The new AoS releases have me thinking, are points really necessary in 40k?

Supposedly, points are how you maintain balance in the game. At the same time, there is a common perception that Codexes fit into certain tiers and some are more effective than others based on what you can do with your points. If points do not reflect balance, and some armies have a much tougher time at it than others, do they really serve a purpose?

I would argue the answer is no. The real function of points is to enforce a handicap on some armies while allowing others to thrive. The reason for this may be to encourage people to buy certain armies / models instead of others, but it doesn't seem to be to achieve balance in the game.

Part of the reason I see it this way is that my FLGS has been having 2nd edition and 4th edition a few nights a month for a while now. With some exceptions, you can see how much more balanced those armies are than the ones found in more recent editions.

At the same time, several 7th edition players have simply starting organizing battles around formations and FOC limitations, where they fill up slots without regard to how much something costs. Each side just agrees on the slots that can be taken or the formations that can be used and that's your army. They have some variations like double FOCs, pure formation battles, open field (no formations), cave battles (no flyers), mirror image games, defender (where one side gets fewer slots but can set up outside their deployment zone), and some others.

From what I understand, it's been mixed results but mostly positive compared to vanilla 40k.

So, would love to hear what others think. If you don't mind, mention the army you play when you respond.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The new AoS releases have me thinking, are points really necessary in 40k?

Supposedly, points are how you maintain balance in the game. At the same time, there is a common perception that Codexes fit into certain tiers and some are more effective than others based on what you can do with your points. If points do not reflect balance, and some armies have a much tougher time at it than others, do they really serve a purpose?

I would argue the answer is no. The real function of points is to enforce a handicap on some armies while allowing others to thrive. The reason for this may be to encourage people to buy certain armies / models instead of others, but it doesn't seem to be to achieve balance in the game.

Part of the reason I see it this way is that my FLGS has been having 2nd edition and 4th edition a few nights a month for a while now. With some exceptions, you can see how much more balanced those armies are than the ones found in more recent editions.

At the same time, several 7th edition players have simply starting organizing battles around formations and FOC limitations, where they fill up slots without regard to how much something costs. Each side just agrees on the slots that can be taken or the formations that can be used and that's your army. They have some variations like double FOCs, pure formation battles, open field (no formations), cave battles (no flyers), mirror image games, defender (where one side gets fewer slots but can set up outside their deployment zone), and some others.

From what I understand, it's been mixed results but mostly positive compared to vanilla 40k.

So, would love to hear what others think. If you don't mind, mention the army you play when you respond.

Remove points and you will remove the last semblance of balance that this game has.
Want to face an army of Terminators and Primarchs? Go right ahead and remove them but I will stick with my points values thank you very much.

Will we use wounds instead? Think about it like this: An IK has 6 hull points. A Tactical Squad has 10. Does this make it more worth it to only have IK's?

What do you do with force which do not have formation???? i.e. IG, AS? Or faction with limited formation which could not compete with a Decurion, a demi company or a Wraith host? i.e. Ork, Dark Eldars…?

As long as you have to pay 115 Points for a Deff Dread and can get a wraith knight for 300 - there is no need for points.

And as long as Warhammer is a social game, no one will bring a Primarch and 100 Terminators to fight my 50 Battle sisters. Warhammer requires you to have friends to play with. If you act like an donkey-cave you won't play Warhammer for too long.
This gives you much more balance then the current point costs.
When I wanna have a big robot fight (to honor the Komatsu-MegaBots fight), my friend will bring a single Wraithnight (to represent the Japanese) and I will bring a 9 KillaKans, 2 Deff Dreads and a Mega Dread (to represent the USA). And it will end up being a fair, funny fight. If I he would bring the same number of points, it would be pointless to start the fight at all.

My friend once brought up a good point to me as to why points are good to have, even if some things are too good for their points. Imagine Magic: The Gathering. If there's an OP card, someone can put 4 of that card in their deck. How much of their deck did that take up? 4 cards, same as anything else. In 40k, if someone spammed 4 wraithknights, how much of their army did that take up? Pretty much all of it.

Hence, I'll stick to the points, even though they are far from balanced most of the time. Heck, that's why I'm iffy about trying AoS, since there's no point system.

For any sort of pick up game or competitive game where players are given a near unlimited number of ways to build their army, you need either a points system, or some sort of rigid army building structure of a series of formations that you have to build within for a legal army.

For local, friendly games designed for scenarios, then points don't matter so long as you have the right units for specific scenario X, Y, or Z, where the scenario is the balancing factor. This works well for some historicals and specific sub sets or scenarios within larger games.

Having a game where there are no point values, no method to building an army of roughly equal force other than just 'eye-balling' it, and no myriad of specific scenarios, is pretty weak and terrible game design. Its a cop out of having to actually create something that requires thought or effort. Anyone and their dog can write out a page of rules that says the equivalent of 'measure distances to the models, move as far as this number, roll this many dice in this phase, and remove models if they run out of health'.

So yes, I feel that 40k needs points. I feel that every wargame with even the slightest notion of being used in a pick up, store, club, league, or tournament environment should have some mechanism to create balanced forces, either by points or a more rigid formation system.

But the real question is, what benefit is afforded to a system completely devoid of a balancing mechanism? As far as I can see, none. In a balanced game, you can always decide to have a lopsided fight. You can always decide to ignore the points and do whatever you want. You can always fine tune things now that you have a (hopefully) tested baseline from a group of competent writers. You can always play in a number of environments, from hardcore tournaments where money/prizes are on the line, down to 6 pints in beerhammer.

Its simpler and easier to set up games where you simply ask for a game, then agree on a point value. You both show up with lists of that value and know that you're roughly evenly matched. A system like AoS relies on players using some arbitrary value like wounds to determine a rough equivalent. Anyone with two brain cells can immediately discover why wounds are not a good method of determining how equal forces are.

Yes, I feel that points are necessary. If not, I might as well be playing green army men in the sandbox. I want rules to feel like rules, a game where tactics and thinking matter, where I can design and build a force I like that is both aesthetically pleasing and matches my preferred method of fighting, where I can use the point values to play either super casual with whatever I want, or super competitive with min/maxed lists.

I just can't see a downside to having point values assigned or some sort of balancing mechanism.

*Edit* And I want to make this clear. Do not confuse a bad point system for a good reason to abandon it altogether. A bad point system means there's a need for a good one, of which several games have accomplished.

Just wait for Warhammer 40,000: Age of the Emperor!

Against regular opponents, no. Points are not necessary, you have a better idea of what forces will give you a fun game than the points system can provide.

If you want to have games against irregular opponents and have some semblance of balance (or controlled imbalance... or want to try out new options), I think points are still a very useful mechanic.

And I want to make this clear. Do not confuse a bad point system for a good reason to abandon it altogether. A bad point system means there's a need for a good one, of which several games have accomplished.

Nor do you need - necessarily - Nth degree detail. There is and will always be an argument that unit X, Y, or Z is under- or over-powered, and balancing it tends to unbalance something else.

As a result, whilst points are useful to get a broadly fair fight, going down into the weeds isn't necessary - and let's be fair, arguing that a model is one or two points too expensive is effectively arguing over about 15 points in a 2,000 point game.

That's not much beyond an irrelevant rounding error.

One game which I always liked was a fleet combat game called A Call To Arms - it was a Babylon 5 thing - and the fleet selection was '5 points' - a battleship was 1 point. Cruisers came 2 for a point. Frigates and light cruisers 3 for a point.

Yes, there were differences between different race's ships in how they played - drastically so - but their power was about equal-ish (depending on tactics, the vagarities of dice, etc). Where a unit had options, you could take any of them you wished, because they were options (as in do you want A, B or C, not do you want A, A+, A++) and were allowed for in the unit's power.

It didn't remove the strategy of fleet selection, but it didn't half make the whole affair faster and easier for players who just want to play the damn game.

It's something I wouldn't mind in 40k - a point/unit/whatever you want to call it being a sensible block of units.

So a tactical squad, with whatever weapons you want, or a terminator squa, (but only a 5 man one), or a guard platoon of two squads and a command section, or a big mob of boyz, or a pair of tanks, could all be about equivalent.

 Matthew wrote:
Will we use wounds instead? Think about it like this: An IK has 6 hull points. A Tactical Squad has 10. Does this make it more worth it to only have IK's?

Revenant has 6hp too iirc, sooo.

Points are necessary and yes, they do make for balanced games. The problem isn't with points themselves, it's the deliberate use of them by GW to stimulate sales of newer releases.

eg:
"there's no way we'll sell 10 of these transports to anyone"
"what if we make 'em free?"

Yes, we really do need them!

What you're seeing isn't points being a bad idea, but rather GW just not calculating the right point costs.

"My car is driving like crap because it has a flat tire!


I know, it will drive better with no tires! The flat one is just slowing it down!"

-AoS apologists


The one thing I hope more than anything AoS accomplishes is to cure the community of the ridiculous notion that GW knows better than they do somehow. I hope people get a living point cost set they can tweak and balance and tune based on results and actual math and testing, and I hope then they realize "hey, this would totally work for 40k!!"

The moment Age of Sigmar creeps into 40k I'll be writing the rulebook from scratch and using that for my meta, points included.

Points is the only thing that keeps the game somewhat balanced, aside house rules.

Use every slot instead?
So when you compare 60 scatter bikes to 180 gretchin/60 scouts/60 veteran guardsmen/180 termagants or even 120 guardians, you realise straight away that now that the majority of units are non-viable.
Seth vs a stompa
Tarantula battery vs 3 SM predators
Smashfecker vs Techmarine
Etc etc.
That's not even bringing into account that Inquisition are screwed with their 5 slots and that IG can put 834 models down using just their 6 troops slots (inc commissars, not inc chimeras).

we use points to make lists during the week without having to consult each other in detail about what armies we are making.

points keep balance and for us 40k is a very balanced game at our game size. The points work for us to create a balanced game with minimal free time.

Alos without points how would you do upgrades? Customizing/upgrading is our groups favorite aspect of creating the force.

The idea behind using a point-system is to ensure that both players bring a relatively equal army to face each other with.

The fact that many units are overcosted/undercosted does not mean that we should get rid of the point system completely. Rather we should fix the existing problems within the system we already have.

(Its the whole don't throw the baby out with the bath water thing.)

I think the removal of points is games workshops day of telling us they really don't know how and don't want to make rules anymore.

What if the makers of yhatzee (bit of a stretch, I know) came out and said: "no more rules, we just make dice and cups now.. Go roll whatever you want and make up the game yourselves. "

Well, I would stop playing yhatzee for want of an actual game. Or I would make copies of the old rules and use those.

For a while now games workshop has been showing us that they are really bad at bringing balance to the game, I don't think their current table flipping policy is the right choice... But we will just have to see

So... as chaos. Making squad of 10 TSons or 10 Chosen would be equivalent to making squad of 10 Regular Marine? And Why would you EVER take 10 regular marine if you can take 10 bike? or 10 Terminator?

You take AoS for example... well AoS is really in a bad shape as of now. I watch a couple youtubers and Miniwargaming for example, are having a hard time balancing the game to actually make it enjoyable. After a week or so of playtesting, they put a point price on every unit using some sort of calculation, and like magic, the game became more balance and enjoyable

The real question is: Are redicilously OP formations really necessary?

 DalinCriid wrote:
The real question is: Are redicilously OP formations really necessary?

OP formations? Nah. Formations? Yes. I love formations.

Could formations require a slight point cost? Perhaps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PandaHero wrote:
So... as chaos. Making squad of 10 TSons or 10 Chosen would be equivalent to making squad of 10 Regular Marine? And Why would you EVER take 10 regular marine if you can take 10 bike? or 10 Terminator?

You take AoS for example... well AoS is really in a bad shape as of now. I watch a couple youtubers and Miniwargaming for example, are having a hard time balancing the game to actually make it enjoyable. After a week or so of playtesting, they put a point price on every unit using some sort of calculation, and like magic, the game became more balance and enjoyable

A. Just a side note for Chaos: Their points are so pricey right now, me and my girlfriend were thinking of trying a 25% reduction in price on their units (at least the stupid expensive ones) to see if that helps any. Or, just let her have a 500 point handicap in our games.

B. My thoughts for AoS is to just use the old points value from WHFB, i.e Nagash is 1000 points, Tomb Kings are ~175, ext. Otherwise, I don't know how to even set up a list.

What Blackheart said is absolutely correct.

If you want a fair game in which players have the ability to choose forces to a minute level of detail in order to optimise them to the limit, then a points system is essential.

The funny thing about this thread is that for the most part, everyone agrees that GW does a poor job with the individual points cost of the models they sell (or has ulterior motives for the reasons some models have the points costs they do in the game), yet if I were to suggest we as a community "fix" some of the ridiculous oversights or imbalances, you'd say "we cannot alter the point values, for GW is the grand arbiter of all that is 40k balance related decisions" (or something to that effect).

So, for example, if I said a Wraithknight should be 375pts base and a possessed chaos space marine should be 22pts per model, I'd be saying something almost everyone would agree with (maybe not the exact number, but everyone agrees that the WK is too cheap and that possessed are too expensive for their impact on the table), but would be burned at the stake for suggesting the points change. Sure, I know...who am I, right? Well...it shouldn't be up to me, but if everyone agrees that GW are idiots when it comes to point costs, it shouldn't be totally taboo for SOMEONE out there to take a stab at it and have the community respect their decisions.

When you put Space Marine scouts next to blood Angels scouts the answer is kind of obvious.

Since Necrons the idea of balance has been thrown out of the window entirely. Points cost are a farce and Im starting to come around on the idea of AoS, which doesn't even pretend.

I like AoS, been playing it more then 40k recently.
Its more enjoyable right now and feels a bit more open and engaging with the rules as is.

That being said 40k needs points limits. Otherwise it would be one big shitshow

Business wise, removing points will also remove the remaining players that actually care about balance. Narrowing their customer base isn't a good move when their revenue is already declining.

A. Just a side note for Chaos: Their points are so pricey right now, me and my girlfriend were thinking of trying a 25% reduction in price on their units (at least the stupid expensive ones) to see if that helps any. Or, just let her have a 500 point handicap in our games.

You totally misunderstood my points. I took chaos because I have it in mind as of now. The points is: You can't base a system on wounds or warscroll. Because if you do, some unit become irrelevant. Why would I field Gretchin if I can field a boy? Why would I field a Tactical Marine if I can field a Biker?

Wounds and model count are not the only factor in the equation. So you need to take every stat into account. Hence, a point cost.

The bad thing about how GW uses the points is that they will use the amount of points a model costs in a game to set the price for the model, they don't base the actual price on how much it costs to make the model. That's why independent characters cost so much more than a squad of space marines.


Cheers, C66

Remember when GW tried to make a hellbrute more balanced in their FaQ when they reduced its price by 5pts?
It feels like a long list memory that.

That's like saying "well, people steal and commit murder anyway; are laws *REALLY* necessary?!"

Poly Ranger wrote:
Remember when GW tried to make a hellbrute more balanced in their FaQ when they reduced its price by 5pts?
It feels like a long list memory that.

That wasn't because of balance. They were fixing a typo in english versions of the codex (as every other language had the hellbrute start at 100 pts)

 krodarklorr wrote:
In 40k, if someone spammed 4 wraithknights, how much of their army did that take up? Pretty much all of it.

1200p, which gives you plenty of space for the cheaper core formation

 Lord Corellia wrote:
That's like saying "well, people steal and commit murder anyway; are laws *REALLY* necessary?!"

The comparison only holds if you could opt out of being murdered by simply walking away and refusing the .. um .. game.

That is the problem with the whole "legal" attitude. Gaming-rules are not laws or legal scripture that need or should be enforced by a third party. They are voluntary opt-in guidelines you can always walk away from with no harm done to anybody.

Wonderwolf wrote:
The comparison only holds if you could opt out of being murdered by simply walking away and refusing the .. um .. game.

That is the problem with the whole "legal" attitude. Gaming-rules are not laws or legal scripture that need or should be enforced by a third party. They are voluntary opt-in guidelines you can always walk away from with no harm done to anybody.

Fair enough, I was just more being a smart arse.

I haven't played in a long while, but one of my friends from work plays and apparently has a small group going of good guys who want to play for fun. Points or no, this is how I prefer to play.

High fences make good neighbours.

Relying on trust and the good will of others is a recipe for headaches if you ask me.

Are points the only way to balance out two armies? Not at all. But it's a solid guideline to have. Unless you're playing purely narrative, there needs to exist a way that my opponent and I can both agree we're on a level playing field, or really whats the point?

The bad thing about how GW uses the points is that they will use the amount of points a model costs in a game to set the price for the model, they don't base the actual price on how much it costs to make the model. That's why independent characters cost so much more than a squad of space marines.

That's half true. 18pts per Mek Gun, 54$ a pop.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Business wise, removing points will also remove the remaining players that actually care about balance. Narrowing their customer base isn't a good move when their revenue is already declining.

I would imagine GW sees a point system creating an artificial barrier to sales. They ask themselves: If the game is played at 1500pts, why buy 1600pts? Hence the focus on apocalysing 40k. Gotta removes all barriers to increase sales. Points create a barrier; remove them.

 PandaHero wrote:
So... as chaos. Making squad of 10 TSons or 10 Chosen would be equivalent to making squad of 10 Regular Marine? And Why would you EVER take 10 regular marine if you can take 10 bike? or 10 Terminator?

You take AoS for example... well AoS is really in a bad shape as of now. I watch a couple youtubers and Miniwargaming for example, are having a hard time balancing the game to actually make it enjoyable. After a week or so of playtesting, they put a point price on every unit using some sort of calculation, and like magic, the game became more balance and enjoyable

Maybe this is what GW are waiting for: Players to make up the point system and then they can co-opt it and tack it on to the game.

Skriker

 Skriker wrote:

 PandaHero wrote:
So... as chaos. Making squad of 10 TSons or 10 Chosen would be equivalent to making squad of 10 Regular Marine? And Why would you EVER take 10 regular marine if you can take 10 bike? or 10 Terminator?

You take AoS for example... well AoS is really in a bad shape as of now. I watch a couple youtubers and Miniwargaming for example, are having a hard time balancing the game to actually make it enjoyable. After a week or so of playtesting, they put a point price on every unit using some sort of calculation, and like magic, the game became more balance and enjoyable

Maybe this is what GW are waiting for: Players to make up the point system and then they can co-opt it and tack it on to the game.

Skriker

Or, have people realize that the game is 100% playable out of the gate, and not supposed to be a competative style game.
Its a game to hang out and spend an afternoon playing and shooting the gak over.

In a game where a winner and loser are determine by victory conditions, it is by definition competitive.

Further, a game with point values is equally well suited (and I'd argue, more suited) for hanging out and shooting the gak over.

I feel that points are still needed for the game. It's not like the point system doesn't work, games like Warmahordes and Infinity work fine with it. GW's idea of point is unbalanced. I think a points system is needed just to have balance in the game. Yes if your playing with friends you can trust your going to be able have fun games that are well-balanced, but theres always going to be people who game the system. A well done points system prevents those abuses. Not saying that GW makes a good points system, because it doesn't, but at least it's a start to balancing the game.

 Blacksails wrote:
In a game where a winner and loser are determine by victory conditions, it is by definition competitive.

Further, a game with point values is equally well suited (and I'd argue, more suited) for hanging out and shooting the gak over.

my experience exactly.
Im a casual fluffu player, but it was the gross imbalances that kicked me out.

 Voidwraith wrote:
The funny thing about this thread is that for the most part, everyone agrees that GW does a poor job with the individual points cost of the models they sell (or has ulterior motives for the reasons some models have the points costs they do in the game), yet if I were to suggest we as a community "fix" some of the ridiculous oversights or imbalances, you'd say "we cannot alter the point values, for GW is the grand arbiter of all that is 40k balance related decisions" (or something to that effect).

So, for example, if I said a Wraithknight should be 375pts base and a possessed chaos space marine should be 22pts per model, I'd be saying something almost everyone would agree with (maybe not the exact number, but everyone agrees that the WK is too cheap and that possessed are too expensive for their impact on the table), but would be burned at the stake for suggesting the points change. Sure, I know...who am I, right? Well...it shouldn't be up to me, but if everyone agrees that GW are idiots when it comes to point costs, it shouldn't be totally taboo for SOMEONE out there to take a stab at it and have the community respect their decisions.

This. I've said this before. If someone of authority like the FLG group took the reins on house-ruling the game, I think it would be a lot more respectable of a game. I enjoy playing with zagman's fan-errata when people agree to it. Problem is getting people to try it.

As you said, it's something like:
"Man GW sucks at points/balance."
"Hey here's a fan errata that has had a lot of work put into it, wanna use it?"
"Nah, those aren't the real rules."
(I facepalm.)

niv-mizzet wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:
The funny thing about this thread is that for the most part, everyone agrees that GW does a poor job with the individual points cost of the models they sell (or has ulterior motives for the reasons some models have the points costs they do in the game), yet if I were to suggest we as a community "fix" some of the ridiculous oversights or imbalances, you'd say "we cannot alter the point values, for GW is the grand arbiter of all that is 40k balance related decisions" (or something to that effect).

So, for example, if I said a Wraithknight should be 375pts base and a possessed chaos space marine should be 22pts per model, I'd be saying something almost everyone would agree with (maybe not the exact number, but everyone agrees that the WK is too cheap and that possessed are too expensive for their impact on the table), but would be burned at the stake for suggesting the points change. Sure, I know...who am I, right? Well...it shouldn't be up to me, but if everyone agrees that GW are idiots when it comes to point costs, it shouldn't be totally taboo for SOMEONE out there to take a stab at it and have the community respect their decisions.

This. I've said this before. If someone of authority like the FLG group took the reins on house-ruling the game, I think it would be a lot more respectable of a game. I enjoy playing with zagman's fan-errata when people agree to it. Problem is getting people to try it.

As you said, it's something like:
"Man GW sucks at points/balance."
"Hey here's a fan errata that has had a lot of work put into it, wanna use it?"
"Nah, those aren't the real rules."
(I facepalm.)

Yeah, I can see why that's a problem. Could you actually link the errata your talking about? I'd like to have a look at it. But yeah, not having the offical maker of the game bother to attempt balancing it just sucks. Normally I'd just go play more balanced stuff like Warmahordes, but I just really like the feel and setting of Warhammer 40k (more specically Steel Legion) so I can't force myself to not play it. Luckily my sibling are interested in it as well, so we can hash together houserules that we agree on that we can use.

Very interesting concept. I hear mostly good things about AoS from friends and want to try it myself here soon.

That being said, a lot of good points are being brought up on both sides, yet there are people here who are basically shutting the whole thing down without presenting an arguement one way or the other.

 saithor wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:
The funny thing about this thread is that for the most part, everyone agrees that GW does a poor job with the individual points cost of the models they sell (or has ulterior motives for the reasons some models have the points costs they do in the game), yet if I were to suggest we as a community "fix" some of the ridiculous oversights or imbalances, you'd say "we cannot alter the point values, for GW is the grand arbiter of all that is 40k balance related decisions" (or something to that effect).

So, for example, if I said a Wraithknight should be 375pts base and a possessed chaos space marine should be 22pts per model, I'd be saying something almost everyone would agree with (maybe not the exact number, but everyone agrees that the WK is too cheap and that possessed are too expensive for their impact on the table), but would be burned at the stake for suggesting the points change. Sure, I know...who am I, right? Well...it shouldn't be up to me, but if everyone agrees that GW are idiots when it comes to point costs, it shouldn't be totally taboo for SOMEONE out there to take a stab at it and have the community respect their decisions.

This. I've said this before. If someone of authority like the FLG group took the reins on house-ruling the game, I think it would be a lot more respectable of a game. I enjoy playing with zagman's fan-errata when people agree to it. Problem is getting people to try it.

As you said, it's something like:
"Man GW sucks at points/balance."
"Hey here's a fan errata that has had a lot of work put into it, wanna use it?"
"Nah, those aren't the real rules."
(I facepalm.)

Yeah, I can see why that's a problem. Could you actually link the errata your talking about? I'd like to have a look at it. But yeah, not having the offical maker of the game bother to attempt balancing it just sucks. Normally I'd just go play more balanced stuff like Warmahordes, but I just really like the feel and setting of Warhammer 40k (more specically Steel Legion) so I can't force myself to not play it. Luckily my sibling are interested in it as well, so we can hash together houserules that we agree on that we can use.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/648525.page

niv-mizzet wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/648525.page

Thanks. As another quick addition, yeah 40k is unbalanced as it currently is, but that is no reason to throw balance of of the window altogether. GW seems to have finally stopped caring at all in the same style that Konami has, and hopefully I'm wrong about that, because the game can be balanced, they just need to put in the effort. There's a good soloution to this that doesn't mean abolishing the points system.

 Voidwraith wrote:
The funny thing about this thread is that for the most part, everyone agrees that GW does a poor job with the individual points cost of the models they sell (or has ulterior motives for the reasons some models have the points costs they do in the game), yet if I were to suggest we as a community "fix" some of the ridiculous oversights or imbalances, you'd say "we cannot alter the point values, for GW is the grand arbiter of all that is 40k balance related decisions" (or something to that effect).

So, for example, if I said a Wraithknight should be 375pts base and a possessed chaos space marine should be 22pts per model, I'd be saying something almost everyone would agree with (maybe not the exact number, but everyone agrees that the WK is too cheap and that possessed are too expensive for their impact on the table), but would be burned at the stake for suggesting the points change. Sure, I know...who am I, right? Well...it shouldn't be up to me, but if everyone agrees that GW are idiots when it comes to point costs, it shouldn't be totally taboo for SOMEONE out there to take a stab at it and have the community respect their decisions.

You must not have seen Zagman's errata threads

die toten hosen wrote:

Or, have people realize that the game is 100% playable out of the gate, and not supposed to be a competative style game.
Its a game to hang out and spend an afternoon playing and shooting the gak over.

Or have people realize that a game doesn't have to be a competitive style to be well written. Some of us prefer games that are well written, have some semblance of balance and don't require a lot of upfront caveats to have a good experience with. I've been playing since Rogue Trader because I love the 40k Background, but I've really disliked the game itself since about 5th edition, and it just keeps getting worse, especially now that they suddenly jumped the shark with Decurion after a string of relatively lower powered books and have just continued the escalation from there. I play and have played plenty of other games that just do it better and because I like the 40k background so much I keep wishing GW would figure it out.

There is a lot of wrong with a no points system as they did AoS, in my humble opinions.

1-Impossible for new player to actually gauge if you got tabled because you are using unbalance army. Sure it's easy with their starter set, because you can actually play both side of the starter and expect them to be balance. But put a new player to fantasy, like me, and give me 50 models. Then put 50 lizarman model on the other side of the board. Well I won't be able to know if it's a fair match or not. I can get table turn 1 or 2 and won't be able to have fun.

2-No points cost is the best way to make some of your units completly worthless. No points cost mean no upgrade. So take 5 Scouts and 5 Space Marine.... no one would EVER play 5 scout (unless you know the game very well and you know your 5 scouts are balance with whatever the other guy is bringing). That way, you make some unit of your 'codex' useless.

3-Really hit the 'pick up game' portion of the hobby. With friends, ya no points really don't matter much. Everybody will kind of work together to make the game enjoyable for everyone. In a shop, you don't always have that luxury. Both player want to enjoy a FAIR fight, so the point cost is really just an indicative of your army 'power level'. that way he can match your points, and ensure a 'fair' match (yes, the game isnt that well balance, but imagine keeping the same unbalance and removing points, making you fight a very OP army not 1k to 1k, but maybe 1k to 1.5k)

4-Habits. Ya, I have to admit, I'm resistant to change. I like my points cost. I like my list building. I like to pick which 'upgrade' would fit which unit and such. I like to post on Dakka saying: Hey guys, I have 30 extra points, what would you suggest?

To everybody his opinions. There you have mine.

 techsoldaten wrote:
At the same time, several 7th edition players have simply starting organizing battles around formations and FOC limitations, where they fill up slots without regard to how much something costs. Each side just agrees on the slots that can be taken or the formations that can be used and that's your army.

So if I play Elysian drop troops I can take 80 infantry, 3 drop Sentinels (or 2 with a Valkyrie transport) and 13 Valkyries in a single troops slot. And since there's no point limit I can give them every upgrade in the book without worrying if dual powerfist sergeants might be a bad idea. I'm sure that ~2500 point army is completely balanced against a tactical squad in a Rhino, and it's perfectly reasonable to treat them as equivalent "troops slots".

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
At the same time, several 7th edition players have simply starting organizing battles around formations and FOC limitations, where they fill up slots without regard to how much something costs. Each side just agrees on the slots that can be taken or the formations that can be used and that's your army.

So if I play Elysian drop troops I can take 80 infantry, 3 drop Sentinels (or 2 with a Valkyrie transport) and 13 Valkyries in a single troops slot. And since there's no point limit I can give them every upgrade in the book without worrying if dual powerfist sergeants might be a bad idea. I'm sure that ~2500 point army is completely balanced against a tactical squad in a Rhino, and it's perfectly reasonable to treat them as equivalent "troops slots".

Don't be daft - it'll be a tactical squad with an upgraded razorback! Much fairer!

Not using some unit of measure in "points" would be incredibly hard to avoid.

You could try to break down a squad or vehicle to a "selection" and some upgrade selection / units available as a ratio or something but is just another term for points.

It will need someone a bit smarter than I think GW has on-staff at this time to make it happen and be "balanced".

In all honesty, this idea sounds kind of appealing. Enough so I might brng it to my one friend in our circle whos willing to experiment.

I would actually reccomend though to someone considering trying this to set a point limit for upgrades. Say 500pts of wargear for a full CAD.

Most of you however seem to be of the opinion that everyone who plays this game is secretly a grandma sodomizer just waiting for somene to suggest an idea like ths so they can slap five wraithknights on the board.

All very good points.

Originally, what prompted this thread is the idea that points are no longer a good indicator of balance. Maybe they were in previous editions, but it seems like 7th has marginalized certain Codexes even for casual games (talking about Orks and Chaos here, plus probably a few other armies.)

Sounds like the consensus is that we all live with the points system and wait for GW to make things better? Keep buying expensive rulebooks only to be massively disappointed or leave others to feel the same way.

The idea of slots is appealing because it's recognizable and it's not hard to get past the more egregious powergaming tactics. For example, gamers could decide a FOC slot can only be occupied by a single unit (sorry, AM platoons valkyrie spam) and units in formations count towards FOC slots (dealing with decurion formation issues). The only logical issues then are with forces that have a non-traditional FOC - i.e. knights - but there's ways to rule around that.

I would say power creep becomes it's own balancing mechanism when points are not an issue. Most armies have a way to build OP units for a massive amount of points, it's not like this only cuts one way. The ones that don't have other strengths that can be unlocked.

- Anyone can go OP. So you want to bring a giant blob of AM featuring a sergeant with dual power fists? Great, let them face my 20 man Noise Marine squad with full sonic weapons and FNP, let's see who wins that match up. I would actually be interested in seeing it happen, it just won't put me at a severe disadvantage from the moment my troops are on the table.

- There's always the mirror strategy. You want to bring an army of Terminators and Primarchs? Great, let's see how they fare against my terminators and primarchs, I can do it too. When neither side has an advantage, the game is just about skill - in other words, it starts to actually become competitive.

- Then there's the question of actual unit choices. You want to bring a Titan as a LOW? Great, but let's do double FOCs and let me pit you against 12 squads of cultists that (on average) will take you 24 rounds to kill off in a 7 turn game. The mechanics of 40k don't go away just because the points do.

With my BA codex using every slot how can I face this evenly:

(Rough estimate not having access to the codex but you'll get the point)
HQ
Seer council with full complement of warlocks and Farseers all on Jetbikes
Seer council, as above

Elites
10 Wraithguard with D Scythes in Wave serpents
As above
As above

Troops
10 jetbikes with scatter lasers and warlock
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above

Fast attack
10 Warp spiders with full exarch upgrades (Or a full complement of Hornets)
As above
As above

Heavy Support
Vauls Wrath support battery with 3 D cannons
As above
As above

LoW
Wraithknight with all the trimmings (or Revenant Titan if going silly)

Fortification
Macro cannon

Hell as the eldar player why would they take 9/10's of the rest of the codex?

It may be unbalanced now but slot selection rather than points makes it even worse!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also as R&H, without being able to take platoons, the best I can do for troops is 20 'guardsmen' without armour. They won't stand up long to the equivalent troops selection from almost any dex.

I could live without points, but only if there was a stricter force organsisation, with units opening up another units, required options, etc. Then you could say "One HQ force" and know what options the other could be taking, for example.

However, that limits the alternative armies and combinations that could be fielded, which is a limit on the background you could create for your force, so I prefer points.

But no points as well as no organsiation? No. That's silly.

When i first heard about a pointsless system i was intrigued. I mean we all know the current points system is broken without even the hope of a fix in sight. And wound for wound a DA lines up pretty well with a tac marine, but seconds later i realised that 2 dreds would never do well against a single wraithknight.

If i thought this was a genuine attempt to make a better game i would have been made happy by the effort. But THIRTY years into making table top games GW knows better. What spawned this ludicrous insult of an idea we'll never know.

I believe there will be more rules to come. Not better ones (GW is moraly & intellectually incapable of that), but different ones. They'll disguise this mystifying blunder as First edition or the next set will be called Grand AoS Battle rules or some such nonsense. In the end though...I just see them trashing the old molds & IP. They won't sell them. That would offer thier competition a winner they could develop.

Wish they'd done something like SAGA. Each Warscroll would be equal in power - instead of "10 or more Orcs in the unit" say "25 Orcs". Take X Warscrolls and thats your army. 40k would could great that way too - a Tactical Marine "unit" would be 10 dudes, two weapons, and a transport, and now cost one "slot" as opposed to "123 points". A "Boyz Mob" could be 30 boyz, or 20 Boyz with a power klaw Nob leader - a couple of choices within each scroll-equivalent that are equal in value. Army building would be faster and less wanky that way IMO

Re; AoS, more than the lack of points I feel the issue is how they've implemented the game. Flat to-wound rolls with no meaningful modification are silly and add nothing at all to the game except more dice. And every unit has 2 or 3 little perks that you need to keep track of - this unit rerolls hits of 1 if they have a flag, that unit forces enemies to re-roll 6's to hit, this unit forces enemies to reroll battleshock tests of 6, that unit regains models if they make a battleshock test of 1, this unit gets an extra attack when they hit with a 6, that unit dodges all to-hit rolls of X...

Simplify that down to 10-20 Keyword effects ["Frenzy: Get extra attacks on a 6"], give each scroll a fixed troop quantity, and make to-wound rolls meaningful and you've got a cool game.

 Blacksails wrote:


*Edit* And I want to make this clear. Do not confuse a bad point system for a good reason to abandon it altogether. A bad point system means there's a need for a good one, of which several games have accomplished.

Considering when I made this argument at my pro-GW club I got kicked out for being a "raging GW hater", I'd say yes, nopoints is a great reason to abandon the game if you didn't have 10 or 20 reasons to do so already

Poly Ranger wrote:
With my BA codex using every slot how can I face this evenly:

(Rough estimate not having access to the codex but you'll get the point)
HQ
Seer council with full complement of warlocks and Farseers all on Jetbikes
Seer council, as above

Elites
10 Wraithguard with D Scythes in Wave serpents
As above
As above

Troops
10 jetbikes with scatter lasers and warlock
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above

Fast attack
10 Warp spiders with full exarch upgrades (Or a full complement of Hornets)
As above
As above

Heavy Support
Vauls Wrath support battery with 3 D cannons
As above
As above

LoW
Wraithknight with all the trimmings (or Revenant Titan if going silly)

Fortification
Macro cannon

Hell as the eldar player why would they take 9/10's of the rest of the codex?

It may be unbalanced now but slot selection rather than points makes it even worse!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also as R&H, without being able to take platoons, the best I can do for troops is 20 'guardsmen' without armour. They won't stand up long to the equivalent troops selection from almost any dex.

Forget R&H, how could anything stand a chance against just the troop selection, points or no points?

I guess if you forced me to play a game against that list, my escalated CSM list would look something like this:

- 1 x FDP with MoN and Black Mace

- Be'Lakor

- 3 x max squads of Chosen with Plasma / MoS / IoE / VotLW / melta bombs / whatever
- 3 x Chaos Dreadclaw Drop Pod

- 6 x max sized squads of Noise Marines with full sonic weapons, IoE, VotLW / Dirge Casters, extra weapons, melta bombs, and other upgrades
- 6 x Rhinos with extra armor, havoc launchers, warpflame gargoyles, dozer blades and anything else I can come up with.

- 3 x max sized squads of bikers with meltas / VotLW / MoN

- 3 x Fire Raptors

- MoN Chaos Reaver Titan with laser blasters, vortex missiles and hull mounted turbo lasers

- 1 x Macro-Cannon or Vortex Missile Aquila Strongpoint

Forgive me if this sounds naive, I know the Eldar would have all kinds of horrible weapons and all that, but I think I would stand a better chance of repelling them with Vortex bombs and turbo blasters than I would with a standard points-based army. Even at 1500 points, the Eldar can take D weapons, whereas the CSMs would not be able to afford the titan or the macro cannon without some serious sacrifices. OTOH, try shooting my invisible titan that I can suddenly afford.

 Dakkamite wrote:


Considering when I made this argument at my pro-GW club I got kicked out for being a "raging GW hater", I'd say yes, nopoints is a great reason to abandon the game if you didn't have 10 or 20 reasons to do so already

I think you misunderstand me, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm saying not to abandon the point system just because its currently poor. The bad balance in 40k is a good reason to leave the game, but its not a good reason to abandon the basic idea of assigning points to units (or a reasonable balancing alternative).

 techsoldaten wrote:
For example, gamers could decide a FOC slot can only be occupied by a single unit (sorry, AM platoons valkyrie spam)

So instead of using the very straightforward points system you'd rather ban entire units? Things like IG platoons, vehicle squadrons, etc, are all part of the game and shouldn't be banned. And the Valkyrie example was just one of the more extreme versions of the fundamental problem that FOC slots are not even close to equal in value. A 500-point terminator death star is way more powerful than a squad of ratlings, even though in theory both of them use up the same FOC slot.

I would say power creep becomes it's own balancing mechanism when points are not an issue. Most armies have a way to build OP units for a massive amount of points, it's not like this only cuts one way. The ones that don't have other strengths that can be unlocked.

Sorry, but "everyone can be blatantly overpowered" is not really a solution, especially when bringing those overpowered units is largely a matter of how much money you can afford to spend on the game. Even if both players in theory have access to overpowered super-units in practice budget limits are a major issue. If one player can afford to put 15,000 points of IG on the table with a single FOC while their opponent only has the models for a normal 2000 point army then no, there isn't equality in access to the overpowered stuff.

- There's always the mirror strategy. You want to bring an army of Terminators and Primarchs? Great, let's see how they fare against my terminators and primarchs, I can do it too. When neither side has an advantage, the game is just about skill - in other words, it starts to actually become competitive.

IOW, reduce the game to a tiny number of viable options for cramming the most "points" into a single FOC slot, while everything else in the codex is completely useless. How exactly is this a good idea?

And, again, model access is a problem. Your theoretical "everyone can bring a mirror strategy" situation doesn't exist in the real world because most people don't have the models required to build the most powerful armies under your system. In the real world you'll have a small minority of players who can put Apocalypse-level armies into a single FOC while nobody has the models required to match them.

- Then there's the question of actual unit choices. You want to bring a Titan as a LOW? Great, but let's do double FOCs and let me pit you against 12 squads of cultists that (on average) will take you 24 rounds to kill off in a 7 turn game. The mechanics of 40k don't go away just because the points do.

Why are you assuming that it's one titan vs. lots of cultists? The titan's player will have their own 12 IG platoons (about 1,500 models, btw) to support the titan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I would actually reccomend though to someone considering trying this to set a point limit for upgrades. Say 500pts of wargear for a full CAD.

IOW, "don't use point costs, but you have to use point costs".

Most of you however seem to be of the opinion that everyone who plays this game is secretly a grandma sodomizer just waiting for somene to suggest an idea like ths so they can slap five wraithknights on the board.

If your proposed balance system can't survive even a trivial attempt to break it then it's a terrible system. And you can't depend on people being nice and not exploiting your bad rules.

Although I'm enjoying AoS without points, I would not like to see it in 40k. Reasons:

1. I enjoy making 40k lists, and squeezing stuff into a point limit.
2. You can't remove points without removing gearing options: why ever take a heavy bolter over a grav cannon? Why not always take relics where possible?
3. No points works for 20-30 models because we're pretty good at estimating effectiveness. 80-200 models? No way.
4. No points breaks the best thing that's happened to 40k IMO - If you take x and y and z, you get a for free or special ability b. All the sudden, fret units or upgrades mean nothing. Even free specials are greatly devalued, because there's probably something else with a better special that just costs more.
5. Some units become pointless. Why ever take assault marines -- death company are better. Why ever take death company -- sanguinary guard are better. Why ever take a level 2 psyker, when you can take a level 3?

In any case, as long as 40k is selling, there's no way GW would fundamentally change the game like that.

 Dakkamite wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:


*Edit* And I want to make this clear. Do not confuse a bad point system for a good reason to abandon it altogether. A bad point system means there's a need for a good one, of which several games have accomplished.

Considering when I made this argument at my pro-GW club I got kicked out for being a "raging GW hater", I'd say yes, nopoints is a great reason to abandon the game if you didn't have 10 or 20 reasons to do so already

Don't question the TRUE FAITH tm or the GTFO crowd will get ya.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
Although I'm enjoying AoS without points, I would not like to see it in 40k. Reasons:

1. I enjoy making 40k lists, and squeezing stuff into a point limit.
2. You can't remove points without removing gearing options: why ever take a heavy bolter over a grav cannon? Why not always take relics where possible?
3. No points works for 20-30 models because we're pretty good at estimating effectiveness. 80-200 models? No way.
4. No points breaks the best thing that's happened to 40k IMO - If you take x and y and z, you get a for free or special ability b. All the sudden, fret units or upgrades mean nothing. Even free specials are greatly devalued, because there's probably something else with a better special that just costs more.
5. Some units become pointless. Why ever take assault marines -- death company are better. Why ever take death company -- sanguinary guard are better. Why ever take a level 2 psyker, when you can take a level 3?

In any case, as long as 40k is selling, there's no way GW would fundamentally change the game like that.

Yes they would. If AoS is a big hit it will happen. Or if profits continues to slip it will happen. In the past year GW has learned two things; formations move product and minimalist effort can be put into the rules saving development time and publishing costs. This is the future of GW.

 Crimson Devil wrote:


Yes they would. If AoS is a big hit it will happen. Or if profits continues to slip it will happen. In the past year GW has learned two things; formations move product and minimalist effort can be put into the rules saving development time and publishing costs. This is the future of GW.

Cynical as this is I sadly agree that this step is very likely even in 40k. In their mind they could even be addressing the problems their players have been clamoring about for all these years while doing this.

My real question overall is with GW's fluctuating revenues and very touchy bottom line these days, where exactly are they planning to make up the revenue lost from the sale of WHFB rule books, army books and supplements? Sure they will have a requisite cut in production costs as well, but given their stuff is already way overpriced they are going to be heavily leaning towards the negative numbers in comparison there. So how will they make up that revenue?

 Skriker wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:


Yes they would. If AoS is a big hit it will happen. Or if profits continues to slip it will happen. In the past year GW has learned two things; formations move product and minimalist effort can be put into the rules saving development time and publishing costs. This is the future of GW.

Cynical as this is I sadly agree that this step is very likely even in 40k. In their mind they could even be addressing the problems their players have been clamoring about for all these years while doing this.

My real question overall is with GW's fluctuating revenues and very touchy bottom line these days, where exactly are they planning to make up the revenue lost from the sale of WHFB rule books, army books and supplements? Sure they will have a requisite cut in production costs as well, but given their stuff is already way overpriced they are going to be heavily leaning towards the negative numbers in comparison there. So how will they make up that revenue?

With AoS, GW is giving out the rules for free as part of an adoption strategy that encourages people to try the game. The barrier to entry with this game has been massively reduced, so much so that someone can get into the game for a few hundred dollars and still have a satisfying experience.

The plan has to be to make up for lost book sales by selling more models. The margins they see on the sale of a popular miniature boxed set probably averages to around 90% in all regions, and they are more likely to move because it's new. The margins on books is probably significantly less, and they probably don't move off the shelf as fast.

I am sure AOS results in a net positive for GW even without the books. Over time, they will probably move into narrative campaigns and other things AOS seems well suited for.

With regards to 40k moving to this model, I am sure GW is using AOS as a market test to see what happens when they reboot a product. WHFB sales have been slipping for years, a reboot was not only necessary to generate more interest but will also prove to be popular amongst fans. The same imbalance issues existed for WHFB as do with 40k.

I guess if you really like points for your armies you should not go and buy AOS.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Wish they'd done something like SAGA. Each Warscroll would be equal in power - instead of "10 or more Orcs in the unit" say "25 Orcs". Take X Warscrolls and thats your army. 40k would could great that way too - a Tactical Marine "unit" would be 10 dudes, two weapons, and a transport, and now cost one "slot" as opposed to "123 points". A "Boyz Mob" could be 30 boyz, or 20 Boyz with a power klaw Nob leader - a couple of choices within each scroll-equivalent that are equal in value. Army building would be faster and less wanky that way IMO

Oh, if the Warscrolls were of even values! Oh that would have been good. the fluff would still infuriate me immensely, but I'd be more wiling to try the game.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
With my BA codex using every slot how can I face this evenly:

(Rough estimate not having access to the codex but you'll get the point)
HQ
Seer council with full complement of warlocks and Farseers all on Jetbikes
Seer council, as above

Elites
10 Wraithguard with D Scythes in Wave serpents
As above
As above

Troops
10 jetbikes with scatter lasers and warlock
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above

Fast attack
10 Warp spiders with full exarch upgrades (Or a full complement of Hornets)
As above
As above

Heavy Support
Vauls Wrath support battery with 3 D cannons
As above
As above

LoW
Wraithknight with all the trimmings (or Revenant Titan if going silly)

Fortification
Macro cannon

Hell as the eldar player why would they take 9/10's of the rest of the codex?

It may be unbalanced now but slot selection rather than points makes it even worse!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also as R&H, without being able to take platoons, the best I can do for troops is 20 'guardsmen' without armour. They won't stand up long to the equivalent troops selection from almost any dex.

Forget R&H, how could anything stand a chance against just the troop selection, points or no points?

I guess if you forced me to play a game against that list, my escalated CSM list would look something like this:

- 1 x FDP with MoN and Black Mace

- Be'Lakor

- 3 x max squads of Chosen with Plasma / MoS / IoE / VotLW / melta bombs / whatever
- 3 x Chaos Dreadclaw Drop Pod

- 6 x max sized squads of Noise Marines with full sonic weapons, IoE, VotLW / Dirge Casters, extra weapons, melta bombs, and other upgrades
- 6 x Rhinos with extra armor, havoc launchers, warpflame gargoyles, dozer blades and anything else I can come up with.

- 3 x max sized squads of bikers with meltas / VotLW / MoN

- 3 x Fire Raptors

- MoN Chaos Reaver Titan with laser blasters, vortex missiles and hull mounted turbo lasers

- 1 x Macro-Cannon or Vortex Missile Aquila Strongpoint

Forgive me if this sounds naive, I know the Eldar would have all kinds of horrible weapons and all that, but I think I would stand a better chance of repelling them with Vortex bombs and turbo blasters than I would with a standard points-based army. Even at 1500 points, the Eldar can take D weapons, whereas the CSMs would not be able to afford the titan or the macro cannon without some serious sacrifices. OTOH, try shooting my invisible titan that I can suddenly afford.

Not bad to be honest. I still think Eldar would take it though. Try doing the same for BA, IG without platoons, DE, Renegades without platoons, etc. Some armies would just be crushed.
Also what happens if you want a small game? Do you say 1HQ, 2 troops and one other non LoW/Fort slot of choice?
If so what beats:
Seer council on jet bikes
10 scatbikes
10 scatbikes
10 fire dragons/wraithguard in a serpent

For every army.

Necrons would with Ghost Arks and Warriors, kill the Wave Serpent and Fire Dragons, park the rears of each Ark next to each other so you've got AV13 all around and then laugh because Scatter Lasers are only S6.

Don't forget the seer council.

And every other army? What if I want to take BA or Renegades? Right now I have a slim chance with my BA and a decent chance with my renegades. What chance do I have with 20 tactical marines against 20 scatbikes?

What about Guard? Allow platoons and I therefore allow ~900 models in one slot, or disallow platoons and pit 10veterans and a chimera against 10 scatbikes?

Dark Eldar. 10warriors and a raider - no chance!

And when would you ever see guardians?

You don't NEED points but any substitute for points just becomes more annoying and convoluted in the end.

I've only gotten partway through page 2 so far, but I wanted to make an observation.

I think a large part of a want for points is because it subconsciously puts a size value on your model collection.

Just look at most people's signatures (2,000 pt such-and-such army, 5,000 pt so-and-so army)

We get familiar with average size game based on point value, then we compare the point value of our total collection to that point value and it makes us feel good about our collections and drives us to buy more.

This is actually a good thing because we have a different perspective about something we put a personal value on. For example, your entire 40k collection or a bucket full of green army men?

Now that I think I've adequately explained that, I am totally in favor of a points system because I like having to pick and choose which models I can take and which are going to have to be left behind this session. What models I can afford to put on the table, and which ones are just too expensive this time around. To me, it's part of the fun of the hobby.

Ehhhh... For some perhaps. I've never cared about total points owned so much as I've cared for having a force that makes sense to me within a theme and some options to muck about with.

I don't doubt there are some players that enjoy some sort of point peen measuring satisfaction, but I don't think it's a primary motivation.

Yes.

AoS is a hot mess without points, it doesn't actually work as game-- the rules are basically "throw every model you want on the board and hope for the best", rather than balance. The compromise around wound count is inferior to the points system, and that's even after accounting for the fact that WHFB's points system was deeply flawed to begin with-- wounds as a balancing measure for whole armies are inferior even to that.

 Matthew wrote:
Will we use wounds instead? Think about it like this: An IK has 6 hull points. A Tactical Squad has 10. Does this make it more worth it to only have IK's?

So i don't know how many points an IK is but at a rough guess are 3 tac squads a similar cost? Do they stand a chance vs an IK? Balance is a seriously subjective beast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Yes.

AoS is a hot mess without points, it doesn't actually work as game-- the rules are basically "throw every model you want on the board and hope for the best", rather than balance. The compromise around wound count is inferior to the points system, and that's even after accounting for the fact that WHFB's points system was deeply flawed to begin with-- wounds as a balancing measure for whole armies are inferior even to that.

I'm not sure a mess is really true... How many games of AoS have you playd and where you trying to break the game or trying to be fair?! Because I'm pretty sure I could make an army of IK riptide and WK and have few PTS based armed face up too it... I'm not saying AoS is a good system up I find no semblance of balance in it's predecessors either.

All in all, points are not ''NECESSARY'', but we lose them, I'm going to cry a river :(

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
where you trying to break the game or trying to be fair?!

If the game was properly made, it wouldn't matter. The game itself is pre-broken, it doesn't require people to try to break it.

A unit of 10 space marines with 10 bolters is stronger than 10 IG with 10 lasguns. Also, since they have ATSKNF, those 10 marines are better than 10 CSM with bolters (and no marks). now throw marks in. Now throw special and heavy weapons in. Now throw in an LR transport versus a rhino transport.

How do you get around that without points?

I am not super familiar with WHFB, but for those of you that are: when they made the warscrolls for the old WHFB armies to play in AoS, did they significantly change the various units?

I see a lot of the conversation above assuming that a given 40k unit will play the same as it does today (i.e., have the same model and weapon stats). But I am under the impression that under an AoS type ruleset, any given 40k unit will not be the same. In fact they could be very different in such a way that most models play very similar with the exception of their one or two "special" powers unique to their unit.

So i don't know how many points an IK is but at a rough guess are 3 tac squads a similar cost? Do they stand a chance vs an IK? Balance is a seriously subjective beast.

Armed with just bolters? Probably not, though kinda depends on the specific Knight.

 kronk wrote:
A unit of 10 space marines with 10 bolters is stronger than 10 IG with 10 lasguns. Also, since they have ATSKNF, those 10 marines are better than 10 CSM with bolters (and no marks). now throw marks in. Now throw special and heavy weapons in. Now throw in an LR transport versus a rhino transport.

How do you get around that without points?

I think kronk has the right of it. If there aren't points, balance has to come from somewhere. Having no prescribed method of how to make a game fair doesn't necessarily make it impossible to play, but it significantly erodes the have the play a to-the-defintion game, which most people expect when playing...well, a game, as opposed to something more in the line of "cops and robbers."

 Poop Deck wrote:
I am not super familiar with WHFB, but for those of you that are: when they made the warscrolls for the old WHFB armies to play in AoS, did they significantly change the various units?

I see a lot of the conversation above assuming that a given 40k unit will play the same as it does today (i.e., have the same model and weapon stats). But I am under the impression that under an AoS type ruleset, any given 40k unit will not be the same. In fact they could be very different in such a way that most models play very similar with the exception of their one or two "special" powers unique to their unit.

Effectively they removed several stats, most of the rules for terrain, movement, facings, magic, and morale. Also all customization for characters was removed in additional upgrades can be taken on units or not. There is no max size on units.

So to compare it to 40k

1 warscroll could equal 10 skinks (guardsman) or 10 Temple guard (Space Marines) with full unit upgrades It is horrifically not balanced. Balance only can occur if both players literally sit down and decide what each other will take and self balance.

the sheer amount of units and customization in 40k would require scrapping almost everything to implement this. For me i love Character upgrades and vehicles upgrades and individual model within unit upgrades of 40k.

Point values are not necessary for co-operative games where the players are working towards a common goal, to beat the game or the GM.

However, as war games are by nature games of opposing objectives.
Unless the players have the time to write their own narrative scenarios with what ever objectives and special rules they want to include.

The game needs a way to let players establish enough balance for fun pick up games quickly.
And point values and force organization are the common methods used to achieve this.

The local FLGS runs a lot of escalation leagues.

For 40k, the campaigns usually run for 4 weeks and the battles are 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 points.

In 8th edition WHFB, the battles were typically 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 points.

My problem with points is that some armies were inherently better at certain point values than other armies. If points are truly a balancing factor then every army should be good at every point value. However, in every campaign, both 40k and WHFB, it was clearly evident that some armies didn't get viable until higher point values.

Add in the problem of certain formations getting valuable upgrades for free (the BA one comes to mind) or the ability to summon extra models to the fight (demons and VC) then you really have to wonder how balancing points are for a game.

No you don't. GW sometimes does a bad job of balancing points, but other methods of balance are even worse-- like wounds or model count.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Remember when GW tried to make a hellbrute more balanced in their FaQ when they reduced its price by 5pts?
It feels like a long list memory that.

Typo (mentioned already), but the dataslate tried making them more useful, and succeeded. Helcults <3

pejota wrote:
then you really have to wonder how balancing points are for a game.

They're still better than nothing. If you aren't happy with the points balance, it still serves as a starting point so that after a game or two you can decide which armies need more or less points to be fair. It's just minor tweaking you have to do.

If you don't even have any points to begin with, you're just in the dark as to where to even start balancing the game.

 Melissia wrote:
No you don't. GW sometimes does a bad job of balancing points, but other methods of balance are even worse-- like wounds or model count.

This.

People are going to find some way to compare warscrolls/dataslates, whether it be wounds, model count, etc.

Or they'll spend time playing each other and getting an idea of what measures up well to each other through testing and come up with some sort of standard to compare them... oh I'm describing the process of play testing and allocating points to a model.

I don't want to do GW's work for them.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

pejota wrote:
then you really have to wonder how balancing points are for a game.

They're still better than nothing. If you aren't happy with the points balance, it still serves as a starting point so that after a game or two you can decide which armies need more or less points to be fair. It's just minor tweaking you have to do.

If you don't even have any points to begin with, you're just in the dark as to where to even start balancing the game.

That's a good point as well. If we agree to 1500 points then at least we have a ball park in which to start.

However, if I paid $85 for the 40k main rulebook and $58 for the Space Marine codex why should I have to experiment and tweak $143 US dollars worth of rules to make things fair?

You're right, you shouldn't have to tweak anything. Its a big sticking point for a lot of people, and has driven many people on to better written games.

AoS is even more of a joke in that regard, where GW dumped all the responsibility on the players. Fortunately its priced at what's it worth, unlike 40k.

I said it earlier, but a gakky point system is not a good reason to abandon point systems altogether. Plenty of games get it right, or at least more right.

pejota wrote:
The local FLGS runs a lot of escalation leagues.

For 40k, the campaigns usually run for 4 weeks and the battles are 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 points.

In 8th edition WHFB, the battles were typically 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 points.

My problem with points is that some armies were inherently better at certain point values than other armies. If points are truly a balancing factor then every army should be good at every point value. However, in every campaign, both 40k and WHFB, it was clearly evident that some armies didn't get viable until higher point values.

Add in the problem of certain formations getting valuable upgrades for free (the BA one comes to mind) or the ability to summon extra models to the fight (demons and VC) then you really have to wonder how balancing points are for a game.

This is totally true especially in low point games.. some armies just cant survive and other cant lose. After many many years of playing we found 3k for 40k and 4k for fantasy were balanced and that amongst our group at those points there was never a balance issue and anyone could take whatever theme they wanted and have a chance if they played well.

We have always used alternate rulesets for low points stuff ... in a perfect world you wouldnt have to, but in all honesty i think it would be near impossible to make a game that would work perfectly at 100 points and 10000. That was why i loved the specialist range.

Let's forge the narrative: 2 squads of Tactical Marines against 200 Gaunts, 4 Carnifexes and a Hive Tyrant.

Sounds fun, no?

 tenebre wrote:

pejota wrote:
The local FLGS runs a lot of escalation leagues.

For 40k, the campaigns usually run for 4 weeks and the battles are 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 points.

In 8th edition WHFB, the battles were typically 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 points.

My problem with points is that some armies were inherently better at certain point values than other armies. If points are truly a balancing factor then every army should be good at every point value. However, in every campaign, both 40k and WHFB, it was clearly evident that some armies didn't get viable until higher point values.

Add in the problem of certain formations getting valuable upgrades for free (the BA one comes to mind) or the ability to summon extra models to the fight (demons and VC) then you really have to wonder how balancing points are for a game.

This is totally true especially in low point games.. some armies just cant survive and other cant lose. After many many years of playing we found 3k for 40k and 4k for fantasy were balanced and that amongst our group at those points there was never a balance issue and anyone could take whatever theme they wanted and have a chance if they played well.

We have always used alternate rulesets for low points stuff ... in a perfect world you wouldnt have to, but in all honesty i think it would be near impossible to make a game that would work perfectly at 100 points and 10000. That was why i loved the specialist range.

Its why I exclusive played kill team or apocalypse battles. Because they were always balanced. Everytime I faced someone I slaughtered them in kill team, and then I slaughtered in apocalypse. If I wanted to play a regular game, I would use my eldar.

It is kind of interesting seeing Age of sigmar getting rid of points. As a designer I just think "What? Why would you do that?"

Thats like getting rid of deck restrictions for hearthstone or magic the gathering.

 Blacksails wrote:
You're right, you shouldn't have to tweak anything. Its a big sticking point for a lot of people, and has driven many people on to better written games.

AoS is even more of a joke in that regard, where GW dumped all the responsibility on the players. Fortunately its priced at what's it worth, unlike 40k.

I said it earlier, but a gakky point system is not a good reason to abandon point systems altogether. Plenty of games get it right, or at least more right.

That's the heart of it. The force org chart and points system used to work well in tandem. Even the most powerful units in the game could only be taken a limited number of times. And most of the time the best units were capped at 0-1 in your army, IG could only field a single veteran squad in a whole army! And so most armies could only cram so many points into their favorite FOC slots before they ran out. Even playing 2000 points regularly, my friends and I never ran into situations where we couldn't field a large enough army, rather you had to balance out your army by fielding fast attack or elites once you maxxed out your heavy support. This created more diverse armies since most spam was against the rules. You had to build within the framework.

First they screwed that system by allowing squadrons on everything: carnifex broods, tank squadrons, flyer squadrons, etc. Then they lifted the ceiling on many units, where before you could only field 10 models now you can field biker units of 20 or 30. Which effectively tripled the amount of those models that you could field. Then they removed almost all of the 0-1 restrictions on special units. Now the force org chart is completely optional.

The FOC was so useful because it constrained spam. You could still run a really good unit, but you couldn't spam it. The FOC was an acknowledgement that it's impossible to perfectly balance everything through points. But between the two it was a workable system. But it's been massively degraded by points inflation, relaxed model restrictions, and unbound.

In order to completely do away with points we'd have to massively simplify the player options and reinstitute a very strict FOC. You'd play games with 5/10/15 slots, and you'd be limited to 3 elites, fast attack, heavy, etc. Then each unit would basically be taken as is, maybe a couple free options if you want to change their role (autocannon or missile launcher, plasma or melta). But it'd remove almost all of the customization from the game and would massively dumb down army building. And all balancing would have to take the form of buffs or nerfs to the unit directly, you wouldn't be able to make subtle points adjustments any more.

pejota wrote:
The local FLGS runs a lot of escalation leagues.

For 40k, the campaigns usually run for 4 weeks and the battles are 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 points.

In 8th edition WHFB, the battles were typically 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 points.

My problem with points is that some armies were inherently better at certain point values than other armies. If points are truly a balancing factor then every army should be good at every point value. However, in every campaign, both 40k and WHFB, it was clearly evident that some armies didn't get viable until higher point values.

Add in the problem of certain formations getting valuable upgrades for free (the BA one comes to mind) or the ability to summon extra models to the fight (demons and VC) then you really have to wonder how balancing points are for a game.

If you get outside the GW bubble, points work quite well when some effort is put into them.

 MWHistorian wrote:

pejota wrote:
The local FLGS runs a lot of escalation leagues.

For 40k, the campaigns usually run for 4 weeks and the battles are 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 points.

In 8th edition WHFB, the battles were typically 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 points.

My problem with points is that some armies were inherently better at certain point values than other armies. If points are truly a balancing factor then every army should be good at every point value. However, in every campaign, both 40k and WHFB, it was clearly evident that some armies didn't get viable until higher point values.

Add in the problem of certain formations getting valuable upgrades for free (the BA one comes to mind) or the ability to summon extra models to the fight (demons and VC) then you really have to wonder how balancing points are for a game.

If you get outside the GW bubble, points work quite well when some effort is put into them.

$80 rulebook should buy a decent points ruleset.

 TheSilo wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
You're right, you shouldn't have to tweak anything. Its a big sticking point for a lot of people, and has driven many people on to better written games.

AoS is even more of a joke in that regard, where GW dumped all the responsibility on the players. Fortunately its priced at what's it worth, unlike 40k.

I said it earlier, but a gakky point system is not a good reason to abandon point systems altogether. Plenty of games get it right, or at least more right.

That's the heart of it. The force org chart and points system used to work well in tandem. Even the most powerful units in the game could only be taken a limited number of times. And most of the time the best units were capped at 0-1 in your army, IG could only field a single veteran squad in a whole army! And so most armies could only cram so many points into their favorite FOC slots before they ran out. Even playing 2000 points regularly, my friends and I never ran into situations where we couldn't field a large enough army, rather you had to balance out your army by fielding fast attack or elites once you maxxed out your heavy support. This created more diverse armies since most spam was against the rules. You had to build within the framework.

First they screwed that system by allowing squadrons on everything: carnifex broods, tank squadrons, flyer squadrons, etc. Then they lifted the ceiling on many units, where before you could only field 10 models now you can field biker units of 20 or 30. Which effectively tripled the amount of those models that you could field. Then they removed almost all of the 0-1 restrictions on special units. Now the force org chart is completely optional.

The FOC was so useful because it constrained spam. You could still run a really good unit, but you couldn't spam it. The FOC was an acknowledgement that it's impossible to perfectly balance everything through points. But between the two it was a workable system. But it's been massively degraded by points inflation, relaxed model restrictions, and unbound.

In order to completely do away with points we'd have to massively simplify the player options and reinstitute a very strict FOC. You'd play games with 5/10/15 slots, and you'd be limited to 3 elites, fast attack, heavy, etc. Then each unit would basically be taken as is, maybe a couple free options if you want to change their role (autocannon or missile launcher, plasma or melta). But it'd remove almost all of the customization from the game and would massively dumb down army building. And all balancing would have to take the form of buffs or nerfs to the unit directly, you wouldn't be able to make subtle points adjustments any more.

I get where you're coming from, and the Points + FoC system sort of worked for a while. The problem was, of course, there were still optimal units to take, and this led to vastly monobuild armies. I think unbound is a red herring, as it's not used by anyone except in scenario play or themed lists. I've never seen anyone try to field their Knights, Demons and Warlocks as an army.

My preference as a game design philosophy is to allow someone to take 7 wave serpents if they like, or 40 scatterlaser jetbikes -- but to make it less powerful than a diverse battleforce.

There should be rewards for unit diversity, in the form of force multipliers -- in the same way that a modern battleforce is less effective if it's all infantry, all air, all armor, and more effective if it has a mix of reconnaissance, light infantry, heavy artillery, air, etc. People should take a mix of units not because they HAVE to (ie, the force org slot says I can only take 3 elites, so I will take something crappier that I don't really want) -- they should take a mix of units because it's BETTER.

After all, if SEAL Team 6 were the perfect soldiers and could kill anything of relative value, you'd just take Seal Teams 1-20 and fight the bigger battle -- but that's not the case. They have their role, as do all the other units. I would rather not take 20 units of SEALs not because I'm not allowed to, but because it's more effective to take other stuff in combination.

In this respect, I think the Gladius, Warhost, and Decurion -- plus the constituent formations -- really shine. I love that there are incentives for taking groups of models that are otherwise less strong, and that we are encouraged to at least try models which, on their own, would not be viable jn a points system.

I think that points + FoC was good in its era, but things should change. I'm happy where 40k is today -- I just want superformations for the rest of the factions. On the other hand, I'm a player who is happy to see fundamental sea changes in the game every few years; I think this keeps things fresh. I know lots of people who would rather see things NOT change, at least not for a much, much longer period, because they get comfortable with what they have and how they play and want that to last longer.

The new mega formations have the exact same problems the old FoC system has. There are units that are overpowered, and both systems allow you to bring a ton of them, only now you're forced to take a core (instead of just troops) of units that may or may not be good (and varies between codices) that still forces players into using units they may not like in the pursuit of powerful army wide abilities or upgrades.

The new formations are simply a shift of the old FoC. Where the old FoC just had army wide rules for using that codex and specific unit special rules, the new one adds to that with formation special rules that cost zero points above the unit selections. Some formations can be considered balanced due to the 'dead weight' units you're forced to take, but equally, there exists formations that have no dead weight units and just made already powerful units even more powerful.

It didn't fix anything or make it better, it just changed it. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you wanted to balanced formations, make them cost points to get the benefit, like Apoc formations from back when.

I love that there are incentives for taking groups of models that are otherwise less strong,

What Jetbikes, wrights or WK are somehow less strong and people need an additional incentive to use those ? If we take your view of the game that both people should suppose to have fun, how is something like dual skyhammer list vs IG fun?
Did necron player used so few scyths or lord, that they needed extra rules to run them? Did the same happen to eldar players and their seer stars, did those require extra rules here.

Honestly I suppose you could replace points if you've got another balance system.
For example you could take a FOC where instead of points limits you have strict numbers of each slot that each player gets, and you balance each unit against the other stuff in the same slot. So a Tactical Squad would be as good as an IG Platoon which would be as good as a unit of Fire Warriors and a Riptide would be as good as a Baneblade which would be as good as Azrael.
Simpler to deal with than points but also less flexible, you wouldn't be able to have buyable upgrades, only fixed choices (like the Tactical Squad is 10 dudes with a Special Weapon, Heavy Weapon, fancy stuff on the Sergeant and a Transport. It would just be choosing which fancy weapons, what fancy Sergeant stuff and which Transport. No saying "oh, I'll just have a bare bones one so I can fit in another tank"), plus you wouldn't be able to adjust points values for things (Grav stuff is the best by far and overshadows other options? Well, you can't make it cost more, you just have to buff/nerf stuff or let it be broken).

Points still seem to be the best choice. It's just that GW hasn't been doing them right. Ultimately X points of Unit A should be roughly as good as X points of Unit B. Of course balance will never be QUITE perfect with something like this and they're of course better at different things so sometimes it'll be better to pick one over the other. It's just that GW has oftentimes screwed this up badly such that units are really good or bad choices.
Really points are BETTER for this because it gives an easy solution to the vast majority of balance issues. Too powerful? Raise the points cost. Too weak? Lower the points cost. As long as you "get what you pay for", it'll all be peachy.
FOC restrictions can help too, since that gives you two "tools" to work with rather than just one. But really, points are the most important and you could have one without the other if you're smart.

I'd say Point Values are completely necessary. Even when off the hinge formations they still serve as a means of dictating the overall size of the engagement. Sure some forces can field more bodies for less points but those bodies might not be as sturdy as useful. And yes, it's not a perfect, balanced system. But it's better than measuring off of wounds or model counts.

Yay for points.

Boo to crossover.

 darkcloak wrote:
Yay for points.

Boo to crossover.

What do you mean by "crossover"? Having points AND Formations/FOC?

The only valid reason to include point values in a game is to provide enough balance in game for fun pick up games.

However , point values on their own are not good enough , as they do not cover synergistic bonuses, that can only be found by play testing.

So unless you are playing a historical re enactment, or have lots of time and the skill required to sort out balance levels.

Well devised point values and army composition lists are needed .

The fact GW devs struggled to get enough play testing results in to fine tune their point value allocation.

Does not mean that point values and F.O.Cs can not work.

Just that GW plc can not see the value in investing the time and effort to do the job properly.

I'm going to put a yes vote in there, as I think it is the only remaining balance thing that is relatively fair. Sure, there are some stuff that are not. But this is near inevitable with any sort of system like points. Because of this, I feel it is necessary.

 techsoldaten wrote:

With AoS, GW is giving out the rules for free as part of an adoption strategy that encourages people to try the game. The barrier to entry with this game has been massively reduced, so much so that someone can get into the game for a few hundred dollars and still have a satisfying experience.

The plan has to be to make up for lost book sales by selling more models. The margins they see on the sale of a popular miniature boxed set probably averages to around 90% in all regions, and they are more likely to move because it's new. The margins on books is probably significantly less, and they probably don't move off the shelf as fast.

I am sure AOS results in a net positive for GW even without the books. Over time, they will probably move into narrative campaigns and other things AOS seems well suited for.

With regards to 40k moving to this model, I am sure GW is using AOS as a market test to see what happens when they reboot a product. WHFB sales have been slipping for years, a reboot was not only necessary to generate more interest but will also prove to be popular amongst fans. The same imbalance issues existed for WHFB as do with 40k.

I guess if you really like points for your armies you should not go and buy AOS.

I won't be buying AoS primarily because the majority of the fantasy models I have left were long ago converted for 40k usage. Really not interested in it from its lack of balance either, without a lot of work. I've already got to work on pre-game BS with 40k, so not in the mood to add any more of that into the gaming mix when there are many better options out there to play instead.

I'm at not sure why free rules suddenly equates to selling more minis. Yeah I can see it removing the barrier to some who refused to buy into 8th edition because it just got expensive to come in fresh and buy a 3000 point army and all the rules needed, but for those who see the barricade removed and an opportunity, many others will have already moved on to other options already and won't need to look back. Still further those who have been loyally following WHFB for a long time, many feel stabbed in the back by this change in the game and they will likely not buy much of anymore minis either. So on the mini side I see more of a wash than some sudden influx of cash. Their biggest impediment to reaching that 'bigger market' is the near complete lack of advertising outside of their own controlled areas. They announce their new stuff only a week ahead of time, and then only in their house magazine and they have ruined many of their relationships with independent retailers who could have easily opened up that access for them. Yeah their margin on minis is definitely higher than it was on the books, but my real point is how will they actually generate a serious increase in mini sales? It just reminds me a lot of the underpants gnomes from South Park, where their first step is collect underpants, then they have an undefined 2nd step, and the 3rd step is profit. The sudden generation of a ton of new mini sales is the 2nd step here. First step is release AoS and complete gut and change WHFB. 3rd step is profit, but there just seems to be a lot of wishful thinking making up the 2nd step.

AoS could have been a positive shift towards a better concept and a better game that pulled people like myself back towards fantasy again after so many years, but instead its lack of points or any kind of balancing factors at all means that many of us who could have been brought back into the fold won't be because we just are left shaking out heads.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Let's forge the narrative: 2 squads of Tactical Marines against 200 Gaunts, 4 Carnifexes and a Hive Tyrant.

Sounds fun, no?

Well it could be, if the goal is a true narrative scenario to see how long the marines can hold out with 'nid victory conditions being better the faster they wipe out the marines and marine victory levels being better the longer they can hold out. If you do this and still still stick to the usual 40k victory conditions then yeah it would suck.

Back when the Daemonhunters book was out a few editions ago, inspired by the picture of the inquisitor and grey knight termies surrounded by daemons in the book, we did a narrative scenario that pitted an inquisitor lord and a unit of 5 grey knight terminators against a massive horde of daemons with lesser daemons and beasts from all 4 gods and lead by a greater daemon and daemon price from each of the 4 gods as well. This was before any flying mostrous creatures so there were no worries on that front. The daemonhunters codex, for those who don't know, allowed for lesser daemons and chaos best units to recycling back onto the edge of the table when wiped out because grey knights and daemonhunters had so many bonus abilities vs daemons. It was great fun and all setup to see how long they could last. They killed a LOT of daemons, but in the end finally got worn down by sheer numbers. 1 daemon prince and 1 greater daemon survived the mess and there was a lot of lesser daemon/beast recycling going on throughout. So such scenarios can be a lot of fun, but again the victory conditions need to change to not keep it fun.