. The GW community staff do read these forums. They do get taken into account. But when inherent complaints with no constructive dialogue is constantly thrown. Then the argument invalidates itself as it is seen for the sake of complaining.
But the truth of the matter is workshop are doing very well. They aren't going anywhere anytime soon. So if you want to see the game get "better", don;t simply moan, constructively feed and suggest.
40k has massive rules and model variety, and even the same models can perform staggeringly different based on additional sub faction rules and traits.
Is it poor design? Everyone's talking about it, playing it, buying it on record numbers year by year. Maybe GW have realised that new spicy rules create more buzz and excitement than some generic, perfectly balanced ones lol
This is true, the forbes numbers put workshop at year to date 1st December (their first halve of their financial year) at $17.8m up pre tax profits.
Their shares are records high not just for workshop but for any tabletop company out there.
I get there is room for improvement but I agree with Ishagu. Workshop do, do alot of things right. Otherwise the numbers wouldn't back them up.
Do we know how much of that is them in the last few years picking up pace with everything else, from where I sit. I see so much more from there other games now The company could be very healthy in other places as well now, considering how bad other games where doing for them for years it seemed.
If you're so against GW, you could just...you know...not play and buy their stuff.
If you do like their stuff but want it to be better. Then offer constructive alternatives. The GW community staff do read these forums. They do get taken into account. But when inherent complaints with no constructive dialogue is constantly thrown. Then the argument invalidates itself as it is seen for the sake of complaining.
But the truth of the matter is workshop are doing very well. They aren't going anywhere anytime soon. So if you want to see the game get "better", don;t simply moan, constructively feed and suggest.
I made no reference to there success as a company, and the reason I am here is for things I like. This is just throwing the goal posts of discussion in the trash and telling me to go dig them out.
I asked about other games in there financial as that is what You both seem to want to discuss.
My interest lies in rules, considering the last time this discussion come up with Ishagu he sidestepped it entirely I will consider maybe stepping out of this now.
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
But the problem is there are a great many people up in arms on these forums about the shoddy rules writing, proofing and testing claiming it's easy to better and the bar is low. These same people then aren't able or willing to do the task they deem "easy" and instead continue to perpetuate the GW cycle they hate and just spend time pouring complaints out. All that does is erode the validity of their statements and frustrate others.
You can write rules, proof that you can do it better, and at the point were you get people into it, GW just releases a new Codex/Edition and everyone is gone because this time GW will do it right and there is no need to use community based rules.
Happens at the end of each Edition as soon as people get bored by the mess GW sells.
And in the end, those willing to play community based rules will go and play other games as there are enough out there and others will continue with the new game as this time it will work
From past experience, most people stay for two Edition changes and are gone with the third
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
By all means, please show us how it's done.
GW haven't balanced it properly. The ITC guys haven't done it with their homebrew, neither have the ETC guys.
Go on, write us a balanced set of rules. It's not that hard, as you say.
I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst.
GW makes an app, that app is used to log games. you build lists within the app for use. make it as easy to use as battlescribe. people play games and analyze win rates with units and gear in the results. if a unit is consistently part of a list in a winning win ratio increase points, if a unit is not being used or only being put in losing win rate armies decrease the points.
update points monthly based on returned data with points cap in place of a few % per unit. It would take a long time to get a say 4 point unit to hit 5 points, but a several hundred point unit might see some quick adjustments. round points at the up or down point of say adjust up at .6 and down at .4 leaving value the same if .4-.6 range to prevent month to month points bouncing of units.
cap the amount of games per user submitted that can influence the scores to something like 5 games equivalent (collect and use all the data but a 30% win rate on dark angels for example playing 50 games would be offset if another user is experiencing a 80% win ratio on 5 games with the same list)
the app should have a subscription or purchase cost, this was nobody is able to just create a ton of bot accounts submitting lists and losing results to purposely skew the results.
app should require a handshake with another app user to identify the players and as an added layer that the match occurred.
likely more restrictions would be needed in there too but that as a foundation would give us some balance fairly quickly.
Apple fox wrote: It’s a failure of GW and why this thread even exists now.
Is it a failure if that was never the goal?
Warhammer was never designed to be a competitive game. That is a burden the players have placed upon it. So I cannot say with fully honesty that it is a failure of GW, but a failure of the collectors to understand what Warhammer is about.
So I find it surprising that when players take charge of handling that balance on their own, they are suddenly declared not playing the real game, even though GW has basically stated at numerous points that it is up to us to decide what we want to do with the game.
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
By all means, please show us how it's done.
GW haven't balanced it properly. The ITC guys haven't done it with their homebrew, neither have the ETC guys.
Go on, write us a balanced set of rules. It's not that hard, as you say.
I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst.
GW makes an app, that app is used to log games. you build lists within the app for use. make it as easy to use as battlescribe. people play games and analyze win rates with units and gear in the results. if a unit is consistently part of a list in a winning win ratio increase points, if a unit is not being used or only being put in losing win rate armies decrease the points.
update points monthly based on returned data with points cap in place of a few % per unit. It would take a long time to get a say 4 point unit to hit 5 points, but a several hundred point unit might see some quick adjustments. round points at the up or down point of say adjust up at .6 and down at .4 leaving value the same if .4-.6 range to prevent month to month points bouncing of units.
cap the amount of games per user submitted that can influence the scores to something like 5 games equivalent (collect and use all the data but a 30% win rate on dark angels for example playing 50 games would be offset if another user is experiencing a 80% win ratio on 5 games with the same list)
the app should have a subscription or purchase cost, this was nobody is able to just create a ton of bot accounts submitting lists and losing results to purposely skew the results.
app should require a handshake with another app user to identify the players and as an added layer that the match occurred.
likely more restrictions would be needed in there too but that as a foundation would give us some balance fairly quickly.
even with a submission cap and player handshake it seems pretty easy to gum up the works with a pair or group of neerdowells to mess with. i suppose if anything their sample size should be negligible.
BUT im down for an APP. Azyr is nice and would love to see more functions on it as well. (though im not happy about having to buy the in program books when i already have the physical ones to access formations.)
points should be easy to update. its why the Chapter approves/General hand books are a thing. IF GW wanted to do it all they really need to do is run events again with actual reporting. they need to collect actual data and then process is. but i dont think GW cares to do actual hard analytics that doesn't involve money. GW has always been a more "feeling" type developer which is how a lot of it was done back when.
Apple fox wrote: It’s a failure of GW and why this thread even exists now.
Is it a failure if that was never the goal?
Warhammer was never designed to be a competitive game. That is a burden the players have placed upon it. So I cannot say with fully honesty that it is a failure of GW, but a failure of the collectors to understand what Warhammer is about.
So I find it surprising that when players take charge of handling that balance on their own, they are suddenly declared not playing the real game, even though GW has basically stated at numerous points that it is up to us to decide what we want to do with the game.
It’s not really a issue at the high Competitive levels, at casual levels is where it can really start to break. The game is competitive, you play against each other. Even in narrative games you often play against each other, unless something more specific or story driven does otherwise
And I do think that some people at GW would want better ballance, there is so much good that comes from that. Not perfect ballance, but a close imbalanced ruleset creates a system for players to experiment without falling into traps. It keeps the strongest and the weakest factions both in the game.
It also creates more variety with what is seen on the table. It’s a good thing in the casual setting and should be far more important there than in the higher competitive market.
Off corse, I think at this point the issues GW face are at design more than at rules design. It does not matter much if a faction lacks a mini to put tools on at all.
I do think the players could do a good job with points, nothing drastic. But at a tournament level little changes could make a difference. But that brings with it all kinds of issues.
Considering the new errata was nothing the players could not have done themselves.
And just have to look at fighting games to why banning a character is hard. Even if warranted, and I think that only a few tournament groups could do it and get the data needed to continue refining it. And then that pushes there game further from others as well, it’s a big mess.
Also I may re iterate my thought on failure, if GW lose there ability to control the game. They lose a lot, why small things like house rules are good.
What happens when every model they release has to go though a fan set of rules before it’s usable for a great deal of players. Not likely to happen,GW probably not that far gone. But it’s interesting that such rules sets can be strong enough on the social sphere to effect so much in this game.
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
By all means, please show us how it's done.
GW haven't balanced it properly. The ITC guys haven't done it with their homebrew, neither have the ETC guys.
Go on, write us a balanced set of rules. It's not that hard, as you say.
I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst.
GW makes an app, that app is used to log games. you build lists within the app for use. make it as easy to use as battlescribe. people play games and analyze win rates with units and gear in the results. if a unit is consistently part of a list in a winning win ratio increase points, if a unit is not being used or only being put in losing win rate armies decrease the points.
update points monthly based on returned data with points cap in place of a few % per unit. It would take a long time to get a say 4 point unit to hit 5 points, but a several hundred point unit might see some quick adjustments. round points at the up or down point of say adjust up at .6 and down at .4 leaving value the same if .4-.6 range to prevent month to month points bouncing of units.
cap the amount of games per user submitted that can influence the scores to something like 5 games equivalent (collect and use all the data but a 30% win rate on dark angels for example playing 50 games would be offset if another user is experiencing a 80% win ratio on 5 games with the same list)
the app should have a subscription or purchase cost, this was nobody is able to just create a ton of bot accounts submitting lists and losing results to purposely skew the results.
app should require a handshake with another app user to identify the players and as an added layer that the match occurred.
likely more restrictions would be needed in there too but that as a foundation would give us some balance fairly quickly.
even with a submission cap and player handshake it seems pretty easy to gum up the works with a pair or group of neerdowells to mess with. i suppose if anything their sample size should be negligible.
BUT im down for an APP. Azyr is nice and would love to see more functions on it as well. (though im not happy about having to buy the in program books when i already have the physical ones to access formations.)
points should be easy to update. its why the Chapter approves/General hand books are a thing. IF GW wanted to do it all they really need to do is run events again with actual reporting. they need to collect actual data and then process is. but i dont think GW cares to do actual hard analytics that doesn't involve money. GW has always been a more "feeling" type developer which is how a lot of it was done back when.
GW's incentive would be the money. chapter approved is ~30 on amazon, 35 on gw site. at $3-4 per month for access I would think they would be at a point where most people in the income bracket to play 40k would not give a crap. still sell paper and digital codexes but if they worked in a way to let people also just have a monthly fee for access to full rules within the app I also think they would make more $ that way. I own 2 actual codexes, custodes and orks the rest I just play through battlescribe because those are my 2 main armies and the rest rarely see a table. at say an additional 7-10 a month I get more rules and GW get more money (plus no need to print things so less overhead)
I think the $3-4 a month would really beat a lot of the possibility of people just creating hundreds of accounts and as long s you limit player influence even 1 person willing to spend 3-400 a month would be a drop in the bucket compared to the main user pool.
I would also add in functions with optional reporting to assist like units left alive at the end of the game to help balance better. woudl help to see if one side got blown off the board in points but also to see if a unit needed some more survival. if tactical marines are always being removed from the baord and never surviving maybe they need a points cut or better survivability for example.
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
By all means, please show us how it's done. GW haven't balanced it properly. The ITC guys haven't done it with their homebrew, neither have the ETC guys.
Go on, write us a balanced set of rules. It's not that hard, as you say.
I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst.
GW makes an app, that app is used to log games. you build lists within the app for use. make it as easy to use as battlescribe. people play games and analyze win rates with units and gear in the results. if a unit is consistently part of a list in a winning win ratio increase points, if a unit is not being used or only being put in losing win rate armies decrease the points.
update points monthly based on returned data with points cap in place of a few % per unit. It would take a long time to get a say 4 point unit to hit 5 points, but a several hundred point unit might see some quick adjustments. round points at the up or down point of say adjust up at .6 and down at .4 leaving value the same if .4-.6 range to prevent month to month points bouncing of units.
cap the amount of games per user submitted that can influence the scores to something like 5 games equivalent (collect and use all the data but a 30% win rate on dark angels for example playing 50 games would be offset if another user is experiencing a 80% win ratio on 5 games with the same list)
the app should have a subscription or purchase cost, this was nobody is able to just create a ton of bot accounts submitting lists and losing results to purposely skew the results.
app should require a handshake with another app user to identify the players and as an added layer that the match occurred.
likely more restrictions would be needed in there too but that as a foundation would give us some balance fairly quickly.
even with a submission cap and player handshake it seems pretty easy to gum up the works with a pair or group of neerdowells to mess with. i suppose if anything their sample size should be negligible.
BUT im down for an APP. Azyr is nice and would love to see more functions on it as well. (though im not happy about having to buy the in program books when i already have the physical ones to access formations.)
points should be easy to update. its why the Chapter approves/General hand books are a thing. IF GW wanted to do it all they really need to do is run events again with actual reporting. they need to collect actual data and then process is. but i dont think GW cares to do actual hard analytics that doesn't involve money. GW has always been a more "feeling" type developer which is how a lot of it was done back when.
GW's incentive would be the money. chapter approved is ~30 on amazon, 35 on gw site. at $3-4 per month for access I would think they would be at a point where most people in the income bracket to play 40k would not give a crap. still sell paper and digital codexes but if they worked in a way to let people also just have a monthly fee for access to full rules within the app I also think they would make more $ that way. I own 2 actual codexes, custodes and orks the rest I just play through battlescribe because those are my 2 main armies and the rest rarely see a table. at say an additional 7-10 a month I get more rules and GW get more money (plus no need to print things so less overhead)
I think the $3-4 a month would really beat a lot of the possibility of people just creating hundreds of accounts and as long s you limit player influence even 1 person willing to spend 3-400 a month would be a drop in the bucket compared to the main user pool.
I would also add in functions with optional reporting to assist like units left alive at the end of the game to help balance better. woudl help to see if one side got blown off the board in points but also to see if a unit needed some more survival. if tactical marines are always being removed from the baord and never surviving maybe they need a points cut or better survivability for example.
[/spoiler]
My only issue with a reporting system is it takes a LOT of proper book keeping in game. its not a problem for some but its definitely intrusive in most games to halt everything pick two options from list of hundreds to report what happened. its the proper way to do it but i think a better way is just to leave it as win loss or tie based on the missions and kill points at the end of game. should give designers a general idea of what happend instead of every possible variable.
Its different compared to something like wmhr where there is at tops 10 models on both sides and has an accompanying app to keep track of what happens (box and spiral damage)
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
By all means, please show us how it's done.
GW haven't balanced it properly. The ITC guys haven't done it with their homebrew, neither have the ETC guys.
Go on, write us a balanced set of rules. It's not that hard, as you say.
I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst.
GW makes an app, that app is used to log games. you build lists within the app for use. make it as easy to use as battlescribe. people play games and analyze win rates with units and gear in the results. if a unit is consistently part of a list in a winning win ratio increase points, if a unit is not being used or only being put in losing win rate armies decrease the points.
update points monthly based on returned data with points cap in place of a few % per unit. It would take a long time to get a say 4 point unit to hit 5 points, but a several hundred point unit might see some quick adjustments. round points at the up or down point of say adjust up at .6 and down at .4 leaving value the same if .4-.6 range to prevent month to month points bouncing of units.
cap the amount of games per user submitted that can influence the scores to something like 5 games equivalent (collect and use all the data but a 30% win rate on dark angels for example playing 50 games would be offset if another user is experiencing a 80% win ratio on 5 games with the same list)
the app should have a subscription or purchase cost, this was nobody is able to just create a ton of bot accounts submitting lists and losing results to purposely skew the results.
app should require a handshake with another app user to identify the players and as an added layer that the match occurred.
likely more restrictions would be needed in there too but that as a foundation would give us some balance fairly quickly.
even with a submission cap and player handshake it seems pretty easy to gum up the works with a pair or group of neerdowells to mess with. i suppose if anything their sample size should be negligible.
BUT im down for an APP. Azyr is nice and would love to see more functions on it as well. (though im not happy about having to buy the in program books when i already have the physical ones to access formations.)
points should be easy to update. its why the Chapter approves/General hand books are a thing. IF GW wanted to do it all they really need to do is run events again with actual reporting. they need to collect actual data and then process is. but i dont think GW cares to do actual hard analytics that doesn't involve money. GW has always been a more "feeling" type developer which is how a lot of it was done back when.
GW's incentive would be the money. chapter approved is ~30 on amazon, 35 on gw site. at $3-4 per month for access I would think they would be at a point where most people in the income bracket to play 40k would not give a crap. still sell paper and digital codexes but if they worked in a way to let people also just have a monthly fee for access to full rules within the app I also think they would make more $ that way. I own 2 actual codexes, custodes and orks the rest I just play through battlescribe because those are my 2 main armies and the rest rarely see a table. at say an additional 7-10 a month I get more rules and GW get more money (plus no need to print things so less overhead)
I think the $3-4 a month would really beat a lot of the possibility of people just creating hundreds of accounts and as long s you limit player influence even 1 person willing to spend 3-400 a month would be a drop in the bucket compared to the main user pool.
I would also add in functions with optional reporting to assist like units left alive at the end of the game to help balance better. woudl help to see if one side got blown off the board in points but also to see if a unit needed some more survival. if tactical marines are always being removed from the baord and never surviving maybe they need a points cut or better survivability for example.
[/spoiler]
My only issue with a reporting system is it takes a LOT of proper book keeping in game. its not a problem for some but its definitely intrusive in most games to halt everything pick two options from list of hundreds to report what happened. its the proper way to do it but i think a better way is just to leave it as win loss or tie based on the missions and kill points at the end of game. should give designers a general idea of what happend instead of every possible variable.
Its different compared to something like wmhr where there is at tops 10 models on both sides and has an accompanying app to keep track of what happens (box and spiral damage)
[/spoiler]
Distributed game reporting systems work fine for WotC, with a bigger player base and more variations in format/etc.
I don’t think a subscription rules service would have good customer optics: whilst possibly a good idea.
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
By all means, please show us how it's done.
GW haven't balanced it properly. The ITC guys haven't done it with their homebrew, neither have the ETC guys.
Go on, write us a balanced set of rules. It's not that hard, as you say.
I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst.
GW makes an app, that app is used to log games. you build lists within the app for use. make it as easy to use as battlescribe. people play games and analyze win rates with units and gear in the results. if a unit is consistently part of a list in a winning win ratio increase points, if a unit is not being used or only being put in losing win rate armies decrease the points.
update points monthly based on returned data with points cap in place of a few % per unit. It would take a long time to get a say 4 point unit to hit 5 points, but a several hundred point unit might see some quick adjustments. round points at the up or down point of say adjust up at .6 and down at .4 leaving value the same if .4-.6 range to prevent month to month points bouncing of units.
cap the amount of games per user submitted that can influence the scores to something like 5 games equivalent (collect and use all the data but a 30% win rate on dark angels for example playing 50 games would be offset if another user is experiencing a 80% win ratio on 5 games with the same list)
the app should have a subscription or purchase cost, this was nobody is able to just create a ton of bot accounts submitting lists and losing results to purposely skew the results.
app should require a handshake with another app user to identify the players and as an added layer that the match occurred.
likely more restrictions would be needed in there too but that as a foundation would give us some balance fairly quickly.
even with a submission cap and player handshake it seems pretty easy to gum up the works with a pair or group of neerdowells to mess with. i suppose if anything their sample size should be negligible.
BUT im down for an APP. Azyr is nice and would love to see more functions on it as well. (though im not happy about having to buy the in program books when i already have the physical ones to access formations.)
points should be easy to update. its why the Chapter approves/General hand books are a thing. IF GW wanted to do it all they really need to do is run events again with actual reporting. they need to collect actual data and then process is. but i dont think GW cares to do actual hard analytics that doesn't involve money. GW has always been a more "feeling" type developer which is how a lot of it was done back when.
GW's incentive would be the money. chapter approved is ~30 on amazon, 35 on gw site. at $3-4 per month for access I would think they would be at a point where most people in the income bracket to play 40k would not give a crap. still sell paper and digital codexes but if they worked in a way to let people also just have a monthly fee for access to full rules within the app I also think they would make more $ that way. I own 2 actual codexes, custodes and orks the rest I just play through battlescribe because those are my 2 main armies and the rest rarely see a table. at say an additional 7-10 a month I get more rules and GW get more money (plus no need to print things so less overhead)
I think the $3-4 a month would really beat a lot of the possibility of people just creating hundreds of accounts and as long s you limit player influence even 1 person willing to spend 3-400 a month would be a drop in the bucket compared to the main user pool.
I would also add in functions with optional reporting to assist like units left alive at the end of the game to help balance better. woudl help to see if one side got blown off the board in points but also to see if a unit needed some more survival. if tactical marines are always being removed from the baord and never surviving maybe they need a points cut or better survivability for example.
My only issue with a reporting system is it takes a LOT of proper book keeping in game. its not a problem for some but its definitely intrusive in most games to halt everything pick two options from list of hundreds to report what happened. its the proper way to do it but i think a better way is just to leave it as win loss or tie based on the missions and kill points at the end of game. should give designers a general idea of what happend instead of every possible variable.
Its different compared to something like wmhr where there is at tops 10 models on both sides and has an accompanying app to keep track of what happens (box and spiral damage)
i would regard em as optional like..
required give basic win or loss. binary choice. i suspect most data would come from here.
app says "thank you for providing this information it has been submitted, would you be willing to provide more information on the match, you can exit this at any point?
if no exit game for next game, if yes move to a few followups.
"what was the scenario?" (drop down, include custom for ITC and such but mostly CA 18, CA19, and basic book missions ans well as open war)
"What was the final score?"
"what models were left at the end of the match" his option would bring up thier list and just select units that apply.
Apple fox wrote: It’s not really a issue at the high Competitive levels, at casual levels is where it can really start to break. The game is competitive, you play against each other. Even in narrative games you often play against each other, unless something more specific or story driven does otherwise
Then you're confusing terms here. 40K is not a balanced high competitive game. if it was, people wouldn't be ranting so much about it, and it wouldn't affect the narrative/casual games at all. Where the biggest problems in the narrative/casual game come in is when the high competitor types do not distinguish their tournament training game from the beer & pretzels night. And yes, there are those in my meta that will not play any game unless it is to practice their tournament lists or ideas and play them to those standards.
Apple fox wrote: Also I may re iterate my thought on failure, if GW lose there ability to control the game. They lose a lot, why small things like house rules are good.
GW never really had much control of their game. They couldn't stop it from being competitive. They've made no attempts to stop organizations like ITC from making changes to it. Their desire to control the game isn't why they are in business. They are in business to sell models, and the game is what gives you the excuse to buy more models. The game is just an exotic marketing tool to the decision makers.
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
By all means, please show us how it's done.
GW haven't balanced it properly. The ITC guys haven't done it with their homebrew, neither have the ETC guys.
Go on, write us a balanced set of rules. It's not that hard, as you say.
ITC and ETC don't attempt to balance the game. They attempt to balance the playing field. GW isn't trying to balance the game. They never have. GW is selling you models. And balancing the game requires cutting models.
Dudeface wrote:
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
But the problem is there are a great many people up in arms on these forums about the shoddy rules writing, proofing and testing claiming it's easy to better and the bar is low. These same people then aren't able or willing to do the task they deem "easy" and instead continue to perpetuate the GW cycle they hate and just spend time pouring complaints out. All that does is erode the validity of their statements and frustrate others.
Lets say I spend the next year rebuilding half the armies in the game into balanced lists with new point values. How many people, realistically, are going to play it? 1 page 40k does "something" like that. And have you ever seen people actually play it? Home brew rule sets that are better balanced show up in proposed rules all the time. Nobody cares. It's not worth the effort.
Distributed game reporting systems work fine for WotC, with a bigger player base and more variations in format/etc.
I don’t think a subscription rules service would have good customer optics: whilst possibly a good idea.
While True WotC MTG also has moderators (judges and stores) that work together with wotc to get those data. as well they run actual events with list reporting and the like. GW could collect more data if they ran actual events and GTs again.
required give basic win or loss. binary choice. i suspect most data would come from here.
app says "thank you for providing this information it has been submitted, would you be willing to provide more information on the match, you can exit this at any point?
if no exit game for next game, if yes move to a few followups.
"what was the scenario?" (drop down, include custom for ITC and such but mostly CA 18, CA19, and basic book missions ans well as open war)
"What was the final score?"
"what models were left at the end of the match" his option would bring up thier list and just select units that apply.
"thank you for providing this useful information"
I think it could work if the program also functioned with an in game tracker.
click the first blood button, end of round points, command point usage tracking and kill points is an easy one. things we already do with dice. gives a lot of extra data that can be tracked as well as data on what kinda abilities are being used and how fast things are dieing.
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
But the problem is there are a great many people up in arms on these forums about the shoddy rules writing, proofing and testing claiming it's easy to better and the bar is low. These same people then aren't able or willing to do the task they deem "easy" and instead continue to perpetuate the GW cycle they hate and just spend time pouring complaints out. All that does is erode the validity of their statements and frustrate others.
I mean it's already been done and around 50% of the suggestions aren't bad. The real issue? Nobody is going to play some random rules on a forum. That's a shame too because some suggestions are amazing.
G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst.
No.
Points are about the last lever that should be pulled when it comes to trying to balance things.
The thing your app doesn't account for is context, and that is a huge issue.
The problem with points is you are attempting to ascribe a single universal 'value' to denote in-game worth within an ecosystem where context can drastically change something's value, almost on a whim- you need to account for what it's fielded alongside. what it's fielded against, what the mission objectives were, the terrain set up and concentration etc or more nebulous ideas like the skill of the player, the sheer luck of the dice rolls etc. You also need to account for what it could be fielded alongside Or against.
For points to be accurate, you need to essentially answer this question - what single value can accurately account for the points cost, for, say, a space marine armed with a lascannon, on a terrainless board, against an tank-based army in a 'defender' type scenario, and simultaneously, accurately account for the same space marine on a 90+% terrain board against an army of a few hundred grots, in a recon style scenario. And you have to answer this for every unit I need the game across every context.
The only way this can work is if points costs were self mutating and can account for each of dozens of different variables.
Apple fox wrote:
It’s not really a issue at the high Competitive levels, at casual levels is where it can really start to break. The game is competitive, you play against each other. Even in narrative games you often play against each other, unless something more specific or story driven does otherwise
Competitive is a gradient, not a line in the sand. You don't suddenly go from 'not serious, throw dice around and make pew pews' to tearing out the other guys throat wife yer teef. This needs to be considered.
Apple fox wrote:
And I do think that some people at GW would want better ballance, there is so much good that comes from that. Not perfect ballance, but a close imbalanced ruleset creates a system for players to experiment without falling into traps. It keeps the strongest and the weakest factions both in the game.
We all do, but is it genuinely acheivable?
How good is 'good enough'. If we accept the idea that perfect balance is impossible, and that we should aim for 'good enough', how much imbalance is ok? Bear in mind, 'as little as possible' is just a polite way of saying 'I want the perfect balance unicorn, but I'll fluff it out with nice sounding words'" let's get real and be pragmatic. And what price will you pay, or be willing to pay, in terms of structural mechanisms to allow for this (e.g., multiple win conditions, multiple lists, sidebars, severely reduced variety, smaller game, smaller scope pre-set lists etc because every structural tool has a price to pay and I've seen every one have its consequences, and consequently it's haters. Magnify that by the size of the 40k community...)
Apple fox wrote:
It also creates more variety with what is seen on the table. It’s a good thing in the casual setting and should be far more important there than in the higher competitive market.
You are not wrong. Let's be clear on that. I am not disagreeing. However, I would also add to this and sat that Different approaches to game building also allow for greater variety. I often find wanting greater variety and wanting a competitive approach end up being mutually exclusive at their greater extremes. There will always be imbalance, therfore witherher its 1% or 10% you'll have 'top' tier and 'trash' tier. Magnify that by the usual internet hyperbole...
G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst.
No.
Points are about the last lever that should be pulled when it comes to trying to balance things.
The thing your app doesn't account for is context, and that is a huge issue.
The problem with points is you are attempting to ascribe a single universal 'value' to denote in-game worth within an ecosystem where context can drastically change something's value, almost on a whim- you need to account for what it's fielded alongside. what it's fielded against, what the mission objectives were, the terrain set up and concentration etc or more nebulous ideas like the skill of the player, the sheer luck of the dice rolls etc. You also need to account for what it could be fielded alongside Or against.
For points to be accurate, you need to essentially answer this question - what single value can accurately account for the points cost, for, say, a space marine armed with a lascannon, on a terrainless board, against an tank-based army in a 'defender' type scenario, and simultaneously, accurately account for the same space marine on a 90+% terrain board against an army of a few hundred grots, in a recon style scenario. And you have to answer this for every unit I need the game across every context.
The only way this can work is if points costs were self mutating and can account for each of dozens of different variables.
Thats the thing though its already impossible to balance even the rules them selves within the context of the many different missions and factions without completely washing out everything that makes an individual faction unique. it would be basic numbers and maybe some context rerolls. that makes the game boring. at least with general reporting app, you gain a LOT of context data based on the mission and eventual scores. even thousands of data points you find averages and figure it out from there. that is the problem though its that the context can be construed all sorts of ways depending on who is looking at it and i dont know if GW can actually handle that. not that i have any problems with them but because they have history of being very bias depending on which writer is handling which book. they need to overhaul their focus but i dont see them doing that.
G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst.
No.
Points are about the last lever that should be pulled when it comes to trying to balance things.
The thing your app doesn't account for is context, and that is a huge issue.
The problem with points is you are attempting to ascribe a single universal 'value' to denote in-game worth within an ecosystem where context can drastically change something's value, almost on a whim- you need to account for what it's fielded alongside. what it's fielded against, what the mission objectives were, the terrain set up and concentration etc or more nebulous ideas like the skill of the player, the sheer luck of the dice rolls etc. You also need to account for what it could be fielded alongside Or against.
For points to be accurate, you need to essentially answer this question - what single value can accurately account for the points cost, for, say, a space marine armed with a lascannon, on a terrainless board, against an tank-based army in a 'defender' type scenario, and simultaneously, accurately account for the same space marine on a 90+% terrain board against an army of a few hundred grots, in a recon style scenario. And you have to answer this for every unit I need the game across every context.
The only way this can work is if points costs were self mutating and can account for each of dozens of different variables.
.
points are already exactly that, they are supposed to reflect any and every scenario. They ARE currently reflecting this now. the only difference is instead of any actual data being used to assign the value it is based on how a few play testers "feel" remember when reece from FLG (fun guy i like him and his content) said "the stompa is back baby" when the orks were getting their 8th edition codex? well the play testers "felt" it was back btu performance shows it is still one of the worst models in the game.
point should 100% be part of the equation. unit design should be another. if a unit is extremely under/over performing at that point the game designers should become involved and rework the unit assigning it a base points value and then releasing it into the community where its performance will be evaluated by performance in lists and points adjusted accordingly.
are you suggesting some kind of sloped point system where every terrain piece has a value and terrain position and your opponent's list will all effect the points of the list? I mean as a Data analyst myself that actually sounds like a fun experiment but in practice very few people would use it.
In the lascannon example we could assign a value to the lascannon where a variable is introduced based on the longest runs or even total terrain area WxLx percentage of H and table size then add a variable for how much "open" space vs "terrain" space exists. in an extreme scnario like 80% terrain coverage that lascannon might be worth 20% of the points that it is on planet bowling ball. ... figuring out the rules would strangely be a fun afternoon for people like me... i imagine most people would hate it.
points are already exactly that, they are supposed to reflect any and every scenario. They ARE currently reflecting this now. the only difference is instead of any actual data being used to assign the value it is based on how a few play testers "feel" remember when reece from FLG (fun guy i like him and his content) said "the stompa is back baby" when the orks were getting their 8th edition codex? well the play testers "felt" it was back btu performance shows it is still one of the worst models in the game.
No. They reflect an 'official' value, not an 'accurate value that accounts for context'. The two are not the same thing.
point should 100% be part of the equation. unit design should be another. if a unit is extremely under/over performing at that point the game designers should become involved and rework the unit assigning it a base points value and then releasing it into the community where its performance will be evaluated by performance in lists and points adjusted accordingly.
Points should be part of the equation, but literally the 'final' touch. What made Warmachine 'more' balanced, for example wasn't the points costs - it was the rock/paper/scissors nature of the game, multiple win conditions, multiple list formats as standard etc.
If a unit is under, or over performing, reworking the points cost is one approach. Other approaches include reworking its special rules (adding. Or removing), or changing its role to be more in fitting with what it does. Or even changing core rules of the game upon which feed into said over/underperformance.
Again, giving it a points Value and throwing it into the community does nothing. Because... context.
are you suggesting some kind of sloped point system where every terrain piece has a value and terrain position and your opponent's list will all effect the points of the list? I mean as a Data analyst myself that actually sounds like a fun experiment but in practice very few people would use it.
Absolutely. Every variable that can be added to the game, whether physical like deployment, deployment location/options, terrain quantity, layout, position, density etc, every other unit taken alongside said unit in question, every unit fielded against said unit in question, or nebulous (skill, familiarity, dumb luck, your state of health or distraction levels during the game), all of these fees into the real, actual, contextual and entirely subjective value of that unit under those specific circumstances.
And this has to be done for every unit in the game. Simultaneously.
It's pretty damned close to an unsolvable equation.
In the lascannon example we could assign a value to the lascannon where a variable is introduced based on the longest runs or even total terrain area WxLx percentage of H and table size then add a variable for how much "open" space vs "terrain" space exists. in an extreme scnario like 80% terrain coverage that lascannon might be worth 20% of the points that it is on planet bowling ball. ... figuring out the rules would strangely be a fun afternoon for people like me... i imagine most people would hate it.
Probably. What you'll probsbly end up with is an extremely limited data set, extremely open to interpretation, and no real conclusions. There are just too many variables to accurately account for things. Remember as well, we are talking about a single number in value that can't simultaneously account for all of that.
Reslly, it's no better than sticking a wet finger in the air and using it to gauge the wind.
Fact is, these are extremely limited systems. They can only do so much, and can only be expected to hold so much weight. The sooner people realise this and move on the better this community will be.
No. They reflect an 'official' value, not an 'accurate value that accounts for context'. The two are not the same thing.
which context. internally messing with unit stats and bonuses. yeah it should probably be scaled or cost points like AOS.
in context of missions and terrain. no. terrain and missions are the only differentiating factors in this game and rewards those that utilize them the best. otherwise you are asking for chess.
points are already exactly that, they are supposed to reflect any and every scenario. They ARE currently reflecting this now. the only difference is instead of any actual data being used to assign the value it is based on how a few play testers "feel" remember when reece from FLG (fun guy i like him and his content) said "the stompa is back baby" when the orks were getting their 8th edition codex? well the play testers "felt" it was back btu performance shows it is still one of the worst models in the game.
No. They reflect an 'official' value, not an 'accurate value that accounts for context'. The two are not the same thing.
point should 100% be part of the equation. unit design should be another. if a unit is extremely under/over performing at that point the game designers should become involved and rework the unit assigning it a base points value and then releasing it into the community where its performance will be evaluated by performance in lists and points adjusted accordingly.
Points should be part of the equation, but literally the 'final' touch. What made Warmachine 'more' balanced, for example wasn't the points costs - it was the rock/paper/scissors nature of the game, multiple win conditions, multiple list formats as standard etc.
If a unit is under, or over performing, reworking the points cost is one approach. Other approaches include reworking its special rules (adding. Or removing), or changing its role to be more in fitting with what it does. Or even changing core rules of the game upon which feed into said over/underperformance.
Again, giving it a points Value and throwing it into the community does nothing. Because... context.
are you suggesting some kind of sloped point system where every terrain piece has a value and terrain position and your opponent's list will all effect the points of the list? I mean as a Data analyst myself that actually sounds like a fun experiment but in practice very few people would use it.
Absolutely. Every variable that can be added to the game, whether physical like deployment, deployment location/options, terrain quantity, layout, position, density etc, every other unit taken alongside said unit in question, every unit fielded against said unit in question, or nebulous (skill, familiarity, dumb luck, your state of health or distraction levels during the game), all of these fees into the real, actual, contextual and entirely subjective value of that unit under those specific circumstances.
And this has to be done for every unit in the game. Simultaneously.
It's pretty damned close to an unsolvable equation.
In the lascannon example we could assign a value to the lascannon where a variable is introduced based on the longest runs or even total terrain area WxLx percentage of H and table size then add a variable for how much "open" space vs "terrain" space exists. in an extreme scnario like 80% terrain coverage that lascannon might be worth 20% of the points that it is on planet bowling ball. ... figuring out the rules would strangely be a fun afternoon for people like me... i imagine most people would hate it.
Probably. What you'll probsbly end up with is an extremely limited data set, extremely open to interpretation, and no real conclusions. There are just too many variables to accurately account for things. Remember as well, we are talking about a single number in value that can't simultaneously account for all of that.
Reslly, it's no better than sticking a wet finger in the air and using it to gauge the wind.
Fact is, these are extremely limited systems. They can only do so much, and can only be expected to hold so much weight. The sooner people realize this and move on the better this community will be.
Even given every other factor, just the way statistics work, collecting simple win rate for factions would be taking into account the average amount of terrain for those games posted. adding a list of units gives an even better drill down of basic "in lists where unit X is taken in Army Y they have a ___ % win rater, that win rate with Unit Z present changes that win rate by ___
the more/better data one could apply to things the better it could be, but even that simple of a 2 variable system I believe is leaps and bounds better than out current here are the points, we will revisit them yearly and if we mess it all up we will redress with emergency updates in 6 months.
I will say on the terrain front GW really should have some kind of system set for terrain for matched play like measurements and ranges for small medium and large pieces and values assigned for table quarters are at least close to fair given the current system.
I will say on the terrain front GW really should have some kind of system set for terrain for matched play like measurements and ranges for small medium and large pieces and values assigned for table quarters are at least close to fair given the current system.
I disagree with this. as a general suggestion maybe, but the amount of terrain and kits needed would be financially restrictive. especially considering GW's tenancy to push their special citidel TM kits.
Though i would welcome more KT Arena style boxed terrain sets.
which context. internally messing with unit stats and bonuses. yeah it should probably be scaled or cost points like AOS.
Every context. Every variable that can be added to the game, whether physical like deployment, deployment location/options, terrain quantity, layout, position, density etc, every other unit taken alongside said unit in question, every unit fielded against said unit in question, or nebulous (skill, familiarity, dumb luck, your state of health or distraction levels during the game), all of these fees into the real, actual, contextual and entirely subjective value of that unit under those specific circumstances.
in context of missions and terrain. no. terrain and missions are the only differentiating factors in this game and rewards those that utilize them the best. otherwise you are asking for chess.
Incorrect. If something is better, it should cost more. If it's worse, it should cost less. Basic tenet of this balance malarkey. Stats aren't the only things that need to be accounted for.
A highly mobile unit In a recon scenario (e.g. Get into the opponents deployment zone) for example is 'worth' a premium, but in other circumstances that don't reward mobility (e.g. Previously mentioned 90% terrain covered board), it's 'worth' less. Terrain and missions don't necessarily reward those that utilise them the best, it equally rewards those who spam the outliers.
I will say on the terrain front GW really should have some kind of system set for terrain for matched play like measurements and ranges for small medium and large pieces and values assigned for table quarters are at least close to fair given the current system.
I disagree with this. as a general suggestion maybe, but the amount of terrain and kits needed would be financially restrictive. especially considering GW's tenancy to push their special citidel TM kits.
Though i would welcome more KT Arena style boxed terrain sets.
I meant strictly a matched play thing so they can at least say "we balanced it for this, if you want great balance a large piece is worth 3 points medium 2, small 1. for matched play all tablequarters should be equal, somethign along that line /shrug.
on board with mroe terrain kits too though as I am a 3dprinter fan I have like 37 linear feet of zone mortalis terrain at this point
which context. internally messing with unit stats and bonuses. yeah it should probably be scaled or cost points like AOS.
Every context. Every variable that can be added to the game, whether physical like deployment, deployment location/options, terrain quantity, layout, position, density etc, every other unit taken alongside said unit in question, every unit fielded against said unit in question, or nebulous (skill, familiarity, dumb luck, your state of health or distraction levels during the game), all of these fees into the real, actual, contextual and entirely subjective value of that unit under those specific circumstances.
in context of missions and terrain. no. terrain and missions are the only differentiating factors in this game and rewards those that utilize them the best. otherwise you are asking for chess.
Incorrect. If something is better, it should cost more. If it's worse, it should cost less. Basic tenet of this balance malarkey. Stats aren't the only things that need to be accounted for.
A highly mobile unit In a recon scenario (e.g. Get into the opponents deployment zone) for example is 'worth' a premium, but in other circumstances that don't reward mobility (e.g. Previously mentioned 90% terrain covered board), it's 'worth' less. Terrain and missions don't necessarily reward those that utilise them the best, it equally rewards those who spam the outliers.
And what's wrong with chess?
Nothing is wrong with chess but not everyone wants to play chess
most of us are fine with good enough. heck most people probably want close to balance as humanly possible. but you are focusing on every finite detail that would make NASA blush.
IF for example you had to balance out highly mobile units in the 1 of 12 scenarios that reward people from using it, would you place a permanent premium on them or average them out to the 11 of 12 other scenarios where it doesn't matter. should there be a perineum on TAC units since they on average are better for all 12 missions?
wouldn't this result in specialist units being way cheaper for as they are generally not good in some missions or are we talking 0.2-3 point adjustments where it literally doesn't matter?
Even given every other factor, just the way statistics work, collecting simple win rate for factions would be taking into account the average amount of terrain for those games posted.
Average =/= accurate. One of The fundamentals for this equation is flawed. Any data produced will be questionable.
adding a list of units gives an even better drill down of basic "in lists where unit X is taken in Army Y they have a ___ % win rater, that win rate with Unit Z present changes that win rate by ___
Doesn't mean anything. What was the context? What missions? What was the skill of the players? What was the deployment? What were the objectives? Who went first? What other units were taken? It's not just x and y. What units did they go up against? How did the dice variabilities play out.
There are so many variables, that drilling down just generates static and white noise with a flawed data set that is open to any amount of interpretation.
the more/better data one could apply to things the better it could be, but even that simple of a 2 variable system I believe is leaps and bounds better than out current here are the points, we will revisit them yearly and if we mess it all up we will redress with emergency updates in 6 months.
Will it generate meaningful conclusions or will it just be white noise? The latter is my guess.
I will say on the terrain front GW really should have some kind of system set for terrain for matched play like measurements and ranges for small medium and large pieces and values assigned for table quarters are at least close to fair given the current system.
Great, take the creativity out of my game too then! Ironically though, you are agreeing with me here. Might as well go all out and demand pre-set army lists too and simply eliminate player choice altogether. To be fair, it will allow for actual analysis, and severely reduced variety is one tool to help bake in better balance (fewer moving parts = less variables = easier to balance, in principle) but I don't think many players will appreciate you for it, or be willing to pay the price that this solution demands. I suspect metaphorical burning pitchforks will be in your future if you walk down this road.
And this is what I mean. Trying to assign points costs is the last thing you do. The system has to be built right first.
most of us are fine with good enough. heck most people probably want close to balance as humanly possible. but you are focusing on every finite detail that would make NASA blush.
Yes, because people asked for balance. Of course I am focussing on the Minor details and the variables. They're important. They illustrate my point that focusing on points values as a barometer of 'worth' and as the main tool to fix problems is flawed reasoning.
And please - Define 'good enough'. How good is 'good enough', how inaccurate is 'good enough' allowed to be? How much inaccuracy and error will you allow, and be willing to accommodate? How far can I take it from the unobtainable idea of 'perfect balance' which we all know is unachievable and a unicorn. Because it sounds like you want the unicorn. If you want better 'good enough' you need to account for the variables, within these systems, not ignore their existence.
IF for example you had to balance out highly mobile units in the 1 of 12 scenarios that reward people from using it, would you place a permanent premium on them or average them out to the 11 of 12 other scenarios where it doesn't matter. should there be a perineum on TAC units since they on average are better for all 12 missions?
wouldn't this result in specialist units being way cheaper for as they are generally not good in some missions or are we talking 0.2-3 point adjustments where it literally doesn't matter?
Kind of my original point. It's Almost like assigning a universal value to something is a flawed idea, because context matters and accounts for so much. Demanding points values, yet Ignoring this in ones approach basically shifts it to wanting 'official' points values, rather than 'accurate' points values. And we all know official rules can be bent and manipulated.
Even given every other factor, just the way statistics work, collecting simple win rate for factions would be taking into account the average amount of terrain for those games posted.
Average =/= accurate. One of The fundamentals for this equation is flawed. Any data produced will be questionable.
adding a list of units gives an even better drill down of basic "in lists where unit X is taken in Army Y they have a ___ % win rater, that win rate with Unit Z present changes that win rate by ___
Doesn't mean anything. What was the context? What missions? What was the skill of the players? What was the deployment? What were the objectives? Who went first? What other units were taken? It's not just x and y. What units did they go up against? How did the dice variabilities play out.
There are so many variables, that drilling down just generates static and white noise with a flawed data set that is open to any amount of interpretation.
the more/better data one could apply to things the better it could be, but even that simple of a 2 variable system I believe is leaps and bounds better than out current here are the points, we will revisit them yearly and if we mess it all up we will redress with emergency updates in 6 months.
Will it generate meaningful conclusions or will it just be white noise? The latter is my guess.
I will say on the terrain front GW really should have some kind of system set for terrain for matched play like measurements and ranges for small medium and large pieces and values assigned for table quarters are at least close to fair given the current system.
Great, take the creativity out of my game too then! Ironically though, you are agreeing with me here. Might as well go all out and demand pre-set army lists too and simply eliminate player choice altogether. To be fair, it will allow for actual analysis, and severely reduced variety is one tool to help bake in better balance (fewer moving parts = less variables = easier to balance, in principle) but I don't think many players will appreciate you for it, or be willing to pay the price that this solution demands. I suspect metaphorical burning pitchforks will be in your future if you walk down this road.
And this is what I mean. Trying to assign points costs is the last thing you do. The system has to be built right first.
for the purposes of 40k average would qualify as good enough. as said I don't necessarily want chess, i don't always want to be at an advantage or disadvantage. I just want every unit and weapon option to be in the same ball park. Some units currently just are not good and for some reason GW keeps saying they are fine based on points (see Vespids) and some are seemingly way to good for the points (Chaplain dreds).
Some units on the extremes probably do need to be reworked. The Stompa for example lacking an invulnerable save on a super heavy and then compensating with 40 hull points... but then having 4 tiers to degrade so the last 10 wounds make it functionally useless... does not make for a good unit.
as to mission balance. that should be part of the mission, but for something like the relic obviously there is going to be a skewed result for tough infantry to take and hold the relic vs say a knight list that might nto even have a way to interact with a relic.
most of us are fine with good enough. heck most people probably want close to balance as humanly possible. but you are focusing on every finite detail that would make NASA blush.
Yes, because people asked for balance. Of course I am focussing on the Minor details and the variables. They're important. They illustrate my point that focusing on points values as a barometer of 'worth' and as the main tool to fix problems is flawed reasoning.
And please - Define 'good enough'. How good is 'good enough', how inaccurate is 'good enough' allowed to be? How much inaccuracy and error will you allow, and be willing to accommodate? How far can I take it from the unobtainable idea of 'perfect balance' which we all know is unachievable and a unicorn. Because it sounds like you want the unicorn.
IF for example you had to balance out highly mobile units in the 1 of 12 scenarios that reward people from using it, would you place a permanent premium on them or average them out to the 11 of 12 other scenarios where it doesn't matter. should there be a perineum on TAC units since they on average are better for all 12 missions? wouldn't this result in specialist units being way cheaper for as they are generally not good in some missions or are we talking 0.2-3 point adjustments where it literally doesn't matter?
Kind of my original point. It's Almost like assigning a universal value to something is a flawed idea, because context matters and accounts for so much. Demanding points values, yet Ignoring this in ones approach basically shifts it to wanting 'official' points values, rather than 'accurate' points values. And we all know official rules can be bent and manipulated.
1) no SOME people are asking for balance. minor details and variables may be important, but not so important that you blow up everything. this definition of good enough would be close to 50% win rate for all factions in general over a large sample size and variations of list builds and missions 2) what are you on about? im asking you what you would do to balance these hypothetical high mobility units? because there are only a few options. a) adjust the points based off the average chance of a mission, b) adjust points based on overall performance ignoring missions c) adjust rules some how so they are some how balanced for the 1 of many possible missions d) delete the unit e) delete the mission
im honestly not understanding what it is that you want or have against unit points.
Desubot wrote: ...2) what are you on about? im asking you what you would do to balance these hypothetical high mobility units? because there are only a few options.
a) adjust the points based off the average chance of a mission,
b) adjust points based on overall performance ignoring missions
c) adjust rules some how so they are some how
balanced for the 1 of many possible missions
d) delete the unit
e) delete the mission
im honestly not understanding what it is that you want or have against unit points.
Would it be an interesting thought experiment to consider how you might make high mobility valuable in all missions? Like...I don't know...by giving you some advantage to being able to get behind vehicles?
Desubot wrote: ...2) what are you on about? im asking you what you would do to balance these hypothetical high mobility units? because there are only a few options.
a) adjust the points based off the average chance of a mission,
b) adjust points based on overall performance ignoring missions
c) adjust rules some how so they are some how
balanced for the 1 of many possible missions
d) delete the unit
e) delete the mission
im honestly not understanding what it is that you want or have against unit points.
Would it be an interesting thought experiment to consider how you might make high mobility valuable in all missions? Like...I don't know...by giving you some advantage to being able to get behind vehicles?
That would be different from what was being asked. But in general higher mobility would cost more points. abilities that ignore terrain would also cost more points.
you would look at the game data to see overall of people taking a bunch of high mobility things are winning or losing games and adjust the points.
Now as a core rule should intervening models do a thing? yes yes they should. and last i checked models still do block LOS. as if you cannot draw los to something through a rhino you cannot shoot it still. (might be off base on this one)
Desubot wrote: ...2) what are you on about? im asking you what you would do to balance these hypothetical high mobility units? because there are only a few options.
a) adjust the points based off the average chance of a mission,
b) adjust points based on overall performance ignoring missions
c) adjust rules some how so they are some how
balanced for the 1 of many possible missions
d) delete the unit
e) delete the mission
im honestly not understanding what it is that you want or have against unit points.
Would it be an interesting thought experiment to consider how you might make high mobility valuable in all missions? Like...I don't know...by giving you some advantage to being able to get behind vehicles?
I honestly hope GW never brings back vehicle faces. the mechanic was not terrible the issue was in implementation and values. a landraider could be 14/14/14 but a lot of xenos vehicles were 10 in the back. this wouldn't necessarily be as much of an issue except the mechanic for deermining facing wwas the sticks over the model and some models like necron flyer transport had ill defined spaces. likewise Ork battlewagons and trukks were so long and narrow they were basically always hit on side armor which in the case of the battlewagon meant payign for AV14 but actually being AV 12
maybe adding something like a simple +1 to wound if in the back half of a vehicle might work though. facing suddenly matters and its fairly easy to implement. is the model towads the front half.. then even roll if back half +1.
1) no SOME people are asking for balance. minor details and variables may be important, but not so important that you blow up everything. this definition of good enough would be close to 50% win rate for all factions in general over a large sample size and variations of list builds and missions
So, essentially close enough to 'perfect balance' as to make no difference. With respect, this is A unicorn.
im honestly not understanding what it is that you want or have against unit points.
My original point in this thread was towards goofysmily's comment where's he said 'I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst. '
I plainly disagree. Hence my initial comment.
What I 'wanted' was to respond to goofysmily. I did that. Regarding what I have 'against' points - Have you not read my posts? I've commented on this over the last few years more than once.
But fair enough, I shall elaborate.
Firstly, I have nothing 'against' points. They're a useful tool, within a broader context. However, they are far from perfect. They ascribe an 'official' value, not an 'accurate' or 'correct' value. I have issues with the idea that 'but fix the points cost' is the solution to game problems. I have issues with the blind faith people have in points - that a single universal value that denotes worth can in any way be taken as an accurate measurement of its in-game 'worth' (you know... context...), that some perfect ratio of numbers can magically balance everything. There's bigger picture that people refuse to see.
Regarding what you asked earlier as the solution to balancing that's high mobility unit:
a) adjust the points based off the average chance of a mission,
b) adjust points based on overall performance ignoring missions
c) adjust rules some how so they are some how
balanced for the 1 of many possible missions
d) delete the unit
e) delete the mission
For what it's worth, there are other options like unit caps that can be brought into play or different methods of list building. For us, in our group, we would probably 'eyeball' it In terms of what to put alongside it, and what's against it. It's how we've played for over five years now. But then again, we lean more towards collaborate game building and narrative stuff in our group than cut throat tournament play so I dont think our solution would work for you and your group. Equally though, Realistically, none of the solutions about offer a perfect solution. Ttgs are far too limited. They're all somewhat flawed.
1) no SOME people are asking for balance. minor details and variables may be important, but not so important that you blow up everything. this definition of good enough would be close to 50% win rate for all factions in general over a large sample size and variations of list builds and missions
So, essentially close enough to 'perfect balance' as to make no difference. With respect, this is A unicorn.
No its to essentially balance based of overall aggregated data rather than focusing heavily on every theoretical minute details which would result in ether no benefit or and entire gutting of units or books.
Firstly, I have nothing 'against' points. They're a useful tool, within a broader context. However, they are far from perfect. They ascribe an 'official' value, not an 'accurate' or 'correct' value. I have issues with the idea that 'but fix the points cost' is the solution to game problems. I have issues with the blind faith people have in points - that a single universal value that denotes worth can in any way be taken as an accurate measurement of its in-game 'worth' (you know... context...), that some perfect ratio of numbers can magically balance everything. There's bigger picture that people refuse to see.
Regarding what you asked earlier as the solution to balancing that's high mobility unit:
a) adjust the points based off the average chance of a mission, b) adjust points based on overall performance ignoring missions c) adjust rules some how so they are some how balanced for the 1 of many possible missions d) delete the unit e) delete the mission
For what it's worth, there are other options like unit caps that can be brought into play or different methods of list building. For us, in our group, we would probably 'eyeball' it In terms of what to put alongside it, and what's against it. It's how we've played for over five years now. But then again, we lean more towards collaborate game building and narrative stuff in our group than cut throat tournament play so I dont think our solution would work for you and your group. Equally though, Realistically, none of the solutions about offer a perfect solution. Ttgs are far too limited. They're all somewhat flawed.
Cheers,
so with the example of unit caps. how would this work in other missions that dont focus on mobility or are we talking list limitations based on missions or a restructuring of the entire game to focus on TAC central units vs specialists?
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
By all means, please show us how it's done.
GW haven't balanced it properly. The ITC guys haven't done it with their homebrew, neither have the ETC guys.
Go on, write us a balanced set of rules. It's not that hard, as you say.
ITC and ETC don't attempt to balance the game. They attempt to balance the playing field. GW isn't trying to balance the game. They never have. GW is selling you models. And balancing the game requires cutting models.
Dudeface wrote:
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
But the problem is there are a great many people up in arms on these forums about the shoddy rules writing, proofing and testing claiming it's easy to better and the bar is low. These same people then aren't able or willing to do the task they deem "easy" and instead continue to perpetuate the GW cycle they hate and just spend time pouring complaints out. All that does is erode the validity of their statements and frustrate others.
Lets say I spend the next year rebuilding half the armies in the game into balanced lists with new point values. How many people, realistically, are going to play it? 1 page 40k does "something" like that. And have you ever seen people actually play it? Home brew rule sets that are better balanced show up in proposed rules all the time. Nobody cares. It's not worth the effort.
All it takes is a group or community to band together and try and embrace a good idea. It's the same way ITC missions are even a thing in the first place, some people wrote something they preferred and got a small group playing it and then involved other small groups etc. Until we end up with a spinoff rule set.
If it's not worth the effort because nobody wants a fix, then logically we can only assume that people like what they get from GW as it is.
Itc isnt remaking what units and wargear are available and recosting them. There appears to be a limit to what people will accept without gws stamp on it.
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
You're going to be disappointed then. No tabletop company professional testers, it's just not cost effective in any way shape or form.
I am not disappointed because I know GW sucks.
That being said, it is cost effective. GW has massive profit margins and a break neck release schedule. That release schedule would be more profitable in the long run if the products were all more reliable in the long run.
WotC, FFG, several other TT companies also have the release schedules to justify professional Beta testers, none of them do though. It's not financially sensible for them to do so, whatever their current profit margin is or isn't.
You say that but I doubt it. Yes, they run "open' and "closed" beta tests with volunteers because volunteers from their communities are plentiful. But I highly doubt FFG gets their games functioning at the level they do without any internal controlled testing. And their production quality says everything about the difference between them and GW.
They have better technical writers, 3x the number of Alpha/Beta 1 tests, smaller pool of rules interaction and plenty of shonky rules make it to the the large scale beta tests.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Speaking from experience, the 40KRPG books were tested across multiple different external play groups as well as internal testing with the editors.
Of course, that's how it should be. What was the hourly pay for the external play groups though?
...wait what? Wizards (the publishers of Magic) do a massive amount of Alpha and Beta testing of all cards in a set before publishing. They test 200+ Individual cards and their interactions with other existing standard (1,200) and block (400) legal cards, all of which have anything from basic stats to complex rules available for interaction. Their design schedule runs 2 years in advance (which includes for Alpha testing) and is followed by a development cycle 1 year in advance (which includes for Beta testing). WotC is very nearly the practical gold standard for game publishing, which explains its dominance in the CCGs format since 1992 (28 years).
...and even they make outrageous, arguably foreseeable mistakes (Skullclamp, affinity, marvel, power9, etc.).
But their budget is probably an order of magnitude greater than GW, with lower capex costs, and a cheaper product capable of deployment at scale for a cheap RRP.
That was... kind of my point? Large scale tests that pick up most of the problems don't pay people.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah im not sure why they dont put out their own points values and rules of play. Not like the bar is very high.
Well volunteered, let us know when you have a draft ready.
While I don't really want to be associated with Martel... I mean, during 5th edition I actually did put together an expansive Sisters of Battle homebrew codex. Including special rules and new units and streamlined but effective act of faith rules (compared to 5th edition's, at least). It's really not that hard to do, the biggest thing is finding people to playtest-- something that ITC should have no problem with.
G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst.
No.
Points are about the last lever that should be pulled when it comes to trying to balance things.
The thing your app doesn't account for is context, and that is a huge issue.
The problem with points is you are attempting to ascribe a single universal 'value' to denote in-game worth within an ecosystem where context can drastically change something's value, almost on a whim- you need to account for what it's fielded alongside. what it's fielded against, what the mission objectives were, the terrain set up and concentration etc or more nebulous ideas like the skill of the player, the sheer luck of the dice rolls etc. You also need to account for what it could be fielded alongside Or against.
For points to be accurate, you need to essentially answer this question - what single value can accurately account for the points cost, for, say, a space marine armed with a lascannon, on a terrainless board, against an tank-based army in a 'defender' type scenario, and simultaneously, accurately account for the same space marine on a 90+% terrain board against an army of a few hundred grots, in a recon style scenario. And you have to answer this for every unit I need the game across every context.
The only way this can work is if points costs were self mutating and can account for each of dozens of different variables.
Apple fox wrote:
It’s not really a issue at the high Competitive levels, at casual levels is where it can really start to break. The game is competitive, you play against each other. Even in narrative games you often play against each other, unless something more specific or story driven does otherwise
Competitive is a gradient, not a line in the sand. You don't suddenly go from 'not serious, throw dice around and make pew pews' to tearing out the other guys throat wife yer teef. This needs to be considered.
Apple fox wrote:
And I do think that some people at GW would want better ballance, there is so much good that comes from that. Not perfect ballance, but a close imbalanced ruleset creates a system for players to experiment without falling into traps. It keeps the strongest and the weakest factions both in the game.
We all do, but is it genuinely acheivable?
How good is 'good enough'. If we accept the idea that perfect balance is impossible, and that we should aim for 'good enough', how much imbalance is ok? Bear in mind, 'as little as possible' is just a polite way of saying 'I want the perfect balance unicorn, but I'll fluff it out with nice sounding words'" let's get real and be pragmatic. And what price will you pay, or be willing to pay, in terms of structural mechanisms to allow for this (e.g., multiple win conditions, multiple lists, sidebars, severely reduced variety, smaller game, smaller scope pre-set lists etc because every structural tool has a price to pay and I've seen every one have its consequences, and consequently it's haters. Magnify that by the size of the 40k community...)
Apple fox wrote:
It also creates more variety with what is seen on the table. It’s a good thing in the casual setting and should be far more important there than in the higher competitive market.
You are not wrong. Let's be clear on that. I am not disagreeing. However, I would also add to this and sat that Different approaches to game building also allow for greater variety. I often find wanting greater variety and wanting a competitive approach end up being mutually exclusive at their greater extremes. There will always be imbalance, therfore witherher its 1% or 10% you'll have 'top' tier and 'trash' tier. Magnify that by the usual internet hyperbole...
My quote there is entirely in response that the game is competitive in that most games are against other players, and high competitive is just used as shorthand for players that desire to play at a high skill and put time and effort to achieve that.
You can have narrative and story driven games where both players are playing to that same mindset, my group does most of our narrative gaming in warmachine for instance just fine and without issues that pop up constantly in 40k.
Perfect balance is not only unachevable, it is undesirable. But that does not mean that ballance is not something to work towards, when balanced is concerned a good baseline is that every faction has the tools, units and ability to win games within a close margin. External ballance.
Internal ballance can be a bit further apart, but this is where units that are underused to the point of irrelevance. Not just in tournament play, but in casual.
This can be as simple as a unit that dies first turn, every game as it has no way to keep it alive to do anything. Therefor it gets put on the shelf. It’s not fun to use, it just dies and nothing in the faction exist to keep it alive.
This is all super basic, and I do think GW needs to work on missions and core rules, as well as there faction design. It’s all over the place and leads to throwing the ballance off where it could probably be much smoother.
How far can players go to change this is of interesting debate here I think, and how much of the core game can be reasonably dropped until you are running two games and not just one.
To the last point, I am a casual player, every issue I address is from the point of game fun first. The issue is, I have been stuck in many games that where not fun now. Just as it’s very hard to stop players thinking about the game, even from a casual point. Players are thinking and aiming to win, picking units and synergy for there strategy. Even if it’s though a casual lense, this can still pushed at the game and I find it more often breaks. Players do not jump onto the best things, often they are just sad there faverate unit sucks.
The worst is when one player ends up with the army no one wants to play against, negotiation I find leads to less fun in the end. We want to be talking about the fun parts of the game, not working out ways to even out a potential huge curve :(
AnomanderRake wrote: Would it be an interesting thought experiment to consider how you might make high mobility valuable in all missions? Like...I don't know...by giving you some advantage to being able to get behind vehicles?
I honestly hope GW never brings back vehicle faces. the mechanic was not terrible the issue was in implementation and values. a landraider could be 14/14/14 but a lot of xenos vehicles were 10 in the back. this wouldn't necessarily be as much of an issue except the mechanic for deermining facing wwas the sticks over the model and some models like necron flyer transport had ill defined spaces. likewise Ork battlewagons and trukks were so long and narrow they were basically always hit on side armor which in the case of the battlewagon meant payign for AV14 but actually being AV 12
maybe adding something like a simple +1 to wound if in the back half of a vehicle might work though. facing suddenly matters and its fairly easy to implement. is the model towads the front half.. then even roll if back half +1.
I've been trying out Flames of War and am liking the front half/back half facings. It lets you have facings without needing to be overly precise about angles.
AnomanderRake wrote: Would it be an interesting thought experiment to consider how you might make high mobility valuable in all missions? Like...I don't know...by giving you some advantage to being able to get behind vehicles?
I honestly hope GW never brings back vehicle faces. the mechanic was not terrible the issue was in implementation and values. a landraider could be 14/14/14 but a lot of xenos vehicles were 10 in the back. this wouldn't necessarily be as much of an issue except the mechanic for deermining facing wwas the sticks over the model and some models like necron flyer transport had ill defined spaces. likewise Ork battlewagons and trukks were so long and narrow they were basically always hit on side armor which in the case of the battlewagon meant payign for AV14 but actually being AV 12
maybe adding something like a simple +1 to wound if in the back half of a vehicle might work though. facing suddenly matters and its fairly easy to implement. is the model towads the front half.. then even roll if back half +1.
I've been trying out Flames of War and am liking the front half/back half facings. It lets you have facings without needing to be overly precise about angles.
I can get behind front half back half but like i said def needs to be a simple system. addign +1 to wound or -1 extra ap in 40k so its a simple glance and go mechanic.
The problem are never the game mechanics added to the core, but what GW does with them when making the faction rules.
However, facings would be nice thing if it would be worth it to move around and use them but as long is you can kill everything anyway it does not matter if they are there or not.
40k in general has 2 problems, one is a pure mathematical one, the other a design problem with the core rules
the first one is easy, there are weapons with high rate of fire (or single shot weapons on cheap masses) and those with high damage.
usually, the high damage weapon would be good against single models with a lot of wounds and the high ROF weapon good against a lot of single wound models
but somehow GW manages it to get in every edition weapons in that are better at both than dedicated weapons which makes spamming those the best way to play
So as long as 6 single shot Damage 1 weapons (or a single 6 shot D1 weapon) are better at doing damage to a single model than a 1 shot D6 Damage weapon, there is a problem which could be solved by just having fixed or more reliable damage values for single shot weapons (and having saves against the single shot weapons)
the other problem is a tricky one, as each defensive value on a model should have an offensive value to counter it
the less such values are present the easier it is to balance units
Strength VS Toughness
AP VS Armour Saves
Damage, High ROF VS Wounds
to hit VS --
Mortal Wounds VS Invulnerable Saves, Toughness, Armour Saves
-- VS ignore Wounds
so as soon as most units in the game use just the basic values, everything is more or less fine, while as the edition proceeds other values increases and it starts to become a mess and impossible to balance
there is also the problem that the core rules changed, but the values were not changed according to the new rules but kept the same
Overall, adding Facings VS Speed, to this would just make more problems than it might solve
