JNAProductions wrote: Spinning off from the Points Value thread, there's people saying that points don't function as a balancing mechanism.
This thread is to give space for alternatives-if not points, then how are you going to balance differing factions and armies?
I think the post also encapsulates one of the problems that presents itself, not that there shouldn't be points, just the wrong combination of levers are used for the granularity offered.
Sometimes adjusting rules instead of points to make parity between 2 options might be a good idea, blasting open the points scale to allow more nuanced balances so that there is more room between 2 values, having more stuff baked into basic loadouts or removing some options might also simplify the situation.
PL are points by any other scale and come with it's own problems, I'd prefer points but I'd like the points to actually be reflective/mean something because the rules behind them are better defined/distinct and the values of said points actually have a tangible value.
Well, even GW makes games without points. Kill team just provides rosters, and you get to pick a certain number of options.
You could create army lists that have ranges of internally balanced options, and you pick at each step. Honestly it would be a lot of work and probably not worth it, but it could be done.
One the whole, at the current level of customization and complexity at the UNIT level, let alone for a full army, points are probably necessary.
It seems that the Combat Patrol rules for 10th have no points. The army lists are fixed for each faction (combat patrol boxes) and the rules are ostensibly written with the specific lists in mind.
Aash wrote: It seems that the Combat Patrol rules for 10th have no points. The army lists are fixed for each faction (combat patrol boxes) and the rules are ostensibly written with the specific lists in mind.
I am very interested in this game mode, and curious to see how the claim ends up. Sounds like a great way to have small pick-up games and contained hobby projects.
I think there is not any issue with points as a system.
I like the AOS System of points, where you pay for blocks of models (typically a box worth), But that assumes weapon option rules are written to be of equal value (flamer great into troops, Meltagun great into tanks, plasma mediocre into both sort of thing). Firstborn marines are an obvious problem with this outside of everything else, as they have so many options.
JNAProductions wrote: Spinning off from the Points Value thread, there's people saying that points don't function as a balancing mechanism.
This thread is to give space for alternatives-if not points, then how are you going to balance differing factions and armies?
To clarify, it's often said in designer circles that points are a structuring or shaping mechanism, rather than a balancing mechanism per se.
Because the value of units and upgrades is contextual, points cannot objectively reflect their relative utility in all circumstances. Points are meant to provide constraints that put both players on a roughly level playing field and encourage the kinds of forces that the developers want to see, but cannot guarantee balance. How much a unit or upgrade is 'actually' worth in practice depends on the composition of the rest of your army, the battlefield, the scenario, and your opponent's army, and the consequence is that two 2000pt armies are not necessarily evenly matched.
That structuring/shaping concept affects points values too. If a designer wants to discourage MSU, for example, they might set a unit's base cost higher than just (model count * points)- eg you might have a unit that costs 100pts for 10 guys, or for 175pts gets you 20 guys. You might still take smaller units if their utility is worth the 'tax', but the designer is tacitly encouraging you to take larger units. They might make taking duplicates of a unit more expensive. They might make a buffing unit much more expensive than its raw stats would imply, so that you don't take it unless you also have lots of the things that it buffs. And so on.
There are ways to accomplish that structuring/shaping function besides just assigning a points value to everything. Some are just points presented differently, some are more abstract.
One example off the top of my head is Chain of Command, where you start by picking a platoon with fixed composition. Each platoon has a rating, and the difference in rating between your platoon and the enemy's becomes additional points for assets that the 'underdog' can pick before the game, in addition to asset points provided by the scenario. So if you're taking barely-trained Soviet conscripts up against crack Fallschirmjager, you probably get enough assets to bring along a tank, but if they're the defender, they get asset points that they'll probably use on AT weapons to counter your tank. Your platoon is fixed, but your support assets are chosen with the scenario and enemy known, so you don't have to worry about bringing an AT gun that ends up being useless because there are no tanks on the field.
A Billion Suns takes a different approach from most games. It's been a while since I played, but IIRC you generate resources each turn by controlling territory, and expend it to summon units of whatever types you want. The wrinkle is that those resources you accrue are also your victory points, so a player who's behind might decide to go all-in to claw back to a position of superiority, or a player on the verge of victory might elect not to bring in new units and try to hold on for long enough to win.
Lots of ways to implement army-selection- but any game where players are given choices is going to have more-optimal and less-optimal solutions.
What I find interesting is that people who get most angry about trying to change the status quo in the other threads never come in here to continue the discussion.
JNAProductions wrote: Spinning off from the Points Value thread, there's people saying that points don't function as a balancing mechanism.
This thread is to give space for alternatives-if not points, then how are you going to balance differing factions and armies?
To clarify, it's often said in designer circles that points are a structuring or shaping mechanism, rather than a balancing mechanism per se.
Because the value of units and upgrades is contextual, points cannot objectively reflect their relative utility in all circumstances. Points are meant to provide constraints that put both players on a roughly level playing field and encourage the kinds of forces that the developers want to see, but cannot guarantee balance. How much a unit or upgrade is 'actually' worth in practice depends on the composition of the rest of your army, the battlefield, the scenario, and your opponent's army, and the consequence is that two 2000pt armies are not necessarily evenly matched.
That structuring/shaping concept affects points values too. If a designer wants to discourage MSU, for example, they might set a unit's base cost higher than just (model count * points)- eg you might have a unit that costs 100pts for 10 guys, or for 175pts gets you 20 guys. You might still take smaller units if their utility is worth the 'tax', but the designer is tacitly encouraging you to take larger units. They might make taking duplicates of a unit more expensive. They might make a buffing unit much more expensive than its raw stats would imply, so that you don't take it unless you also have lots of the things that it buffs. And so on.
There are ways to accomplish that structuring/shaping function besides just assigning a points value to everything. Some are just points presented differently, some are more abstract.
One example off the top of my head is Chain of Command, where you start by picking a platoon with fixed composition. Each platoon has a rating, and the difference in rating between your platoon and the enemy's becomes additional points for assets that the 'underdog' can pick before the game, in addition to asset points provided by the scenario. So if you're taking barely-trained Soviet conscripts up against crack Fallschirmjager, you probably get enough assets to bring along a tank, but if they're the defender, they get asset points that they'll probably use on AT weapons to counter your tank. Your platoon is fixed, but your support assets are chosen with the scenario and enemy known, so you don't have to worry about bringing an AT gun that ends up being useless because there are no tanks on the field.
A Billion Suns takes a different approach from most games. It's been a while since I played, but IIRC you generate resources each turn by controlling territory, and expend it to summon units of whatever types you want. The wrinkle is that those resources you accrue are also your victory points, so a player who's behind might decide to go all-in to claw back to a position of superiority, or a player on the verge of victory might elect not to bring in new units and try to hold on for long enough to win.
Lots of ways to implement army-selection- but any game where players are given choices is going to have more-optimal and less-optimal solutions.
This is an excellent post, and I appreciate the insight.
And I should note, I don't think points are capable of achieving perfect balance, if perfect balance is even possible at all. But points can get you close enough for fun-a 2,000 point army versus another 2,000 point army, if the points are done well, won't be a one-sided stomp between two players of similar skill.
JNAProductions wrote: Spinning off from the Points Value thread, there's people saying that points don't function as a balancing mechanism.
This thread is to give space for alternatives-if not points, then how are you going to balance differing factions and armies?
To clarify, it's often said in designer circles that points are a structuring or shaping mechanism, rather than a balancing mechanism per se.
Because the value of units and upgrades is contextual, points cannot objectively reflect their relative utility in all circumstances. Points are meant to provide constraints that put both players on a roughly level playing field and encourage the kinds of forces that the developers want to see, but cannot guarantee balance. How much a unit or upgrade is 'actually' worth in practice depends on the composition of the rest of your army, the battlefield, the scenario, and your opponent's army, and the consequence is that two 2000pt armies are not necessarily evenly matched.
That structuring/shaping concept affects points values too. If a designer wants to discourage MSU, for example, they might set a unit's base cost higher than just (model count * points)- eg you might have a unit that costs 100pts for 10 guys, or for 175pts gets you 20 guys. You might still take smaller units if their utility is worth the 'tax', but the designer is tacitly encouraging you to take larger units. They might make taking duplicates of a unit more expensive. They might make a buffing unit much more expensive than its raw stats would imply, so that you don't take it unless you also have lots of the things that it buffs. And so on.
There are ways to accomplish that structuring/shaping function besides just assigning a points value to everything. Some are just points presented differently, some are more abstract.
One example off the top of my head is Chain of Command, where you start by picking a platoon with fixed composition. Each platoon has a rating, and the difference in rating between your platoon and the enemy's becomes additional points for assets that the 'underdog' can pick before the game, in addition to asset points provided by the scenario. So if you're taking barely-trained Soviet conscripts up against crack Fallschirmjager, you probably get enough assets to bring along a tank, but if they're the defender, they get asset points that they'll probably use on AT weapons to counter your tank. Your platoon is fixed, but your support assets are chosen with the scenario and enemy known, so you don't have to worry about bringing an AT gun that ends up being useless because there are no tanks on the field.
A Billion Suns takes a different approach from most games. It's been a while since I played, but IIRC you generate resources each turn by controlling territory, and expend it to summon units of whatever types you want. The wrinkle is that those resources you accrue are also your victory points, so a player who's behind might decide to go all-in to claw back to a position of superiority, or a player on the verge of victory might elect not to bring in new units and try to hold on for long enough to win.
Lots of ways to implement army-selection- but any game where players are given choices is going to have more-optimal and less-optimal solutions.
This is an excellent post, and I appreciate the insight.
And I should note, I don't think points are capable of achieving perfect balance, if perfect balance is even possible at all. But points can get you close enough for fun-a 2,000 point army versus another 2,000 point army, if the points are done well, won't be a one-sided stomp between two players of similar skill.
I echo the sentiment all round. I think some people need to stop holding points up as the holy grail however and accept other solutions, ideas or even simple stat changes in some cases can be as much of, if not better than a points tweak (looking at you multimelta).
There are few types of mechanics, that are employed in other games, that make them function entirely without or with only very rudimentary use of point systems.
You can have back and forth list construction. The most common implementation is well known from childhood games, where teams are picked on one at a time basis from the common pool of participants. It translates to wargames directly with the exception of common pool, however the most common objection is that such system favours players with huge collections. This solution is self-balancing given equal understanding of the game by both players, as it is basically structured cross-tailoring. This could be implemented in 40K directly.
The second method are endless reinforcements. You remove kill points as a win condition, make scenarios objective driven and allow summoning units back onto the table. Such games end up being all about manouver and applying pressure points, because attrition is effectively removed from the game. Some level of parity between choices has to be mantained, but it drifts away from simple damage output/surviveability calculations and units are balanced by tweaking utility. It is self-balncing, because the damage output/survivability imbalance is dynamically offset by greater manouver flexibility of units that are placed back on the board, provided of course, that the game mission structure is done properly. Example of such game is Warcaster.
Third option is strict FOC and tied choices of sidegrades or scaled sidegrades (e.g. you can choose a single copy of unit A or three copies of unit B, etc). Basically, pre-structured, pre-ballanced blocks. Such system is used in Turnip28.
There are also mechanics, that dynamically steer the game towards a draw, regarless of any imbalance of armies, such as giving the currently loosing side greater chance for keeping initiative. The game Confrontation had this kind of bonus to it's turn initiative roll.
Final option is fixing lists altogether. This removes "freedom" of listbuilding and is commonly perceived as reducing the flavour of the game, but in reality, when done properly, it is the exact opposite. In an open list building game, in order to have any semblance of balance, you have to more or less homogenise choices, depending on exact scenario structure. In fixed lists game however, you can introduce wildly different playstyles as long, as the statistical winrate of those lists is balanced enough. An example of such fixed lists game that has many times more flavour than 40k is Neuroshima Hex (which is not a miniatures game, but could easily be made as such).
You could also go the other way around, and use non-linear, multi-dimensional point system, that more accurately account for differences in particular aspects of units, like mobility, damage output and survivability and weight their impact on the result in the context of a scenario, but this approach is more appropriate for computer games, given that even introducing simple fractions is too complicated math for some.
And of course, everything what catbarf wrote above while I was typing my response. It never ceases to amaze me, how 40k community is hell bent on "fixing costs" despite 40 years of continuous proof, that it can't be done to widely enough satisfying degree.
And of course, everything what catbarf wrote above while I was typing my response. It never ceases to amaze me, how 40k community is hell bent on "fixing costs" despite 40 years of continuous proof, that it can't be done to widely enough satisfying degree.
That's literally because of the writers themselves. Ya know, the same ones that brought you Scatterbikes and Conscript Spam and Rhino Rush.
One example off the top of my head is Chain of Command, where you start by picking a platoon with fixed composition. Each platoon has a rating, and the difference in rating between your platoon and the enemy's becomes additional points for assets that the 'underdog' can pick before the game, in addition to asset points provided by the scenario. So if you're taking barely-trained Soviet conscripts up against crack Fallschirmjager, you probably get enough assets to bring along a tank, but if they're the defender, they get asset points that they'll probably use on AT weapons to counter your tank. Your platoon is fixed, but your support assets are chosen with the scenario and enemy known, so you don't have to worry about bringing an AT gun that ends up being useless because there are no tanks on the field.
And I should note, I don't think points are capable of achieving perfect balance, if perfect balance is even possible at all. But points can get you close enough for fun-a 2,000 point army versus another 2,000 point army, if the points are done well, won't be a one-sided stomp between two players of similar skill.
This is really what I want out of points. They don't have to be perfect, but they should be close enough to facilitate a reasonably close game.
That said, while I think keeping points is probably the right call, I do think we could maybe add on some additional list building mechanic to help ensure games are a better matchup. For instance, I recall my FLGS running a tournament back in 7th(?) edition where your army gained "spice points" (not the actual term) based on its composition. Lean heavy into vehicle spam? That earns you some spice points. Take that unit that's known to be really powerful in the current meta? Spice points. Take that OP psychic power that makes everyone groan? Spice points. And then based on how many spice points you had, you received some sort of drawback. I *think* the drawback was that your max score for each game was capped or something, but I don't recall the specifics.
Anyway, you could use a similar "spice meter" to help get an idea of how gnarly someone's list is and hand out some kind of (dis)advantage to help balance the scales.
Third option is strict FOC and tied choices of sidegrades or scaled sidegrades (e.g. you can choose a single copy of unit A or three copies of unit B, etc). Basically, pre-structured, pre-ballanced blocks. Such system is used in Turnip28.
Something like this could also work. You'd risk giving up some of your army building flexibility, but you could essentially build armies using something like the 7th edition Decurions. The idea being that a given "block" is relatively tame, and you have fewer opportunities to take blocks containing more powerful units. Then again, maybe that's just the force org chart but with more steps.
Basically, I think points are fine at what they do, but I want a mechanic for mitigating the chances of having a bad matchup (due to skew and/or different levels of list optimization.)
Limited choice is a great tool. Kill Team seems to be using it to great effect. You can have this many choices over these models, with some limitations and additional choices on the models in question.
In a large sandbox game like 40K, points is the only real option. The question big questions are granularity and timing of list build. How freely do you get to choose your models and how detailed are the points of those models? How much information about the game do you have before you create your list?
One example off the top of my head is Chain of Command, where you start by picking a platoon with fixed composition. Each platoon has a rating, and the difference in rating between your platoon and the enemy's becomes additional points for assets that the 'underdog' can pick before the game, in addition to asset points provided by the scenario. So if you're taking barely-trained Soviet conscripts up against crack Fallschirmjager, you probably get enough assets to bring along a tank, but if they're the defender, they get asset points that they'll probably use on AT weapons to counter your tank. Your platoon is fixed, but your support assets are chosen with the scenario and enemy known, so you don't have to worry about bringing an AT gun that ends up being useless because there are no tanks on the field.
That's called list tailoring.
Which only carries pejorative connotations in a game that relies on the oldschool idea of writing up an army list with zero idea of what the enemy, objective, or battlefield look like.
In Chain of Command it's just playing the game as intended. You're supposed to choose your support assets based on the circumstances, and it makes them a lot easier to balance.
Dudeface wrote: What I find interesting is that people who get most angry about trying to change the status quo in the other threads never come in here to continue the discussion.
Because nobody's said anything dumb in here yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: It never ceases to amaze me, how 40k community is hell bent on "fixing costs" despite 40 years of continuous proof, that it can't be done to widely enough satisfying degree.
I'd argue that's actually not true. In fact I think it's fairly widely felt that 8th edition, pre Marines 2.0, overall balance was in a pretty good spot. Some small tweaks here and there and things were alright.
Yeah, the whole point of Chain of Command's system is to list tailor, because armies do that in real life.
"Commander, your mission is to defend the bridge. Intel expects the enemy to have tanks so I am giving you the battalion AT guns in direct support and have tried to secure you first pick of the divisional assets."
Vs
"Commander, your mission is..." *Rolls a d6* "break through the enemy front and attack the enemy bridgehead. Good luck, I hope your extensive 700pt Fortification Detachment serves you well"
Dudeface wrote: What I find interesting is that people who get most angry about trying to change the status quo in the other threads never come in here to continue the discussion.
Because nobody's said anything dumb in here yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: It never ceases to amaze me, how 40k community is hell bent on "fixing costs" despite 40 years of continuous proof, that it can't be done to widely enough satisfying degree.
I'd argue that's actually not true. In fact I think it's fairly widely felt that 8th edition, pre Marines 2.0, overall balance was in a pretty good spot. Some small tweaks here and there and things were alright.
But GW gotta churn, and churn they did. . .
"widely enough satysfying degree" is a key phrase here. Trap buying choices always existed, faction tiers existed, etc... Just ask Karol, if he ever felt his GK were balanced enough. Competitive scene being varied beyond Gladius and Scatbike spam on 90% of tables and most factions having at least one viable build is very far from "widely satysfying degree" in my book.
If no points then I see one way to balance things out would be just a total unit count for each player but we know that we will get detachments on day one do there is some for of army structure intended, good or bad.
If points are in blocks like AoS then my own lists will be largely the same as I play a Primaris army when I get out to play now days, less models so less back pain. Maybe.
I'll bring what I bring and the other player is free to do the same. I do not play tournaments any more my last one was just before the 8th ed Ork codex. I might feel up to giving it a go again if the rules feel good to me but as I mostly play for fun I'm open to hashing things out before the game if needed.
If it's like power levels then all my options are available to swap under the same list between games based on what I am facing and that will be fun but probably not very useful to me out side of a small handful of units. Nothing I would expect would swing the game into a victory for me as my dice are traitorous and I will likely blunder through every turn as per usual. I've often thought it would be cool to win more with skill than arms but I don't see that happening any time soon.
also it depends on a few things but I'll be interested to see how I can stick a big knight into one of those lists in case of emergency. My friend brings the cheese and I would expect that to be laid on extra thick if we end up with block points.
Dudeface wrote: What I find interesting is that people who get most angry about trying to change the status quo in the other threads never come in here to continue the discussion.
Because nobody's said anything dumb in here yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: It never ceases to amaze me, how 40k community is hell bent on "fixing costs" despite 40 years of continuous proof, that it can't be done to widely enough satisfying degree.
I'd argue that's actually not true. In fact I think it's fairly widely felt that 8th edition, pre Marines 2.0, overall balance was in a pretty good spot. Some small tweaks here and there and things were alright.
But GW gotta churn, and churn they did. . .
"widely enough satysfying degree" is a key phrase here. Trap buying choices always existed, faction tiers existed, etc... Just ask Karol, if he ever felt his GK were balanced enough. Competitive scene being varied beyond Gladius and Scatbike spam on 90% of tables and most factions having at least one viable build is very far from "widely satysfying degree" in my book.
^Agree. Although measuring balance gets to be a tricky thing. But yes, I'm pro not only "faction winrates" but also "diversity of builds".
And yes it's also true that "absolute balance" cannot (and arguably should not*) be achieved, but also that even at a pretty high level of balance, there will still be people screaming "OP/trash".
*because value depends hugely on context, such as opposition build, terrain, mission, meta etc.
^Agree. Although measuring balance gets to be a tricky thing. But yes, I'm pro not only "faction winrates" but also "diversity of builds".
Exactly why we will always have "balance is good" and "balance is terrible" camps present at the same time and arguing endlessly. It is somewhat a paradox, that competitive crowd is easier to satisfy than casual crowd when it comes to "good enough" level of balance.
Isn't it Infinity that has that system where you have a separate resource for buying extra wargear? I've been very against extra resources in Total War Warhammer but I think I might be coming around. Because the danger with everything using the same resource system is that balance is off and people ignore entire systems in the game. So if you want people to use both you can force them to do it by having PL and wargear points in the game, wargear points can only be used for extra wargear, relics and other upgrades of that nature, while PL is used to buy the base units. Now you're sure people don't just spam the basic units because the wargear options are all overcosted and you're sure people don't fully bling a deathball at the expense of bringing a reasonable amount of miniatures to a game. Skaven have two mechanics in Total War Warhammer, one that lets them speed up building at the cost of a unique resource, another that lets them build special buildings at the cost of basic gold. The cost for speeding up building is low and the cost of building special buildings is high, so I use the first mechanic, but not the second, but if the second mechanic had a third resource then that resource would not be competing for other uses and I would get to enjoy the second mechanic. The developers of Total War Warhammer could just lower the cost of the special buildings to a reasonable level and that would simplify the game, but balance is hard so using several currencies is a hack for achieving design goals without balancing the game.
JNAProductions wrote: Spinning off from the Points Value thread, there's people saying that points don't function as a balancing mechanism.
This thread is to give space for alternatives-if not points, then how are you going to balance differing factions and armies?
I think the post also encapsulates one of the problems that presents itself, not that there shouldn't be points, just the wrong combination of levers are used for the granularity offered.
Sometimes adjusting rules instead of points to make parity between 2 options might be a good idea, blasting open the points scale to allow more nuanced balances so that there is more room between 2 values, having more stuff baked into basic loadouts or removing some options might also simplify the situation.
PL are points by any other scale and come with it's own problems, I'd prefer points but I'd like the points to actually be reflective/mean something because the rules behind them are better defined/distinct and the values of said points actually have a tangible value.
Rules shouldn't be changed all the time because that creates a lot of mental load, you don't have to care about pts when the game has begun. If melta is good on Sternguard but bad on Tacticals then changing the rules of one or the other doesn't make sense, why would Sternguard melta be worse than Tactical melta weapons? It would also create mental load to have profiles that sound like they are the same be different for no in-world reason. Ideally, rules should never be changed, only alternative rules should be provided for playing different types of games, like Crusade, Combat Patrol, Matched Play and Maelstrom. Exceptions should only be made for rules that break the game and have no points lever. Half the datasheets as well as the Combat Doctrines of my codex being changed would make my codex worth zero (had I been dumb enough to buy one instead of loaning it).
vict0988 wrote: Isn't it Infinity that has that system where you have a separate resource for buying extra wargear? I've been very against extra resources in Total War Warhammer but I think I might be coming around.
It is not just weapons. It is stuff like taking a regular X to be a forward observer, engineer or a hacker. Certain powerful skills, not just weapons, will have a cost added to them. SWC are also a secondary limit to taking skew some big things. But the games are hard to compare Infinity caps at 15 models, all thanks to my "cousins", and skirmish systems with dynamic core rules, are very hard to impossible to compare to big systems like W40k, even if you count whole units vs an infinity single model.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, the whole point of Chain of Command's system is to list tailor, because armies do that in real life.
"Commander, your mission is to defend the bridge. Intel expects the enemy to have tanks so I am giving you the battalion AT guns in direct support and have tried to secure you first pick of the divisional assets."
Vs
"Commander, your mission is..." *Rolls a d6* "break through the enemy front and attack the enemy bridgehead. Good luck, I hope your extensive 700pt Fortification Detachment serves you well"
Which really does bring up the point if 40k would benefit from a list sideboard type of thing. Not fully tailoring but not the ridiculous way it works now.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, the whole point of Chain of Command's system is to list tailor, because armies do that in real life.
"Commander, your mission is to defend the bridge. Intel expects the enemy to have tanks so I am giving you the battalion AT guns in direct support and have tried to secure you first pick of the divisional assets."
Vs
"Commander, your mission is..." *Rolls a d6* "break through the enemy front and attack the enemy bridgehead. Good luck, I hope your extensive 700pt Fortification Detachment serves you well"
Which really does bring up the point if 40k would benefit from a list sideboard type of thing. Not fully tailoring but not the ridiculous way it works now.
It would probably benefit the discussion to make clear what sort of 'Warhammer 40k' we're talking about here. A tournament with randomly selected contestants needs different things than a pick-up game at the store or regular narrative games in a consistent club gaming group. Unstated assumptions should be analyzed at the beginning of the discussion because otherwise people are talking at cross purposes.
Cookie cutter lists. Think chess neither side has point and in that case they are exactly equal. Well if you took armies and gave them each only 1-3 ways to build that army then do that with each army and test to get them balanced then you have no need of points.
You have dark angels and they will always be this certain set of units and evey dark angels army will be configured in 1-3 ways.
Sorta like formations only actually tested and balanced against each other.
Now weather anyone wants this is another question but this is an alternative to points and done right it would be more balanced as their would be fewer combinations to balance.
Boosykes wrote: Cookie cutter lists. Think chess neither side has point and in that case they are exactly equal. Well if you took armies and gave them each only 1-3 ways to build that army then do that with each army and test to get them balanced then you have no need of points.
You have dark angels and they will always be this certain set of units and evey dark angels army will be configured in 1-3 ways.
Sorta like formations only actually tested and balanced against each other.
Now weather anyone wants this is another question but this is an alternative to points and done right it would be more balanced as their would be fewer combinations to balance.
It sounds like the new Combat Patrol option will be exactly this.
Boosykes wrote: Cookie cutter lists. Think chess neither side has point and in that case they are exactly equal.
If I wanted to play chess, I'd play chess.
Part of the fun of games like 40k is to pick and choose what you bring to the table, to experiment with new lists, and to sometimes find yourself against the kind of list you've never faced before.
If you want the alternative to points, check out the wider wargaming world. It ranges from two similar forces fighting for a contested objective all the way to widely different forces with a mix of shared, independent and separate but able to be affected by the other side victory conditions.
Points work best the more variables you lock down. So set the victory conditions, limit the forces you can pick and playtest your points. But those points/worth change for a number of factors. The most common is adding a new model to an army. That changes the relative worth of the other models, and so on.
JNAProductions wrote:Spinning off from the Points Value thread, there's people saying that points don't function as a balancing mechanism.
This thread is to give space for alternatives-if not points, then how are you going to balance differing factions and armies?
Different structures.
GW’s kill-team has defined squad sizes to start with.
Privateer Press’ Warcaster NM has ‘unit caps on the board’ but you can ‘warp in’ units from your sideboard (akak collection) so long as it doesn’t breach the game unit cap. (very rough take!)
Chain of Command has set platoons and scenario-based support elements.
A lot of historical games don’t have ‘points costs’ and rely on the ‘eyeball’ method to determine ‘fair’ scenarios, or else the combating armies are structurally very similar. 'Eyeballing' is is often something I've seen amongst experienced garage hammer players even in 40k.
JNAProductions wrote:
This is an excellent post, and I appreciate the insight.
And I should note, I don't think points are capable of achieving perfect balance, if perfect balance is even possible at all. But points can get you close enough for fun-a 2,000 point army versus another 2,000 point army, if the points are done well, won't be a one-sided stomp between two players of similar skill.
Not really, verging towards a qualified 'sonetimes'.
Without turning it into 'the good is the enemy of the perfect', points can get you close enough, but only some of the time and only under some circumstances. There are so many other factors and angles to consider. You ignore ‘context’ the points used to cost out one specific scenario might be spot on, and when used in another scenario or match-up might be hopelessly skewed.
The bigger queation is how close is ‘close enough points costs', or rather, what does that look like in the real world. Hiw much imbalance is OK, given the understanding that perfect balance is impossible. In my experience the term is a moving goalpost. In your ‘close enough game’, how ‘big’ is a game? How many units on the field from factions that are how big in terms of SKU and much of the game is allowed to be over/under costed and over/under powered in comparison to the rest. So often I see ‘good enough’ and ‘close enough’ trotted out, but when you drill down, it’s a vague non-term with no specifics with so little daylight between it and the ‘perfect balance that doesn’t exist’ in intent that its functionally useless as a term.
Close enough is 45%-55% win rate in tournaments using the mission pack the points are balanced around with no options tanking or carrying the win rate of the faction. Naked Tacticals and Infantry Squads would absolutely tank your win rate currently. Strictly better costing more points is a rule that comes before that.
vict0988 wrote: Close enough is 45%-55% win rate in tournaments using the mission pack the points are balanced around with no options tanking or carrying the win rate of the faction.
My issue is this reads suspiciously almost identically to how 'perfect balance' is commonly presented. which kind of proves my point.
And respectfully what you wrote doesn't really answer what I'm asking.
How many units on the field from factions that are how big in terms of SKU and much of the game is allowed to be over/under costed and over/under powered in comparison to the rest, if we are to assume that some imbalance must exist because perfect balance is impossible.
45% to 55% sounds great but if that's conceived in an environment of (hypothetical) just intercessors and chaos marines for example (because its easier to balance e a game with fewer units), will.you justify and defend invalidating the other 99.999% of the game to the players who've invested in that.
vict0988 wrote: Close enough is 45%-55% win rate in tournaments using the mission pack the points are balanced around with no options tanking or carrying the win rate of the faction.
My issue is rgis reads suspiciously alnost identically to how 'perfect balance' is commonly presented. which kind of proves my point.
And respectfully you didn't answer fully.
How many units on the field from factions that are how big in terms of SKU and much of the game is allowed to be over/under costed and over/under powered in comparison to the rest, if we are to assume that some imbalance must exist because perfect balance is impossible.
I'm sorry I don't understand what rgis or SKU means. I assume rgis was a typo?
The moment GW sees statistically significant evidence that a datasheet is tanking or carrying the win rate of a faction or that a faction has a win rate above 55% or below 45% they should put it on a noticeboard to be fixed next year in the annual munitorum field manual points update. Perfect balance means that an army filled with melta has a 50% win rate against an army filled with tanks and a 50% win rate against an army filled with Guardsmen, is that ridiculous? Yes, but people bring it up as a reason we can't have points a couple of times a year, so that's why we say that GW should strive for the super ambitious but still possible 45-55% WR for all factions. It's not like raising a 35% WR faction to a 40% win rate faction isn't a step forward, but PL with a single update over the course of an entire edition is not good enough.
I'm sorry I don't understand what rgis or SKU means. I assume rgis was a typo?
Yeah, sorry- fat fingers plus typing on mobile. Check my 'edit' count at the bottom of my posts- ita me trying to fix things. Autocorrect is the bane of my life, haha! But yes, apologies.
Rgis is 'this', i think. I used sku as shorthand for 'size of faction' as roughy every box of 'things' in a faction is an sku, when it comes to things on a shelf in the shop. Hence 45 to 55% sounds great, but is that realistic in a factione of 60 skus (never mind in-squad options etc). Does 'good enough' mean gutting the range of units and factions as a hypotheticdl question. Good luck justifying that to the player base! Good luck running a business with that model too!
The moment GW sees statistically significant evidence that a datasheet is tanking or carrying the win rate of a faction or that a faction has a win rate above 55% or below 45% they should put it on a noticeboard to be fixed next year in the annual munitorum field manual points update. Perfect balance means that an army filled with melta has a 50% win rate against an army filled with tanks and a 50% win rate against an army filled with Guardsmen, is that ridiculous? Yes, but people bring it up as a reason we can't have points a couple of times a year, so that's why we say that GW should strive for the super ambitious but still possible 45-55% WR for all factions. It's not like raising a 35% WR faction to a 40% win rate faction isn't a step forward, but PL with a single update over the course of an entire edition is not good enough.
But tournaments is an artificial and seriously skewed meta. And I'd argue tourneys are not a 'gold standard' to measure the game by. If you're focusing on this you're already admitting 80+% of the game is whack and excluded from the debate. You're talking about 45 to 55% of a tiny skewed fraction of the game. Which goes back to what is 'good enough'. Does the casual scene, b, c, d-tier etc units not matter?
For what it's worth perfect balance is an impossibility as you rightly point out. Context matters.
Issue with multiple drafts of points changes every week is excess book keeping. It adds an element of 'chaos' to the game. When pp did this 'living rulebook' cid thing, the community for the most part died off and the weekly/monthly adjustments really annoyed a lot of folks.
Balance is secondary to representing fluff and models, if the Tactical Squad datasheet cannot be balanced then the game should just be a little imbalanced.
Tournaments can have variety, when they don't it's usually a sign of imbalance. If bringing a D tier unit can be statistically proven to tank tournament win rates then it needs a buff. The opinions of competitive playtesters should also be taken into account.
Annual means once a year, it's not really book keeping anyway, you just pick whatever units you want and then your app should take care of it. If you are a competitive player you can make an excel sheet with what you think each unit is worth and compare with whatever GW's current price is and try building lists around things you think are underpriced. I think rules changes are what actually creates problems, my list will automatically have the right points, but if I don't remember a rules update or don't even know it's happened then we won't be playing the game as it's meant to be played.
How about we talk about what we do when we don't use point values?
Many historical wargamers don't collect "an army" like we do, they collect "a battle."
Essentially the gamer collects representative forces for both sides of a conflict (along with the terrain- there's a big focus on historical accuracy in that side of the hobby).
I get the impression that some of the folks at GW like to play like this. Find or create a bit of fiction that they like- especially one that isn't a pitched battle between balanced forces- and just throw down that way.
This way you can end up simulating conflicts like Rocks Drift or the defense of Ultramar against Hive Fleet Behemoth (ie- fielding a whole ton of Terminators against endless waves of bugs). Or have outnumbered defenders of a fortress fight off a siege.
The problem, of course, is that this isn't the way most of us interact with the hobby. We mostly meet up with people at game stores, and when creating imbalanced scenarios, we mostly use point values anyway (like the defenders of the fortress have half the point value of the attackers or some such).
odinsgrandson wrote: How about we talk about what we do when we don't use point values?
Many historical wargamers don't collect "an army" like we do, they collect "a battle."
Essentially the gamer collects representative forces for both sides of a conflict (along with the terrain- there's a big focus on historical accuracy in that side of the hobby).
I get the impression that some of the folks at GW like to play like this. Find or create a bit of fiction that they like- especially one that isn't a pitched battle between balanced forces- and just throw down that way.
This way you can end up simulating conflicts like Rocks Drift or the defense of Ultramar against Hive Fleet Behemoth (ie- fielding a whole ton of Terminators against endless waves of bugs). Or have outnumbered defenders of a fortress fight off a siege.
The problem, of course, is that this isn't the way most of us interact with the hobby. We mostly meet up with people at game stores, and when creating imbalanced scenarios, we mostly use point values anyway (like the defenders of the fortress have half the point value of the attackers or some such).
As a person, who play mostly that way, I'll answer. For such games to be balanced gaming experience, you have to take into account way more parameters than in symmetrical matched play, and must know your game system inside out. You don't have the crutch of "meta" and since you do not restrict armies to top choices only, you have to be able to balance way broader pool of units against eachother. Fortunately, we have this great tool, called brain, which can be trained by experience reinforced by academic knowledge. To a point where you can establish a reasonable starting point just by "eyeballing" the possible flow of the game and then adjusting this result further by careful analysis of the game tree. If you want to be precise, you can also go into way more detail than linear points provide, and use multi-dimensional metric to assess forces and non-model based assets. But I really don't expect a typical pick-up sunday gamer, or even typical competitive player to invest so heavily in learning game theory and math a bit more complex than simple mathhammer algebra to be able to play toy soldiers. So, typically, such scenarios are just played "for gak and giggles" and nobody expects those scenarios to be balanced
vict0988 wrote: It's not like raising a 35% WR faction to a 40% win rate faction isn't a step forward, but PL with a single update over the course of an entire edition is not good enough.
Statisticaly speaking if an army with 35-40% win rate plays vs an army with 50% win rate, or above the number of games needed for the worse army to win is huge. A person could go an entire edition without winning and to get the feeling that they can win would require them to play mulitople battles a week, which most people won't be able to do.
And you can see it in AoS. Cruel boys went from 20 something to 30 something win rate, and now I think they are low 40s. But it doesn't matter, they still have the lowest win rates of all AoS armies, and when played vs a good one, they just get blown off the table, bar some dice magic combined with double turn.
vict0988 wrote: Balance is secondary to representing fluff and models, if the Tactical Squad datasheet cannot be balanced then the game should just be a little imbalanced.
My take on it is that 'everything should have a place*'.Balance is nice but if its not necessarily balanced, i don't necessarily mind a lack of it provided the game/mrchanics/scenario is 'interesting'.
*with the caveat not all things work well in all.conditions/combinations/scenarios and against all opponents, therefore a not-insignificant amount of game-building and 'list-matching'becomes a crucial.foundational.element in 'good gaming', and in ensuring everything has a place. as i see it. 'Out of the box' universal points values can often become a hindrance or a red herring.
Tournaments can have variety, when they don't it's usually a sign of imbalance. If bringing a D tier unit can be statistically proven to tank tournament win rates then it needs a buff. The opinions of competitive playtesters should also be taken into account.
Every game system I ever played ultimately devolved to a handful of go-to builds, crutches and learn-by-rote 'strategies'. It's inescapable. Competitive plsytesters should be listened to, but in my experience competitive plsylisters often think they should be listened to exclusively. I disagree. The game is bigger than 'just' tournaments.
Annual means once a year, it's not really book keeping anyway, you just pick whatever units you want and then your app should take care of it. If you are a competitive player you can make an excel sheet with what you think each unit is worth and compare with whatever GW's current price is and try building lists around things you think are underpriced. I think rules changes are what actually creates problems, my list will automatically have the right points, but if I don't remember a rules update or don't even know it's happened then we won't be playing the game as it's meant to be played.
(1) not everyone plays with, or wants to play with an app.
(2) points changes and rules changes are both sidea of the exact same coun. Frequent points changes and an unstable list-building world were things that contributed to a lot of people leaving the pp games when they did this during mk3. Lists/collections become invalidated etc etc and no one knew if yheir lidt would even be valid in 6 months. Not something that bothers me but to a lot of people in the competitive scene having to.constantly re-adjust and stay on top of things was mentally draining. I don't disagree.
45% to 55% sounds great but if that's conceived in an environment of (hypothetical) just intercessors and chaos marines for example (because its easier to balance e a game with fewer units), will.you justify and defend invalidating the other 99.999% of the game to the players who've invested in that.
Isn't even that great, from round 2 of a tourney you have a won both games 30% for 55 and 20% for 45. And that difference tends to hold throughout the comp with the 55% force being roughly 50% more likely to have won all their games. (55 30 17 9 5.0
vs 45 20 11 6 3.4)
odinsgrandson wrote: How about we talk about what we do when we don't use point values?
Many historical wargamers don't collect "an army" like we do, they collect "a battle."
Essentially the gamer collects representative forces for both sides of a conflict (along with the terrain- there's a big focus on historical accuracy in that side of the hobby).
I get the impression that some of the folks at GW like to play like this. Find or create a bit of fiction that they like- especially one that isn't a pitched battle between balanced forces- and just throw down that way.
This way you can end up simulating conflicts like Rocks Drift or the defense of Ultramar against Hive Fleet Behemoth (ie- fielding a whole ton of Terminators against endless waves of bugs). Or have outnumbered defenders of a fortress fight off a siege.
The problem, of course, is that this isn't the way most of us interact with the hobby. We mostly meet up with people at game stores, and when creating imbalanced scenarios, we mostly use point values anyway (like the defenders of the fortress have half the point value of the attackers or some such).
As a person, who play mostly that way, I'll answer. For such games to be balanced gaming experience, you have to take into account way more parameters than in symmetrical matched play, and must know your game system inside out. You don't have the crutch of "meta" and since you do not restrict armies to top choices only, you have to be able to balance way broader pool of units against eachother. Fortunately, we have this great tool, called brain, which can be trained by experience reinforced by academic knowledge. To a point where you can establish a reasonable starting point just by "eyeballing" the possible flow of the game and then adjusting this result further by careful analysis of the game tree. If you want to be precise, you can also go into way more detail than linear points provide, and use multi-dimensional metric to assess forces and non-model based assets. But I really don't expect a typical pick-up sunday gamer, or even typical competitive player to invest so heavily in learning game theory and math a bit more complex than simple mathhammer algebra to be able to play toy soldiers. So, typically, such scenarios are just played "for gak and giggles" and nobody expects those scenarios to be balanced
To me, that sounds like you either make fine-tuning the balance of a scenario into a major part of your hobby, or you just 'eyeball it' and kind of accept that it might be imbalanced.
odinsgrandson wrote: How about we talk about what we do when we don't use point values?
Many historical wargamers don't collect "an army" like we do, they collect "a battle."
Essentially the gamer collects representative forces for both sides of a conflict (along with the terrain- there's a big focus on historical accuracy in that side of the hobby).
I get the impression that some of the folks at GW like to play like this. Find or create a bit of fiction that they like- especially one that isn't a pitched battle between balanced forces- and just throw down that way.
This way you can end up simulating conflicts like Rocks Drift or the defense of Ultramar against Hive Fleet Behemoth (ie- fielding a whole ton of Terminators against endless waves of bugs). Or have outnumbered defenders of a fortress fight off a siege.
The problem, of course, is that this isn't the way most of us interact with the hobby. We mostly meet up with people at game stores, and when creating imbalanced scenarios, we mostly use point values anyway (like the defenders of the fortress have half the point value of the attackers or some such).
As a person, who play mostly that way, I'll answer. For such games to be balanced gaming experience, you have to take into account way more parameters than in symmetrical matched play, and must know your game system inside out. You don't have the crutch of "meta" and since you do not restrict armies to top choices only, you have to be able to balance way broader pool of units against eachother. Fortunately, we have this great tool, called brain, which can be trained by experience reinforced by academic knowledge. To a point where you can establish a reasonable starting point just by "eyeballing" the possible flow of the game and then adjusting this result further by careful analysis of the game tree. If you want to be precise, you can also go into way more detail than linear points provide, and use multi-dimensional metric to assess forces and non-model based assets. But I really don't expect a typical pick-up sunday gamer, or even typical competitive player to invest so heavily in learning game theory and math a bit more complex than simple mathhammer algebra to be able to play toy soldiers. So, typically, such scenarios are just played "for gak and giggles" and nobody expects those scenarios to be balanced
To me, that sounds like you either make fine-tuning the balance of a scenario into a major part of your hobby, or you just 'eyeball it' and kind of accept that it might be imbalanced.
Does that sound right to you?
„Sounds right” as in „do I understand correctly”, or as in „you really think it is how it should be”?
My gaming background prior to wargames are pen&paper RPGs on one hand, and sports Bridge on the other. The thing about Bridge is that it is a game about game theory. I played Bridge for so long, I simply can’t not look for a wider system in games I play. So yes, a huge part of my hobby is not only about designing well thought scenarios, but also game design as a field of knowledge.
But there are tools, that could be widely adapted, that would make scenario preparation and cooperative listbuilding a more straightforward task. However, a prerequisite for their use is an intent of players to cooperate at game preparation stage, which is largely absent in 40K community. To a point, that we had numerous discussions here, that no communication beyond „2000pts matched, latest GT rules” should be expected from players before the game.
I think some folks here really need to try Chain of Command... or really a whole variety of other systems.
Terms like "balance" have little meaning, because the game is mostly skill expression. Even the units you bring is a form of skill expression - in a way utterly different from 40k's. There's almost no math involved ("ooh the KV-2 has 13 HE dice for 10 support points and the T-34 has only 5, for 7, hmm" said no one ever). There are so many more tools and functions available to units in CoC that calculating unit lethality and utility mathematically becomes extremely less important relative to the actual manner the tool is employed... i.e., skill.
Storm of Vengeance is a narrative campaign where there is a list of the historic forces that fought the scenario. For example for the Scenario 3 it is said
"The Dark Angels may choose a 500 point force and
the Orks a 750 point warband."
and
"HISTORICAL FORCES
Dark Angels Army Veteran Sergeant Naaman
Ravenwing Bike Squad Aquila
Scout Squad Arcanus
Ork Force Nazdreg
Mekaniak Grodmek
Painboy Lurksnag
Gretchin Standard Bearer Smirkin
Drillboss Nardrill
Deathskull Lootas
Stormboyz
Blood Axe Kommandos
Bad Moon Boyz
Goff Skarboyz
Gretchin"
A scenario like this could be balanced much more easily that a normal battle even if it has its own special objectives, so it's great for narrative gaming but also for competitive play. Now the problem is having the concrete miniatures but someone with a medium sized army can fit a not so big scenario like this with some proxying.
I don't think that this should be the only way to play 40k but it should be an option that is given more support. I love the 2nd edition version of Storm of Vengeance and I would like to see more books like it.
I am using a method gleaned from a video game (Age of Wonders Planetfall). This game also has costs for units and upkeep although armies are limited by allowing only a maximum of six unit in a single stack whereas stack is the synonym for army. Furthermore the game rates units (apart from characters) in Tiers of 1 to 4 and battlefield roles like skirmishers (damage dealers) and specialists (support). Characters (Leaders & Heroes) are rated in levels from 1 to 20 or 30.
I will give here a quick example without using costs of what two opposing Planetfall armies which include six units with a 40K skin would look like:
Remove all points, put a cap on the number of total units you can bring (deck size), cap on the total number of duplicates you can bring (playsets), and allow sideboards for tournament play. TCG's have more choice than any wargame could hope for and they just live with the reality that not all pieces are equal. They even facilitate more diversity of lower powered cards via alternative formats.
If for example you could only bring 10 units max and no more than 2 of the same units and you had 4 units in your sideboard. You would then likely tailor each unit to a specific role and based on the mission/opponent you would have some agency to bring the best tools to bear.
I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
Remove all points, put a cap on the number of total units you can bring (deck size), cap on the total number of duplicates you can bring (playsets), and allow sideboards for tournament play. TCG's have more choice than any wargame could hope for and they just live with the reality that not all pieces are equal. They even facilitate more diversity of lower powered cards via alternative formats.
If for example you could only bring 10 units max and no more than 2 of the same units and you had 4 units in your sideboard. You would then likely tailor each unit to a specific role and based on the mission/opponent you would have some agency to bring the best tools to bear.
I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
There obviously would be more nuance to it than that, but I figured giving a high level pitch "make list building into a deck builder" would suffice enough for this wish list thread lol
Remove all points, put a cap on the number of total units you can bring (deck size), cap on the total number of duplicates you can bring (playsets), and allow sideboards for tournament play. TCG's have more choice than any wargame could hope for and they just live with the reality that not all pieces are equal. They even facilitate more diversity of lower powered cards via alternative formats.
If for example you could only bring 10 units max and no more than 2 of the same units and you had 4 units in your sideboard. You would then likely tailor each unit to a specific role and based on the mission/opponent you would have some agency to bring the best tools to bear.
I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
The problem with straight up copying TCGs is that you don't spend hours upon hours assembling and painting your cards. You are not attached to your decks like 40k players are to their armies. In TCG world, banning a card or a deck may cost you money in those rares you needed to sell your kidney for, but doesn't cost you your precious hobby time. Also, a commonly raised objection against sideboards is that it makes transporting your army more difficult.
But what could and should be adapted from the world of TCGs are varied casual/tournament formats. If done right, every unit in the game could be made useful in at least one of them. But this would require 40k community to change mentality from the current "only 2k pts, latest GT matched is the 'proper' 40k", to "any format that is fun, challenging and played using 40k models and 40k rules is proper 40k".
Also card games have resource management as a form of balance. In MTG, i can't just play the biggest strongest units because i'll get outraced by aggro decks. 40k doesnt have that kind of balance so that suggestion means everyone would simply bring the biggest units in their armies
Tittliewinks22 wrote: I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
OP's question is 'how else could the game be balanced?' and your answer is 'don't even try, may the best wallet win'.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
OP's question is 'how else could the game be balanced?' and your answer is 'don't even try, may the best wallet win'.
Daemon's advocate: I feel like the notion that it was okay for some units to stink so long as other units in the army made up for it may have been sort of embraced by GW back in the day pre-allies. Back when both players were limited to a single force org chart, you could sort of get away with having a faction's HQs or troops be a bit meh with the understanding that another force org role would be picking up the slack.
But if that ever was consciously a thing, it stopped working when we gained the ability to take allies, weird detachments, and otherwise minimize the use of "tax slots." I feel that's why obsec became a thing; because troops were frequently just less efficient versions of better units in your army, and GW wanted to give players a reason to field those underperformers.
JNAProductions wrote: Spinning off from the Points Value thread, there's people saying that points don't function as a balancing mechanism.
This thread is to give space for alternatives-if not points, then how are you going to balance differing factions and armies?
That last update was the test balloon. Points aren't even points anymore. Points are Powerlevel pretending to be points with a few exceptions. They've been trying to push Power Level for a while now, and failing because the players don't want to change. So the solution was to change Points into Power Level so they didn't have a choice and didn't have to think about it too much. I mean we already did the math, and the questions. Power Level was 1/20th of the points with free upgrades - and we already asked way back then if free upgrades were paradigm changing - nobody thought so then. But they still generally didn't like power level. Probably a change for change's sake thing.
So its points. But it's points that works like power level. The interesting thing is what they'll do now that they're getting rid of FOC/Detach/etc (Which was Beta Tested by Arks of Omen Dets).
They say we'll still see a lot of (what were but not anymore because FOC slot stuff is obsolete) "battleline/troops" on the board - Will "Troops" get a boost to more than the "Objective Control" stat or did they rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic?
How much will subfaction homogenization suck? Will the hate directed at Chaos Marines which is expanding into seperate rather than subfactions reverse the trend for them, or for everyone else?
Will Subfactions even be a thing anymore? If all Aggressors play the same because they've all got the same doctrine/Super Doctrine - can Bobby G give rerolls to Salamander Aggressors? Will you still have to tell your opponent they're Ultramarine Aggressors that borrowed some gear from the Salamanders and haven't repainted it yet? What about Subfactions that might have bespoke rules?
GW has a history of doing the bare minimum on these updates, and not thinking about the next step - that was just one example of the "next step". What rules are going to stick around that will have no meaningful impact like Subfactions.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
OP's question is 'how else could the game be balanced?' and your answer is 'don't even try, may the best wallet win'.
Daemon's advocate: I feel like the notion that it was okay for some units to stink so long as other units in the army made up for it may have been sort of embraced by GW back in the day pre-allies. Back when both players were limited to a single force org chart, you could sort of get away with having a faction's HQs or troops be a bit meh with the understanding that another force org role would be picking up the slack.
But if that ever was consciously a thing, it stopped working when we gained the ability to take allies, weird detachments, and otherwise minimize the use of "tax slots." I feel that's why obsec became a thing; because troops were frequently just less efficient versions of better units in your army, and GW wanted to give players a reason to field those underperformers.
That's not a desirable state regardless, even if the old FOC kept the imbalance from being as readily apparent. You don't want slots to be dominated by useless units; it's tacit incentive to min-max into other slots, and nobody likes having to take tax units. I don't think GW ever did it deliberately (unless it was really amateur hour codex writing- but I feel like Chambers or Cavatore would have nipped that in the bud) but they definitely struggled at times to make Troops useful.
I'm actually optimistic that GW finally ditching the atavistic remnants of the old FOC, and replacing obsec with the less-powerful OC stat, will force them to give Troops units interesting roles that make them worth the points. I could see them being the bastion of reaction abilities that give them flexibility, in lieu of raw damage or sheer damage-sponging.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
OP's question is 'how else could the game be balanced?' and your answer is 'don't even try, may the best wallet win'.
I think you misunderstand some of the terminology that I used. Pauper is a lower powered format for TCG's. Uber is a high powered format for various video games. Neither have any relevance to cost of entry for miniatures games.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
OP's question is 'how else could the game be balanced?' and your answer is 'don't even try, may the best wallet win'.
Daemon's advocate: I feel like the notion that it was okay for some units to stink so long as other units in the army made up for it may have been sort of embraced by GW back in the day pre-allies. Back when both players were limited to a single force org chart, you could sort of get away with having a faction's HQs or troops be a bit meh with the understanding that another force org role would be picking up the slack.
But if that ever was consciously a thing, it stopped working when we gained the ability to take allies, weird detachments, and otherwise minimize the use of "tax slots." I feel that's why obsec became a thing; because troops were frequently just less efficient versions of better units in your army, and GW wanted to give players a reason to field those underperformers.
That's not a desirable state regardless, even if the old FOC kept the imbalance from being as readily apparent. You don't want slots to be dominated by useless units; it's tacit incentive to min-max into other slots, and nobody likes having to take tax units. I don't think GW ever did it deliberately (unless it was really amateur hour codex writing- but I feel like Chambers or Cavatore would have nipped that in the bud) but they definitely struggled at times to make Troops useful.
I'm actually optimistic that GW finally ditching the atavistic remnants of the old FOC, and replacing obsec with the less-powerful OC stat, will force them to give Troops units interesting roles that make them worth the points. I could see them being the bastion of reaction abilities that give them flexibility, in lieu of raw damage or sheer damage-sponging.
It's unrealistic to expect every unit to be viable in a competitive setting that only has 1 format (anything goes). Every single game (board game, card game, video game, etc) that has choice of which pieces to use there will always be overperformers and underperformers. The only true way to make all 100 space marine datasheets useable is to impose various formats that put restrictions that prevent the top tier stuff.
Competitive Pokemon is a close comparison to wargames. You build your list from the options available in the tier list you are playing in, nothing prevents you from taking lower powered units in higher tiers, but lower tiered formats prevent the higher tier choices from dominating. Gamefreaks doesn't need to balance out every mon against each other since that is impossible.
40k won't adapt that type of tiered format system so the community should just adopt the fact the game will never be balanced without extreme homoginization of units or significant blanding of datasheets.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another concept that competitive formats could adopt to assist with balance/skew type would be a player ban system.
In MOBA's teams can ban certain characters before the game starts to prevent a hard counter to their strategy/playstyle.
In Dice Throne tournaments you typically bring 3 classes and your opponent bans 1 before you pick and play.
40k Competitve could allow you to ban a unit from the opponents force before the game starts. This would flip list building on it's head from a competitive standpoint. Some immediate considerations with a system like this is that you would not want to invest too many points in any single given unit for fear of being at a massive disadvantage, you would also want to bring redundancies for core parts of your strategy. It would remove death star as a type of force.
You could even implement this type of system with a harsher restriction on unit availability (no duplicates except troops) kind of thing.
This idea is not plug and play into 40k as is, and would need a lot more datasheet changes in order to facilitate, but as I have suggested before with other wacky ideas, I do not think 40k is balanceable to a meaningful degree.
I cut the rest of your post out because frankly, not interested in replying to it.
In AoS, the way it works is that you have a subfaction keyword added or in the case of something like a named hero or unit it's on there from the outset but doesn't necessarily break the rest of your subfaction's setup. It just won't do anything for non-subfaction stuff.
EX: Guilliman can be taken in a Salamanders detachment, but will not have the Salamanders keyword nor can he gain it or buff it unless he has a straight buff to Adeptus Astartes units.
We have already seen a bit of this in the Guard book, with Death Korps of Krieg, Cadian, and Catachan all becoming fixed keywords while there is no <Regiment> present.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
OP's question is 'how else could the game be balanced?' and your answer is 'don't even try, may the best wallet win'.
I think you misunderstand some of the terminology that I used. Pauper is a lower powered format for TCG's. Uber is a high powered format for various video games. Neither have any relevance to cost of entry for miniatures games.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
OP's question is 'how else could the game be balanced?' and your answer is 'don't even try, may the best wallet win'.
Daemon's advocate: I feel like the notion that it was okay for some units to stink so long as other units in the army made up for it may have been sort of embraced by GW back in the day pre-allies. Back when both players were limited to a single force org chart, you could sort of get away with having a faction's HQs or troops be a bit meh with the understanding that another force org role would be picking up the slack.
But if that ever was consciously a thing, it stopped working when we gained the ability to take allies, weird detachments, and otherwise minimize the use of "tax slots." I feel that's why obsec became a thing; because troops were frequently just less efficient versions of better units in your army, and GW wanted to give players a reason to field those underperformers.
That's not a desirable state regardless, even if the old FOC kept the imbalance from being as readily apparent. You don't want slots to be dominated by useless units; it's tacit incentive to min-max into other slots, and nobody likes having to take tax units. I don't think GW ever did it deliberately (unless it was really amateur hour codex writing- but I feel like Chambers or Cavatore would have nipped that in the bud) but they definitely struggled at times to make Troops useful.
I'm actually optimistic that GW finally ditching the atavistic remnants of the old FOC, and replacing obsec with the less-powerful OC stat, will force them to give Troops units interesting roles that make them worth the points. I could see them being the bastion of reaction abilities that give them flexibility, in lieu of raw damage or sheer damage-sponging.
It's unrealistic to expect every unit to be viable in a competitive setting that only has 1 format (anything goes). Every single game (board game, card game, video game, etc) that has choice of which pieces to use there will always be overperformers and underperformers. The only true way to make all 100 space marine datasheets useable is to impose various formats that put restrictions that prevent the top tier stuff.
Competitive Pokemon is a close comparison to wargames. You build your list from the options available in the tier list you are playing in, nothing prevents you from taking lower powered units in higher tiers, but lower tiered formats prevent the higher tier choices from dominating. Gamefreaks doesn't need to balance out every mon against each other since that is impossible.
40k won't adapt that type of tiered format system so the community should just adopt the fact the game will never be balanced without extreme homoginization of units or significant blanding of datasheets.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another concept that competitive formats could adopt to assist with balance/skew type would be a player ban system.
In MOBA's teams can ban certain characters before the game starts to prevent a hard counter to their strategy/playstyle.
In Dice Throne tournaments you typically bring 3 classes and your opponent bans 1 before you pick and play.
40k Competitve could allow you to ban a unit from the opponents force before the game starts. This would flip list building on it's head from a competitive standpoint. Some immediate considerations with a system like this is that you would not want to invest too many points in any single given unit for fear of being at a massive disadvantage, you would also want to bring redundancies for core parts of your strategy. It would remove death star as a type of force.
You could even implement this type of system with a harsher restriction on unit availability (no duplicates except troops) kind of thing.
This idea is not plug and play into 40k as is, and would need a lot more datasheet changes in order to facilitate, but as I have suggested before with other wacky ideas, I do not think 40k is balanceable to a meaningful degree.
Good points all around. Especially "ban" mechanic is a very good one for countering skew, to the point that it is used in some countries for government procurements (I hope this is a proper term for polish "zamówienia publiczne"), where both highest and lowest price offers are rejected outright. But I can already hear the scream of 40k competitive players, that they do not have 100% control over all possible parameters at pre-table stage of the game.
As to "not balanceable" - well, it isn't for one reason only - you can't have a cookie and eat a cookie. 40k playerbase demands the game to have ridiculous amount of "options", far, far more than the "engine" of this game could ever handle (see 1pt bolter debate in a parallel thread). On top of that, opposes introduction of pretty much any dynamic balancing mechanisms, because in the eyes of way too many 40k players, 40k is about list building and winning the game before it even started,.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
OP's question is 'how else could the game be balanced?' and your answer is 'don't even try, may the best wallet win'.
I think you misunderstand some of the terminology that I used. Pauper is a lower powered format for TCG's. Uber is a high powered format for various video games. Neither have any relevance to cost of entry for miniatures games.
No, I'm commenting more broadly on the notion of adopting CCG-like deliberate imbalance. I'm pretty familiar with what comes of CCGs where it's accepted that not all cards are balanced and wallet-warrioring your way to an ideal deck gives a marked advantage. 40K already has enough problems with the cost of building a tournament-ready list; making the power disparity between such an optimized and a more casual list worse by giving up on trying to balance at all would not be an improvement.
Of course, formats that impose restrictions on what you can use are, de facto, a crude balancing mechanism- determining what to allow and ban for a given format requires an assessment of relative value between cards. If you can do that, you can assess relative value between units in 40K and assign points.
Tittliewinks22 wrote:It's unrealistic to expect every unit to be viable in a competitive setting that only has 1 format (anything goes). Every single game (board game, card game, video game, etc) that has choice of which pieces to use there will always be overperformers and underperformers.
I can sit down to play Chain of Command right now and pick any of the platoons and have a good time with a decent chance of winning. Some might be a bit stronger than others, some might require more finesse to get the most out of them, but none are brokenly overpowered or underpowered.
The game would not be better if they threw out the careful (if imperfect) balancing mechanism in play and just accepted that nobody would ever want to play anything besides the very best platoons. It'd be worse. Far worse. Zero advantage to such a system. Absolutely no reason to do such a thing.
I've heard some variation on 'perfect balance is impossible so it's pointless to even try' about a thousand times now and still don't find it remotely convincing. Given how hard Age of Sigmar flopped when the only balancing mechanism was model count- certainly not ushering in some new and exciting golden age of competitive gaming- I'm inclined to say that the idea that just using a unit cap will lead to a better competitive experience is utter nonsense.
Also, having a unit cap is another way to limit potential design space. It should be perfectly reasonable to have one faction that has a few big units, and play against a "swarm" faction of a tremendous multitude of units, and still have a fun and balanced experience.
Diversity of viable armies should take many forms, unit count being one of them.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: I do not think that each unit should be balanced against each other unit, that is impossible. Sometimes you should just let pauper units be pauper while the ubers duke it out.
OP's question is 'how else could the game be balanced?' and your answer is 'don't even try, may the best wallet win'.
I think you misunderstand some of the terminology that I used. Pauper is a lower powered format for TCG's. Uber is a high powered format for various video games. Neither have any relevance to cost of entry for miniatures games.
No, I'm commenting more broadly on the notion of adopting CCG-like deliberate imbalance. I'm pretty familiar with what comes of CCGs where it's accepted that not all cards are balanced and wallet-warrioring your way to an ideal deck gives a marked advantage. 40K already has enough problems with the cost of building a tournament-ready list; making the power disparity between such an optimized and a more casual list worse by giving up on trying to balance at all would not be an improvement.
Of course, formats that impose restrictions on what you can use are, de facto, a crude balancing mechanism- determining what to allow and ban for a given format requires an assessment of relative value between cards. If you can do that, you can assess relative value between units in 40K and assign points.
Tittliewinks22 wrote:It's unrealistic to expect every unit to be viable in a competitive setting that only has 1 format (anything goes). Every single game (board game, card game, video game, etc) that has choice of which pieces to use there will always be overperformers and underperformers.
I can sit down to play Chain of Command right now and pick any of the platoons and have a good time with a decent chance of winning. Some might be a bit stronger than others, some might require more finesse to get the most out of them, but none are brokenly overpowered or underpowered.
The game would not be better if they threw out the careful (if imperfect) balancing mechanism in play and just accepted that nobody would ever want to play anything besides the very best platoons. It'd be worse. Far worse. Zero advantage to such a system. Absolutely no reason to do such a thing.
I've heard some variation on 'perfect balance is impossible so it's pointless to even try' about a thousand times now and still don't find it remotely convincing. Given how hard Age of Sigmar flopped when the only balancing mechanism was model count- certainly not ushering in some new and exciting golden age of competitive gaming- I'm inclined to say that the idea that just using a unit cap will lead to a better competitive experience is utter nonsense.
I don't really recall anyone seriously suggesting dropping any and all balancing mechanisms because "perfect balance is impossible". Those discussions usually revolve around overly focusing on point systems instead of looking towards more appropriate and effective methods of achieving better balance. If 40k would have adopted Chain of Command's system of structured cross-tailoring lists tommorrow, it would immediately jump on an entirely different level of balance without changing a single point cost. Point systems are really crude and limited tool regardless of their granularity and many of mechanisms listed earlier in this thread provide way better level of balance even when paired with a very rudimentary point system, if with any at all.
nou wrote: I don't really recall anyone seriously suggesting dropping any and all balancing mechanisms because "perfect balance is impossible".
Exactly how else would you characterize the suggestion to ditch points and just have a limit on how many units you're allowed to field because 'there will always be overperformers and underperformers'?
I think I've made it clear I'm not a huge fan of 40K's very 90s-style points-focused listbuilding system either, but there have been much better alternatives suggested in this thread than the one I was replying to.
It sounds like early 1st ed AoS. No points and two people agree to what units either side should be okey to field. Not very popular among players, and one step away for the game to be decided by performative dance and recitation of the armies lore in shakespearian verse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Also, having a unit cap is another way to limit potential design space. It should be perfectly reasonable to have one faction that has a few big units, and play against a "swarm" faction of a tremendous multitude of units, and still have a fun and balanced experience.
Diversity of viable armies should take many forms, unit count being one of them.
Only in the end it is only good for armies with multiple units, because they have more chances to have something useful and be able to use it to win games. An army with few or fewer option can end up in a situation where they run out of good stuff, at lets say 1400pts and then have to take the bad stuff. While the good armies have 2000pts of hyper efficient unit, which pointwise feel as if they should be worth around 2500 or more.
I cut the rest of your post out because frankly, not interested in replying to it.
In AoS, the way it works is that you have a subfaction keyword added or in the case of something like a named hero or unit it's on there from the outset but doesn't necessarily break the rest of your subfaction's setup. It just won't do anything for non-subfaction stuff.
EX: Guilliman can be taken in a Salamanders detachment, but will not have the Salamanders keyword nor can he gain it or buff it unless he has a straight buff to Adeptus Astartes units.
We have already seen a bit of this in the Guard book, with Death Korps of Krieg, Cadian, and Catachan all becoming fixed keywords while there is no <Regiment> present.
Yeah, you cut out the point - If Subfactions don't matter, why have them? If Salamanders play the same as Ultras, why not let G buff the Salamanders? Its not like they're still getting their chapter based bonuses. Their Flamestorm Aggressors will play like the Ultra Flamestorm Aggressors with no boost for flame.
nou wrote: I don't really recall anyone seriously suggesting dropping any and all balancing mechanisms because "perfect balance is impossible".
Exactly how else would you characterize the suggestion to ditch points and just have a limit on how many units you're allowed to field because 'there will always be overperformers and underperformers'?
I think I've made it clear I'm not a huge fan of 40K's very 90s-style points-focused listbuilding system either, but there have been much better alternatives suggested in this thread than the one I was replying to.
I’ve read that post as a multifaceted suggestion, not solely advocating ditching a more granular points in favor of simple unit cap. If tiers of units are close enough sidegrades and you select them in equal enough blocks, then within the confines of an appropriately powered format, unit cap is „granular enough” point system with every unit worth 1pt.
Yeah, you cut out the point - If Subfactions don't matter, why have them? If Salamanders play the same as Ultras, why not let G buff the Salamanders? Its not like they're still getting their chapter based bonuses. Their Flamestorm Aggressors will play like the Ultra Flamestorm Aggressors with no boost for flame.
It's way too early to say "subfactions don't matter".
Subfactions might be a way to unlock certain weapon options on heroes like Lieutenants, might make certain units into Battleline, etc.
Even in AoS subfactions give something, albeit a more generalized something rather than a flat boost to bows or things of that nature.
Insectum7 wrote: Also, having a unit cap is another way to limit potential design space. It should be perfectly reasonable to have one faction that has a few big units, and play against a "swarm" faction of a tremendous multitude of units, and still have a fun and balanced experience.
Diversity of viable armies should take many forms, unit count being one of them.
I think one could argue that given its scope and size, WHFB 6th Edition has the best overall balance and it achieved this by having a combination of points costs and hard limits on unit type that pertained to rarity rather than role.
Thus, it didn't differentiate between "fast attack" or "heavy support" there were simply things you could have limitless amounts of, and them that you couldn't. I was very active at that time, still doing pickup games at the now-closed FLGS, and I can't recall a single instance where army selection was THE factor deciding the game. My point is that at one point, GW had some sort of institutional capability of figuring this out.
That being said, the points weren't perfect, which was why hard caps on special and rare units were needed. It is possible to build a points-based game that works quite well, but GW never quite got there. But they did get close.
Insectum7 wrote: Also, having a unit cap is another way to limit potential design space. It should be perfectly reasonable to have one faction that has a few big units, and play against a "swarm" faction of a tremendous multitude of units, and still have a fun and balanced experience.
Diversity of viable armies should take many forms, unit count being one of them.
Personally, I sometimes play Infinity without the unit cap, but not often, since you usually run out of points first.
I’ve read that post as a multifaceted suggestion, not solely advocating ditching a more granular points in favor of simple unit cap. If tiers of units are close enough sidegrades and you select them in equal enough blocks, then within the confines of an appropriately powered format, unit cap is „granular enough” point system with every unit worth 1pt.
The problem is that GW doesn't give all armies the same number of units of same power level, neither do they control the power level further then 3-6 books in to the future. And then we get something like Votan being balanced, because it was tested vs unnerfed CWE, Harlequins, IG and Custodes.
A points system maybe less accurate and more restrictive, but it much better then finding out that one army was pre build by GW to be a 2000pts Tournament Build of doom, while another is a collection of models and rule copy pastes from prior editions.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I think one could argue that given its scope and size, WHFB 6th Edition has the best overall balance and it achieved this by having a combination of points costs and hard limits on unit type that pertained to rarity rather than role.
Thus, it didn't differentiate between "fast attack" or "heavy support" there were simply things you could have limitless amounts of, and them that you couldn't. I was very active at that time, still doing pickup games at the now-closed FLGS, and I can't recall a single instance where army selection was THE factor deciding the game. My point is that at one point, GW had some sort of institutional capability of figuring this out.
That being said, the points weren't perfect, which was why hard caps on special and rare units were needed. It is possible to build a points-based game that works quite well, but GW never quite got there. But they did get close.
I remember at one point WHFB had a minimum of 25% of points spent on Core, and a maximum of 25% on Rare, plus requirements and limits on Heroes/Lords, but beyond that you were free to build your army as you see fit. Every army had to have a decent number of basic troops and couldn't spam things that really ought to be limited, and it was trivial from a design standpoint to have special armies or characters shuffle around what counted as what. Simple and effective.
The biggest complaint I heard was that the Core units were a 'tax', but that always struck me as a mix of GW not really knowing how to make basic troops appealing and players often not recognizing the value of those troops, rather than an issue with the army composition system itself.
catbarf wrote: The biggest complaint I heard was that the Core units were a 'tax', but that always struck me as a mix of GW not really knowing how to make basic troops appealing and players often not recognizing the value of those troops, rather than an issue with the army composition system itself.
Core units weren't a tax in every army, they tended to be a tax in armies like High Elves (depending on which side of the Core/Special dance Silver Helms were on for a given edition) because GW consistently over-valued WS and I and/or under-valued S, T & A relative to each other.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I think one could argue that given its scope and size, WHFB 6th Edition has the best overall balance and it achieved this by having a combination of points costs and hard limits on unit type that pertained to rarity rather than role.
Thus, it didn't differentiate between "fast attack" or "heavy support" there were simply things you could have limitless amounts of, and them that you couldn't. I was very active at that time, still doing pickup games at the now-closed FLGS, and I can't recall a single instance where army selection was THE factor deciding the game. My point is that at one point, GW had some sort of institutional capability of figuring this out.
That being said, the points weren't perfect, which was why hard caps on special and rare units were needed. It is possible to build a points-based game that works quite well, but GW never quite got there. But they did get close.
I remember at one point WHFB had a minimum of 25% of points spent on Core, and a maximum of 25% on Rare, plus requirements and limits on Heroes/Lords, but beyond that you were free to build your army as you see fit. Every army had to have a decent number of basic troops and couldn't spam things that really ought to be limited, and it was trivial from a design standpoint to have special armies or characters shuffle around what counted as what. Simple and effective.
The biggest complaint I heard was that the Core units were a 'tax', but that always struck me as a mix of GW not really knowing how to make basic troops appealing and players often not recognizing the value of those troops, rather than an issue with the army composition system itself.
I have the same issues with the percentile approach that I do with any approach that makes troops mandatory:
A.) It's not so much that you're being forced to take a tax unit (although that does suck) but that GW seemed to use such requirements as an excuse to design troop units that were just sort of crummy for their points or were just crummier versions of a non-troop unit. Which did then make the "troop tax" into more of an issue when someone factions had cheaper or more points efficient troops than others.
B.) "Troops" just aren't fluffy for some armies. Biel-Tan is known for having tons of aspect warriors and thus not relying on their guardians or rangers quite so much, so being forced to have guardian or ranger squads in your army can arguably detract from how you represent your army's lore on the table. And then things get extra weird when it's totally cool for Death Wing and Grey Knight armies to field all terminators all the time because GW decided to give subfaction books.
JNAProductions wrote: Spinning off from the Points Value thread, there's people saying that points don't function as a balancing mechanism.
This thread is to give space for alternatives-if not points, then how are you going to balance differing factions and armies?
That last update was the test balloon. Points aren't even points anymore. Points are Powerlevel pretending to be points with a few exceptions. They've been trying to push Power Level for a while now, and failing because the players don't want to change. So the solution was to change Points into Power Level so they didn't have a choice and didn't have to think about it too much. I mean we already did the math, and the questions. Power Level was 1/20th of the points with free upgrades - and we already asked way back then if free upgrades were paradigm changing - nobody thought so then. But they still generally didn't like power level. Probably a change for change's sake thing.
So its points. But it's points that works like power level. The interesting thing is what they'll do now that they're getting rid of FOC/Detach/etc (Which was Beta Tested by Arks of Omen Dets).
They say we'll still see a lot of (what were but not anymore because FOC slot stuff is obsolete) "battleline/troops" on the board - Will "Troops" get a boost to more than the "Objective Control" stat or did they rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic?
How much will subfaction homogenization suck? Will the hate directed at Chaos Marines which is expanding into seperate rather than subfactions reverse the trend for them, or for everyone else?
Will Subfactions even be a thing anymore? If all Aggressors play the same because they've all got the same doctrine/Super Doctrine - can Bobby G give rerolls to Salamander Aggressors? Will you still have to tell your opponent they're Ultramarine Aggressors that borrowed some gear from the Salamanders and haven't repainted it yet? What about Subfactions that might have bespoke rules?
GW has a history of doing the bare minimum on these updates, and not thinking about the next step - that was just one example of the "next step". What rules are going to stick around that will have no meaningful impact like Subfactions.
What is the core point of your question? I feel the post is a bit over the place and I do not intend for it to be a slight.
* Roboute can currently give rerolls to Salamander Aggressors as he gives some rerolls with the Imperial keyword.
* Subfactions will still be a thing. They will, however, probably be more focused and intended to reinforce the subfaction ideals instead of an armywide bonus. In AoS most armies have an armywide rule and then subfaction rules that encourage specific units. This often means you can pick a subfaction based on your own fluff rather than the best one. There will still be a best one, but their reach is not always as overbearing as they are in 40k. Whether this is a design principle for 40k 10th I do not know, but I have really liked it in AoS.
* I am not sure what you refer to as the hatred for Chaos Space marines. If you are referring to the specific Chaos God Marines then that will continue until all four are out. AoS has for a long time had all four gods separated into their own books(Blades of Khorne, Hedonites of Slaanesh, Maggotkin of Nurgle, Disciples of Tzeentch) with one generic Chaos Army(Slaves to Darkness). I expect 40k to do the same as each god is very different from each other. It tends to be easier to handle 5 different factions instead of one gigantic mega faction where 100+ units go untouched.
To be fair AoS has for the longest time had a form of power levels as each unit is bought in fixed sizes. Haven't seen anyone complain about it(people are more divided about the turn order roll).
catbarf wrote: I remember at one point WHFB had a minimum of 25% of points spent on Core, and a maximum of 25% on Rare, plus requirements and limits on Heroes/Lords, but beyond that you were free to build your army as you see fit. Every army had to have a decent number of basic troops and couldn't spam things that really ought to be limited, and it was trivial from a design standpoint to have special armies or characters shuffle around what counted as what. Simple and effective.
The biggest complaint I heard was that the Core units were a 'tax', but that always struck me as a mix of GW not really knowing how to make basic troops appealing and players often not recognizing the value of those troops, rather than an issue with the army composition system itself.
In 6th, you were allowed unlimited core troops, and the amount of special and rare scaled up according to the size of the army. The same was true of characters. This mechanic saw its debut during 5th edition's Siege rules, which basically solved the Herohammer problem. It was wildly successful in my area and people began using the Siege army composition guidelines for field battles. I recall seeing an article in White Dwarf just before 6th came out suggesting this.
The core units in 6th were solid and for the first time Empire infantry actually had a purpose other than being a character/magic item delivery vehicle. The limits on special and rare units were not just about capability but also about scarcity (i.e. steam tanks are few in number so you can't take all of them at once).
The upshot was that if the points were a bit off (and they were!), there was an additional check on super-powered units.
Of course this did generate controversy and players argue that some rare/special units were relatively worthless and would never be picked, and some who wanted to field units in tandem were now reduced to an either/or scenario.
Another nice feature was that you could do a quickie rules check on your opponent simply by counting characters and unit types, since they mattered more than points. I remember losing a hard-fought game and as we tallied the victory points to see how close I'd come I realized I'd faced too many rare choices! Further examination revealed the lad had also generously given himself an extra 500 points for good measure.
Still, it seemed to work pretty well and I can't recall a single game where army composition had the same determinative effect on the battle that it did in other GW editions.
Also I do think that some of this is just a perception problem. People not finding value in troops are usually just not looking hard enough.
Not anymore. In 9th they made them elites for some gak-forsaken reason. Like eldar needed more Elite's Slot competition, especially since Avengers had been troops, basically since the beginning of the Force org Chart.
As has been said, Core/Troops units have tended to be a tax because they are too similar to other units which are better - both in absolute terms, and usually (but not always - see a lot of 8th edition 40k armies) in "rules for the point".
To do WHFB - there's not a lot of reasons to take High Elf Spearmen if you can "get your infantry" from Swordmasters, Phoenix Guard and White Lions. Unless those three units are paying too many points. Dragon Princes and Silver Helms are another example.
If there's no caps and restrictions, things like Sternguard are just Tactical Marines+1. Either that +1 is efficient for the points - or it isn't. If it is, there's no real reason to take Tactical Marines until you've "run out" of Sternguard.
Generally this is why troops have been given some sort of bonus. Obsec for instance. Or the only units that can score at all. But GW never sticks with this - because there are lots of fluffy armies that shouldn't have troops units, and they can't hold back from codex creep anyway. Making troops into "action bots" would compel people to have them in their lists - but that feels a bit contrived.
We an only hope that the design studio manages to give the Troops and Troops Plus units distinct reasons to both be taken in the new edition given we will not have Battleline and non-Battleline with no FOC requirements to meet.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Personally, I play Skaven in 6th, and Core troops are irreplaceable. Clanrats are the lifeblood of my army.
Clanrats are also mandatory to be able to take other units and the more Clanrats you take, the more of those other units you can take. On top of that, Clanrats let you bring the immensely broken and reliable Ratling Gun.
Strg Alt wrote: I am using a method gleaned from a video game (Age of Wonders Planetfall). This game also has costs for units and upkeep although armies are limited by allowing only a maximum of six unit in a single stack whereas stack is the synonym for army. Furthermore the game rates units (apart from characters) in Tiers of 1 to 4 and battlefield roles like skirmishers (damage dealers) and specialists (support). Characters (Leaders & Heroes) are rated in levels from 1 to 20 or 30.
I know this isn't the point you were making, but it might be interesting to look at some of that game's other mechanics for inspiration.
For example, each unit has 3 Mod slots (heroes can get a 4th at higher level) that you can use to upgrade them. These slots are completely separate to their weapons and can include all manner of abilities:
- Damage bonuses (usually in addition to other effects).
- Defensive bonuses (usually in addition to other effects).
- Rider effects for their weapons (e.g. a laser might also set a target on fire).
- Healing/Regeneration.
- Movement.
- Resistance/Immunity to certain elements or status effects.
- Special attacks.
- Utility.
- Special abilities/utility.
etc.
These mods all cost resources - based on both the tier of the mod and the tier of the unit being equipped. Some of them are also specific to certain units, usually for thematic reasons (e.g. a regeneration effect might be limited to biological units) or to units with certain weapons (the aforementioned fire effect only works on lasers).
Anyway, different combinations of mods can substantially change how a given unit plays. Basic infantry can become extremely dangerous even to higher-tier units when equipped with multiple damage/weapon-ability mods. Or they can be much more resilient with healing and armour mods. Of course, they'll also be markedly more expensive than regular, un-modded infantry, so you'd have fewer units on the table.
I don't know, maybe it would be too awkward if taken wholesale, but it seems a fun idea to play around with.
Wyldhunt wrote: B.) "Troops" just aren't fluffy for some armies. Biel-Tan is known for having tons of aspect warriors and thus not relying on their guardians or rangers quite so much, so being forced to have guardian or ranger squads in your army can arguably detract from how you represent your army's lore on the table. And then things get extra weird when it's totally cool for Death Wing and Grey Knight armies to field all terminators all the time because GW decided to give subfaction books.
Biel-Tan would seem like the perfect candidate for one of those aforementioned special armies that changes what counts for what. Move Aspect Warriors to Core, move Guardians to Special, move Rangers to Rare. 'Core' or 'troops' should just be whatever is supposed to be the staples of that faction or subfaction, not necessarily basic grunts.
Any system that constrains what you can take in the interest of fairness (including the current rule-of-three) is going to run into issues like this, where a particular army has atypical composition that doesn't fit within the limits for that faction. Letting players take whatever they want isn't the only alternative; you can find a middle ground by curating those exceptions and providing army list variants.
Yeah, you cut out the point - If Subfactions don't matter, why have them? If Salamanders play the same as Ultras, why not let G buff the Salamanders? Its not like they're still getting their chapter based bonuses. Their Flamestorm Aggressors will play like the Ultra Flamestorm Aggressors with no boost for flame.
It's way too early to say "subfactions don't matter".
Subfactions might be a way to unlock certain weapon options on heroes like Lieutenants, might make certain units into Battleline, etc.
Even in AoS subfactions give something, albeit a more generalized something rather than a flat boost to bows or things of that nature.
Two Page rules. The whole thing is supposed to be on the same two pages shared by all subfactions. BA/DA/SW/UM all use the same 2 pages it sounds like.
JNAProductions wrote: Spinning off from the Points Value thread, there's people saying that points don't function as a balancing mechanism.
This thread is to give space for alternatives-if not points, then how are you going to balance differing factions and armies?
That last update was the test balloon. Points aren't even points anymore. Points are Powerlevel pretending to be points with a few exceptions. They've been trying to push Power Level for a while now, and failing because the players don't want to change. So the solution was to change Points into Power Level so they didn't have a choice and didn't have to think about it too much. I mean we already did the math, and the questions. Power Level was 1/20th of the points with free upgrades - and we already asked way back then if free upgrades were paradigm changing - nobody thought so then. But they still generally didn't like power level. Probably a change for change's sake thing.
So its points. But it's points that works like power level. The interesting thing is what they'll do now that they're getting rid of FOC/Detach/etc (Which was Beta Tested by Arks of Omen Dets).
They say we'll still see a lot of (what were but not anymore because FOC slot stuff is obsolete) "battleline/troops" on the board - Will "Troops" get a boost to more than the "Objective Control" stat or did they rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic?
How much will subfaction homogenization suck? Will the hate directed at Chaos Marines which is expanding into seperate rather than subfactions reverse the trend for them, or for everyone else?
Will Subfactions even be a thing anymore? If all Aggressors play the same because they've all got the same doctrine/Super Doctrine - can Bobby G give rerolls to Salamander Aggressors? Will you still have to tell your opponent they're Ultramarine Aggressors that borrowed some gear from the Salamanders and haven't repainted it yet? What about Subfactions that might have bespoke rules?
GW has a history of doing the bare minimum on these updates, and not thinking about the next step - that was just one example of the "next step". What rules are going to stick around that will have no meaningful impact like Subfactions.
What is the core point of your question? I feel the post is a bit over the place and I do not intend for it to be a slight.
* Roboute can currently give rerolls to Salamander Aggressors as he gives some rerolls with the Imperial keyword.
I hope you know I meant the CM/LT "Primarch of the" rerolls.
* Subfactions will still be a thing. They will, however, probably be more focused and intended to reinforce the subfaction ideals instead of an armywide bonus. In AoS most armies have an armywide rule and then subfaction rules that encourage specific units. This often means you can pick a subfaction based on your own fluff rather than the best one. There will still be a best one, but their reach is not always as overbearing as they are in 40k. Whether this is a design principle for 40k 10th I do not know, but I have really liked it in AoS.
The way I read it everyone is using the same 2 pages for each of the subfactions, and in the current codex all the Chapter Tactics are already two pages. Plus a page for Chapter Warlord Traits. And several more for the Strats. That's not much room for Chapter Differentiation.
* I am not sure what you refer to as the hatred for Chaos Space marines. If you are referring to the specific Chaos God Marines then that will continue until all four are out. AoS has for a long time had all four gods separated into their own books(Blades of Khorne, Hedonites of Slaanesh, Maggotkin of Nurgle, Disciples of Tzeentch) with one generic Chaos Army(Slaves to Darkness). I expect 40k to do the same as each god is very different from each other. It tends to be easier to handle 5 different factions instead of one gigantic mega faction where 100+ units go untouched.
I mean if Chaos Marines get Special Treatment because they're not consolidated into one Codex while the Loyalists are - as well as the Aeldari etc - the non-chaos players are going to howl. I mean sure, all the players are going to howl about something anyway, but they'll be aimed at the Chaos players this way.
To be fair AoS has for the longest time had a form of power levels as each unit is bought in fixed sizes. Haven't seen anyone complain about it(people are more divided about the turn order roll).
1) AOS is a different game.
2) It pretty much started with power level right? So they didn't have to change into it?
3) My theory is that the players avoided PL to avoid change at all, not because of a value judgement - GW has tried to coerce and cajole players into PL, and now I think they're done. I think they're just going to turn Points into PL.
Also I do think that some of this is just a perception problem. People not finding value in troops are usually just not looking hard enough.
Not anymore. In 9th they made them elites for some gak-forsaken reason. Like eldar needed more Elite's Slot competition, especially since Avengers had been troops, basically since the beginning of the Force org Chart.
Well that's some weaksauce.
Hmm. . . Dire Avengers suddenly become Elites just as new Guardians and Rangers get released . . . Hmmm . . .
Also I do think that some of this is just a perception problem. People not finding value in troops are usually just not looking hard enough.
Not anymore. In 9th they made them elites for some gak-forsaken reason. Like eldar needed more Elite's Slot competition, especially since Avengers had been troops, basically since the beginning of the Force org Chart.
Well that's some weaksauce.
Hmm. . . Dire Avengers suddenly become Elites just as new Guardians and Rangers get released . . . Hmmm . . .
Yeah, I never saw Dire Avengers used the moment they were moved to the Elite slot, just like with Scouts for Marines. There's simply too much competition.
Two Page rules. The whole thing is supposed to be on the same two pages shared by all subfactions. BA/DA/SW/UM all use the same 2 pages it sounds like.
nah, i'm pretty sure its gonna be 2 page PER subfaction.
So BA/DA/SW/UM each get their own specific 2 pages.
They gave an example of someone playing UM vs playing UM first company would have a different "2 page"
JNAProductions wrote: Spinning off from the Points Value thread, there's people saying that points don't function as a balancing mechanism.
This thread is to give space for alternatives-if not points, then how are you going to balance differing factions and armies?
So, I think the important thing to understand is that the idea is not that points don't function at all as a balancing mechanism; just that they don't create balance on their own the way a lot of people imagine. The idea that if you just get your points granular enough and cost everything perfectly the game will be balanced is what doesn't work. If two things fill similar roles, even if they are costed appropriately, one will ultimately provide the better value and win out. Either the cheaper one to make room for more stuff overall (boyz before toyz) or the more expensive provides enough that the cheaper one appears overcosted. The core problem isn't a question of equal value, but role diversity. You create more variety by making units that do different things. You likely still need something like points but can usually get away from granular points and instead focus on making sure what you have has a reason to see the table.
There's a few ways to do this. Like you can make army slots a thing and just make your unit sizes to account for it. Like 5 marines take one slot. 10 guardsmen take one slot. 8 termagaunts. A knight takes 3 slots. You've taken away points in theory but technically you've just got an incredibly low granularity points system called slots. When you've got stuff as different as tanks and grunts, some amount of points is generally a good idea. Honestly, Power Levels were not a bad way to go about it and are probably where I would start. The big failing of that system was just that it didn't account for wargear, but there are definitely ways to do so. Personally, what I would have liked to have seen is a flat Power Level style system, but then some kind of unit level wargear budget to drive build diversity within the unit itself.
Two Page rules. The whole thing is supposed to be on the same two pages shared by all subfactions. BA/DA/SW/UM all use the same 2 pages it sounds like.
nah, i'm pretty sure its gonna be 2 page PER subfaction.
So BA/DA/SW/UM each get their own specific 2 pages.
They gave an example of someone playing UM vs playing UM first company would have a different "2 page"
I hope Armageddon, Cadia, Krieg, Minerva, Ventrillia, etc. also get their own 2 pages each.
If two things fill similar roles, even if they are costed appropriately, one will ultimately provide the better value and win out. Either the cheaper one to make room for more stuff overall (boyz before toyz) or the more expensive provides enough that the cheaper one appears overcosted.
The core problem isn't a question of equal value, but role diversity. You create more variety by making units that do different things.
The first part of this quote makes no sense - if one of those chices provides better value, then they are not costed appropriately… Their preference may depend on other parts of the army, but ultimately, both choices should be picked by players neat 50% of times. But of course, this is not a realistical outcome with linear point systems, that can’t adequately represent full complexity of the system.
But the second part of the quote touched a much more important problem with 40k - design space capacity. Every game system has it’s own granularity (not to be confused with granularity of point systems). That is, how many meaningfully different combinations of parameters can the system handle. In case of 40k, the answer is and pretty much always was „way less than GW tries to cram into it”. This is the reason for „slot competition” and large part of raw mathhammer efficiency solution to „choice”. In an ideal world, you design the math part of the game first, then populate available space with a pool of abstract possible entries, and only then you choose an appropriate entry for fluff you want to represent. With GW it is the other way around - they create new fluff entities first and only then try to find any place for it in the system. This is why we always get bloat, power creep and mid edition paradigm shifts - 40k is way, way overpopulated compared to the capacity of any edition. Obvious point cost mistakes, bad mission design, bad environment rules and very narrowminded community (as in „2000pts, latest GT” is the only proper way to play) compress a meaningful game subspace even further.
Two Page rules. The whole thing is supposed to be on the same two pages shared by all subfactions. BA/DA/SW/UM all use the same 2 pages it sounds like.
nah, i'm pretty sure its gonna be 2 page PER subfaction.
So BA/DA/SW/UM each get their own specific 2 pages.
They gave an example of someone playing UM vs playing UM first company would have a different "2 page"
I hope Armageddon, Cadia, Krieg, Minerva, Ventrillia, etc. also get their own 2 pages each.
Fair's fair.
Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.
Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"
Two Page rules. The whole thing is supposed to be on the same two pages shared by all subfactions. BA/DA/SW/UM all use the same 2 pages it sounds like.
nah, i'm pretty sure its gonna be 2 page PER subfaction.
So BA/DA/SW/UM each get their own specific 2 pages.
They gave an example of someone playing UM vs playing UM first company would have a different "2 page"
I hope Armageddon, Cadia, Krieg, Minerva, Ventrillia, etc. also get their own 2 pages each.
Fair's fair.
Sure, why not? GWs going to need some way to soak your wallet for as many packs of cards as they can.
Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.
Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"
etc.
This pretty much sounds explicitly like what they have told us they plan to do. I hate it, but all evidence indicates this is what they have in store for us. Now all chapters have a Ravenwing and a Deathwing. Yay! /s
Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.
Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"
etc.
This pretty much sounds explicitly like what they have told us they plan to do. I hate it, but all evidence indicates this is what they have in store for us. Now all chapters have a Ravenwing and a Deathwing. Yay! /s
You mean all chapters have a First/Veteran Company and all chapters can draw upon the chapter's armory to outfit a force with Bikes and Landspeeders, just like they can do in the lore?
Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.
Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"
etc.
This pretty much sounds explicitly like what they have told us they plan to do. I hate it, but all evidence indicates this is what they have in store for us. Now all chapters have a Ravenwing and a Deathwing. Yay! /s
Wildly disagree.
They talked about restrictions and the like. They also mentioned that there would be some catch-alls and some specifics. Every Chapter can field an all-bikes force or an all-Terminator force. What's distinctive about RW/DW is the quality of the units and the sheer numbers. It's like Raven Guard and Phobos right now; they're the only ones who have been fielding an all Phobos 1st and 2nd Company in addition to the 10th Vanguard Company.
I'd expect subfactions to get something akin to the various Armies of Renown with legit restrictions in place and a bonus tied to their faction.
Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.
Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"
etc.
This pretty much sounds explicitly like what they have told us they plan to do. I hate it, but all evidence indicates this is what they have in store for us. Now all chapters have a Ravenwing and a Deathwing. Yay! /s
You mean all chapters have a First/Veteran Company and all chapters can draw upon the chapter's armory to outfit a force with Bikes and Landspeeders, just like they can do in the lore?
Yeah, this constant hard-on for Dark Angels being "different" is absolutely bonkers. They're not different. They don't need a whole different codex.
I dunno if this is just sampling bias but it seems to me that I see a lot more complaints about the new subfaction/detachment system from Marine players than other factions.
I saw very few complaints when Astra Militarum received the same treatment in their 9th Ed codex- actually I saw a lot of positive comments from players that were happy they no longer had to counts-as their Death Korps as Catachans to get artillery bonuses, or Cadians as Steel Legion to have quick-moving mechanized infantry.
I'm fairly confident that the special Marines will get their own unique detachments, eg Deathwing, but the main chapters no longer being limited to one-note builds (while still having the option to use those archetypes if you wish) seems like a good thing.
catbarf wrote: I dunno if this is just sampling bias but it seems to me that I see a lot more complaints about the new subfaction/detachment system from Marine players than other factions.
I saw very few complaints when Astra Militarum received the same treatment in their 9th Ed codex- actually I saw a lot of positive comments from players that were happy they no longer had to counts-as their Death Korps as Catachans to get artillery bonuses, or Cadians as Steel Legion to have quick-moving mechanized infantry.
I'm fairly confident that the special Marines will get their own unique detachments, eg Deathwing, but the main chapters no longer being limited to one-note builds (while still having the option to use those archetypes if you wish) seems like a good thing.
It's not a sampling bias, just a result of overly Marine centric game, that fed the community with so much detail about Marine subfactions' fluff, that their grew in perception to be fully fledged factions of their own, despite having only small differencess between them. In other words - Marine fluff has way more granularity than the rest of the game, so players expect this granularity to be represented by the ruleset, but as I wrote above, this game has way too small design space for this to work. So despite the fact, that different -wings or numbered companies are just rehashes of the same concepts, Marine players want those concepts to be somehow personalised/unique for their chapter. Other factions are painted with so much broader strokes, that there is no problem with adequate fluff representation by simple variation in army structure. Take Craftworlds for example - one wraith centric, one aspect centric, one psychic and guardian centric, one bike centric etc... Basically, there is no more than one Craftworld for one battlefield role/FoC category/army archetype and that's it. With Marines, your differences between "subfactions" are sometimes on the level of what weaponry given chapter prefers...
catbarf wrote: I dunno if this is just sampling bias but it seems to me that I see a lot more complaints about the new subfaction/detachment system from Marine players than other factions.
I saw very few complaints when Astra Militarum received the same treatment in their 9th Ed codex- actually I saw a lot of positive comments from players that were happy they no longer had to counts-as their Death Korps as Catachans to get artillery bonuses, or Cadians as Steel Legion to have quick-moving mechanized infantry.
I'm fairly confident that the special Marines will get their own unique detachments, eg Deathwing, but the main chapters no longer being limited to one-note builds (while still having the option to use those archetypes if you wish) seems like a good thing.
First off: I think people are using Marines in examples for very specific reasons: they are a known quantity with a documented history of subfaction distinction going back decades. I am actually far, far more worried about what this system will do to Xenos factions than what it will do to marines, but because Dark Angels, Whitescars and Blood Angels have sub-faction identity going back decades, they are easier to use as examples.
As for chapters no longer being limited to one note builds, I wouldn't get my hopes up. If you're Blood Angels, sure, you CAN pick a detachment that's more commonly associated with Ultramarines, but doing so means you're stuck with the trait that applies to that detachment... Which, not surprisingly, will be the kind of trait one would more expect to be associated with Ultramarines.
Put another way, there's no such thing as a subfaction trait anymore. If you want to feel like there are still subfaction traits, you can choose to try and approximate that effect by picking a detachment that has a trait something like what your subfaction trait. But you only get that this pseudo-subfaction trait when you choose to use that particular detachment.
I wonder what army construction hoops I'll have to jump through in order to make sisters play like the Sacred Rose; their powers are related to serenity and focus, so I can see their detachment as being one which excludes repentia and mortifiers... Which sucks. You probably have to take Junith Eruita to unlock the OoOML trait, which sucks even more since it's ridiculous to expect that a Cannones Superior is going to be present in every skirmish.
Don't get me wrong- they MIGHT get it right. I'm more enthusiastic than I expected to be, and I'm trying to be positive. It is too soon to really know how it's going to turn out- I'm just tempering my expectations.
PenitentJake wrote: As for chapters no longer being limited to one note builds, I wouldn't get my hopes up. If you're Blood Angels, sure, you CAN pick a detachment that's more commonly associated with Ultramarines, but doing so means you're stuck with the trait that applies to that detachment... Which, not surprisingly, will be the kind of trait one would more expect to be associated with Ultramarines.
FWIW, from the Warhammer Community post about the new system:
"For instance, you might be playing as the Gladius Task Force of the Adeptus Astartes. Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase."
(...)
"So while Ultramarines might be the theoretical and practical masters of the Gladius Task Force, other Chapters can use it too – and the same will be true of many other detachments as they are added into the game."
So combat doctrines- ie the thing that was a SM-wide rule for 8th/9th- is now tied to the detachment that is theoretically Ultramarines-specific. No details on the stratagems and enhancements.
PenitentJake wrote: Put another way, there's no such thing as a subfaction trait anymore. If you want to feel like there are still subfaction traits, you can choose to try and approximate that effect by picking a detachment that has a trait something like what your subfaction trait. But you only get that this pseudo-subfaction trait when you choose to use that particular detachment.
Seems like six of one, half dozen of the other to me. You pick a detachment and get the abilities associated with that detachment. Some subfactions have particular detachments associated with them, but you can still choose whichever.
They did this same thing in the 9th Ed Astra Militarum codex as I mentioned. Instead of picking Death Korps of Krieg you just choose the Cult of Sacrifice regimental trait. If you play Death Korps you can still use Cult of Sacrifice and essentially nothing changed from before, but now you can alternatively choose Expert Bombardiers for an artillery company, or Armoured Superiority for their tank regiments.
I guess it just remains to be seen just how subfaction-specific the detachments are in practice.
ccs wrote: Sure, why not? GWs going to need some way to soak your wallet for as many packs of cards as they can.
They're not selling cards for the detachment rules.
Sure. You go right on believing in the myth of free stuff.
It's GW, trust me, they're going to try & sell you/us existing players something (beyond models) required for play.
I wonder how much the detachments are going to be valid, when different subfaction are considered. Someone maybe will like the fact that they can build a terminator detachment for any chapter. But if DAs are still going to be the only ones with deathwing/inner circle rules giving them practicaly free super human physilogy, then playing something else then DAs for terminator army won't make sense.
Same if there is a detachment for jump troops, but with most marines being locked in to Van Vents and regular assault marines, while armies like BA have both a bigger list of unit they can have and a better synergy.
I think one of the issues here is that GW doesn't do "points" in the way that they are typically understood.
If you're trying to create a competitive balancing system, calculating "point costs" isn't actually that difficult. It's simply creating a mathematical probability table for the various inputs of the units. For example, you can express the fact that Unit A is twice as likely to hit as Unit B in a points cost. Same with damage resistance.
Now, to be fair to GW, they love to clutter up their probability calculations with stupid crap like re-rolls and other situational special rules, but anyone else can pull it off.
Validating the points isn't terribly hard, either. Run test combats, compare the results with the point costs and adjust the algorithm as necessary. Not to toot my own horn, but in Conqueror (admittedly, a fantasy game) higher points value units almost always win a straight up fight because if they didn't, the points would be wrong. (When they don't, it's because the dice ran really hot/cold.)
More than 15 years ago, people were proving that GW's point calculation system was hot garbage. GW used some vague math, but mostly set the points to what they "felt" was correct. And yes, pushing miniatures sales was one of those factors. If you make a unit that it super-awesome for the points, it will sell like crazy. Who cares about balance, they are making money.
And that's really the core problem. Sad to say it, but 25 years into playing the "GW Hobby," it's abundantly clear that superior game design and balance are not things they are interested in. Selling new rule books every three years is what they are interested in.
ccs wrote: Sure, why not? GWs going to need some way to soak your wallet for as many packs of cards as they can.
They're not selling cards for the detachment rules.
Sure. You go right on believing in the myth of free stuff.
It's GW, trust me, they're going to try & sell you/us existing players something (beyond models) required for play.
Not quite sure where your head is at. Codexes will have more detachments as they should. Those are quite unlikely to be free.
GW goals isn't desiging perfect balance systems , it is selling models. It is like apples jobs only technicaly is making a good, but expensive, phone with an existing infrastructure of things around it. When in reality their job is to make a phone that breaks itself, and for everyone to have to buy new chargers and new everything, each 1-3 years.
Not quite sure where your head is at. Codexes will have more detachments as they should. Those are quite unlikely to be free.
I fully expect to see new unit and detachment rules in both codex, sesonal rule packs, and then in or alongside IA books. And if GW was really gready, they can under print the books, so that some majority of the people has to get the rules through Warhammer+ subscription.
Selling models is a separate task from balance as has been demonstrated multiple times unless you choose to cherry pick.
GWs skill at balance has been lacking in the past, but to me they've clearly developed tools yo help. Nevertheless it's an absurdly large setting with a ton of armies. Good luck making everything interesting and balance "perfect".
Unlike Apple every year the second hand market and printing get stronger.
This notion of under printing books is another absurd conspiracy with no basis in reality.
Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.
Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"
etc.
In the index, maybe even in the marine codex probably. The index SW, BA, BT etc are going to be as flashed out as they were in the 8th ed index. But as soon as the marine factions get their own rules, GW is going to add the "Host of Angels" and "Army of the Dead" detachment to something like the BA book. They would be stupid not to do it. On top of that if they are smart, they should be adding a limited number of neutral stratagems, maybe even relics or detachments to each seson book. This could help GW with all those people that get an earlier codex, buy in to the perfect 200pts army and practicaly don't buy anything new, because anything new would just make their army worse. But a BA player who sees sesonal rules that entice the rules of bikes, heavy intercesors/aggresors etc mayb buy them, especialy if at the same time his 'regular" army just got debuffed. Happens in AoS, why shouldn't it happen in w40k too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Selling models is a separate task from balance as has been demonstrated multiple times unless you choose to cherry pick.
GWs skill at balance has been lacking in the past, but to me they've clearly developed tools yo help. Nevertheless it's an absurdly large setting with a ton of armies. Good luck making everything interesting and balance "perfect".
Unlike Apple every year the second hand market and printing get stronger.
This notion of under printing books is another absurd conspiracy with no basis in reality.
It is not a conspiracy, do you know how hard it is for stores to order stuff from GW, when you are outside of UK/US and western europe? Years ago, GW made it so that stores couldn't order stuff from suppliers in germany. Everything has to come from GW directly. stores put orders and GW just doesn't send them, and later they tell the stores that they won't, because now the stuff is out of print. How long have been people waiting for the karskin or the Votan terminators to come back, a few months?
But in the end, who cares at worse by the time summer hits we will have the new edition and the first few codex. And then we can see how free and less bloated then 9th it is.
Daedalus81 wrote: This notion of under printing books is another absurd conspiracy with no basis in reality.
On what basis do you assert this? It is far more credible that a company would make a one-time order of a fixed number of print books and then let any "spillover" go into online purchases than that they would be willing to risk printing books that might not sell.
Especially in the case of GW, who is notoriously all about the profit.
Daedalus81 wrote: This notion of under printing books is another absurd conspiracy with no basis in reality.
On what basis do you assert this? It is far more credible that a company would make a one-time order of a fixed number of print books and then let any "spillover" go into online purchases than that they would be willing to risk printing books that might not sell.
Especially in the case of GW, who is notoriously all about the profit.
Could you show me how to buy a digital only codex right now?
Only GW knows that A if someone uses a digital codex in eastern europe, it ain't going to be a GW official B stores know it too, and we don't have a UK web of GW stores here, so FLGS are where people play at. And those FLGS do require people to have a printed, as in GW printed, version of the army rules to play in the venu. So doing stuff like sending two codex sm to a store is not fun. And again this isn't just codex. Indomitus was , from what people said, popular in US and UK. Only there GWs sent a ton of it to stores. We got 1 (one) pallet for the entire country. And then it was out of print. Side GW games, non core stuff is impossible to order for stores here. Or often comes along side stuff like, if you want to get a 3ed army book for slaves to darkness the store has to also order two 3ed starter boxes, which no one want to buy.
This hardly is a GW only thing. WotC does the same thing with MtG
Could you show me how to buy a digital only codex right now?
LOL, I don't even know what the current books are.
Ok then why did you support the assertion if you didn't know if it was true or not?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Only GW knows that A if someone uses a digital codex in eastern europe, it ain't going to be a GW official B stores know it too, and we don't have a UK web of GW stores here, so FLGS are where people play at. And those FLGS do require people to have a printed, as in GW printed, version of the army rules to play in the venu. So doing stuff like sending two codex sm to a store is not fun. And again this isn't just codex. Indomitus was , from what people said, popular in US and UK. Only there GWs sent a ton of it to stores. We got 1 (one) pallet for the entire country. And then it was out of print. Side GW games, non core stuff is impossible to order for stores here. Or often comes along side stuff like, if you want to get a 3ed army book for slaves to darkness the store has to also order two 3ed starter boxes, which no one want to buy.
This hardly is a GW only thing. WotC does the same thing with MtG
I am truly sorry that you live in a country at the end of the supply chain. Like honestly I can't imagine how how much more difficult things are in that situation.
That doesn't mean GW is intentionally trying to bleed you.
Ok then why did you support the assertion if you didn't know if it was true or not?
I didn't, I asked on what basis you could assert it was a "groundless conspiracy theory."
You're the one who made the assertion, and I challenged it. If you can show me proof that GW has ample supplies of all books in all markets, I'll happily apologize.
Ok then why did you support the assertion if you didn't know if it was true or not?
I didn't, I asked on what basis you could assert it was a "groundless conspiracy theory."
You're the one who made the assertion, and I challenged it. If you can show me proof that GW has ample supplies of all books in all markets, I'll happily apologize.
If GW has no way to sell the book and the book does not exist then how does it benefit them?
Daedalus81 wrote: This notion of under printing books is another absurd conspiracy with no basis in reality.
On what basis do you assert this? It is far more credible that a company would make a one-time order of a fixed number of print books and then let any "spillover" go into online purchases than that they would be willing to risk printing books that might not sell.
Especially in the case of GW, who is notoriously all about the profit.
Could you show me how to buy a digital only codex right now?
Codex? No. But if you want a digital Liber, then they're readily available. I see no reason why they couldn't do the same for 40k as 30k.
Codex? No. But if you want a digital Liber, then they're readily available. I see no reason why they couldn't do the same for 40k as 30k.
As they should be. And at the moment those do not require a sub and are cheaper than physical ate they not?
There's a difference between doing a print run and selling out and doing a smaller print run to get more subs.
If subs were more profitable then why make physical books?
I get GW is a company and it has to make money to stay around. It's these *made up* ideas that just truly drive me nuts.
Yeah, they might do digital codexes instead of pushing for subs for the app. Wasn't really arguing that point, just offering some clarity on the subject.
But you're really swallowing the 10th edition hype hook line and sinker, aren't you, Daed? Serious question: Do you have any interest in ocean front property in the Kentucky mountains?
Tyel wrote: As has been said, Core/Troops units have tended to be a tax because they are too similar to other units which are better - both in absolute terms, and usually (but not always - see a lot of 8th edition 40k armies) in "rules for the point".
I guess I've been the exception. I've always run 4 Troops or 4 Core before I even touch another FOC slot. I've never thought of them as a tax especially since they're typically the most tactically flexible part of your force.
Tyel wrote: To do WHFB - there's not a lot of reasons to take High Elf Spearmen if you can "get your infantry" from Swordmasters, Phoenix Guard and White Lions. Unless those three units are paying too many points. Dragon Princes and Silver Helms are another example.
Leftover mentality from the days of 5th when you only needed to satisfy the "Regiment" requirement with percentages. Same problem in 2nd Ed. 40K and "Squads". It's interesting that both systems brought back percentages AND that same mentality came back full force. And It was all too common to see High Elf armies where their entire Core requirement was tied up in Silver Helms, so I'm not sure where you got that from.
Also, in 6th and 7th both I wouldn't take to the field without at least 3 blocks of Spearmen. Eliminating 0-1 and the "tacticool" mindset of valuing badass elites over actual function are the only reason you see people swarming Specials and Rares over Core.
Tyel wrote: If there's no caps and restrictions, things like Sternguard are just Tactical Marines+1. Either that +1 is efficient for the points - or it isn't. If it is, there's no real reason to take Tactical Marines until you've "run out" of Sternguard.
Part of the many reasons I went back to 3rd...
Tyel wrote: Generally this is why troops have been given some sort of bonus. Obsec for instance. Or the only units that can score at all. But GW never sticks with this - because there are lots of fluffy armies that shouldn't have troops units, and they can't hold back from codex creep anyway. Making troops into "action bots" would compel people to have them in their lists - but that feels a bit contrived.
If people understood tactics and strategy more then they would see the value of Troops. Strats and all the bs added in since 5th have torn any sort of real tactical sense out and turned the game into a M:TG-esque game of buffs and counters.
As far as what would replace points? A poster in the last thread on the subject assured me that anything other than Power Level was ableist and transphobic, so I'd say modern 40K has no choice but to go Power Level.
I can easily read words at face value, take them at face value, and criticize things that are mishandled when they come up.
You better hope night lords aren't more interesting in 40K now.
I have absolutely no doubt that they won't be. The idiotic restrictions imposed by gw's NMNR policy (and the obvious example of them ignoring it in the case of Raptor Aspiring Champions) pretty much guarantee it. I've got two special terminator squads, a special power armour squad, a special jump pack squad, a Primarch, and multiple special characters (including the coolest Astartes to ever surf a starfighter) in 30k. Think 10th edition 40k is going to beat that? Without viable Night Fighting rules? Good luck.
The fact that GW did a bad job with those factions is hardly surprising, but separating them out and (attempting to) expand their rosters was not a bad idea.
Breton wrote: Bring on the consolidated Chaos codex!
You know that doesn't mean what you think it means, right?
They wouldn't bring everything into one book. They'd remove tons of stuff from the game to make it fit in one book. Do you want Cult representation to just go back to 4 units?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Do you want Cult representation to just go back to 4 units?
The true Chad move is to remove Noise Marines, Plague Marines, and Berserkers as distinct units, and then have Marks turn regular units into cult units by granting special rules and weapon/wargear access - allowing for Berzerker Havoks, Plague Bikes, Noise Terminators etc.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Do you want Cult representation to just go back to 4 units?
The true Chad move is to remove Noise Marines, Plague Marines, and Berserkers as distinct units, and then have Marks turn regular units into cult units by granting special rules and weapon/wargear access - allowing for Berzerker Havoks, Plague Bikes, Noise Terminators etc.
Perhaps a differentiation of being Marked vs Dedicated, with dedicated going more the "cult" direction.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Do you want Cult representation to just go back to 4 units?
The true Chad move is to remove Noise Marines, Plague Marines, and Berserkers as distinct units, and then have Marks turn regular units into cult units by granting special rules and weapon/wargear access - allowing for Berzerker Havoks, Plague Bikes, Noise Terminators etc.
Perhaps a differentiation of being Marked vs Dedicated, with dedicated going more the "cult" direction.
Which would bring us right back to the Glorious 3.5
H.B.M.C. wrote: Do you want Cult representation to just go back to 4 units?
The true Chad move is to remove Noise Marines, Plague Marines, and Berserkers as distinct units, and then have Marks turn regular units into cult units by granting special rules and weapon/wargear access - allowing for Berzerker Havoks, Plague Bikes, Noise Terminators etc.
Perhaps a differentiation of being Marked vs Dedicated, with dedicated going more the "cult" direction.
Just take the Mark, but not the additional weapons/wargear.
Personally I think the HH Rites of War system would be the best. You get bonuses to field a very specific tips of list AND drawbacks. The faction stuff could then be an addendum to that. So while every marine chapter could do an "Outrider" detachment and field all bikes/speeders (at the cost of perhaps requiring a transport for anything on foot and not allowing any walkers, for example) white scars get an extra bonus if they use that detachment (but not any others) to represent it being their preferred style.
So a white scars player is encouraged to play the way the chapter does through incentives but are not REQUIRED to, representing exceptions to the norm where the "oops all bikes" approach isn't the correct answer.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I have absolutely no doubt that they won't be. The idiotic restrictions imposed by gw's NMNR policy (and the obvious example of them ignoring it in the case of Raptor Aspiring Champions) pretty much guarantee it. I've got two special terminator squads, a special power armour squad, a special jump pack squad, a Primarch, and multiple special characters (including the coolest Astartes to ever surf a starfighter) in 30k. Think 10th edition 40k is going to beat that? Without viable Night Fighting rules? Good luck.
Strg Alt wrote: I am using a method gleaned from a video game (Age of Wonders Planetfall). This game also has costs for units and upkeep although armies are limited by allowing only a maximum of six unit in a single stack whereas stack is the synonym for army. Furthermore the game rates units (apart from characters) in Tiers of 1 to 4 and battlefield roles like skirmishers (damage dealers) and specialists (support). Characters (Leaders & Heroes) are rated in levels from 1 to 20 or 30.
I know this isn't the point you were making, but it might be interesting to look at some of that game's other mechanics for inspiration.
For example, each unit has 3 Mod slots (heroes can get a 4th at higher level) that you can use to upgrade them. These slots are completely separate to their weapons and can include all manner of abilities:
- Damage bonuses (usually in addition to other effects).
- Defensive bonuses (usually in addition to other effects).
- Rider effects for their weapons (e.g. a laser might also set a target on fire).
- Healing/Regeneration.
- Movement.
- Resistance/Immunity to certain elements or status effects.
- Special attacks.
- Utility.
- Special abilities/utility.
etc.
These mods all cost resources - based on both the tier of the mod and the tier of the unit being equipped. Some of them are also specific to certain units, usually for thematic reasons (e.g. a regeneration effect might be limited to biological units) or to units with certain weapons (the aforementioned fire effect only works on lasers).
Anyway, different combinations of mods can substantially change how a given unit plays. Basic infantry can become extremely dangerous even to higher-tier units when equipped with multiple damage/weapon-ability mods. Or they can be much more resilient with healing and armour mods. Of course, they'll also be markedly more expensive than regular, un-modded infantry, so you'd have fewer units on the table.
I don't know, maybe it would be too awkward if taken wholesale, but it seems a fun idea to play around with.
True. I am now in the stage of selecting/creating a few units for three or four factions. They also need to play different from each other and to differentiate Space Marines & Imperial Guard will be the most difficult as they both belong to the Imperium thus likely using the same Tactical & Strategic Operations.
Right now Mods, Operations and Secret Tech take a backseat as the core gameplay needs to work first. Game will use a mixed dice set: D100, D20, D12, D10, D8, D6 and D4. Units will at the most fire three times (with repeating attacks) and use a D100 table to calculate hits, grazes, misses, critical hits/fumbles quickly.
LunarSol wrote: If two things fill similar roles, even if they are costed appropriately, one will ultimately provide the better value and win out.
By how much? If you like Snickers better than Mars you'll always buy Snickers, but at a high enough price Snickers becomes something you rarely buy over Mars because it is a lot more expensive and at a price you stop buying Snickers entirely even if you like them. GW's job is to make the price close enough to balanced that Timmy doesn't get told to shelve or destroy his missile launcher Devastators. Nobody cares if lascannons are superior by a tiny margin, but when GW removes pts you get into situations where it is self-evident that your Tactical Marine Sergeant should have plasma.
The problem is neither so easy a child could do it, nor so hard GW couldn't do it with the right approach. What we see is GW not even intending to get it right and people defending GW giving up. To be extra charitable I think GW should be allowed to give custodianship of pts to whoever they want, but the current team have neglected the challenge of internal balance.
Riiiiiight, and I'm sure if done competently an Imperial Fists codex would be amazing.
Guess what, I don't care because it's not needed and it's bloat.
I was and still am in favour of consolidating TS, WE and DG back into CSM. I am for a singular mortal chaos books like IA13 and for a singular daemonbook.
But i don't trust GW to do so in a manner that is competent enough that it is worth the endevaour.
LunarSol wrote: If two things fill similar roles, even if they are costed appropriately, one will ultimately provide the better value and win out.
By how much? If you like Snickers better than Mars you'll always buy Snickers, but at a high enough price Snickers becomes something you rarely buy over Mars because it is a lot more expensive and at a price you stop buying Snickers entirely even if you like them. GW's job is to make the price close enough to balanced that Timmy doesn't get told to shelve or destroy his missile launcher Devastators. Nobody cares if lascannons are superior by a tiny margin, but when GW removes pts you get into situations where it is self-evident that your Tactical Marine Sergeant should have plasma.
The problem is neither so easy a child could do it, nor so hard GW couldn't do it with the right approach. What we see is GW not even intending to get it right and people defending GW giving up. To be extra charitable I think GW should be allowed to give custodianship of pts to whoever they want, but the current team have neglected the challenge of internal balance.
Yeah, I don't buy the idea that one will always be better than the other if they fulfill the same role, either. You can absolutely find a points balance where different options that have the same role can represent different balances of cost and effectiveness, and people will take to DakkaDakka and Reddit to argue passionately that their preference is the better choice.
It's not like GW has never managed that, either. I can think of a few options off the top of my head across different games that were essentially 'become better with no downsides besides cost' but weren't no-brainers either way.
catbarf wrote: It's not like GW has never managed that, either. I can think of a few options off the top of my head across different games that were essentially 'become better with no downsides besides cost' but weren't no-brainers either way.
You know the points are working when discussion threads passionately argue about which equivalent value unit is the better choice.
The problem arises when everyone knows that - though they cost the same - A is always a better value than B.
I cannot stress enough that this is not that difficult. GW is wedded to 6-sided dice, so the probabilities are ludicrously easy to calculate. It's not at all hard to do a matrix showing odds to hit, wound, and penetrate armor. One can then develop a matrix for this, run simulated combats and figure out a points system that reflects relative worth on the battlefield.
Twenty years ago we had former GW employees explaining how points were calculated (for fantasy, IIRC) and people were incredulous because it was self-evident that the numbers didn't add up. That was also when GW began its fateful transition from selling games to selling miniatures.
I cannot stress enough that this is not that difficult. GW is wedded to 6-sided dice, so the probabilities are ludicrously easy to calculate. It's not at all hard to do a matrix showing odds to hit, wound, and penetrate armor. One can then develop a matrix for this, run simulated combats and figure out a points system that reflects relative worth on the battlefield.
The only problem with your approach is… it doesn’t work. Like - at all. A) your offense calculations will only provide a vague ballpark of efficiency if the system is linear. As soon as there are any modifiers that come from the target unit, it breaks completely. B) it is even worse for durability calculations, which always depend on the shooting unit, but you then try to apply a cost to the target unit. C) you still end up with the need of statistical balance, so why bother? You only need two or three iterations of simulated combats to establish the same rough starting value. D) point costs established in statistical way are only meaningful in large scale statistical context and are inadequate in the scale of single match, especially if mission context is not set in stone and there are too differing list archetypes in the system. Your true relative value of units will change from game to game, and since point systems are static, they can never account for that.
Seriously people - it is not like ALL game designers are incompetent for some cosmic reason and the proper answer to decades long problem of wargame balance is middle school math..
This is the matrix you described, for a system I'm developing right now. Rows represent weapons of various power, columns represent units of various durability, left area is efficiency against multimodel units, right area is efficiency against single model units, expressed as an expected percentage of the unit to be removed by the attack at the maximum ROF/squad of a given weapon. Exact unit/weapon profiles and math behind is irrelevant, as this is not for 40k. What is important, is that while this kind of matrix is great for establishing max damage output, so no unit breaks the game, both on offence and defence side of the coin, it is completely useless for balancing purposes.
Let's take a closer look at the left area. Leftmost units are large model count chaff, rightmost are durable elite and there is a spectrum of model count and durability in between. As you can see, there are weapons in this game with various degree of universality/speciality. You can't assign point costs to any row/column directly, as you don't know proliferation of both weapon and unit profiles in the game - this is where your statistical "simulated combats" or tournament data come to play. Theoretically, after gathering enough statistical data you can then establish weights for each row/column dependent on proliferation of profiles within "the meta" and set points based on such weighted averages. But this is exactly where it fails - as soon as there is any deviation from statistical composition of armies, your point values for a given matchup deviate from point costs calculated based on meta weights. In other words - such points are only a very rough ballpark for purposes of balancing your sunday pickup game. Example - let's assume that "the meta" has uniform coverage, every weapon and every profile gets the same share of the grand scale of things. But individual armies can have any kind of skewed composition. Let's narrow this down to just four archetypes for the sake of clarity: durable units tooled against durable units, durable units tooled against chaff units, chaff units tooled against durable units and chaff units tooled against chaff units. If all lists are equally popular, such meta has an even distribution of win-draw-lose statistics at 1-2-1, but every single game has known outcome, just like rock/paper/scissors, which has 50% winrate of each "faction" but is hardly a game worth playing. But let's go further. We establish our point costs based on this meta and those winrates. But now a piece of lore, that has nothing to do with the math of the system has been released, that skews the popularity of factions. Now not 50% of all armies are durable, but 75% of them. Your point costs are now completely off, only because some players have shifted to different faction and you now have to gather new tournament data and recalculate points.
Do you understand now, why point systems always chase the rabbit and never catch it?
VladimirHerzog wrote: Also card games have resource management as a form of balance. In MTG, i can't just play the biggest strongest units because i'll get outraced by aggro decks. 40k doesnt have that kind of balance so that suggestion means everyone would simply bring the biggest units in their armies
Well historicals have a similar problem. Witness how armoured recon units get treated by players and rule sets...
I don't think the recommendation is to use the algorithm, and make no adjustments. Corvus Belli claims to use a calculation, but we know they hand adjust regardless. Though, Corvus Belli's Infinity is definitely way harder to balance than 40k, despite most units being similar in comparison, since they can do much more, and there's a lot of non damaging, and even non direct forms of attack that alter the battlefield.
They do, however, also have a lot of other balancing levers that they pull besides points. I do think points are extremely valuable, regardless. One important thing is that the Guardsmen equivalents are 10 points, and the Space Marine ones are like 30 to 40 points. There's a rough Primarch equivalent (The Avatar) that sits at 126 points, if I remember correctly. In addition, adding and removing some rules is something they do occasionally. Avatar lost Remote Presence recently, so repairing it is much harder.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I don't think the recommendation is to use the algorithm, and make no adjustments. Corvus Belli claims to use a calculation, but we know they hand adjust regardless. Though, Corvus Belli's Infinity is definitely way harder to balance than 40k, despite most units being similar in comparison, since they can do much more, and there's a lot of non damaging, and even non direct forms of attack that alter the battlefield.
They do, however, also have a lot of other balancing levers that they pull besides points. I do think points are extremely valuable, regardless. One important thing is that the Guardsmen equivalents are 10 points, and the Space Marine ones are like 30 to 40 points. There's a rough Primarch equivalent (The Avatar) that sits at 126 points, if I remember correctly. In addition, adding and removing some rules is something they do occasionally. Avatar lost Remote Presence recently, so repairing it is much harder.
Re-read my post above - even with algorithms way more complex than n*pHit*pWound*(1-pSv) adjustments/weights are mandatory to reflect unit/weapon proliferation, but you still end up with only vaguely useful results.
I cannot stress enough that this is not that difficult. GW is wedded to 6-sided dice, so the probabilities are ludicrously easy to calculate. It's not at all hard to do a matrix showing odds to hit, wound, and penetrate armor. One can then develop a matrix for this, run simulated combats and figure out a points system that reflects relative worth on the battlefield.
The only problem with your approach is… it doesn’t work. Like - at all. A) your offense calculations will only provide a vague ballpark of efficiency if the system is linear. As soon as there are any modifiers that come from the target unit, it breaks completely. B) it is even worse for durability calculations, which always depend on the shooting unit, but you then try to apply a cost to the target unit. C) you still end up with the need of statistical balance, so why bother? You only need two or three iterations of simulated combats to establish the same rough starting value. D) point costs established in statistical way are only meaningful in large scale statistical context and are inadequate in the scale of single match, especially if mission context is not set in stone and there are too differing list archetypes in the system. Your true relative value of units will change from game to game, and since point systems are static, they can never account for that.
Seriously people - it is not like ALL game designers are incompetent for some cosmic reason and the proper answer to decades long problem of wargame balance is middle school math..
The system does not need to be linear, you can change the values to make sure that if unit X2+ and X6+ are the same except one has a 2+ Sv and the other has a 6+ Sv then the you can make the values align such that X2+ is more pts-efficient into units with 0AP and X6+ is more efficient into units with 3AP. Units should not provide drastically different values between different missions in a single mission set. If you create a sneaky mission set then you can either change the points costs of the units that are better than the official mission set and vice versa or you can just embrace that sneaky units should be good in the sneaky mission set. Anti-tank lists should be good against tank lists and bad against infantry lists, someone rolling all 6s should beat someone rolling all 1s, perfect balance in every match has never been the goal.
I was pleasantly surprised with the performance of the pts calculator for a fan version of 40k posted by someone here on Dakka, but to me it seems like it'd be less work to simply review some numbers in relation to other numbers, like how pts-efficient a unit is vs lascannons, lasguns or plasma and against Guardsmen, Space Marines or Land Raiders because you're never going to get a wrong number out of that, the only question is how to interpret the data, but a pts calculator does not promote interpretation but still requires it when it comes to more unique abilities and traits anyway, whether abilities are additive or multiplicative to the value of unit x or unit y is hard to say. In any case I think there is still a large space left for competitive playtesters to ferret out broken combos and annual pts updates based on casual and competitive feedback from the whole community.
Kind of think 40k at least does work off "middle school math" - which is why people can see a codex and almost instantly go "this is too good", or "this will be bad" by just doing a 1:1 comparison with 40k as it is.
I continue to think this idea that a lascannon is worth X in this meta and Y in that meta misses the wood for the trees.
In 40k imbalance is usually more obvious. Lets say faction A can get a unit with 4 lascannons for 150 points. And now a new codex comes out for faction B. They have a unit with effectively 4 lascannons...and its just 100 points. Whether lascannons are good or bad doesn't matter - faction B's unit is just going to be better than the unit in faction A. If faction A brings 2 of its 150 point units, faction B can bring 3 of its similar units (or 2 and something else). And unsurprisingly 3 will tend to beat 2 barring an unusual outcome in the dice.
It doesn't matter whether lascannons are good or lascannons are bad. We know faction A's lascannons are overcosted. If we got to the point where everyone's "4 Lascannon unit" was say 100 points, you may find that the meta evolves so lascannons are good or bad relatively to everyone's tanks.
We don't get that though. Because there are imbalances throughout the game. As a result everyone takes their respective "good stuff". That could be their lascannons, their assault units, their monsters or tanks. Whatever they have that is points efficient relative to the rest of 40k. If you don't have any units that have that "power for point" your faction is not going to do very well.
We see the idea that you can have "bad units" that you take to compensate "good units" - but by and large that just doesn't happen. You don't take bad units. If your faction has incredibly inefficient lascannons, you just hope you won't need them. And if you do well, you'll lose that game. But if you take them you'll lose to even more armies, because its inefficient and now bad against even more stuff.
GW are seemingly aware of this and their internal-codex balancing for 9th has been much better than previous editions. But external balancing continues to be a bit more random because they can't stop making stuff just a bit more powerful for the points.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I don't think the recommendation is to use the algorithm, and make no adjustments. Corvus Belli claims to use a calculation, but we know they hand adjust regardless. Though, Corvus Belli's Infinity is definitely way harder to balance than 40k, despite most units being similar in comparison, since they can do much more, and there's a lot of non damaging, and even non direct forms of attack that alter the battlefield.
They do, however, also have a lot of other balancing levers that they pull besides points. I do think points are extremely valuable, regardless. One important thing is that the Guardsmen equivalents are 10 points, and the Space Marine ones are like 30 to 40 points. There's a rough Primarch equivalent (The Avatar) that sits at 126 points, if I remember correctly. In addition, adding and removing some rules is something they do occasionally. Avatar lost Remote Presence recently, so repairing it is much harder.
Re-read my post above - even with algorithms way more complex than n*pHit*pWound*(1-pSv) adjustments/weights are mandatory to reflect unit/weapon proliferation, but you still end up with only vaguely useful results.
It's not vaguely useful if you actually use them, which is not what GW does. It's also still not a reason to not attempt at all.
If it were as difficult as you proclaim it to be, other games would be just as bad about it. Why is 40k always the one where it's a common occurrence compared to other games making a mistake here and there?
Tyel wrote: Kind of think 40k at least does work off "middle school math" - which is why people can see a codex and almost instantly go "this is too good", or "this will be bad" by just doing a 1:1 comparison with 40k as it is.
I continue to think this idea that a lascannon is worth X in this meta and Y in that meta misses the wood for the trees.
In 40k imbalance is usually more obvious. Lets say faction A can get a unit with 4 lascannons for 150 points. And now a new codex comes out for faction B. They have a unit with effectively 4 lascannons...and its just 100 points. Whether lascannons are good or bad doesn't matter - faction B's unit is just going to be better than the unit in faction A. If faction A brings 2 of its 150 point units, faction B can bring 3 of its similar units (or 2 and something else). And unsurprisingly 3 will tend to beat 2 barring an unusual outcome in the dice.
Really? You really think if right now you handed a BS3 marine squad (A) 4 Lacannons @150pts & a Bs5 Ork squad (B) 4 Lascannons @100 pts that the Ork version would be better? And all we're doing is discussing the LCs, not # of models in squad, their saves, LD etc.
Tyel wrote: Kind of think 40k at least does work off "middle school math" - which is why people can see a codex and almost instantly go "this is too good", or "this will be bad" by just doing a 1:1 comparison with 40k as it is.
I continue to think this idea that a lascannon is worth X in this meta and Y in that meta misses the wood for the trees.
In 40k imbalance is usually more obvious. Lets say faction A can get a unit with 4 lascannons for 150 points. And now a new codex comes out for faction B. They have a unit with effectively 4 lascannons...and its just 100 points. Whether lascannons are good or bad doesn't matter - faction B's unit is just going to be better than the unit in faction A. If faction A brings 2 of its 150 point units, faction B can bring 3 of its similar units (or 2 and something else). And unsurprisingly 3 will tend to beat 2 barring an unusual outcome in the dice.
Really? You really think if right now you handed a BS3 marine squad (A) 4 Lacannons @150pts & a Bs5 Ork squad (B) 4 Lascannons @100 pts that the Ork version would be better? And all we're doing is discussing the LCs, not # of models in squad, their saves, LD etc.
I think he was talking performance calculus using middle school math.
If "unit X" is a fire support unit from Faction A, and provides good fire support for 150 points, and "unit z" is a fire support unit from Faction B and provides good fire support for 100 pts, then Faction B's unit z is better than Faction A's unit X.
Unit X is overcosted, because it does the same thing as Unit Z for a higher price. Therefore, unit X will never get taken, and Faction A will rely on unit Y, which is 100 points for good melee. Because bringing actively overpriced units is bad.
I think he was talking performance calculus using middle school math.
If "unit X" is a fire support unit from Faction A, and provides good fire support for 150 points, and "unit z" is a fire support unit from Faction B and provides good fire support for 100 pts, then Faction B's unit z is better than Faction A's unit X.
Unit X is overcosted, because it does the same thing as Unit Z for a higher price. Therefore, unit X will never get taken, and Faction A will rely on unit Y, which is 100 points for good melee. Because bringing actively overpriced units is bad.
Yeah.
I mean in this case, lets say the Marines get 4 BS3+ Lascannons for 150 points. The Orks get 4 BS5+ Lascannons for 100 points.
With very simplistic expected outcomes, the Marines expect to get 2.66 lascannon hits for 150 points. The Orks expect to get 1.33 hits for 100 points. At 150 points that's 2 hits. 2.66 is better than 2.
You could also move up to more complicated probabilistic outcomes - and what you'd find is that due to that BS5+ the Orks have a much higher chance of completely failing with their 4 lascannons - i.e. doing zero damage -- which is also an issue when you want to plan out a game.
You do have to factor in other stats - defences, movement, synergistic buffs etc but the package is still there. When we see 70% win rates (or 30% win rates) we are not looking at subtle imbalances. For the same points you are getting more power. That may be better weapons or defensive stats or movement/objective manipulation (which has become more of a thing in 9th).
nou wrote: The only problem with your approach is… it doesn’t work. Like - at all.
Sure it does, but only if the designer wants it to.
First, we have to set aside situational modifiers because that's where tactics come in. A unit worth 1/3 the points of its opponent can (and should) be able to defeat it if it has a significant advantage in position. That's the whole point of playing the game.
What points do is establish a baseline of relative capabilities that can be quantified to generate some sort of balance.
That being said, a game designer who decides to spam the system with special rules (especially ones that have an if/then element to them) is making their job unnecessarily difficult. Indeed, the more you cram into the profile, description, chrome, etc., the less normal tactics matter and what you're left with is the Special Rules Derby.
I mean, this is where we get situations where certain army lists simply can't be beaten. GW is famous for this. That's not the fault of their points, it's a fundamental design flaw.
nou wrote: The only problem with your approach is… it doesn’t work. Like - at all.
Sure it does, but only if the designer wants it to.
First, we have to set aside situational modifiers because that's where tactics come in. A unit worth 1/3 the points of its opponent can (and should) be able to defeat it if it has a significant advantage in position. That's the whole point of playing the game.
What points do is establish a baseline of relative capabilities that can be quantified to generate some sort of balance.
That being said, a game designer who decides to spam the system with special rules (especially ones that have an if/then element to them) is making their job unnecessarily difficult. Indeed, the more you cram into the profile, description, chrome, etc., the less normal tactics matter and what you're left with is the Special Rules Derby.
I mean, this is where we get situations where certain army lists simply can't be beaten. GW is famous for this. That's not the fault of their points, it's a fundamental design flaw.
You don't even try to understand, what I'm writing about, do you? The table above has no special rules, it is raw math based on 8 independent parameters, four for defense and four for offense. Barebones of a wargame system and you still can't balance it with points, not even to a "good enough" level, not via algorithms, not via "simulated battles", not via tournament data. Points will always be off in one context or another. This is why best balanced wargames employ non-point based mechanisms - their designers simply "know their gak".
All I ever read on this forum from pro-points crowd is "it can work, designers just have to try harder", even though every game designer will tell you otherwise, because fundamental wargames math just doesn't work that way... It reminds me of all those perpetuum mobile enthusiasts, that claim their designs would work if they just manage to get rid of that pesky friction...
nou wrote: Barebones of a wargame system and you still can't balance it with points, not even to a "good enough" level, not via algorithms, not via "simulated battles", not via tournament data. Points will always be off in one context or another. This is why best balanced wargames employ non-point based mechanisms - their designers simply "know their gak".
Infinity uses a points system and accomplishes pretty good balance.
It may not be 'best balanced', but it doesn't need to be. And the alternative constraints needed to create that 'best balance' may not be desirable mechanics for a given game.
nou wrote: even though every game designer will tell you otherwise
I've heard successful designers emphasize that points are a shaping mechanism and are not a sole source of balance, just one tool among many.
I've never heard them say that points systems are irredeemably worthless and the only way to design a decent game is not to use them at all.
nou wrote: Barebones of a wargame system and you still can't balance it with points, not even to a "good enough" level, not via algorithms, not via "simulated battles", not via tournament data. Points will always be off in one context or another. This is why best balanced wargames employ non-point based mechanisms - their designers simply "know their gak".
Infinity uses a points system and accomplishes pretty good balance.
It may not be 'best balanced', but it doesn't need to be. And the alternative constraints needed to create that 'best balance' may not be desirable mechanics for a given game.
nou wrote: even though every game designer will tell you otherwise
I've heard successful designers emphasize that points are a shaping mechanism and are not a sole source of balance, just one tool among many.
I've never heard them say that points systems are irredeemably worthless and the only way to design a decent game is not to use them at all.
They are worthless as a balance mechanism, convenient as a shaping tool and good as game size tool. That’s about it. But the most important reason to include them is because playerbase expect them to be there and go bonkers if you remove them.
nou wrote: Barebones of a wargame system and you still can't balance it with points, not even to a "good enough" level, not via algorithms, not via "simulated battles", not via tournament data. Points will always be off in one context or another. This is why best balanced wargames employ non-point based mechanisms - their designers simply "know their gak".
Infinity uses a points system and accomplishes pretty good balance.
It may not be 'best balanced', but it doesn't need to be. And the alternative constraints needed to create that 'best balance' may not be desirable mechanics for a given game.
nou wrote: even though every game designer will tell you otherwise
I've heard successful designers emphasize that points are a shaping mechanism and are not a sole source of balance, just one tool among many.
I've never heard them say that points systems are irredeemably worthless and the only way to design a decent game is not to use them at all.
They are worthless as a balance mechanism, convenient as a shaping tool and good as game size tool. That’s about it. But the most important reason to include them is because playerbase expect them to be there and go bonkers if you remove them.
nou wrote: All I ever read on this forum from pro-points crowd is "it can work, designers just have to try harder", even though every game designer will tell you otherwise, because fundamental wargames math just doesn't work that way... It reminds me of all those perpetuum mobile enthusiasts, that claim their designs would work if they just manage to get rid of that pesky friction...
This game designer uses points, and they work. Deal with it.
What you are saying is you came up with a system that defies a numerical representation of relative combat value. That's quite remarkable. How do you balance it, then? Algebra?
All I ever read on this forum from pro-points crowd is "it can work, designers just have to try harder", even though every game designer will tell you otherwise, because fundamental wargames math just doesn't work that way...
We know it can work because we've seen it work. And by "work" we mean "good enough for the job at hand". And in most cases there are other systems that work in conjunction with points to help achieve that "close enough" balance.
But you need to really define your balance objectives here. "Perfect balance" as far as I'm concerned, is not "any army should be an even match with any other army of equal points value on any table". If you're chasing that, you're chasing the wrong thing, and probably going to harm the design ecosystem more than help it.
EviscerationPlague wrote:
If it were as difficult as you proclaim it to be, other games would be just as bad about it. Why is 40k always the one where it's a common occurrence compared to other games making a mistake here and there?
Size of community plays a big part. Gw has a player base size yhat is orders of magnitude greater than others - and vastly greater online traffic. Heck it wouldn't surprise me if gw had more retail staff than some games have players.
If those other games were played/exploited/scrutinised by a community the size of the one that plays 40k to the extent that it plays/exploits and scrutinises 40k, and put it all online, you'd see very little difference in the tone or direction of the arguments (designers are useless, X is broken, y is underpowered etc etc) and even then, go to the discussion spaces of those games. Grass ain't greener.
'Here and there' is cute, but its not the reality. Ive played plenty warganes and pretty much all of them had issues, whether x-wing, wmh, infinity, fow etc. 5 minutes googling will.point to problem.builds, crutches and go-to approaches and unplayable factions.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Sure it does, but only if the designer wants it to.
.
'Context' wants a word with you.
Seemingly no designer wants their games to actually work based on what you say. This is a 'no true scotsman' scenario and a colossal disservice to games designers everywhere. Points are a.roufh accounting system with serious limitations and very limited load-bearing abilities and that's about it.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
This game designer uses points, and they work. Deal with it.
Half right. The game uses points. But while they 'function' and allowing games to be used (or rather, manipulated and exploited) they don't actually 'work' as imagined/conceived here - as testified by an Internets worth of 'proposed rules etc' and 40 years of the community complaining about it . Nou is corrext, it's not that they 'work', it's that their use is 'expected', regardless of their inherent limitations and problems. Its a game shaping mechanism, not an 'accurate value' provider.
Insectum7 wrote:
We know it can work because we've seen it work. And by "work" we mean "good enough for the job at hand". And in most cases there are other systems that work in conjunction with points to help achieve that "close enough" balance.
But you need to really define your balance objectives here. "Perfect balance" as far as I'm concerned, is not "any army should be an even match with any other army of equal points value on any table". If you're chasing that, you're chasing the wrong thing, and probably going to harm the design ecosystem more than help it.
Have we? Have we really 'seen it work'?
I guarantee you weve seen it 'used', but we've all also seen it fall short far more often than we've seen it work, especially at higher levels and at the system level.
But please, can you define 'good enough' from.your pov because that term always seems to be a moving goalpost. As you say, perfect balance doesn't exist exist, bit anytime I dig down into 'good enough' there is so little daylight between that and the 'perfect balsnce' that can't exist, it becomes an exercise in semantics.
'Good enough' implies 'an accepted level of problematic elements and mismatchrs', so please, how much of the game is allowed to be unplayable to be 'good enough'. How much of the potential lists are allowed to be 'mismatches'? How much of the game can be accepted to be 'above' the power curve and dominate the rest of the game at the expense of the rest. How 'big' a game are we talking in terms of # of factions and # of unique units/roster choices. Etc. Not a gotcha. Just trying to nail down a very nebulous idea.
You're right though - points on their own are pointless. The 'other systems' carry more weight. When I played wmh for example, it wasn't some brilliantly conceived ratio of value-numbers, it was 'dual lists, multiple win conditions, and massive damage output as opposed to.survivability (ie you could kill the damn thing) that made it a more 'empowering' game. Even then, whilst 'better', wmh has an awful.lot of broken elements.
They [points] are worthless as a balance mechanism
This is just patently absurd and wrong. Even a moment's thought makes it obvious that doing something like halving the cost of every unit in a given Codex would instantly upset the balance of the game. An extreme example, but no less so than your statement.
Points are certainly not the only balancing mechanism you can use, and in many cases they are not the optimal lever to pull to achieve balance. To say they are worthless for balance just makes it hard to take anything else you say seriously. Yes, I know you'll tell us all about your games designer credentials and go on and on about how us amateurs have no idea what we're talking about, but that doesn't change the reality that your statement is obviously false. Other games achieve better balance than GW manages, and they use points as one part of that balance process. At various points in the past we've seen GW games being more balanced than they are now - again, using points as part of that.
I think GW do struggle with the non-points parts of their balance, though. 40k in particular has been gradually losing a lot of the other mechanisms that can help balance a game. The terrain rules are very loose, especially as far as defining what sort and quantity of terrain should be used. Army selection has gradually become less and less restricted, to the point that 10th looks very much like a free-for-all at this point (might not be the case once we know more about the system). We've seen a lot of cases where rules need to be tweaked because points can't properly deal with situations like entire armies having "fight on death" abilities, for example. Secondary missions provide other ways to achieve, or skew, balance and GW have been pretty bad at dealing with those over the course of 9th, IMO.
Insectum7 wrote:
We know it can work because we've seen it work. And by "work" we mean "good enough for the job at hand". And in most cases there are other systems that work in conjunction with points to help achieve that "close enough" balance.
But you need to really define your balance objectives here. "Perfect balance" as far as I'm concerned, is not "any army should be an even match with any other army of equal points value on any table". If you're chasing that, you're chasing the wrong thing, and probably going to harm the design ecosystem more than help it.
Have we? Have we really 'seen it work'?
I guarantee you weve seen it 'used', but we've all also seen it fall short far more often than we've seen it work, especially at higher levels and at the system level.
But please, can you define 'good enough' from.your pov because that term always seems to be a moving goalpost. As you say, perfect balance doesn't exist exist, bit anytime I dig down into 'good enough' there is so little daylight between that and the 'perfect balsnce' that can't exist, it becomes an exercise in semantics.
'Good enough' implies 'an accepted level of problematic elements and mismatchrs', so please, how much of the game is allowed to be unplayable to be 'good enough'. How much of the potential lists are allowed to be 'mismatches'? How much of the game can be accepted to be 'above' the power curve and dominate the rest of the game at the expense of the rest. How 'big' a game are we talking in terms of # of factions and # of unique units/roster choices. Etc. Not a gotcha. Just trying to nail down a very nebulous idea.
You're right though - points on their own are pointless. The 'other systems' carry more weight. When I played wmh for example, it wasn't some brilliantly conceived ratio of value-numbers, it was 'dual lists, multiple win conditions, and massive damage output as opposed to.survivability (ie you could kill the damn thing) that made it a more 'empowering' game. Even then, whilst 'better', wmh has an awful.lot of broken elements.
If you want a wide variation in unit capabilities, plus a large amount of freedom in how armies are composed, you will always encounter the potential for skew and mismatch between armies on the table. On top of that, if you want the wargame to be worth a damn, terrain needs to be an essential aspect of gameplay and maneuver, which translates to units gaining or loosing value depending on the table setup. This is why it can't be "perfectly balanced".
But all of these things, unit diversity, freedom of force creation, and impact of terrain, are positive features of the game that I would be very careful about messing with. Points works great as a "rough estimate of value" within the framework of understading that "value" is very far from absolute. "It is a bit of an art", as Andy Chambers said.
And yes, we've seen the game achieve healthy balance from time to time. The levers exist to make it happen, but GW also has a vested interest in churn.
Deadnight wrote: 'Good enough' implies 'an accepted level of problematic elements and mismatchrs', so please, how much of the game is allowed to be unplayable to be 'good enough'. How much of the potential lists are allowed to be 'mismatches'? How much of the game can be accepted to be 'above' the power curve and dominate the rest of the game at the expense of the rest. How 'big' a game are we talking in terms of # of factions and # of unique units/roster choices. Etc. Not a gotcha. Just trying to nail down a very nebulous idea.
To my mind at least the idea of a balanced game is one where a top player can select any faction, put together a vaguely coherent list, and expect to get to the top level of a tournament, in accordance with their skill.
So at the first level, this means every codex having a "good stuff list" that is in the current standard. Rather than say 2-3 factions overwhelmingly dominating tournament placings and having huge win%. Based on the tournament wins we've seen - 9th isn't actually too far off this at the moment. Clearly some factions are favoured, but there isn't one that's obviously crushing the meta underfoot with say a 70% win rate and winning half the tournaments. We have however seen such before and we probably will again. A new codex will come out with units that are just far too cheap in points for the power they bring to the table.
The second level would be expanding this so factions have multiple competitive builds. This is a bit canned strategy and so may produce hostility. But lets say for example your faction's "good stuff" is your close combat units, with your close combat subfaction, along with your close-combat support characters. Its a shame that your shooting subfaction, with shooting units, and your shooting-support characters isn't "in the standard". In most circumstances I think this could be fixed with points - although changing rules can work too. Meta can play into this - but usually its just that the package as a whole is relatively overcosted and so inefficient versus other stuff in the game.
If however someone takes close combat units, with the shooting subfaction, with characters who buff tanks (when you don't have any), its not surprising they are at a bit of a disadvantage. Their army doesn't synergise - it wasn't obviously ever meant to synergise. The fact it will tend to do worse than one that does isn't a balance concern. In the same way that if you bring an army that's 100% paper, its not imbalance if you run into a list which is 100% scissors. The preferred level of power gap in both situations can be debated. If the level of power in subfactions is massive then synergising that will have a much bigger impact than if its a much more marginal boost.
I'm afraid I can't see how "points are pointless" - because points are what determine what you have on the table. If you think a faction is "too good" have the player running it build a list, and then leave a unit or two at home - effectively simulating a points increase. It will now perform worse. The remaining units are the same - but as a package you now have less offensive power, its more fragile and it has less board control/scope for claiming objectives. Or you can do it the other way and have a faction that's "too bad" bring along another unit or two. They'll get the reverse - more damage output, less fragile and more board control.
Again, Infinity exists and is doing quite well with a points-based system.
And yeah, I agree with Tyel. 'Good enough' is where two competent players can put together coherent (ie synergistic) lists and each have a decent shot at winning. If your choice of faction puts you on uneven footing from the start, or if your unit choices are based more on picking good units and avoiding bad ones rather than on complementing roles, you aren't there.
Since I don’t like going in circles and the level of misconceptions in this thread is through the roof, one last post from me on „why there are points in wargames”. This time from the bottom up.
So, you want to design a wargame. You start by deciding, that you want it scalable for easy entry and gradual purchases, so you’ll make it playable at four size levels. Bam! Right here, right now you have introduced a point system into your game. Feth… It is obviously a terrible point system with the granularity of just 4pts, but nevertheless it is there, so you may as well use it for something*. But you have to divide those points into bite sized chunks if you want to include any meaningful listbuilding, otherwise there is hardly any choice for the player at this stage. But you can’t use fractions, because little Timmy’s head would explode if he sees a comma anywhere, so you have to use natural numbers to not limit you playerbase. So you go up. When it comes to natural divisors, base12 is your friend. But wait, you can’t use it straight, your community will freak out if they see a letter in a number. So you write your game sizes as 12, 24, 36 and 48 pts. Neat. If your game is a small one-off with well established scale, you can call it a day. But you want to be rich and famous, so you decide to futureproof it for all those expansions, seasons, and whatnot. So you increase the granularity of your point structure/size system twofold. Good, you can now ditch remanants of base12 entirely, round your game sizes to 25, 50, 75 and 100 and players will never even know what just happened. You can now proceed to choose and implement a balancing mechanism into your game - a sideboard/cross-tailoring/dynamic summoning/strict FOC/mandatory-non-combat-abilities-that-act-as-FOC-but-players-don’t-realise-that etc and then finally start working on base parameters, resolution mechanics, unit paradigms, factions, fluff etc… Now, does this game have a point system? Yes. Is it used for balance? Not at all. Does the playerbase think it does? Of course, it is there, point values differ, so it must contribute to balance in substantial way. Does the playerbase then demand increasing granularity to 40,000pts so it can „increase balance” enough, that TheMostImportantProblem of 1pts bolter upgrade can be „solved” once and for all? Yes again. Why? Because players know gak about game design.
*there is a way to avoid increasing the granularity of this 4pts system any further and avoid the problem of community obsessing over point balance in your game entirely. You just have to plant trees - use strict FOC. Either design it for the smallest game size and use multiples for larger games, or design one for each size. But this approach has a serious drawback - you have just deliberately hindered your sales by excluding all obsessive listbuilders from your playerbase by removing the „listbuilding sudoku” in-beetween games part of the hobby. You have also limited the space for post game social activity of complaining about point balance and denied yourself an income from chasing the rabbit. So you go back a step and go the point structure route, you want to be rich and famous after all. You may as well go „all in”, increase your granularity and release quarterly „balance updates” that merely shift your stock demand around.
Contrary to popular belief, game designers know perfectly well, what they try to achieve - a cow they can then milk endlessly.
That’s all folks. Have a nice time chasing rabbits.
EviscerationPlague wrote:
If it were as difficult as you proclaim it to be, other games would be just as bad about it. Why is 40k always the one where it's a common occurrence compared to other games making a mistake here and there?
Size of community plays a big part. Gw has a player base size yhat is orders of magnitude greater than others - and vastly greater online traffic. Heck it wouldn't surprise me if gw had more retail staff than some games have players.
If those other games were played/exploited/scrutinised by a community the size of the one that plays 40k to the extent that it plays/exploits and scrutinises 40k, and put it all online, you'd see very little difference in the tone or direction of the arguments (designers are useless, X is broken, y is underpowered etc etc) and even then, go to the discussion spaces of those games. Grass ain't greener.
'Here and there' is cute, but its not the reality. Ive played plenty warganes and pretty much all of them had issues, whether x-wing, wmh, infinity, fow etc. 5 minutes googling will.point to problem.builds, crutches and go-to approaches and unplayable factions.
Source: Trust me, bro
Grass is absolutely greener. If 40k were being released today without its IP backing, it would 100% be laughed at. No other game is bad about this, as much as you want to proclaim "no it totally is".
Insectum7 wrote:
If you want a wide variation in unit capabilities, plus a large amount of freedom in how armies are composed, you will always encounter the potential for skew and mismatch between armies on the table. On top of that, if you want the wargame to be worth a damn, terrain needs to be an essential aspect of gameplay and maneuver, which translates to units gaining or loosing value depending on the table setup. This is why it can't be "perfectly balanced".
But all of these things, unit diversity, freedom of force creation, and impact of terrain, are positive features of the game that I would be very careful about messing with. Points works great as a "rough estimate of value" within the framework of understading that "value" is very far from absolute. "It is a bit of an art", as Andy Chambers said.
And yes, we've seen the game achieve healthy balance from time to time. The levers exist to make it happen, but GW also has a vested interest in churn.
The only thing I disagree with is saying the game has achieved a healthy balance from time to time. I've played since third. That was never the case. There have always been broken.codices, underpowered codices, go-to builds etc. Everything else is stuff I'd agree with, no question. If I was a cheeky git and you said that to ne in the gdmimg club, I'd buy you a beer and say no <expletive> sherlock and we'd both laugh and enjoy our beers.
And you didn't answer my question. :p
so please, how much of the game is allowed to be unplayable to be 'good enough'. How much of the potential lists are allowed to be 'mismatched'? How much of the game can be accepted to be 'above' the power curve and dominate the rest of the game at the expense of the rest. How 'big' a game are we talking in terms of # of factions and # of unique units/roster choices. Etc. Not a gotcha. Just trying to nail down a very nebulous idea.
Tyel wrote:
To my mind at least the idea of a balanced game is one where a top player can select any faction, put together a vaguely coherent list, and expect to get to the top level of a tournament, in accordance with their skill.
So at the first level, this means every codex having a "good stuff list" that is in the current standard. Rather than say 2-3 factions overwhelmingly dominating tournament placings and having huge win%. Based on the tournament wins we've seen - 9th isn't actually too far off this at the moment. Clearly some factions are favoured, but there isn't one that's obviously crushing the meta underfoot with say a 70% win rate and winning half the tournaments. We have however seen such before and we probably will again. A new codex will come out with units that are just far too cheap in points for the power they bring to the table.
The second level would be expanding this so factions have multiple competitive builds. This is a bit canned strategy and so may produce hostility. But lets say for example your faction's "good stuff" is your close combat units, with your close combat subfaction, along with your close-combat support characters. Its a shame that your shooting subfaction, with shooting units, and your shooting-support characters isn't "in the standard". In most circumstances I think this could be fixed with points - although changing rules can work too. Meta can play into this - but usually its just that the package as a whole is relatively overcosted and so inefficient versus other stuff in the game.
If however someone takes close combat units, with the shooting subfaction, with characters who buff tanks (when you don't have any), its not surprising they are at a bit of a disadvantage. Their army doesn't synergise - it wasn't obviously ever meant to synergise. The fact it will tend to do worse than one that does isn't a balance concern. In the same way that if you bring an army that's 100% paper, its not imbalance if you run into a list which is 100% scissors. The preferred level of power gap in both situations can be debated. If the level of power in subfactions is massive then synergising that will have a much bigger impact than if its a much more marginal boost.
And respectfully, you didn't answer beyond vague notions of 'some good stuff' and 'something something take the the optimum builds in your codex, ignore the rear or its your fault'. Which is just plugging the status quo of gw list-creation for the last 20 years. please, how much of the game is allowed to be unplayable to be 'good enough'. How much of the potential lists are allowed to be 'mismatched'? How much of the game can be accepted to be 'above' the power curve and dominate the rest of the game at the expense of the rest. How much of the game can be 'left behind' for your tournament winning list? How 'big' a game are we talking in terms of # of factions and # of unique units/roster choices. Etc. Not a gotcha. Just trying to nail down a very nebulous iidea.
Also, there is morecto the gaming ecosystem than tournaments.
Tyel wrote:
I'm afraid I can't see how "points are pointless" - because points are what determine what you have on the table. If you think a faction is "too good" have the player running it build a list, and then leave a unit or two at home - effectively simulating a points increase. It will now perform worse. The remaining units are the same - but as a package you now have less offensive power, its more fragile and it has less board control/scope for claiming objectives. Or you can do it the other way and have a faction that's "too bad" bring along another unit or two. They'll get the reverse - more damage output, less fragile and more board control.
'Pointless' might be the wrong word (i prefer limited value), but the certainty in them is. people believe in points like people believe in the divine. When it comes to points I'm an atheist. :p
Firstly, points aren't the only approach that determines what you have on the board. More recent games are stepping away from this notion - gw's kill-team doesn't have points-based games/factions. Neither does privateer press' warcaster NM. games like chain of Command likewise are designed differently as well.
Secondly youve just answered it and demonstrated the limitation of points. The whole point of points is they are a singular/universal in-game currency thst is supposed to capture the 'value' of a thing. And as you just demonstrate, 1500pts is not equal.to 1500pts if one has to take more than 1500pts and the other has to take less than that to be 'equal'. Thing is, it's not absolute. Context matters. Something worth 1500 in one context might be worth a thousand in another and two thousand in another.simultaneously for all units in a game. Ergo the fundamental promise of 'points' that they are supposed to denote 'accurate value' is flawed snd they are a contributory factor to the imbalance in a system. Its not a case of finding a perfect ratio. Its a fundamentally unsollvable equation until they can self-mutate to account for context. Which they dont. Folks above talk about 'good enough' being 'every faction has a viable tournament build' whilst ignoring how much of the game is left behind. That's not 'good enough' for me.
Again, Infinity exists and is doing quite well with a points-based system.
And yeah, I agree with Tyel. 'Good enough' is where two competent players can put together coherent (ie synergistic) lists and each have a decent shot at winning. If your choice of faction puts you on uneven footing from the start, or if your unit choices are based more on picking good units and avoiding bad ones rather than on complementing roles, you aren't there.
So if a game has two dominant builds, by your definition its 'good enough'? Or would you think more than 'two builds'. Which goes back to my question of how much of the game is allowed to be above the curve at thr expense of the rest.
I dont disagree on infinity - its a retty good game (great models), but there have been various times in the past where there were issues (not clued up on n4). I recall 'specialists' being overly valuable and link-teams/sectoral forces being a lower tier. Also note - more limited scale and scope which helps enormously. As a humorous adide, I've seen more than one player call infinity an 'unplayable mess', which I found hysterical at the time (it's perfectly playable!)
Grass is absolutely greener. If 40k were being released today without its IP backing, it would 100% be laughed at. No other game is bad about this, as much as you want to proclaim "no it totally is".
Aka played them for nigh on twenty years. So there's that. ^shrug^. Remember years of 'cryx and legion ruin the game. Epic haley is broken' in wmh for example. Whole game was solved down to a handful of go to builds.
So go and play those games then 'bro'. Hope you enjoy them too. Theres plrnty good ones. Just font bevsurprised when you are exposed to the same amount of problems.
And learn some reading comprehension. You have none.
Deadnight wrote: So if a game has two dominant builds, by your definition its 'good enough'? Or would you think more than 'two builds'. Which goes back to my question of how much of the game is allowed to be above the curve at thr expense of the rest.
I dont disagree on infinity - its a retty good game (great models), but there have been various times in the past where there were issues (not clued up on n4). I recall 'specialists' being overly valuable and link-teams/sectoral forces being a lower tier. Also note - more limited scale and scope which helps enormously. As a humorous adide, I've seen more than one player call infinity an 'unplayable mess', which I found hysterical at the time (it's perfectly playable!)
If a game has only two viable builds, I'd file that squarely under 'your unit choices are based more on picking good units and avoiding bad ones', to the degree that there is a single viable combination for each of two factions and that's it.
Yes, Infinity has had balance issues before. But that's only a condemnation of points if you're expecting 'perfect balance', something I only ever see brought up as a straw man. I don't expect points systems to be flawless, and I don't expect them to always work on release without tweaking, forever optimal no matter what gameplay changes or new units the designers introduce. There will be problems, there will be imbalances, but if you can tweak points to make the game more balanced than it was previously, then the points system is serving a valuable purpose.
Do you need a 40K-style points system to produce a balanced game? Of course not. But you need some form of constraint, and limited resources- points by any other name- are a pretty common one. They might be as abstract as a 2000pt limit, as generic as model count, or as specific and obfuscated as limited FOC slots, but functionally if you have a choice between multiple units and constraints that force you to only choose a subset, that's a points system.
Nou's pretty much just moving goalposts at this point and mistaking 'points are primarily a structuring mechanism' for 'points are worthless as a balance mechanism', which does not track with what I've seen from people who do this for a living.
If a game has only two viable builds, I'd file that squarely under 'your unit choices are based more on picking good units and avoiding bad ones', to the degree that there is a single viable combination for each of two factions and that's it.
For what it's worth I think we are pretty aligned on things - there's a lot of common ground.
Yes, Infinity has had balance issues before. But that's only a condemnation of points if you're expecting 'perfect balance', something I only ever see brought up as a straw man. I don't expect points systems to be flawless, and I don't expect them to always work on release without tweaking, forever optimal no matter what gameplay changes or new units the designers introduce. There will be problems, there will be imbalances, but if you can tweak points to make the game more balanced than it was previously, then the points system is serving a valuable purpose.
.
I don't see it as a condemnation of points only in terms of 'perfect balsnce', I see it as an acknowledgement of the limitations of the points as a mechanism for balance, especially a the main 'load bearing pillar' of a game.
Points are useful but to me they're the least useful lever to pull and really only to fine tune other things. When I played wmh, it wasn't 'points' that made the game more balanced, it was other structural tools. In my experience tweaking a value will always have a knock-on effect so I'm wary of it as thr go-to solution that so many clsim.it to be.
Do you need a 40K-style points system to produce a balanced game? Of course not. But you need some form of constraint, and limited resources- points by any other name- are a pretty common one. They might be as abstract as a 2000pt limit, as generic as model count, or as specific and obfuscated as limited FOC slots, but functionally if you have a choice between multiple units and constraints that force you to only choose a subset, that's a points system.
.
Hehe not to nitpick but i think that's a bit cheeky to call game structural tools as 'points by another name'. Its poor use of language. Things like foc and unit caps are not 'points'. Theyre different things. I find building terminology like 'load bearing' lends itself to far better andr more apt descriptive here. It just feels like calling every tool 'points but another name' is like calling every meet 'beef' because you can eat it and claiming the win.
That said, agreed that structural constraints in game-design/building are very useful. Foc, unit limitations, secondary costs *like infinity's swc', character limits (in wmh) across multiple lists etc.
Nou's pretty much just moving goalposts at this point and mistaking 'points are primarily a structuring mechanism' for 'points are worthless as a balance mechanism', which does not track with what I've seen from people who do this for a living.
I have a lot of time for nou. He has some very good ideas and a good handle on game design. I think his biggest issue is English isn't his first language combined with overly technical terminology. He's not wrong in what he says though
Let us take why points are for balancing games from the top. You want to create a game with four different game sizes to make the game accessible. You want people to select which of their miniatures they bring to battles. You know that people will gravitate towards the options that win more battles, which means taking the best possible pistol on every guy. You don't want people to be punished for building their miniatures wrong so you need some way to reward players for not picking the pistol with the best rules. Points costs for units and options is the easiest way to achieve this. It's that simple, this is why designers add points costs to their games. When games don't do this like AoS they become a mess. Now you can listen to the person who advocates for AoS1 method of game design and babbles about base 12 for no reason or the one with a modicum of sense and experience playtesting 40k fandexes. You cannot milk AoS1 endlessly, because rules can only get so ridiculous and people won't enjoy a broken game, once you have 12 pts worth of the most points-efficient thing in the game you're done, but in a imperfectly balanced game people have a reason to expand their collection to counter a shifting local meta and to surprise their opponents with new lists. You're not going to surprise 12 Wraithknights with 12 Wraithlords, you're going to get stomped by 12 Wraithknights with 12 Wraithlords. Anyone who has any experience testing a game knows that people are going to obsess over balance, only someone living in a fantasy world where we all use base 12 would believe you can avoid competitive human nature for everyone playing a game.
@Deadnight Not believing in points is like not believing in math. Very rarely will additional units provide zero or negative value, pawns in Chess have negative value at the highest levels of play I think, but in a game where you can move all your pieces before your opponent gets to move any of theirs your "pawns" won't block your other pieces much. At the very least you should be able to realise that a queen is more valuable than a rook or a bishop and if the price of a "queen" becomes too high and the player has to downgrade to a "rook" their list will become less powerful and less powerful lists will win less. List A and list B having respective values of 1400 and 1600 despite both being 1500 points is not an inherent limitation of points, it's just a temporary flaw in the numbers. Just like one relic being worth 40 pts while another is worth 10 pts but both taking up a single relic slot is not an inherent flaw in the relic system, but rather a temporary flaw in the balance of the rules for the two relics. If every faction has a 45-55% WR then that's good enough. If a faction has a 70% win rate into a given match-up that's a problem. If any option is an auto-include or a never include then that's a problem, with auto-includes being the bigger problem. Anti-tank lists winning against tank lists is a goal, not a failure. The game should encourage varied lists and thereby reduce the number of games which are too much like rock-paper-scissors ending before deployment to less than 10% of games, games where one list is favoured in a 2-1 ratio or less are perfectly fine.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The idea that points don't work is demonstrably false, both within 40k and other games.
I think points work in general. If you were to strip away the mission set in 40K right now and do just slap fights the disparities would be a lot more apparent and the unit selection wildly different. So in that sense the points and the missions work together to achieve a sort of rough balance. Terrain placement and rules are in there somewhere, too.
Look at all the free upgrades that didn't have an outsized impact.
Points are not the sole mechanism for balance, even in 40k.
But they are the finest (in terms of granularity, not quality).
For example, the Rule of 3 (2 for planes) is a balancing and structure mechanism that isn't points related. But the only way to adjust a unit in such a system is let it be 4 (3 for planes) or 2 (1 for planes).
If a unit is 10% better than it ought to be, removing the ability to take an entire other unit is a bit big. So there has to be a finer, more sensitive way to make adjustments.
Daedalus81 wrote: Look at all the free upgrades that didn't have an outsized impact.
Upgrades shouldn't be free either. Anything that makes you better should have an associated cost.
But I doubt 10th will have many upgrade points, as "Simpler, not simple!" will be GW's new excuse to abdicate their responsibilities in game design. Just having set points per unit is "simpler", after all, than all that messing about with paying points for upgrades.
@Deadnight Not believing in points is like not believing in math.
.
I believe in math just fine. I just do not believe that a single value in terms in 'game currency' can accurately account for its 'real worth', especially since 'context' has such a massive impact on this. And using this as a building block just means your are building in a massive amount of imbalance into the very foundations of your game.
List A and list B having respective values of 1400 and 1600 despite both being 1500 points is not an inherent limitation of points, it's just a temporary flaw in the numbers.
.
Its the exact same thing mate. You're missing the forest for the trees.
Althat 'temporary flaw' is multiplied axross every combination of units and list variation in the game ergo its a a systemic limitation.
You're treating points like a zealot regards the divine.
Deadnight wrote: Points are useful but to me they're the least useful lever to pull and really only to fine tune other things. When I played wmh, it wasn't 'points' that made the game more balanced, it was other structural tools. In my experience tweaking a value will always have a knock-on effect so I'm wary of it as thr go-to solution that so many clsim.it to be.
Again, I don't really see people claim that points are the go-to solution for balance. People might disagree over the ideal form of other restrictions- eg FOC vs Detachments vs Ro3- but I don't see many people argue that they're unnecessary and points alone are sufficient. It's more that points are the balancing lever most suited to individual adjustment and with the fewest knock-on implications. If you have structural issues you need structural solutions, but if you have individual issues you need individual solutions, and points tweaks are an ideal light-touch lever for that.
Put another way, would a game like 40K be more balanced if it were just points, or if it were just FOC slots? I'm inclined to think the former, not because it's a fantastic balancing mechanism in and of itself, but because the act of assigning comparative value provides the most fundamental structure of the various structuring mechanisms in play. The points values form the core of balance, and then other structuring mechanisms are layered on top. Granted you could take 40K's historically poor balance as an indictment of this approach, but lots of other wargames make it work.
Deadnight wrote: Hehe not to nitpick but i think that's a bit cheeky to call game structural tools as 'points by another name'. Its poor use of language. Things like foc and unit caps are not 'points'. Theyre different things. I find building terminology like 'load bearing' lends itself to far better andr more apt descriptive here. It just feels like calling every tool 'points but another name' is like calling every meet 'beef' because you can eat it and claiming the win.
Yeah, I'm being reductionist. But I'm doing that to argue against nou's assertion that points aren't used for balance at all and that other structuring mechanisms are- it's a false dichotomy between various systems that all amount to resource management. There's no fundamental difference that makes one type of limiting structure useful for balance and another type of limiting structure completely worthless for balance, they're just different tools with different functions.
So sure, I totally agree that 'well the FOC is technically a points system so you actually like points, take that!' is semantics for the sake of semantics, and I wasn't going for a gotcha with that. It's more that arguing that points are worthless for balance but other limited-resource structuring elements are useful is really just special pleading. Nou's basically taking the well-accepted principle that points are not a be-all and end-all balance mechanism and twisting it into an extreme and not particularly widespread interpretation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I should also point out that the observation that points cannot accurately assess 'absolute value' in all situations is not a points-specific issue, it's a problem for any balancing mechanism that involves resource (point, slot, command point, whatever) limitations set in a vacuum. The increasingly common way to work around it is to allow those decisions to be made with some information known about context. It's subtly changing the use of points, because it's an explicit invitation to optimize your force to get the most value for a given resource limit.
Taking Chain of Command as an example, your platoon choice determines how many support assets you'll have available- functionally an abstracted points system. But you don't choose those assets until you know your opponent and the scenario, giving you the opportunity to pick the ones best-suited to the mission. The costs of those support assets can thus be set based on the assumption that they will be used under optimal conditions, and that is much more conducive to balancing than trying to work out what an anti-tank gun is worth if the enemy doesn't have any tanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I should also point out that the observation that points cannot accurately assess 'absolute value' in all situations is not a points-specific issue, it's a problem for any balancing mechanism that involves resource (point, slot, command point, whatever) limitations set in a vacuum. The increasingly common way to work around it is to allow those decisions to be made with some information known about context. It's subtly changing the use of points, because it's an explicit invitation to optimize your force to get the most value for a given resource limit.
Taking Chain of Command as an example, your platoon choice determines how many support assets you'll have available- functionally an abstracted points system. But you don't choose those assets until you know your opponent and the scenario, giving you the opportunity to pick the ones best-suited to the mission. The costs of those support assets can thus be set based on the assumption that they will be used under optimal conditions, and that is much more conducive to balancing than trying to work out what an anti-tank gun is worth if the enemy doesn't have any tanks.
I think at this point you're just typing our my thoughts in different words. I can't disagree with you here. Fwiw I've actually pointed out games like chain of command and wnm that 'build' their games differently - I'm.quite familiar with them. It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if this is a thing we are going to see more and more of within ttgs and if 'points' will be an archaic approach in ten years time.
Insectum7 wrote:
If you want a wide variation in unit capabilities, plus a large amount of freedom in how armies are composed, you will always encounter the potential for skew and mismatch between armies on the table. On top of that, if you want the wargame to be worth a damn, terrain needs to be an essential aspect of gameplay and maneuver, which translates to units gaining or loosing value depending on the table setup. This is why it can't be "perfectly balanced".
But all of these things, unit diversity, freedom of force creation, and impact of terrain, are positive features of the game that I would be very careful about messing with. Points works great as a "rough estimate of value" within the framework of understading that "value" is very far from absolute. "It is a bit of an art", as Andy Chambers said.
And yes, we've seen the game achieve healthy balance from time to time. The levers exist to make it happen, but GW also has a vested interest in churn.
The only thing I disagree with is saying the game has achieved a healthy balance from time to time. I've played since third. That was never the case. There have always been broken.codices, underpowered codices, go-to builds etc. Everything else is stuff I'd agree with, no question. If I was a cheeky git and you said that to ne in the gdmimg club, I'd buy you a beer and say no <expletive> sherlock and we'd both laugh and enjoy our beers.
And you didn't answer my question. :p
so please, how much of the game is allowed to be unplayable to be 'good enough'. How much of the potential lists are allowed to be 'mismatched'? How much of the game can be accepted to be 'above' the power curve and dominate the rest of the game at the expense of the rest. How 'big' a game are we talking in terms of # of factions and # of unique units/roster choices. Etc. Not a gotcha. Just trying to nail down a very nebulous idea.
Define "unplayable".
I'm of the opinion that if a unit or bit of wargear has a niche use-case for some amount of local metas and scenarios, but doesn't show up in competetive tournaments for some reason, it's still "playable", because 40K "in the wild" can be quite different than the tourney case. Also, I'm of the opinion that "more options is good", even if they aren't all competetive, because to many, 40K is just a structured way to play out scenarios of the 40K universe. I haven't used Servitors since 3rd or 4th edition maybe, but I like that they are there.
As for lists being "mismatched"? There are so many combinations of units to throw onto the table that I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of potential builds could wind up being mismatched in some way. I think that's the wrong question, essentially. The better question is "Can every faction produce several, significantly different, reasonably competitive build for a majority of potential metas, as well as the tournament circuit." Which would, to me, be "ideal balance", even if there were loads of units and options that didn't see widespread adoption, because again, options for the narrative folks. I'd also caveat "factions", because there are some factions which don't need to be competitive at the same level. "Specialist" factions like Deathwatch, Custodes and Grey Knights come to mind as factions that, for the sake of universe-building, shouldn't have the same array of deployment abilities as "total war" factions like Space Marines, Eldar and Tyranids.
You may not see 40k as having balance, but I think that throughout it's history it's been quite good on numerous occasions. Like, 90+% of the game would be in an acceptable place, and the outlying factions/units (either "broken" or "trash") could have been addressed very easily with relatively minor adjustments . . . and points serve as a tool for those adjustments. Not the only one, but a very useful one nonetheless.
I should also point out that the observation that points cannot accurately assess 'absolute value' in all situations is not a points-specific issue, it's a problem for any balancing mechanism that involves resource (point, slot, command point, whatever) limitations set in a vacuum. The increasingly common way to work around it is to allow those decisions to be made with some information known about context. It's subtly changing the use of points, because it's an explicit invitation to optimize your force to get the most value for a given resource limit.
Seemingly no designer wants their games to actually work based on what you say. This is a 'no true scotsman' scenario and a colossal disservice to games designers everywhere. Points are a.roufh accounting system with serious limitations and very limited load-bearing abilities and that's about it.
Some game designers put together inherently imbalanced designs which means points won't work.
GW loves doing that. Complexity of design does not mean more realism or anything other than complexity.
So if you choose a system that is very situational, lacks universal applicability in its tactics, it's going to hard to balance no matter what you use.
Put another way: if you intend to create a points-based-system, design the game with that in mind.
@Deadnight Not believing in points is like not believing in math.
.
I believe in math just fine. I just do not believe that a single value in terms in 'game currency' can accurately account for its 'real worth', especially since 'context' has such a massive impact on this. And using this as a building block just means your are building in a massive amount of imbalance into the very foundations of your game.
I think you've got things the wrong way around. Having both Wraithlords and Wraithknights available as single-entity units that are optional to include in a list makes the game imbalanced, points minimize this imbalance. The other ways to balance games is to make preconstructed lists that GW have verified are worth about as much as each other, this has merit but it's not enough to satisfy all my 40k needs or alternatively to try to come up with points on the spot taking everything about the upcoming game into account, which is potentially very fair but in a game between amateurs or overly competitive people likely to end in miserable experiences in ways that balanced points minimize and having balanced points makes this easier anyway as you can adjust the balance of the game more easily as you can evaluate how many extra points you need to make up for having a tank list against an anti tank list instead of trying to count wounds or some other arcane method of balancing such a game. Having only played 0-1 games against a lot of the newer factions I am not equipped to balance games this way, I had a couple of games in the newest competitive mission format with an old list, after stomping the absolute gak out of my opponents I tried to tell them that my list was perhaps a little too competitive because of points reductions the list had gotten. My opponents did not think my list was overbearing, the list was 1920 pts in 2k games because I forgot to take advantage of the points reductions the list got, this is just to show that I have no clue about balance at the moment and why I try to stick with more philosophical arguments unless pushed to say "how much is a plasma pistol worth on an Infantry Squad Sergeant". I have experienced people claim my casual lists were competitive in every edition so they clearly didn't have a clue either, several times the guys saying it were running netlists themselves.
List A and list B having respective values of 1400 and 1600 despite both being 1500 points is not an inherent limitation of points, it's just a temporary flaw in the numbers.
.
Althat 'temporary flaw' is multiplied axross every combination of units and list variation in the game ergo its a a systemic limitation.
I think I might agree, but to the degree I do agree then it's not a problem. Units having synergies is not a problem if the points are tight enough that every option is viable. I just want people to be able to bring a more or less cohesive list and be able to have fun with that at casual game days without being required to be a Zen monk that has no care for winning or losing and points is the only way to do this. Preconstructed lists do not offer enough freedom. People aren't good enough at being people or good enough at 40k to balance games without pts as a crutch.
The fact that GW did a bad job with those factions is hardly surprising, but separating them out and (attempting to) expand their rosters was not a bad idea.
Breton wrote: Bring on the consolidated Chaos codex!
You know that doesn't mean what you think it means, right?
They wouldn't bring everything into one book. They'd remove tons of stuff from the game to make it fit in one book. Do you want Cult representation to just go back to 4 units?
Thus the Be Careful What You Wish For theme. So many were all onboard with consildating the Marines and now Chaos is up next.
Really? You really think if right now you handed a BS3 marine squad (A) 4 Lacannons @150pts & a Bs5 Ork squad (B) 4 Lascannons @100 pts that the Ork version would be better? And all we're doing is discussing the LCs, not # of models in squad, their saves, LD etc.
I've never seen someone point out they're cherry picking like its a good thing before.
vict0988 wrote: I think I might agree, but to the degree I do agree then it's not a problem. Units having synergies is not a problem if the points are tight enough that every option is viable. I just want people to be able to bring a more or less cohesive list and be able to have fun with that at casual game days without being required to be a Zen monk that has no care for winning or losing and points is the only way to do this. Preconstructed lists do not offer enough freedom. People aren't good enough at being people or good enough at 40k to balance games without pts as a crutch.
I think (but could be wrong) Deadnight is talking about needing every single conceivable game of 40k being balanced. And as you say, I just don't think that just is a concern. That imbalance is the trade-off for people being free to choose their army.
As you say - if someone brings just anti-tank units then them having an advantage over someone who runs just tanks is a feature, not a bug. In the same way being disadvantaged against someone running all horde infantry would be a feature, not a bug. The idea that a lascannon should be 20 points in this game - but only 10 points in that - is not correct. You could hard-ban taking all anti-tank or all-tanks, to force that TAC-style list. Yes you could come up with a completely different system of army building with sideboards and post-realisation optimisations. But I don't think its necessary.
What is probably sensible is that because you know people have the freedom to choose units, you have soft-counters rather than hard ones. If someone goes pure scissors, they should have an advantage over an army of pure paper. But potentially not that much of one - so you disincentivise list building in this way.
For the most part, 40k isn't determined by "unit type/roll skew". We do see spam when stuff is undercosted (see: 18 sentinel lists right now) but this can be fixed with points increases. And just because sentinels are good, it doesn't translate that all light vehicles are good.
Lets say I pick codex A and take a character or three, some troops for actions/objective anchoring/chaff and say 500 points dedicated assault, 500 points close-in shooting and say 500 points longer range fire support - and you do the same from codex B. Imbalance is when the list drawn from Codex A is just better because every one of its units is "more efficient for the points" than codex B. And this can usually be identified easily and quickly with very simple mathematics.
If its close enough that you are getting into 2nd order probabilities to identify a marginal advantage, its almost certainly drowned out by how the dice fall in any given game.
Its been over 7 years so I'm a bit distant from it, so apologies if I get this wrong - but if we were looking at 2nd edition WMH, the meta was dominated by armour skews, defence skews or horde skews (I think that fell out of fashion towards the end but don't quote me). Armies designed so you can't hit them - so your forces almost don't matter. Or so you can hit them, but then can't damage them, so again they don't matter. Solving such a situation with points alone would be difficult and I'm not sure they even tried.
But 40k as said doesn't really work like that. Hence the lamentations that grots can kill knights (not convinced they ever do though.)
If the units in codex A are about as powerful for the points as the units in codex B then two players running TAC lists are not going to look across the table and think "this game was decided at the list building stage." For a balanced game you want as many units as possible, across as many factions as possible, to be at about the same level on the power curve. This will mean that especially at a casual level, everything can be played against everything else. What you don't want is something like say 7th, where you had less of a power curve and more like a power cliff. With an almost impenetrable tier system of factions/units as a result.
I agree on the notion that a player taking random units vs a player taking a thought out list should face a one-sided game. On the other hand, if both players take a TAC list from different codices, they should have an equal chance at winning before considering player skill.
I personally consider points as a way to balance out units with similar purpose, and army slots as well as mission design the balance out different unit roles. Most designers will use the same in game currency (e.g. points) for players to calculate the power of all different roles and choices in one go, as it allows a bit more flexibility for different factions, instead of for example forcing 500 points of scoring infantry (each choice valued between 50 and 100 points), 10 points of anti tank (each choice valued between 3 and 7 points) and 4 points of characters (each character valued at 1 or 2 points) and the points of each army role totally independent from each other (so 1 character point cost does not equal 1 anti tank point cost).
The issue with GW approach is, that the missions don't really force different unit roles, and on top of that units with similar purpose aren't matched in value. This leads to units that came deliver their points worth in a game, as more efficient units exists and the only real values that matter are movement speed coupled with either damage output or defensive profile.
I believe another issue is that themed lists tend to always appear like a skew list.
Example:
Player A has build up an IG tank company, several Leman Russ MBTs, a tank commander, a Baneblade, maybe a hellhound, and some sentinels.
Player B plays a Raven Guard phobos marine list.
So the defensive profile of both lists is a skew, but their offensive profiles aren't, necessarily.
But all tank weapons can be used to kill infantry, while the Marines carry a lot of weapons that are useless against tanks. So player B might feel quite frustrated as he can't really handle the tanks, while player A might be upset that even though he is killing all the opponents units, he gets outscored (depending on the missions design). GW has to thread a thin line, so that the thematic lists are able to score mission objectives, feel satisfying to play and are roughly equal in killing each other.
So only points won't be enough to balance this out. It's one of the tools available and I believe a good tool as well, but for a game to be sufficiently balanced to be fun for both players, more mechanisms are needed. This night be mission design, mission diversity and a more restricted army roster.
And above all, some restraint on GWs part not to release the next space marine unit with a role that's already covered by 5 other marine units.
Brickfix wrote: The issue with GW approach is, that the missions don't really force different unit roles, and on top of that units with similar purpose aren't matched in value. This leads to units that came deliver their points worth in a game, as more efficient units exists and the only real values that matter are movement speed coupled with either damage output or defensive profile.
The issue is that GW isn't particularly interested in game balance, period. GW sells models and is very open about that being the entire focus of their business. Lots of their former employees will confirm that management was given sound, balanced designs and rejected them.
That's why arguing points don't work is missing the point. No balancing mechanic will work if you ignore it during game design. If you want to include game balance, it has to be incorporated into the core rules, not just stapled on after the fact. I haven't played Battletech in 20 years, but I recall that initially tonnage was used as a gauge of balance but it was very imprecise, particularly when tech levels were different. So an alternative measure was introduced that worked much better.
Battletech of course was designed from the ground up with a profound sense of balance in mind. There were tactical exploits for some situations, but overall, there's a reason why it not only still has followers, but has not required a major overhaul. Most of the updates seem to be about timelines not junking core mechanics and starting over.
We've seen people post stuff that demonstrates non-linear relationships between units as proof that points don't work. Again, that's a design decision, and all of those have tradeoffs. I was once challenged very aggressively as to why a simulation I'd put together used point-to-point movement rather than a hex overlay. My response was that while hexes do give more freedom of action, one of the core objectives of the simulation was to teach participants the lines of communication in the operational area. This was easier to do by simply constraining them to it rather than having them count out movement points.
No one in GW cares about this sort of stuff, and it shows.
Tyel wrote: As you say - if someone brings just anti-tank units then them having an advantage over someone who runs just tanks is a feature, not a bug. In the same way being disadvantaged against someone running all horde infantry would be a feature, not a bug. The idea that a lascannon should be 20 points in this game - but only 10 points in that - is not correct. You could hard-ban taking all anti-tank or all-tanks, to force that TAC-style list. Yes you could come up with a completely different system of army building with sideboards and post-realisation optimisations. But I don't think its necessary.
Having played a number of games that do provide those sort of post-seeing-the-opponent's-list optimizations, I'm not so sure that the wildly varying 'bang for your buck' that comes from building a list in a vacuum is good design.
We've seen throughout 40K's history that GWreally struggles to balance options in relation to the meta. Just look at how pricing on plasma guns, the ideal anti-MEQ killer in a MEQ-dominated game, has varied over the years. You can set a points cost on a flamer so that it's efficient as it should be against Orks, but if you're five times more likely to meet Space Marines, you won't use it. So what's the fix? Make the flamer cheaper, so that it isn't useless against MEQs? But then it overperforms against Orks in those cases that it is relevant. And if you set the cost on a plasma gun assuming it'll fight Marines, then it underperforms against those non-MEQ armies. Set everything to a middle ground, maybe averaging performance against the likely target profiles, and then everyone takes plasma guns.
Beyond individual options, GW struggles to balance entire armies, because the fact that this is a MEQ-heavy game means that a 'take-all-comers' list really means an anti-MEQ list, and that puts MEQ players at an immediate disadvantage. There's no easy solution there, either, because overtuning Marines out of the assumption that everyone is already countering Marines in turn can mean everyone has to counter Marines even harder and it becomes an unsustainable Red Queen's race.
So maybe you just balance everything around the assumption that you don't know what you'll be facing and have to take a balanced mix of capabilities... and then an army of all Knights or Armored Company or Green Tide shows up and breaks the game wide open, because the concept of 'skew' only exists because of how 40K handles listbuilding. And I haven't even gotten started on the weirdness that comes into play when you know what your opponent plays and how that knowledge affects your listbuilding.
Are those all features? YMMV, but I'm inclined to call them bugs, and these are exactly the sort of problems people refer to when they say that points alone cannot balance the game. It's why GW has to implement hacky fixes like a hard cap on how many flyers you can take, or make it so that lasguns and heavy bolters can credibly damage tanks, because otherwise it's too easy for the in-a-vacuum listbuilding system to produce lopsided matchups.
I wouldn't say an alternative system is necessary, but I definitely see the limitations of the current system more after playing with alternatives.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Battletech of course was designed from the ground up with a profound sense of balance in mind.
Not to snark but I'm not sure I'd hold up Battletech as an example of designing for balance from the ground up- 3025 is fairly balanced just because everyone has access to the same capabilities (and even then, the weapon set isn't strictly balanced- MLAS is great, AC/2 and AC/5 less so), but ask the old-timers whether Zellbrigen was an effective balancing lever for Clans on release. It's taken them a while to reach a BV2.0 system that works fairly well, and part of that comes from having a fairly static ruleset that has allowed incremental tweaking, rather than having to continuously restart from scratch every few years.
The fact that GW did a bad job with those factions is hardly surprising, but separating them out and (attempting to) expand their rosters was not a bad idea.
Breton wrote: Bring on the consolidated Chaos codex!
You know that doesn't mean what you think it means, right?
They wouldn't bring everything into one book. They'd remove tons of stuff from the game to make it fit in one book. Do you want Cult representation to just go back to 4 units?
Thus the Be Careful What You Wish For theme. So many were all onboard with consildating the Marines and now Chaos is up next.
What do you mean, up next?
Marines WEREN'T consolidated. They still have more Bolter varieties than some codecs have units.
The fact that GW did a bad job with those factions is hardly surprising, but separating them out and (attempting to) expand their rosters was not a bad idea.
Breton wrote: Bring on the consolidated Chaos codex!
You know that doesn't mean what you think it means, right?
They wouldn't bring everything into one book. They'd remove tons of stuff from the game to make it fit in one book. Do you want Cult representation to just go back to 4 units?
Thus the Be Careful What You Wish For theme. So many were all onboard with consildating the Marines and now Chaos is up next.
What do you mean, up next?
Marines WEREN'T consolidated. They still have more Bolter varieties than some codecs have units.
Yeah, 3 Bolter varieties should've been the MAX, not a minimum.
Having played a number of games that do provide those sort of post-seeing-the-opponent's-list optimizations, I'm not so sure that the wildly varying 'bang for your buck' that comes from building a list in a vacuum is good design.
. . .
And I haven't even gotten started on the weirdness that comes into play when you know what your opponent plays and how that knowledge affects your listbuilding.
I see a bit of tension here
I haven't played any of these "post-seeing-the-opponents-list optimizations" games. Can you elaborate on the cons of such a system? I'm imagining that it promotes skew, but when you say "weirdness" that sounds like it's more complicated than that.
"the concept of 'skew' only exists because of how 40K handles listbuilding." < Also this is a really intriguing statement. Why do you say this?
Also I'm short on time and I feel like my brain's not working very well this morning, so I apologize in advance for not being able to fully engage atm. I promise I'll try to absorb it though.
Yeah, 3 Bolter varieties should've been the MAX, not a minimum.
I count 4
Bolt Pistol
Bolter
Storm Bolter
Heavy Bolter
Maybe Hurricane?
Or maybe turn Bolter into "Bolter X" and then Storm and Hurricane get consolidated into Bolter 2 and Bolter 6. Oh hey, there you go. 3 types!
catbarf wrote: Are those all features? YMMV, but I'm inclined to call them bugs, and these are exactly the sort of problems people refer to when they say that points alone cannot balance the game. It's why GW has to implement hacky fixes like a hard cap on how many flyers you can take, or make it so that lasguns and heavy bolters can credibly damage tanks, because otherwise it's too easy for the in-a-vacuum listbuilding system to produce lopsided matchups.
I wouldn't say an alternative system is necessary, but I definitely see the limitations of the current system more after playing with alternatives.
I think its certainly true that sometimes in 40k it is better for GW to change rules rather than to change points. I think points can still get you a reasonably equal sort of footing - but it may produce outcomes which are less fun than alternatives.
To touch on the examples - if say Plasma is too good, nerf Plasma.
GW could have just made plasma (and similar tier weapons) AP-2 near 6 years ago and it would have probably done a world of good.
I mean part of the issue with basic flamers (D6 S4 AP-) is that they aren't that hot into anything. Versus today's Boyz 3.5*1/3*5/6*8=7.777 points. But shooting a Marine is only 3.5*1/2*1/3*9=5.25. Its not miles worse. Whereas say an overcharged plasma gun into a marine is 2*1/2*5/6*5/6*18=12.5. Whereas into Boyz you can fire it undercharged and expect to get 5.33 points. There's some factoring in for the fact the guy may just die on the overcharge - but you won't get to shoot that often anyway, and rerolls are everywhere. It gets more skewed if you were to shoot say Termagants or Guardians with a flamer - but you could mow down GEQ with bolters, lasguns or your fists. You aren't gaining much strategically from buffing that sort of firepower.
I think we just disagree on some of the other points. I don't think Marines for instance suffer from this "skew to be anti-MEQ". They experience the same cycle everyone else gets - i.e. top tier with a new codex - fall off as codex creep works its way through. They get the unique advantage (SM that is) of usually being looked after with a second look-in around 2 years down the edition while other factions are often ignored.
I think everything being able to wound everything is a good change - and I'm in favour of limiting flyers too. I think you could resolve these things with points (my preference would just be making all flyers relatively inefficient - but that's a bias) but there you go.
Plasma has been a problem ever since they decided in 8th Edition that there was a safe mode and a more effective Overcharge that both hit an offensive benchmark and could be mitigated with rerolls. Plasmaguns wouldn't be so popular if the stat block was:
Plasmagun: Rapid Fire 1, R 24", S 7, AP -3, D 1, any Unmodified Hit Dice Roll of 1 (before or after rerolls) destroys the firing model after all attacks of the unit are resolved.
This happens to be the 3rd-7th Edition Stats for a Plasmagun because re-rolls were super hard to get on Plasmaguns back then.
alextroy wrote: Plasma has been a problem ever since they decided in 8th Edition that there was a safe mode and a more effective Overcharge that both hit an offensive benchmark and could be mitigated with rerolls. Plasmaguns wouldn't be so popular if the stat block was:
Plasmagun: Rapid Fire 1, R 24", S 7, AP -3, D 1, any Unmodified Hit Dice Roll of 1 (before or after rerolls) destroys the firing model after all attacks of the unit are resolved.
This happens to be the 3rd-7th Edition Stats for a Plasmagun because re-rolls were super hard to get on Plasmaguns back then.
Note: Gets Hot! used to allow for armor saves.
So a Marine would only die if the gun Got Hot and they rolled a 1 or a 2 on their save.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't played any of these "post-seeing-the-opponents-list optimizations" games. Can you elaborate on the cons of such a system? I'm imagining that it promotes skew, but when you say "weirdness" that sounds like it's more complicated than that.
Even just knowing the opponent's faction and their collection can lead to list tailoring. This happens a lot in small groups that only really play against one another. It can lead to an arms race where each player buys to try to get a leg up on the rest of the group.
"the concept of 'skew' only exists because of how 40K handles listbuilding." < Also this is a really intriguing statement. Why do you say this?
The idea of two players building lists with as wide and varied a unit pool as 40k has will tend to lead to situations where one side or the other can't effectively harm the other player's force. Sometimes the game can still be a good match due to objective play but many players don't like feeling as if they can't meaningfully hurt an opponent's army.
alextroy wrote: Plasma has been a problem ever since they decided in 8th Edition that there was a safe mode and a more effective Overcharge that both hit an offensive benchmark and could be mitigated with rerolls. Plasmaguns wouldn't be so popular if the stat block was:
Plasmagun: Rapid Fire 1, R 24", S 7, AP -3, D 1, any Unmodified Hit Dice Roll of 1 (before or after rerolls) destroys the firing model after all attacks of the unit are resolved.
This happens to be the 3rd-7th Edition Stats for a Plasmagun because re-rolls were super hard to get on Plasmaguns back then.
Note: Gets Hot! used to allow for armor saves.
So a Marine would only die if the gun Got Hot and they rolled a 1 or a 2 on their save.
I forgot that. So use to 8th Edition, roll a 1 and die rule that I forgot the save... that my Sister Superiors failed 75% of the time after rolling a 1 to hit
alextroy wrote: Plasma has been a problem ever since they decided in 8th Edition that there was a safe mode and a more effective Overcharge that both hit an offensive benchmark and could be mitigated with rerolls. Plasmaguns wouldn't be so popular if the stat block was:
Plasmagun: Rapid Fire 1, R 24", S 7, AP -3, D 1, any Unmodified Hit Dice Roll of 1 (before or after rerolls) destroys the firing model after all attacks of the unit are resolved.
This happens to be the 3rd-7th Edition Stats for a Plasmagun because re-rolls were super hard to get on Plasmaguns back then.
Note: Gets Hot! used to allow for armor saves.
So a Marine would only die if the gun Got Hot and they rolled a 1 or a 2 on their save.
Also note Plasma had a good chance to one shot a vehicle too with how AV used to work, still Instant Death T3 models with W2+, and was still wounding Marines and such on a 2+ (and still killed them in one shot).
This overcharged profile is quite frankly just a boogeyman for the real problem, which is what happens when you make spam super easy. Scions should still have access to all Plasma Guns in a squad, but MAYBE GW should write it so you only get one gun in a squad of 5 and then 2-3 extra in a full squad to discourage MSU.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't played any of these "post-seeing-the-opponents-list optimizations" games. Can you elaborate on the cons of such a system? I'm imagining that it promotes skew, but when you say "weirdness" that sounds like it's more complicated than that.
Even just knowing the opponent's faction and their collection can lead to list tailoring. This happens a lot in small groups that only really play against one another. It can lead to an arms race where each player buys to try to get a leg up on the rest of the group.
That happens in 40k already though, as people adjust to their meta.
"the concept of 'skew' only exists because of how 40K handles listbuilding." < Also this is a really intriguing statement. Why do you say this?
The idea of two players building lists with as wide and varied a unit pool as 40k has will tend to lead to situations where one side or the other can't effectively harm the other player's force. Sometimes the game can still be a good match due to objective play but many players don't like feeling as if they can't meaningfully hurt an opponent's army.
But that's not a symptom of points, but rather a combination of variety and freedom of listbuilding. I'd also say it can be heavily mitigated through the rest of your system design. If there are more ways to meaningfully engage units (such as being able to assault Vehicles with grenades, or suppress units with fire), you can reduce the amount of hard-skew potential. 2nd edition was actually quite good in this regard, as there were lots of interesting "alternative tactics" available, such as blinding troops, or mass-lobbing grenades.
Insectum7 wrote: That happens in 40k already though, as people adjust to their meta.
It does but smaller metas are solved more quickly and such arms races can cause hard feelings among those smaller groups.
But that's not a symptom of points, but rather a combination of variety and freedom of listbuilding. I'd also say it can be heavily mitigated through the rest of your system design. If there are more ways to meaningfully engage units (such as being able to assault Vehicles with grenades, or suppress units with fire), you can reduce the amount of hard-skew potential. 2nd edition was actually quite good in this regard, as there were lots of interesting "alternative tactics" available, such as blinding troops, or mass-lobbing grenades.
You can already counter most skew in 40k by playing to the mission, the issue is that people don't like being told that if they match up into a list that runs a few hard-to-kill units they need to play for objects and shouldn't expect to see the opponent removing many models this game. People want to have a chance against anything even when the reality is that some games just don't work that way.
Insectum7 wrote: That happens in 40k already though, as people adjust to their meta.
It does but smaller metas are solved more quickly and such arms races can cause hard feelings among those smaller groups.
But to what appeared to be the greater point, I don't see how points or lack thereof mitigates this issue.
But that's not a symptom of points, but rather a combination of variety and freedom of listbuilding. I'd also say it can be heavily mitigated through the rest of your system design. If there are more ways to meaningfully engage units (such as being able to assault Vehicles with grenades, or suppress units with fire), you can reduce the amount of hard-skew potential. 2nd edition was actually quite good in this regard, as there were lots of interesting "alternative tactics" available, such as blinding troops, or mass-lobbing grenades.
You can already counter most skew in 40k by playing to the mission, the issue is that people don't like being told that if they match up into a list that runs a few hard-to-kill units they need to play for objects and shouldn't expect to see the opponent removing many models this game. People want to have a chance against anything even when the reality is that some games just don't work that way.
My point is that you can broaden the engagement options so that you actually can fight those potentially skewed forces better. Skew potential can be mitigated in numerous ways, and mission design is probably the least palattable for many people.
Insectum7 wrote: But to what appeared to be the greater point, I don't see how points or lack thereof mitigates this issue.
Points allow for ease of list building and unrestricted (or near enough to unrestricted) list building leads to list tailoring and skew. Points are the cause but the way GW uses points enables poor gameplay experiences.
My point is that you can broaden the engagement options so that you actually can fight those potentially skewed forces better. Skew potential can be mitigated in numerous ways, and mission design is probably the least palattable for many people.
If you index too hard into the anything can beat anything mindset you risk making lists that can't help but skew terrible as now lists have too many tacked-on options that are a soft counter to their play style. If there is no list-building cost to being better against skew then you've just made that brand of skew worse. Given that skew is often already a poor choice you've now made those lists almost unplayable.
TLDR; Ideally neither player should be punished for playing a their list but as skew lists are already generally poor and non-skew lists can win via objective play I don't think skew should be further punished.
The objective isn't to "punish skew". The objective is to mitigate the issue of poor list-matchup by putting a greater emphasis on in-game decision making as opposed to list construction, with a focus on engagement rather than simple mission-completion. Upon that, ideally do so in a way that increases "unit agency", so that players have more empowering options at their disposal.
How does a Tactical Squad engage a Knight? Right now they sorta plink away at it, rather futilely on their own, and hopethe Knight doesn't get around to focussing it's attention on them. Buuuut, in a better system (imo) that same Tactical Squad could target Knight subsystens in an effort to meaningfully change the dynamic. A hit to the hit to decrease accuracy, or a hit to the legs to decrease movement, as the player sees fit for the tactical situation. Allow the same squad to use it's Krak grenades in close combat, so that it has a more meaningful way to hurt it if they manage to achieve that situation.
Reduce skew by offering the player more potential actions to take. You could mitigate skew by reducing list-build freedom . . . Or you can mitigate the negative effects of skew by providing more on-table options. One of those seems like a no-brainer win.
Insectum7 wrote: The objective isn't to "punish skew". The objective is to mitigate the issue of poor list-matchup by putting a greater emphasis on in-game decision making as opposed to list construction, with a focus on engagement rather than simple mission-completion. Upon that, ideally do so in a way that increases "unit agency", so that players have more empowering options at their disposal.
Playing for objectives is a potent form of decision-making and one that results in wins.
How does a Tactical Squad engage a Knight? Right now they sorta plink away at it, rather futilely on their own, and hopethe Knight doesn't get around to focussing it's attention on them.
They used to have zero ability to harm a Knight, or any vehicle with 11 or more AV outside of a single melee attack each round unless you invested into special weapons, heavy weapons, melta bombs, or a power fist all of which you can still take. How much more vulnerable do vehicles and monstrous creatures need to be when every army already comes with the tools to deal with them?
Buuuut, in a better system (imo) that same Tactical Squad could target Knight subsystens in an effort to meaningfully change the dynamic. A hit to the hit to decrease accuracy, or a hit to the legs to decrease movement, as the player sees fit for the tactical situation. Allow the same squad to use it's Krak grenades in close combat, so that it has a more meaningful way to hurt it if they manage to achieve that situation.
What are you giving back to the larger unit in trade? Right now this is completely one-sided and only impactful against high-toughness low model count skew. Do we also give more options against hordes? MEQ/TEQ spam? Bikes? Where does the mentality of every unit needs to have an option to deal with every other unit end?
Reduce skew by offering the player more potential actions to take. You could mitigate skew by reducing list-build freedom . . . Or you can mitigate the negative effects of skew by providing more on-table options. One of those seems like a no-brainer win.
You already can mitigate against skew. Build a TAC list that actually has proper tools built into it or play around your weakness in game by maximizing what your army can do against the skew it's facing.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I remember a time when a single squad of Chosen CSM could threaten a Warhaound Titan. Both in rules and fluff.
So....this afternoon??
I mean, you have to equip/arm the Chosen correctly, get them into range without being shot to bits, inflict 6 unsaved wounds (to drop the void shields so other shooting can get through), and then maybe get a charge off.....
Thier odds aren't great, but then they weren't great in previous editions either.
And unless the Warhounds already sustained alot of damage they won't be killing it in 1 round.
Still, they could put a sizable dent in it.
The fact that GW did a bad job with those factions is hardly surprising, but separating them out and (attempting to) expand their rosters was not a bad idea.
Breton wrote: Bring on the consolidated Chaos codex!
You know that doesn't mean what you think it means, right?
They wouldn't bring everything into one book. They'd remove tons of stuff from the game to make it fit in one book. Do you want Cult representation to just go back to 4 units?
Thus the Be Careful What You Wish For theme. So many were all onboard with consildating the Marines and now Chaos is up next.
What do you mean, up next?
Marines WEREN'T consolidated. They still have more Bolter varieties than some codecs have units.
Let me know when you buy your next Codex: Dark Angels, or Codex SpaceWolves instead of a supplement.
alextroy wrote: Plasma has been a problem ever since they decided in 8th Edition that there was a safe mode and a more effective Overcharge that both hit an offensive benchmark and could be mitigated with rerolls.
Plasma guns were transformed from interesting to essential by the AP system, which was inherently unbalanced.
Indeed, that's the primary reason GW struggles to make the points work. As I said earlier, it goes back to poor game design decisions. Because GW has such a sprawling product, it's hard to accurately price items that are deadly against X and useless against Y, particularly in an environment where X is 10 times more prevalent than Y.
That being said, GW could do better than they are doing and 6th ed. WHFB showed a way for them to do that using both points and limited choices.
Insectum7 wrote: The objective isn't to "punish skew". The objective is to mitigate the issue of poor list-matchup by putting a greater emphasis on in-game decision making as opposed to list construction, with a focus on engagement rather than simple mission-completion. Upon that, ideally do so in a way that increases "unit agency", so that players have more empowering options at their disposal.
Playing for objectives is a potent form of decision-making and one that results in wins.
It's not an either/or thing. You can keep objectives while expanding the menu of on-table actions and player agency.
How does a Tactical Squad engage a Knight? Right now they sorta plink away at it, rather futilely on their own, and hopethe Knight doesn't get around to focussing it's attention on them.
They used to have zero ability to harm a Knight, or any vehicle with 11 or more AV outside of a single melee attack each round unless you invested into special weapons, heavy weapons, melta bombs, or a power fist all of which you can still take. How much more vulnerable do vehicles and monstrous creatures need to be when every army already comes with the tools to deal with them?
Krak grenades used to be able to be used by the entire squad in CC against vehicles. "Zero ability" seems like a disingenuous take when a squad could auto-hit rear armor with 5+ S6+D6 attacks. Not sure what point you're driving at here. Do you think removing "mass-Krak" attacks was a good thing?
If the fear is that vehicles will suddenly become lackluster options, there are numerous ways to increase their attractiveness. You may recall that moving and firing with Heavy weapons was once a major advantage for Vehicles. There are pretty easy ways to ensure Vehicles still have a place.
But to the greater "skew" point. If the critique of points and the freedom of listbuilding is the potential for skew, why would you be adverse to in-game mechanics that reduce the harmful potential of skew in compensation?
Insectum7 wrote: Buuuut, in a better system (imo) that same Tactical Squad could target Knight subsystens in an effort to meaningfully change the dynamic. A hit to the hit to decrease accuracy, or a hit to the legs to decrease movement, as the player sees fit for the tactical situation. Allow the same squad to use it's Krak grenades in close combat, so that it has a more meaningful way to hurt it if they manage to achieve that situation.
What are you giving back to the larger unit in trade? Right now this is completely one-sided and only impactful against high-toughness low model count skew. Do we also give more options against hordes? MEQ/TEQ spam? Bikes? Where does the mentality of every unit needs to have an option to deal with every other unit end?
Reduce skew by offering the player more potential actions to take. You could mitigate skew by reducing list-build freedom . . . Or you can mitigate the negative effects of skew by providing more on-table options. One of those seems like a no-brainer win.
You already can mitigate against skew. Build a TAC list that actually has proper tools built into it or play around your weakness in game by maximizing what your army can do against the skew it's facing.
It's true that you can already mitigate against skew. But we've established that there are many players that find merely playing to objectives in the face of skew to be less rewarding than being able to engage more meaningfully with it. So why not provide more tactical options?
alextroy wrote: Plasma has been a problem ever since they decided in 8th Edition that there was a safe mode and a more effective Overcharge that both hit an offensive benchmark and could be mitigated with rerolls.
Plasma guns were transformed from interesting to essential by the AP system, which was inherently unbalanced.
Depends on your meta. I ran high numbers of Flamers in 3rd/4th because regularly faced Nids, Orks and Dark Eldar, and also because they were cheap. Plus Melta and Flamers were also Assault weapons, so you could charge after firing them, which could be critical, and kept them valuable even against the MEQ targets that Plasma was tailored for. Plus Melta Instant Deathed T4 units, such as Characters or Crisis Suits.
Having played a number of games that do provide those sort of post-seeing-the-opponent's-list optimizations, I'm not so sure that the wildly varying 'bang for your buck' that comes from building a list in a vacuum is good design.
. . .
And I haven't even gotten started on the weirdness that comes into play when you know what your opponent plays and how that knowledge affects your listbuilding.
I see a bit of tension here
I haven't played any of these "post-seeing-the-opponents-list optimizations" games. Can you elaborate on the cons of such a system? I'm imagining that it promotes skew, but when you say "weirdness" that sounds like it's more complicated than that.
"the concept of 'skew' only exists because of how 40K handles listbuilding." < Also this is a really intriguing statement. Why do you say this?
Also I'm short on time and I feel like my brain's not working very well this morning, so I apologize in advance for not being able to fully engage atm. I promise I'll try to absorb it though.
Sorry, I was a bit unclear and I think you misunderstood my statement: The 'weirdness' I was referring to is what happens in 40K when you have some idea of what your opponent is going to field and can tailor accordingly.
Let's consider 3rd-7th Ed flamers, with the template that atomized hordes but wasn't great against Marines. If I know that my buddy has a Green Tide army, I might be tempted to load up on flamers. If the cost of those flamers is set based on some average between effectiveness vs Marines and effectiveness vs Orks, then they'd overperform in our matchup. Knowing what's in the opponent's army screws up balance, because it makes specialized weapons like flamers (ostensibly balanced by being bad against everything besides hordes) more effective since you can cherry-pick the ones that you know will be useful.
If I really have no idea what I'm going to be facing, though, I'm not going to load up on flamers. I might take a few, but going all-in on anti-horde would obviously be a mistake in a game that's majority MEQ. So I put down my army with a mix of flamers, plasma guns, meltaguns, and so on... and then when my opponent plunks down two hundred Boyz, I have a problem, because my meltaguns and lascannons are nearly useless. Or they put down all tanks, and now my flamers are worthless and I don't have enough anti-tank to deal with them. My TAC list hits a skew list and I have a bad time.
Skew is, fundamentally, when you lean strongly into one defensive profile archetype, oversaturating the ideal counter to that archetype while being resilient to weapons not intended to counter that archetype. Skew only works because those weapons are chosen without knowing what your army looks like, so you can reasonably expect that only a portion of your opponent's army will be able to counter you.
Chain of Command doesn't have these issues, because you pick your support assets after the enemy force and mission are known. I don't need to worry about running into massed Volksgrenadiers that make my anti-tank weapons useless, or running into multiple T-34s and not having enough anti-tank: if I'm facing tanks I bring anti-tank weapons, and if I'm facing infantry I don't. What 40K calls 'skew' is what CoC calls 'crippling overspecialization', and you're encouraged to take complementary capabilities rather than min-maxing into one thing that the enemy can just hard-counter. And even if I know that my buddy has a Tiger that he's itching to field, that information doesn't benefit me or enable me to better counter his army.
More importantly, it's much easier to balance options just because of this simple change. For instance, flamethrowers are priced according to the assumption that you will have ideal terrain, objectives, and targets for flamethrower use, because if you don't have these things, you won't take flamethrowers. Anti-tank guns can be balanced around the assumption that there will be tanks on the field. Machine guns around the assumption that you will have clear lines of fire. The developers don't have to assign a points cost based on some nebulous idea of average value in all circumstances, and you don't need to stick to homogenous terrain setups and bland scenarios to ensure everything is useful.
Historically, 40K has addressed this balancing problem with the use of force organization restrictions, in an attempt to ensure that any army you went up against was reasonably well-rounded. Clearly, this did not always work. In 8th, with much relaxed force organization requirements, GW instead started to address it by...
Tyel wrote:I mean part of the issue with basic flamers (D6 S4 AP-) is that they aren't that hot into anything. Versus today's Boyz 3.5*1/3*5/6*8=7.777 points. But shooting a Marine is only 3.5*1/2*1/3*9=5.25. Its not miles worse. Whereas say an overcharged plasma gun into a marine is 2*1/2*5/6*5/6*18=12.5. Whereas into Boyz you can fire it undercharged and expect to get 5.33 points. There's some factoring in for the fact the guy may just die on the overcharge - but you won't get to shoot that often anyway, and rerolls are everywhere. It gets more skewed if you were to shoot say Termagants or Guardians with a flamer - but you could mow down GEQ with bolters, lasguns or your fists. You aren't gaining much strategically from buffing that sort of firepower.
...flattening out profiles so that the value of an option does not depend as much on context. Flamers are now reasonably comparable against GEQs and MEQs. Tanks can be hurt with rifle fire. Aircraft are just flying tanks and AA weapons don't exist anymore.
It lessens the impact of in-a-vacuum listbuilding, but skew is still a problem and, honestly, I think it makes for a blander experience. Weapons have more overlap in roles than they used to, and often there are clear winners and losers when two weapons do the same thing but one's better at it. In 8th and 9th this converged towards moderate-strength, some-AP, high-volume weapons being reasonably effective against most things, and overly-specialized weapon profiles don't see much play.
Insectum7 wrote: It's not an either/or thing. You can keep objectives while expanding the menu of on-table actions and player agency.
They already have been expanded though. If you keep expanding them you remove the impact of list building in a way that favors certain players while directly hurting other players.
Krak grenades used to be able to be used by the entire squad in CC against vehicles.
That didn't stop those same units from getting locked down by any walker with 13 front AV or higher.
Do you think removing "mass-Krak" attacks was a good thing?
Given that vehicles are already barely usable in many armies there's a risk that this is a bridge too far.
But to the greater "skew" point. If the critique of points and the freedom of list building is the potential for skew, why would you be adverse to in-game mechanics that reduce the harmful potential of skew in compensation?
Mostly because no skew list is actually good and thus just hurts those lists more. If you wanted to make it so vehicle skew had better anti-horde options and both sides got a slight buff back against TAC lists it could be okay but thus far you've been asking for very one-sided buffs that hurt a single specific playstyle.
It's true that you can already mitigate against skew. But we've established that there are many players that find merely playing to objectives in the face of skew to be less rewarding than being able to engage more meaningfully with it. So why not provide more tactical options?
What does engaging meaningfully mean? Players can already move block vehicles, play for objectives, and most lists will have some options to hurt vehicles even if they're lackluster. If players want to bracket knights and blow up land raiders every turn without building for it that's a step too far.
@Canadian 5th: Modern 40k tries to solve skew by Infantry move-blocking vehicles (imo stupid), and allowing IG to Mortal Wound on 6s (imo also stupid) Do you like these solutions?
@Catbarf: That is much more clear, I concur with much of it. The CoC explanation is great, although:
Chain of Command doesn't have these issues, because you pick your support assets after the enemy force and mission are known. I don't need to worry about running into massed Volksgrenadiers that make my anti-tank weapons useless, or running into multiple T-34s and not having enough anti-tank: if I'm facing tanks I bring anti-tank weapons, and if I'm facing infantry I don't. What 40K calls 'skew' is what CoC calls 'crippling overspecialization', and you're encouraged to take complementary capabilities rather than min-maxing into one thing that the enemy can just hard-counter. And even if I know that my buddy has a Tiger that he's itching to field, that information doesn't benefit me or enable me to better counter his army.
I don't see how knowing my opponent wants to field aTiger doesn't help me?
Insectum7 wrote: @Canadian 5th: Modern 40k tries to solve skew by Infantry move-blocking vehicles (imo stupid), and allowing IG to Mortal Wound on 6s (imo also stupid) Do you like these solutions?
Yes. I think the current options are fine as the vehicle skew lists aren't a threat in any meta and narratively infantry versus tanks should involve the infantry hunkering down and waiting for a bigger stick to arrive to solve their issue. I don't even have an issue with move blocking as it promotes tactical gameplay and because many types of infantry are crunchy enough or just plain old threatening enough that a tank could easily think twice before trying to run them down.
I don't think you gain anything by giving players who don't choose to index into anti-tank extra tools when we're not giving armies extra tools for foot hordes or to deal with MEQ or TEQ spam. Suck it up and get good.
I don't see how knowing my opponent wants to field a Tiger doesn't help me?
Are you going to over-index into anti-tank because they're hoping to bring a single support asset that you have other means to defeat? You could just ignore the Tiger and play to your objectives or bring some support anti-tank guns. It's just one tank even if it does have a heavy-hitting gun and good armor.
catbarf wrote: It lessens the impact of in-a-vacuum listbuilding, but skew is still a problem and, honestly, I think it makes for a blander experience. Weapons have more overlap in roles than they used to, and often there are clear winners and losers when two weapons do the same thing but one's better at it. In 8th and 9th this converged towards moderate-strength, some-AP, high-volume weapons being reasonably effective against most things, and overly-specialized weapon profiles don't see much play.
It's a solution. I don't think it's an ideal one.
I don't know about ideal - but I don't think its an issue. I think its better than a system of "if you don't have anti-X you can't touch them, but if you have all the anti-X you quickly wipe them off the table".
I don't think skew is a major issue in today's 40k as compared with "points imbalance" (i.e. my army is just obviously "better" than yours). Sure you can skew - but it doesn't seem that competitive based on results. If it was we'd expect the upper echelons of tournaments to be full of rock-paper-scissors lists and they just aren't. Pointing out there's a skew into moderate S, some AP preferably 2 damage shots is surely like observing there was a skew into AP3 (and even a bit of AP2) attacks in older editions. Or you went the other way and got bazillion AP6 or AP nothing because Terminators will roll 1s and die.
Is it a bit lame that your Phobos Marine army (or whatever) has to play the objectives rather than go toe to toe with knights? Maybe. But then if you don't like the fact they can scratch knights with massed bolter fire, isn't getting rid of that just going to make it even worse?
You can obviously control the game so you can't run armies of pure knights - or equally 200 boyz etc. But equally if its not stomping on people, I don't know why its an issue for the people who want to run that list for whatever reason. I mean I don't have the models - and I'll almost certainly never get them because its a gimmick list which would get old real fast - but I've always liked the idea of say 3 Tervigons and 180~ Termagants*. I think most tournament lists could murder that fairly reliably. If your list can't, at what point is that a "you problem" rather than the game? If I found that fun, whose toes am I stepping on?
Insectum7 wrote: @Canadian 5th: Modern 40k tries to solve skew by Infantry move-blocking vehicles (imo stupid), and allowing IG to Mortal Wound on 6s (imo also stupid) Do you like these solutions?
Yes. I think the current options are fine as the vehicle skew lists aren't a threat in any meta and narratively infantry versus tanks should involve the infantry hunkering down and waiting for a bigger stick to arrive to solve their issue. I don't even have an issue with move blocking as it promotes tactical gameplay and because many types of infantry are crunchy enough or just plain old threatening enough that a tank could easily think twice before trying to run them down.
I don't think you gain anything by giving players who don't choose to index into anti-tank extra tools when we're not giving armies extra tools for foot hordes or to deal with MEQ or TEQ spam. Suck it up and get good.
So in order to show that infantry can be dangerous to a tank in close quarters . . .you'd choose to have infantry block the tanks movement . . . Rather than actually make the infantry dangerous to the tank. . .
Yeah I'm gonna prefer my proposal instead
Not only because it's a more literal mechanical interpretation of what's being represented, but also because you can then have infantry that aren't dangerous to a tank not impede it's movement. It even allows for differentiation bettween tiers of tank in addition to tiers of infantry, as tough tanks will be more capable of ignoring infantry.
Insectum7 wrote: So in order to show that infantry can be dangerous to a tank in close quarters . . .you'd choose to have infantry block the tanks movement . . . Rather than actually make the infantry dangerous to the tank. . .
Unless you want to go back to the days when the other guy at the table got to pick up your models and plop a tank down movement blocking is here to stay.
Also, why the obsession with tanks? Hordes can be equally problematic and have a decent chance of being good again before armor skew does, yet you don't seem concerned about it.
Chain of Command doesn't have these issues, because you pick your support assets after the enemy force and mission are known. I don't need to worry about running into massed Volksgrenadiers that make my anti-tank weapons useless, or running into multiple T-34s and not having enough anti-tank: if I'm facing tanks I bring anti-tank weapons, and if I'm facing infantry I don't. What 40K calls 'skew' is what CoC calls 'crippling overspecialization', and you're encouraged to take complementary capabilities rather than min-maxing into one thing that the enemy can just hard-counter. And even if I know that my buddy has a Tiger that he's itching to field, that information doesn't benefit me or enable me to better counter his army.
I don't see how knowing my opponent wants to field aTiger doesn't help me?
I just find that knowing what's in my opponent's collection is way less impactful in CoC than in 40K. Part of that is because supports are chosen after the mission is known and not a fixed part of your 'list', and part of that is because those non-infantry units are only a subset of your army. If I know you're going to field a tank company in 40K I can list-tailor to exploit that pretty hard. If you have enough support points to take a Tiger in CoC, I'm probably going to be taking some form of anti-tank regardless, and I don't need to worry about you fielding three Tigers and no infantry.
Tyel wrote: Is it a bit lame that your Phobos Marine army (or whatever) has to play the objectives rather than go toe to toe with knights? Maybe. But then if you don't like the fact they can scratch knights with massed bolter fire, isn't getting rid of that just going to make it even worse?
As Insectum has suggested, I'd like to see units have more capabilities to interact with the enemy. Having to ignore the other army and just play the objectives is lame, and taking down Knights with massed bolter fire is also lame. I'd be completely fine with those Phobos Marines being unable to scratch the Knights with their bolters, yet able to do credible damage with meltabombs if they can get close.
FWIW I like the shift towards objective play and prefer 'you can still play the objectives and win' over 'you're toast, sucks to suck', but I do feel that it's patching over a systemic issue. In a game where your on-paper stats are far more relevant than board state in determining how much damage you can inflict, it's easy to get matchups where one army just doesn't have a realistic chance of victory and generalship can't overcome listbuilding. Force-multiplier mechanics like GSC's Crossfire, that emphasize positioning and maneuver over raw statlines, are a step in the right direction and I'd like to see more of that.
Insectum7 wrote: So in order to show that infantry can be dangerous to a tank in close quarters . . .you'd choose to have infantry block the tanks movement . . . Rather than actually make the infantry dangerous to the tank. . .
Unless you want to go back to the days when the other guy at the table got to pick up your models and plop a tank down movement blocking is here to stay.
That's neither how it worked (owning player moved their own models), nor how it has to work.
Also, why the obsession with tanks? Hordes can be equally problematic and have a decent chance of being good again before armor skew does, yet you don't seem concerned about it.
I'm not obsessed with it, you're just missing the forest through the trees. It was simply an example where unit interaction could improved, and I've expressed that point several times.
Chain of Command doesn't have these issues, because you pick your support assets after the enemy force and mission are known. I don't need to worry about running into massed Volksgrenadiers that make my anti-tank weapons useless, or running into multiple T-34s and not having enough anti-tank: if I'm facing tanks I bring anti-tank weapons, and if I'm facing infantry I don't. What 40K calls 'skew' is what CoC calls 'crippling overspecialization', and you're encouraged to take complementary capabilities rather than min-maxing into one thing that the enemy can just hard-counter. And even if I know that my buddy has a Tiger that he's itching to field, that information doesn't benefit me or enable me to better counter his army.
I don't see how knowing my opponent wants to field aTiger doesn't help me?
I just find that knowing what's in my opponent's collection is way less impactful in CoC than in 40K. Part of that is because supports are chosen after the mission is known and not a fixed part of your 'list', and part of that is because those non-infantry units are only a subset of your army. If I know you're going to field a tank company in 40K I can list-tailor to exploit that pretty hard. If you have enough support points to take a Tiger in CoC, I'm probably going to be taking some form of anti-tank regardless, and I don't need to worry about you fielding three Tigers and no infantry.
I'll have to check it out. I had already taken a note about CoC as I think UNIT mentioned it in a recent thread.
FWIW I like the shift towards objective play and prefer 'you can still play the objectives and win' over 'you're toast, sucks to suck', but I do feel that it's patching over a systemic issue. In a game where your on-paper stats are far more relevant than board state in determining how much damage you can inflict, it's easy to get matchups where one army just doesn't have a realistic chance of victory and generalship can't overcome listbuilding. Force-multiplier mechanics like GSC's Crossfire, that emphasize positioning and maneuver over raw statlines, are a step in the right direction and I'd like to see more of that.
Insectum7 wrote: That's neither how it worked (owning player moved their own models), nor how it has to work.
There were disputes over how models were moved almost as bad as the fights over how a blast marker scattered.
I'm not obsessed with it, you're just missing the forest through the trees. It was simply an example where unit interaction could improved, and I've expressed that point several times.
You've not made any suggestions for anything besides anti-armor.
Also, are you going to answer my question about how much interaction is needed before players who don't want to change their lists and who don't enjoy playing to objectives will be satisfied? How many wounds per turn should a unit armed with krak grenades be able to take from a Knight or a Landraider?
Beyond that, how would you compensate armies like Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Eldar, Tau, and Genestealer Cults who don't tend to arm their basic troops with anti-tank grenades? Please, be specific as to how you would buff these units against tank/monstrous creature skew, hordes, MEQ spam, and TEQ/Custodes all of which require different tools to combat.
catbarf wrote: 'No I will not acknowledge the overall point being made, please design extremely specific mechanics for every army so that I can nitpick them.'
If you want to fight skew without changing much else about 40k that's exactly what you'd need to do.
You can't just say, "It would be nice to have extra ways to do [x]" without considering the impacts that will have on how every army, especially armies that don't have ways to do [x] natively baked into their troop choices. It's easy to suggest things for marines and even IG as they tend to have loads of generalist units but it gets tougher when when you actually have to put on your work boots and design for the entire game.
Once again you folks on here remind me of why I was quite validated in going back to 3rd Edition. The most we had to deal with was creative template moves which was usually quashed with a simple laser pointer...
I like that how in melee models could threaten tanks with grenades and bombs in earlier editions even if they couldn't scratch the paint in shooting. It might sound like that make melee infantry too good but you have to remember that stuff couldnt move and charge as far as they can do now and if having marines in melee kills your entire mechanical force then perhaps some infantry units that could protect your tanks would be a good idea. Almost like in real life that unsupported tanks are easily taken out by infantry up close.
In Middle Earth SBG you get double the attacks to wound if you have trapped(easiest way is to tri-point but not that easy in reality when you have closed ranks) or knocked down (cavalry charge) the enemy model and quite a few models can also 2h their weapons or do some special strikes with axes for good damage boost but increased risk of dying themselves. Sauron (400pts) for example can only be wounded on 6+/6+ (needs 2 sixes in a row) by the most common strength value in the game and S2 (normal bows and hobbits) can't even wound him. Hardest to wound model in the game. But if you surround him with a bunch of cheap warriors(5-12pt) and a good hero (80-250pts), let the Hero make sure you win the combat and then have your warriors go two handed while piercing strike with their axes they go from 1 attack each needing 6+/6+ to 2 attacks each that wound on 5+/4+. From 1/36 wounds a warrior to 1/3 attacks wounds. That is a 12x increase in lethality coming from using movement and tactics and not just pure stats. With the right list you can even make a 6pt orc warrior go from 1 str 3 hit that wounds on 6+/6+ to 2 that wounds on 4+/3+. A 7pt Goblin Prowler that is also Str 3 base can even do it at 3+/2+ in the right situation. Suddenly something that was almost immune to small hits can now be killed by a bunch of 7pt Goblins if the Sauron player messes up but in a normal fight is still almost unbeatable.
If 40k had more stuff like that then you can have more varied stat lines on models and weapons without everything easily getting a 50% return on investment always. But if you play your models right and set up good situations for yourself then anything can be lethal to almost anything. This kind of gameplay is sadly missing from 40k
Insectum7 wrote: @Canadian 5th: Modern 40k tries to solve skew by Infantry move-blocking vehicles (imo stupid), and allowing IG to Mortal Wound on 6s (imo also stupid) Do you like these solutions?
@Catbarf: That is much more clear, I concur with much of it. The CoC explanation is great, although:
Chain of Command doesn't have these issues, because you pick your support assets after the enemy force and mission are known. I don't need to worry about running into massed Volksgrenadiers that make my anti-tank weapons useless, or running into multiple T-34s and not having enough anti-tank: if I'm facing tanks I bring anti-tank weapons, and if I'm facing infantry I don't. What 40K calls 'skew' is what CoC calls 'crippling overspecialization', and you're encouraged to take complementary capabilities rather than min-maxing into one thing that the enemy can just hard-counter. And even if I know that my buddy has a Tiger that he's itching to field, that information doesn't benefit me or enable me to better counter his army.
I don't see how knowing my opponent wants to field aTiger doesn't help me?
To be honest, most of 40k solves the vehicle skew problem by making vehicles near universally terrible. Or at least they have since 6th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Once again you folks on here remind me of why I was quite validated in going back to 3rd Edition. The most we had to deal with was creative template moves which was usually quashed with a simple laser pointer...
I don't know much about 3rd, but I know that someone who looked at all the myriad options of games out there and said 'hey, let's play a Games Workshop game, but with 1990s design sensibilities!' doesn't get to feel validated about anything.
Insectum7 wrote: @Canadian 5th: Modern 40k tries to solve skew by Infantry move-blocking vehicles (imo stupid), and allowing IG to Mortal Wound on 6s (imo also stupid) Do you like these solutions?
@Catbarf: That is much more clear, I concur with much of it. The CoC explanation is great, although:
Chain of Command doesn't have these issues, because you pick your support assets after the enemy force and mission are known. I don't need to worry about running into massed Volksgrenadiers that make my anti-tank weapons useless, or running into multiple T-34s and not having enough anti-tank: if I'm facing tanks I bring anti-tank weapons, and if I'm facing infantry I don't. What 40K calls 'skew' is what CoC calls 'crippling overspecialization', and you're encouraged to take complementary capabilities rather than min-maxing into one thing that the enemy can just hard-counter. And even if I know that my buddy has a Tiger that he's itching to field, that information doesn't benefit me or enable me to better counter his army.
I don't see how knowing my opponent wants to field aTiger doesn't help me?
To be honest, most of 40k solves the vehicle skew problem by making vehicles near universally terrible. Or at least they have since 6th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Once again you folks on here remind me of why I was quite validated in going back to 3rd Edition. The most we had to deal with was creative template moves which was usually quashed with a simple laser pointer...
I don't know much about 3rd, but I know that someone who looked at all the myriad options of games out there and said 'hey, let's play a Games Workshop game, but with 1990s design sensibilities!' doesn't get to feel validated about anything.
Since you admit to not knowing much about 3rd edition it'd seem reasonable that you also don't know much about wether someone could feel validated about choosing to play it vs the current edition..
Quick catchup, but just a little reaction to the idea of calculating value. First off, its an excellent if not essential tool and should absolutely be utilized and acknowledged as such. That said, from my experience it doesn't actually create balance as much as help you discover imbalance. It's good for comparing relative value and it can absolutely create a baseline to work from, but the problem always comes in when you realize all the context specific elements to the equation.
Like if you have a unit that is clearly worth 3 and another that is worth 4, great, but more often than not some factor of game design breaks the equation. Maybe activations matter, in which case having 4 units that cost 3 is always better than 3 units that cost 4. Sometimes its as simple as working in a 50 point system and other things in the army make it really easy to come to 41 points. In scenarios like this being worth 4 leaves you out when to fit in the list you really have to pay 4.5.
This is where I see the idea of granularity break down. The ideal of dialing in to the perfect value is tempting, but the result is an ever more specific jigsaw puzzle with too many pieces. There's nothing worse than being worth 38 points in a 100 point system and seeing just how often other things add up to 63.
That's not to say points are worthless, just that I think players put too much faith in them to do dictate balance. More and more I find myself preferring that games have broad, low granularity points that models are designed to fill. It forces designers to be more deliberate and differentiate things that compete for design space. The trap of relying on a points bump to make your trooper+ balanced has never really worked in a way that results in both units seeing the table.
LunarSol wrote: Quick catchup, but just a little reaction to the idea of calculating value. First off, its an excellent if not essential tool and should absolutely be utilized and acknowledged as such. That said, from my experience it doesn't actually create balance as much as help you discover imbalance. It's good for comparing relative value and it can absolutely create a baseline to work from, but the problem always comes in when you realize all the context specific elements to the equation.
Like if you have a unit that is clearly worth 3 and another that is worth 4, great, but more often than not some factor of game design breaks the equation. Maybe activations matter, in which case having 4 units that cost 3 is always better than 3 units that cost 4. Sometimes its as simple as working in a 50 point system and other things in the army make it really easy to come to 41 points. In scenarios like this being worth 4 leaves you out when to fit in the list you really have to pay 4.5.
This is where I see the idea of granularity break down. The ideal of dialing in to the perfect value is tempting, but the result is an ever more specific jigsaw puzzle with too many pieces. There's nothing worse than being worth 38 points in a 100 point system and seeing just how often other things add up to 63.
That's not to say points are worthless, just that I think players put too much faith in them to do dictate balance. More and more I find myself preferring that games have broad, low granularity points that models are designed to fill. It forces designers to be more deliberate and differentiate things that compete for design space. The trap of relying on a points bump to make your trooper+ balanced has never really worked in a way that results in both units seeing the table.
LunarSol wrote: Quick catchup, but just a little reaction to the idea of calculating value. First off, its an excellent if not essential tool and should absolutely be utilized and acknowledged as such. That said, from my experience it doesn't actually create balance as much as help you discover imbalance. It's good for comparing relative value and it can absolutely create a baseline to work from, but the problem always comes in when you realize all the context specific elements to the equation.
Like if you have a unit that is clearly worth 3 and another that is worth 4, great, but more often than not some factor of game design breaks the equation. Maybe activations matter, in which case having 4 units that cost 3 is always better than 3 units that cost 4. Sometimes its as simple as working in a 50 point system and other things in the army make it really easy to come to 41 points. In scenarios like this being worth 4 leaves you out when to fit in the list you really have to pay 4.5.
This is where I see the idea of granularity break down. The ideal of dialing in to the perfect value is tempting, but the result is an ever more specific jigsaw puzzle with too many pieces. There's nothing worse than being worth 38 points in a 100 point system and seeing just how often other things add up to 63.
That's not to say points are worthless, just that I think players put too much faith in them to do dictate balance. More and more I find myself preferring that games have broad, low granularity points that models are designed to fill. It forces designers to be more deliberate and differentiate things that compete for design space. The trap of relying on a points bump to make your trooper+ balanced has never really worked in a way that results in both units seeing the table.
Hence PL being good in this case?
I think PL was a good idea left half finished. It needed a bit of datasheet restriction to really work. Like for example, you could only take as many of a special weapon as came on the sprue or some kind of wargear allotment currency within the datasheet that limits things a bit where needed. As it was implemented though it was just a less granular point system with a whole bunch of options that had clear winners and losers because they were only balanced by cost. That doesn't really work. You need to design your game around the points system, not just tack one on.
Just Tony wrote: Once again you folks on here remind me of why I was quite validated in going back to 3rd Edition. The most we had to deal with was creative template moves which was usually quashed with a simple laser pointer...
While I don't agree that 3rd was all that good, I can respect the fact that you found something that works for you and that you have escaped the GW product treadmill.
The discussion of Chain of Command (of which I know nothing, btw) does bring out one of the glaring problems with points and the GW approach to gaming in general, which is to say: Geography matters.
Unless you're doing some sort of "surprise attack!" scenario, you would always know what you are fighting against. A great source of imbalance could be solved simply by having foreknowledge of who you are going against. The notion of an "all-comers" army has always been absurd if not stupid.
Historical games work in part because no one in their wildest dream would imagine a platoon of US Marines using 1942 equipment fighting 1945 Germans in the snow. Or maybe 1937 Japanese against 1945 Germans. 40k shrugs it off as a matter of course.
So here again we come back to the problem not being the points, but other decisions made by the game designers.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Unless you're doing some sort of "surprise attack!" scenario, you would always know what you are fighting against. A great source of imbalance could be solved simply by having foreknowledge of who you are going against. The notion of an "all-comers" army has always been absurd if not stupid.
I think a middle ground would be ideal- an army rarely gets to bring exactly the equipment they want for a given matchup (insert quip about preparing to fight the last war), but at the same time, there's some flexibility once intelligence on the enemy and objectives is available.
That's why I've been interested in the idea of sideboard mechanics. Maybe you can't swap out your whole army, but being able to change out at least a few things to tailor a bit to the scenario would be nice. Bring 2000pts, field 1500pts of it. Something like that.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Historical games work in part because no one in their wildest dream would imagine a platoon of US Marines using 1942 equipment fighting 1945 Germans in the snow. Or maybe 1937 Japanese against 1945 Germans. 40k shrugs it off as a matter of course.
Battletech has a similar style to historicals in that regard- most of the time when you set up a game you agree on an era with your opponent, and that drives what units and upgrades are available. But that game is much more lenient on WYSIWYG than 40K, so it's much easier to minorly adapt your force to use in any era, just by picking earlier or later variants of the same mech.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Unless you're doing some sort of "surprise attack!" scenario, you would always know what you are fighting against. A great source of imbalance could be solved simply by having foreknowledge of who you are going against. The notion of an "all-comers" army has always been absurd if not stupid.
I think a middle ground would be ideal- an army rarely gets to bring exactly the equipment they want for a given matchup (insert quip about preparing to fight the last war), but at the same time, there's some flexibility once intelligence on the enemy and objectives is available.
That's why I've been interested in the idea of sideboard mechanics. Maybe you can't swap out your whole army, but being able to change out at least a few things to tailor a bit to the scenario would be nice. Bring 2000pts, field 1500pts of it. Something like that.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Historical games work in part because no one in their wildest dream would imagine a platoon of US Marines using 1942 equipment fighting 1945 Germans in the snow. Or maybe 1937 Japanese against 1945 Germans. 40k shrugs it off as a matter of course.
Battletech has a similar style to historicals in that regard- most of the time when you set up a game you agree on an era with your opponent, and that drives what units and upgrades are available. But that game is much more lenient on WYSIWYG than 40K, so it's much easier to minorly adapt your force to use in any era, just by picking earlier or later variants of the same mech.
I think a sideboard mechanic would be cool-but some armies would need adjustments for sure.
Marines, Tau, IG, all those can probably get by on equipment swaps.
But other forces, like Necrons, Daemons (especially if mono-god), and such cannot vary nearly as hard.
The game has had more than three types of bolters since Rogue Trader.
alextroy wrote: Plasmagun: Rapid Fire 1, R 24", S 7, AP -3, D 1, any Unmodified Hit Dice Roll of 1 (before or after rerolls) destroys the firing model after all attacks of the unit are resolved.
Uhh! I hate that "destroys model" rule. It's so black and white and doesn't scale at all. It makes taking plasma weaponry on multi-wound models (especially characters) very bad if not suicidal. It also completely bypasses the standard methods of causing damage to models, creating a separate 'insta-kill' mode that nothing protects or mitigates in any way, which doesn't make conceptual sense (the same issue applies to the current "morale" rules).
Like everything, it should be a scalable weapon rule:
Overheats (X) - Any unmodified To Hit rolls of 1 (after any re-rolls) cause a number of Mortal Wounds to the firing model equal to the X value of the weapon.
It means your characters don't die instantly to a plasma pistol overheating, so there's actually a reason to use them. It also means that you don't need special rules exceptions on bigger units with plasma weaponry to avoid them dying instantly to plasma overheats, and it allows you to show the difference in overheat capacity between a Plasma Pistol and a Plasma Blast Gun.
(And before re-rolls doesn't make any sense; you're re-rolling it, so the previous result is wiped)
Don't worry. It was in no way a suggestion of what the rule should be, or even exactly what it accurately was before. It was an example on how the Plasmagun problem was an issue of the rules not the weapon point value.
Hopefully, GW did a much more thoughtful job in 10th Edition balancing the different upgrade weapons to reduce the probability of there being a right option and a wrong option. The Terminator Squad datasheet shows two weapon options that you have to think about.
Is there enough vehicle targets of sufficient toughness to make a Chainfist a reasonable choice over a Powerfist?
Will the rules associated with the Assault Cannon and the Heavy Flamer make them compelling choices over a Storm Bolter and Cyclone Missile Launcher?
catbarf wrote: 'No I will not acknowledge the overall point being made, please design extremely specific mechanics for every army so that I can nitpick them.'
If you want to fight skew without changing much else about 40k that's exactly what you'd need to do.
You can't just say, "It would be nice to have extra ways to do [x]" without considering the impacts that will have on how every army, especially armies that don't have ways to do [x] natively baked into their troop choices. It's easy to suggest things for marines and even IG as they tend to have loads of generalist units but it gets tougher when when you actually have to put on your work boots and design for the entire game.
"Changing things requires balancing" is the incredibly astute assertion you're making here. To which I'll respond with "Duh."
Implementation is always trickier than theory. But since you're not even grappling with the theory particularly well, I'm not about to take the time pouring over the entire game for your amusement.
JNAProductions wrote: I think a sideboard mechanic would be cool-but some armies would need adjustments for sure.
Marines, Tau, IG, all those can probably get by on equipment swaps.
But other forces, like Necrons, Daemons (especially if mono-god), and such cannot vary nearly as hard.
That's why I figure if 40K ever adopts a sideboard mechanic, it'll just be about bringing a list and then choosing a subset from it for the battle.
Swapping out wargear options is too granular (most players don't have spares for each squad) and would affect armies totally differently. But you could see that the mission requires defending an objective, and so elect to leave your Wraiths and max out on Immortals instead.
JNAProductions wrote: I think a sideboard mechanic would be cool-but some armies would need adjustments for sure.
Marines, Tau, IG, all those can probably get by on equipment swaps.
But other forces, like Necrons, Daemons (especially if mono-god), and such cannot vary nearly as hard.
That's why I figure if 40K ever adopts a sideboard mechanic, it'll just be about bringing a list and then choosing a subset from it for the battle.
Swapping out wargear options is too granular (most players don't have spares for each squad) and would affect armies totally differently. But you could see that the mission requires defending an objective, and so elect to leave your Wraiths and max out on Immortals instead.
sideboard as a concept only really works on a few armies.
How would a sideboard work for Harlequins/Custodes/Demons/etc. These armies have such anemic options that you're pretty much always bringing most options anyway
I would say that that's a sign that those armies ought to have more varied options and capabilities if they're to be their own standalone armies, rather than an argument against sideboard mechanics.
At the same time, even if your 2000pt army is just a 1500pt army with more repetition, the ability to choose exactly which 1500pts of it you field would still allow more flexibility. Nurgle Daemons might not have a lot of options, but at least if you know the mission will require you to be fast, you can take more Plague Drones and fewer Beasts of Nurgle.
catbarf wrote: I would say that that's a sign that those armies ought to have more varied options and capabilities if they're to be their own standalone armies, rather than an argument against sideboard mechanics.
At the same time, even if your 2000pt army is just a 1500pt army with more repetition, the ability to choose exactly which 1500pts of it you field would still allow more flexibility. Nurgle Daemons might not have a lot of options, but at least if you know the mission will require you to be fast, you can take more Plague Drones and fewer Beasts of Nurgle.
Oh i totally agree i'd rather just get more units in these armies for sure.
But i honestly think sideboarding is the "nuke button" solution. There just HAS to be a way to design the missions in a way that spamming one specific unit isnt gonna let you win.
JNAProductions wrote: I think a sideboard mechanic would be cool-but some armies would need adjustments for sure.
Marines, Tau, IG, all those can probably get by on equipment swaps.
But other forces, like Necrons, Daemons (especially if mono-god), and such cannot vary nearly as hard.
That's why I figure if 40K ever adopts a sideboard mechanic, it'll just be about bringing a list and then choosing a subset from it for the battle.
Swapping out wargear options is too granular (most players don't have spares for each squad) and would affect armies totally differently. But you could see that the mission requires defending an objective, and so elect to leave your Wraiths and max out on Immortals instead.
sideboard as a concept only really works on a few armies.
How would a sideboard work for Harlequins/Custodes/Demons/etc. These armies have such anemic options that you're pretty much always bringing most options anyway
Harlequins can go anti-monster in one sideboard and anti-vehicle in another (assuming you get to choose army X with sideboard A or army X with sideboard B which would require +500 or +1000 pts to bring along to game night/tournament day but still possible at 2000 pts and lots of people don't want 2000 pts anyway. The stats on the anti-monsters pistols are just pitiful at the moment.
catbarf wrote: I would say that that's a sign that those armies ought to have more varied options and capabilities if they're to be their own standalone armies, rather than an argument against sideboard mechanics.
At the same time, even if your 2000pt army is just a 1500pt army with more repetition, the ability to choose exactly which 1500pts of it you field would still allow more flexibility. Nurgle Daemons might not have a lot of options, but at least if you know the mission will require you to be fast, you can take more Plague Drones and fewer Beasts of Nurgle.
Oh i totally agree i'd rather just get more units in these armies for sure.
But i honestly think sideboarding is the "nuke button" solution. There just HAS to be a way to design the missions in a way that spamming one specific unit isnt gonna let you win.
Nova-style mission packs already achieved, which is why tournament lists used today aren't all just one thing. Having Ro3 helps as well.
Insectum7 wrote: "Changing things requires balancing" is the incredibly astute assertion you're making here. To which I'll respond with "Duh."
Except that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you refuse to speak about what changes could be made to combat other kinds of skew besides vehicles/monstrous creatures and how these changes can be applied to armies that don't have generalists as their basic troop choices. It's reasonable to ask how you would approach these issues across the entire game when your only examples thus far have been krak grenades being used to give extra punch against armor.
catbarf wrote: I would say that that's a sign that those armies ought to have more varied options and capabilities if they're to be their own standalone armies, rather than an argument against sideboard mechanics.
At the same time, even if your 2000pt army is just a 1500pt army with more repetition, the ability to choose exactly which 1500pts of it you field would still allow more flexibility. Nurgle Daemons might not have a lot of options, but at least if you know the mission will require you to be fast, you can take more Plague Drones and fewer Beasts of Nurgle.
Oh i totally agree i'd rather just get more units in these armies for sure.
But i honestly think sideboarding is the "nuke button" solution. There just HAS to be a way to design the missions in a way that spamming one specific unit isnt gonna let you win.
We're already there. Full-on skew lists haven't dominated since Knights + Guard was a thing in 8th, the issue is casual players don't like being told, "This game you're going to have to hunker down, movement block, and probably not remove many enemy models." when their non-TAC list runs into skew at their LGS. No level of balance will fix that without completely homogenizing the game in a way that I'd suspect an even greater number of players would take issue with.
We're already there. Full-on skew lists haven't dominated since Knights + Guard was a thing in 8th, the issue is casual players don't like being told, "This game you're going to have to hunker down, movement block, and probably not remove many enemy models." when their non-TAC list runs into skew at their LGS. No level of balance will fix that without completely homogenizing the game in a way that I'd suspect an even greater number of players would take issue with.
true, thanks for pointing out how the base argument is basically non existent. Never gonna fix people complaining
We're already there. Full-on skew lists haven't dominated since Knights + Guard was a thing in 8th, the issue is casual players don't like being told, "This game you're going to have to hunker down, movement block, and probably not remove many enemy models." when their non-TAC list runs into skew at their LGS. No level of balance will fix that without completely homogenizing the game in a way that I'd suspect an even greater number of players would take issue with.
That is true if you look at the armies from who is best at the moment perspective. If you go inside the codex, a ton of books have one skew build and that is it. GK for 2 editions are spaming NDKs and interceptors, and if either or both are bad, then GK are really bad, and not secret outside of a meta list emarges to replace them.
Right now if someone has a IG list, and the opponent plays one of the non pre DW nerf DA or IH marine armies, then the marine player is not going to win. Period it doesn't even matter what the marine player is doing, because in order to not have a high IG players win the IG players has to both play bad and have a bad list at the same time. In the past there were armies, like ad mecha, where the actual mechanics of running the game were so hard for normal players, that there was an actual skew between the same lists being played by a very good player and a regular player. But those are far less common. What is the more common expiriance in w40k, is that person A has a top army and person B has not, and person B will lose those proverbial 9 out of 10 games, which in reality often means that they will not win any games, if they build their army the wrong way.
If GW doesn't deliver your faction or codex a well build and powerful 2000pts, but instead releases a "cool" codex of random stuff things do not go well.
Spamming one unit is (usually) not a skew list. If at least a third of your list has a significantly different profile you're not playing skew. Since Interceptors and NDKs are very different there is no issue with those being popular assuming they're not OP. The problem with GK balance would be any unviable units, like Devastators or whatever they're called, I don't think they've been good since 6th.
Insectum7 wrote: "Changing things requires balancing" is the incredibly astute assertion you're making here. To which I'll respond with "Duh."
Except that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you refuse to speak about what changes could be made to combat other kinds of skew besides vehicles/monstrous creatures and how these changes can be applied to armies that don't have generalists as their basic troop choices. It's reasonable to ask how you would approach these issues across the entire game when your only examples thus far have been krak grenades being used to give extra punch against armor.
I don't speak to it because it's beside the main point. The main point is that rewarding play mechanics can be introduced into the game that reduce the potential for skew. But hey, if you're willing to concede that point then maybe I'll post some other ideas. But if your goal is to simply be nitpicky in order to sidestep the primary point then I won't bother posting, because it would simply be a waste of time.
But also, Krak grenades in CC wasn't my only example, so there's already another idea if you look for it.
We're already there. Full-on skew lists haven't dominated since Knights + Guard was a thing in 8th, the issue is casual players don't like being told, "This game you're going to have to hunker down, movement block, and probably not remove many enemy models." when their non-TAC list runs into skew at their LGS. No level of balance will fix that without completely homogenizing the game in a way that I'd suspect an even greater number of players would take issue with.
true, thanks for pointing out how the base argument is basically non existent. Never gonna fix people complaining
Mmm, no. That's a misunderstanding of the concept.
The idea here isn't driven by win rates, so skew lists not "dominating" doesn't play in to it. As noted, one can simply play to the mission and grab objectives while the forces themselves might be unable to defeat the skew-list in battle. The point is that being unable to hurt your opponents units is unfun. The most notorious example might be Knights after their introduction in 6th and 7th, where there were just whole categories of units that couldn't engage with them in any meaningful way. Even through 8th and 9th, the ability of most Infantry troops with to deal with Knights is pretty low, and just spending a game just trying to hold bodies on objectives without being able to counter an opposing army can be a pretty lousy experience. The idea is to provide more options for counterplay against skew that actually feel good.
Insectum7 wrote: The point is that being unable to hurt your opponents units is unfun.
losing models is unfun
getting overwatched by tau is unfun
getting one's overwatch denied is unfun
getting mortal'd is unfun
getting charged turn 1 is unfun
playing against tough enemies is unfun
playing against glass cannon is unfun
...
if we start making these sorts of changes, because some people might find them unfun, the game is gonna implode. Skew isnt a problem and hasnt been for a while.
Insectum7 wrote: The point is that being unable to hurt your opponents units is unfun.
losing models is unfun
getting overwatched by tau is unfun
getting one's overwatch denied is unfun
getting mortal'd is unfun
getting charged turn 1 is unfun
playing against tough enemies is unfun
playing against glass cannon is unfun
...
if we start making these sorts of changes, because some people might find them unfun, the game is gonna implode. Skew isnt a problem and hasnt been for a while.
Uhh, was that a serious post?
Can some "unfun" be mitigated in ways that don't harm the overall experience of the game? The answer is "yes" for literally anyone who's ever made a rules suggestion or called out a issue they see with GWs game design. You're basically arguing that no changes can be made to the game.
Can some "unfun" be mitigated in ways that don't harm the overall experience of the game? The answer is "yes" for literally anyone who's ever made a rules suggestion or called out a issue they see with GWs game design. You're basically arguing that no changes can be made to the game.
no i'm saying that as it stands, skew isnt a problem so why do we feel the need to change something to "fix" it existing. These lists already lose more than they win, these lists have weaknesses and counters.
There are much changes that are much more pressing than fighting the "skew" boogieman
Can some "unfun" be mitigated in ways that don't harm the overall experience of the game? The answer is "yes" for literally anyone who's ever made a rules suggestion or called out a issue they see with GWs game design. You're basically arguing that no changes can be made to the game.
no i'm saying that as it stands, skew isnt a problem so why do we feel the need to change something to "fix" it existing. These lists already lose more than they win, these lists have weaknesses and counters.
There are much changes that are much more pressing than fighting the "skew" boogieman
Because more than one potential issue can be addressed at any given time. And sometimes addressing what looks to be a "side" issue can actually help solve larger issues. . . like this whole "gameplay answers to skew" tangent actually sprung from a topic about points or solutions to the lack thereof. Is it related? Yes it is, although you might not think so on the surface.
How much skew is it in a 500 point game to bring a Knight? I think we only just recently had a thread about this. Is there a way to make a Knight in a 500 point game less of a skew issue? Well maybe there is! Does that help solve a larger problem? It could!
Insectum7 wrote: The idea here isn't driven by win rates, so skew lists not "dominating" doesn't play in to it. As noted, one can simply play to the mission and grab objectives while the forces themselves might be unable to defeat the skew-list in battle. The point is that being unable to hurt your opponents units is unfun. The most notorious example might be Knights after their introduction in 6th and 7th, where there were just whole categories of units that couldn't engage with them in any meaningful way. Even through 8th and 9th, the ability of most Infantry troops with to deal with Knights is pretty low, and just spending a game just trying to hold bodies on objectives without being able to counter an opposing army can be a pretty lousy experience. The idea is to provide more options for counterplay against skew that actually feel good.
Why should one player who brought a legal list be punished because another player brought a list that lacks the tools to deal with an entire category of targets? The answer is to build lists that have some answers to any problem and to play to your outs in matchups where you don't have enough answers to the number of targets the enemy bought.
Beyond that, what about the skew player's fun? Presumably, they bring their skew list that doesn't win many games because they like the idea of their very tough force feeling appropriately tough in a game where, at least for the past two editions, that has been hard to achieve. Your changes take away that player's fun and hand it to a player that both doesn't want to change their list, doesn't care that skew isn't good, and doesn't care that they can still win against skew. Why is this category of player worth pleasing over other kinds of player?
Insectum7 wrote: Is there a way to make a Knight in a 500 point game less of a skew issue? Well maybe there is! Does that help solve a larger problem? It could!
Then do the work and get back to us. Until you prove that your hypothesis is valid I'll keep having the same issues with it.
Show us how you can build options that are mechanically balanced, flavorful, and effective against not just armor skew but every kind of skew in the game and I'll be impressed. Until then, you're just blowing wind in a completely worthless fashion because you won't take steps to actually see your desire realized.
Oh i totally agree i'd rather just get more units in these armies for sure.
But i honestly think sideboarding is the "nuke button" solution. There just HAS to be a way to design the missions in a way that spamming one specific unit isnt gonna let you win.
Why? What if the factions indentity is linked to "spaming" one type of unit. A DeatWing force, a harlequin army etc why should people wanting to play those established and existing armies be punished for not wanting to play a highlander format. Which isn't any more balanced what we have now. Because one army will have 3 units doing kind of the same thing efficiently , in a highlander format, and another one will not.
And to all people thinking a sideboard is a good idea. Well imagine you are a teen trying to get 2000pts and then you are told you need between 300 to 1000pts of extra models, just to play the core game, because you have to sideboard your army, based on the opponents you will find at the store and what list they play on a given day.
W40k is already starting to become a 30+ hobby club , it doesn't require even more barriers to the entry of the game.
Insectum7 wrote: The idea here isn't driven by win rates, so skew lists not "dominating" doesn't play in to it. As noted, one can simply play to the mission and grab objectives while the forces themselves might be unable to defeat the skew-list in battle. The point is that being unable to hurt your opponents units is unfun. The most notorious example might be Knights after their introduction in 6th and 7th, where there were just whole categories of units that couldn't engage with them in any meaningful way. Even through 8th and 9th, the ability of most Infantry troops with to deal with Knights is pretty low, and just spending a game just trying to hold bodies on objectives without being able to counter an opposing army can be a pretty lousy experience. The idea is to provide more options for counterplay against skew that actually feel good.
Why should one player who brought a legal list be punished because another player brought a list that lacks the tools to deal with an entire category of targets? The answer is to build lists that have some answers to any problem . . .
Exactly! So provide more answers to the common skew problems. . . by providing alternative methods of engaging.
Canadian 5th wrote: Beyond that, what about the skew player's fun? Presumably, they bring their skew list that doesn't win many games because they like the idea of their very tough force feeling appropriately tough in a game where, at least for the past two editions, that has been hard to achieve. Your changes take away that player's fun and hand it to a player that both doesn't want to change their list, doesn't care that skew isn't good, and doesn't care that they can still win against skew. Why is this category of player worth pleasing over other kinds of player?
It's a concern. . . but is it really fun to have an opponent hide from you the entire game before rushing forward to an objective to take the win in the end? Or do you want a situation that promotes more interaction? I think the latter.
Insectum7 wrote: Is there a way to make a Knight in a 500 point game less of a skew issue? Well maybe there is! Does that help solve a larger problem? It could!
Then do the work and get back to us. Until you prove that your hypothesis is valid I'll keep having the same issues with it.
Show us how you can build options that are mechanically balanced, flavorful, and effective against not just armor skew but every kind of skew in the game and I'll be impressed. Until then, you're just blowing wind in a completely worthless fashion because you won't take steps to actually see your desire realized.
TLDR; Put up or shut up.
Show me that you're reading comprehension is capable and I might. Go back and find the non-CC Grenade solution I've already posted. But since you've left a trail of disingenuous argument in the thread I'm not particularly inclined, and I think the more reasonable readers can see the merit in the idea for themselves.
Insectum7 wrote: Exactly! So provide more answers to the common skew problems. . . by providing alternative methods of engaging.
Or just build a decent list... I don't complain when I lose a commander game because I index more into my own combo than I did counterspells, so don't complain when the list you build without x capability can't do x.
It's a concern. . . but is it really fun to have an opponent hide from you the entire game before rushing forward to an objective to take the win in the end? Or do you want a situation that promotes more interaction? I think the latter.
Given the current rules that's not what happens because you score each turn. You're always having to push up and control space as it is.
Show me that you're reading comprehension is capable and I might. Go back and find the non-CC Grenade solution I've already posted. But since you've left a trail of disingenuous argument in the thread I'm not particularly inclined, and I think the more reasonable readers can see the merit in the idea for themselves.
One extra solution means nothing, you'd need to show your work for most factions/faction groups and against more than one kind of skew for it to show anything at all. Look at what I did when I made a suggestion for changing 40k scoring, I went and wrote out a simple version of the rules I'm proposing along with some thoughts on how it might be modified for even greater variety. Now you try making some actual rules to go with your suggestion.
"Or just build a decent list" It ought to be self evident that if more units have more solutions to deal with more problems, that there could be a greater array of viable lists, and that on-table decisions would matter more.
I'll take the request for mechanics as your admission that the right design can work, and leave it at that.
Insectum7 wrote: "Or just build a decent list" It ought to be self evident that if more units have more solutions to deal with more problems, that there could be a greater array of viable lists, and that on-table decisions would matter more.
I'll take the request for mechanics as your admission that the right design can work, and leave it at that.
Except that you seem to want every list to have tools for anti-armor and anti-horde work by default. That either removes choices in list building because you don't need specialized tools to deal with those forces and thus only take the most points efficient generalist forces possible or does nothing because they aren't effective enough and only serve as a trap for new players to fall into by promising that their forces can deal with anything. Even worse different armies might fall on different sides of this line making people feel even worse about their army choice or breaking a top dog even further away from the pack.
EDIT: Also, my issue isn't with the idea that we should have greater agency past the list-building stage it's with the idea that your method actually works in a way that does the job without creating worse issues down stream.
Insectum7 wrote: "Or just build a decent list" It ought to be self evident that if more units have more solutions to deal with more problems, that there could be a greater array of viable lists, and that on-table decisions would matter more.
I'll take the request for mechanics as your admission that the right design can work, and leave it at that.
Except that you seem to want every list to have tools for anti-armor and anti-horde work by default.
Insectum7 wrote: "Or just build a decent list" It ought to be self evident that if more units have more solutions to deal with more problems, that there could be a greater array of viable lists, and that on-table decisions would matter more.
I'll take the request for mechanics as your admission that the right design can work, and leave it at that.
Except that you seem to want every list to have tools for anti-armor and anti-horde work by default. That either removes choices in list building because you don't need specialized tools to deal with those forces and thus only take the most points efficient generalist forces possible or does nothing because they aren't effective enough and only serve as a trap for new players to fall into by promising that their forces can deal with anything. Even worse different armies might fall on different sides of this line making people feel even worse about their army choice or breaking a top dog even further away from the pack.
EDIT: Also, my issue isn't with the idea that we should have greater agency past the list-building stage it's with the idea that your method actually works in a way that does the job without creating worse issues down stream.
Giving less-specialized units (or units that specialize in something else) tools to nick around with their non-ideal targets is not going to lead to a game ruled by generalists. That’s pure straw man.
Per the norm, this entire issue boils down to 40k having almost no interaction between forces other than to kill. Introducing any number of mechanics, such as suppression / pinning / forced movement / even target prioritization could go a long way towards solving this issues as well as many others. But that would require a game team that could design its way out of a wet paper bag, so we’re unlikely to ever see it.
Until then, giving weak weapons a fractional chance to chip the paint on larger models is an acceptable trade off.
Only if someone plays horde or has ultra efficient army units given by GW. If you play an elite army it is not the case. And the less optimised the elite army is the less fun it is to play.
Imperial knights are a good exmple of how fun it is when every good army can kill a big knight easily, and GW writes your codex with use of big knights in mind.
Well if you give basic Space Marine units frag and krak grenades that should mean that every army gets similar options on their basic troops. If every armies troops have options against every type of skew then very close to every list will have these options.
morganfreeman wrote: Giving less-specialized units (or units that specialize in something else) tools to nick around with their non-ideal targets is not going to lead to a game ruled by generalists.
Every unit can already wound every other unit on 6s so we'd need something more than that and at that point, given how even the meltagun has been nerfed for 10th edition, that basically means giving every basic unit proper anti-tank options.
]quote]Per the norm, this entire issue boils down to 40k having almost no interaction between forces other than to kill. Introducing any number of mechanics, such as suppression / pinning / forced movement / even target prioritization could go a long way towards solving this issues as well as many others. But that would require a game team that could design its way out of a wet paper bag, so we’re unlikely to ever see it.
The game has objective control, movement blocking, and screens as viable ways to defeat skew lists. These methods work as skew lists aren't over-performing at the moment. If anything going by win-rate hordes, knights, parking lots, and monster mashes all need buffs not more nerfs.
Until then, giving weak weapons a fractional chance to chip the paint on larger models is an acceptable trade off.
Karol wrote: Imperial knights are a good exmple of how fun it is when every good army can kill a big knight easily, and GW writes your codex with use of big knights in mind.
And this is where I come back to the idea of pushing the game design beyond its limits.
Maybe, just maybe, GW didn't need to try to cram macro-level warmachines and airpower into a what started out as a platoon-scale game of infantry battles with a handful of vehicles thrown in for support.
This is like doing a game of the D-Day landing in Squad Leader with rules for not just for naval support fire, but for having actual battleships enter the map area.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Commisar ain't wrong. Knights as a singular army is pretty bad to design around
But it's also very 40K even if it's bad for a game overall.
The concept of small engagements feels pretty rare. Usually it's this wider conflict and we would be zoomed in on it.
You could even make narrative rules for Titans that just walk through and accidentally or purposefully stomp your gak.
GW doesn't seem willing to follow through with that 'a small part of a larger battle' concept, though. You'd think that when your general discovers that his personal retinue is facing a cluster of Knights, they might requisition some additional anti-armor support. Or maybe a tactical lance strike. Or replacements for units that have been destroyed. All things that could be leveraged in rules to offset bad matchups.
The structure of only having available what you brought with you is very 'skirmish' in its design, as is the Crusade system where that fixed list is actually your whole army, not a subset of a larger force. There's some massive incongruity between that vision of what the battle represents and the mechanical implementation.
Daedalus81 wrote: They did a light version of that with strats to represent some flexibility. Most marine armies had a form of orbital strike, however weak it was.
Only through a Chapter Master (though you really weren't limited on how of those you could take).
It had good stats, but you needed to be on a bike or a Centurion squad if you wanted to use it on the move.
The concept of small engagements feels pretty rare. Usually it's this wider conflict and we would be zoomed in on it.
While there is often a larger engagement, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the vicinity of the table. The game was founded on the "Battle at the Farm", where the wider war shapes the situation of the battle, but the main theatre itself is far, far away. The situation is often a spur of the moment incident that's forced into being.
Insectum7 wrote: Where did I say "every"?
When I say "more" do you just hear "every"?
Well if you give basic Space Marine units frag and krak grenades that should mean that every army gets similar options on their basic troops. If every armies troops have options against every type of skew then very close to every list will have these options.
This is a great example of the lack of reading comprehension I was alluding to. More=/= every.
But also the idea that this somehow removes choices in list building is quite the leap. You should bottle and sell the lubrication you use for your slippery slope. You could make bank!
There is a balance concept from another game I have seen that was interesting,
the game is WW2 air combat, there are no point values, and indeed no limits on how many aircraft you may bring
the balance mechanic is that your victory conditions are determined by the size of your force.
e.g. for the RAF player in the Battle Of Britain scenario their victory level is set by the size of their force - IIRC its something like you need to shoot down one enemy aircraft for every two aircraft you bring.
the balance mechanic is simple, if you bring too many your opponent may not have brought enough for you to be able to be victorious - even a clean sweep of the enemy is not enough.
IIRC the Luftwaffe have a similar condition but also have bombers, they need to get a number of bombers through related to the number of escorts they bring
that game has some balance mechanics built in, in that scenario for example what the RAF can bring is limited.
the goal is essentially "bring what you feel you need to win, but don't bring too much more than that", while having the chance to bring a smaller force and make your opponents job harder
another game, Battle Rider I think, provides for you to have a fixed force pool, then both sides draw a mission (and keep it secret), the mission says how much of your force you can bring, but it also provides three levels of victory.
the first is if your force is less than half the size of the enemy force, the third is is your force is more than twice the size of the enemy, the second is between these to
the trick is you don't know the enemy mission, you also don't know exactly how many points they have brought.
its perfectly possible for both sides to "win"
e.g. a scouting mission allows a smaller force, if significantly outnumbered your win condition is "observe the enemy for two turns then leave with at least half your force operational"
catbarf wrote: GW doesn't seem willing to follow through with that 'a small part of a larger battle' concept, though. You'd think that when your general discovers that his personal retinue is facing a cluster of Knights, they might requisition some additional anti-armor support. Or maybe a tactical lance strike. Or replacements for units that have been destroyed. All things that could be leveraged in rules to offset bad matchups.
The structure of only having available what you brought with you is very 'skirmish' in its design, as is the Crusade system where that fixed list is actually your whole army, not a subset of a larger force. There's some massive incongruity between that vision of what the battle represents and the mechanical implementation.
The original sense of 40k was a key focal point in a larger battle, i.e. Pegasus Bridge on D-Day. Small units of troops whose success or failure are at the hinge point of history.
One of the weird aspects of 40k is that it has no inherent narrative structure. Dabbling in other systems, there was always a sense that the battle's factions were fixed, so the notion of just a platoon of dudes who has no idea who in the universe is over the next hills is just strange. That being said, when factions were few, it was possible to have an "all-comers" list against who you were fighting, and lots of people in my area did that.
No one thought it was cheaty or min-maxing, it just made for better game play because both sides had more focused lists.
Ideally, you could come up with a point system that was simple enough to do this on the fly, but there again GW wants to count each an every individual model's point cost, making list-building into its own skill. That's not the fault of the points, though.
This is a great example of the lack of reading comprehension I was alluding to. More=/= every.
But also the idea that this somehow removes choices in list building is quite the leap. You should bottle and sell the lubrication you use for your slippery slope. You could make bank!
So you're going to leave some armies to twist in the wind then? Or just some units in some armies?
Of course, the marine player will always be fine because his troops carry grenades.
This is why I asked you to show exactly how you wanted to make these changes. I think you have serious blind spots with regard to how this idea will actually play out and lack the game design skill to fix what you see as an issue without breaking something else.
This is a great example of the lack of reading comprehension I was alluding to. More=/= every.
But also the idea that this somehow removes choices in list building is quite the leap. You should bottle and sell the lubrication you use for your slippery slope. You could make bank!
So you're going to leave some armies to twist in the wind then? Or just some units in some armies?
Of course, the marine player will always be fine because his troops carry grenades.
This is why I asked you to show exactly how you wanted to make these changes. I think you have serious blind spots with regard to how this idea will actually play out and lack the game design skill to fix what you see as an issue without breaking something else.
And you've repeatedly shown a lack of skill to engage with the topic, so I think the conversation is simply not worth continuing.
Canadian 5th wrote: This is why I asked you to show exactly how you wanted to make these changes.
You keep asking him to redesign the entire game because you refuse to make any good-faith effort to extrapolate from the illustrative examples you've been given.
I can think of a few ways that a unit like, say, Hormagaunts might be given the ability to interact with armor that they might otherwise not be able to. Declaring that Insectum's broader suggestion- that the game would be better for giving units varied capabilities of dealing with skew- can't possibly work because only Marines get grenades is incredibly myopic.
Canadian 5th wrote: This is why I asked you to show exactly how you wanted to make these changes.
You keep asking him to redesign the entire game because you refuse to make any good-faith effort to extrapolate from the illustrative examples you've been given.
I can think of a few ways that a unit like, say, Hormagaunts might be given the ability to interact with armor that they might otherwise not be able to. Declaring that Insectum's broader suggestion- that the game would be better for giving units varied capabilities of dealing with skew- can't possibly work because only Marines get grenades is incredibly myopic.
The devil is in the details though and those details need to be seen before one can say if the idea is a good one or not.
We've already given players 6s to wound any toughness so that every unit can harm anything else. Presumably, the anti-armor would need to be better than that but as we've seen with melta weapons the current trend is to make handheld anti-tank less reliable than it has been through 8th and 9th. So how good do you want non-dedicated anti-tank weapons to be and how do you propose this is done within the paradigm of 10th edition? There's also still the question of how to combat other forms of skew, why skew players should be punished for playing their list while other players get a buff for playing theirs, and which units get the buffs if not all units end up getting something.
Skew is a function of a counter system. The issue I think is that a counter system is necessary for power fantasies and... a feeling of skill. (There must be a better word for this but I'm failing to find it).
The obvious counter to skew (if you aren't going to limit list-building) is to produce a soft-counter system as said. I.E. shooting your preferred target you expect to get a 40% return, shooting a non-preferred target you expect to get a 15% return etc. This would compare with say a "hard counter" system, where shooting your preferred target gets you a 100%+ return (think guard squads with melta guns one-tapping a tank costing far more points) but you can't hurt non-preferred targets at all.
Taken to the extreme, you could math things out AoS style (clearly its not this skewed in practice) so there is no-counter system at all. Lascannons and lasguns have the same "damage output" whether targeting tanks or termagants. We would be in a world where 500 grots=a knight etc.
But as said, the issue is how far you want to go. A no-counter system as said would seem lame at various levels. I think "Tough units" like say tanks, should be tough. Having anti-tank units be good into tanks, and regular units not be, is a design goal, not a flaw. It feels "fluffy", "realistic", and "skillful" to shoot tanks with lascannons, not lasguns.
Moreover, if most units can look at a Knight and say "I fancy my chances to take out its kneecaps" - that's severely stepping on the toes of the Knight fantasy. Which is presumably to tap dance across whole armies (because its completely out of scale of 40k and should just be banned the end.) See similar complaints about people swatting planes (that should be over the battlefield for about 3 seconds and so shouldn't really be in game either) out of the sky with flamers.
At the other extreme however, I think a hard counter system has major problems in an IGOUGO system. If you've bought 3 anti-tank units, and my "all-tanks army" just alpha-strikes them turn one, then you have none. And we are back to a game where you can't interact with my units. A possible counter to this is making rules such that tanks expect to do almost zero damage to explicitly "anti-tank" units. This would arguably be fair/balanced on the premise that non-anti-tank units can do zero damage to them. But I suspect people would accuse that of being overly gamey. Why for example would a Leman Russ happily chew through a tactical squad, but do nothing to Devastators?
I think skew hasn't really been a problem in 9th partly because of mission design - but also because GW massively upped the damage on everything. This sort of turned 40k into checkers. Aside from when factions have been head and shoulders above everyone, its been relatively balanced because almost everything counters everything. To make an army that couldn't scratch tanks, you really had to deliberately spam units with nothing but S3/S4 AP- weapons. The issue hasn't been massed lasguns - but the fact anything with a decent number of at least S5, AP-2/3 and 2+ damage can contribute. Psychic powers and stratagems to chuck in a few mortal wounds etc.
That may change in 10th. My concern is that its very frustrating to just "fail". And if say melta guns are wounding on 5s, they'll have a high chance to do nothing. I don't think this will mean the counter to vehicles is getting 1000 grots into 12". But making luck the biggest determinant of outcomes is as frustrating as list building being the main determinant of outcomes.
As an example, people really didn't like that brief moment in late 8th when massed Plague Bearers+Tzeentch Psykers was a thing. It wasn't a 70% win rate tournament warping list, but various "casual" armies would use whole shooting phases to kill 20 Plague Bearers. Everything eventually got tied up in these go-nowhere fights, while you got mortal wounded to death.
the problem wasn't the bearers. The problem was horrors, getting killed, spliting in to two blue horrors and in to a poxwalker, because something just died. The lists actualy was getting bigger, as you killed it. Very unfun, even for good armies, And for weaker armies or non optimised stuff it was just mind blowing. And it was easy to build because ton of people had poxwalkers and horrors from prior editions.
Tyel wrote: Moreover, if most units can look at a Knight and say "I fancy my chances to take out its kneecaps" - that's severely stepping on the toes of the Knight fantasy. Which is presumably to tap dance across whole armies (because its completely out of scale of 40k and should just be banned the end.) See similar complaints about people swatting planes (that should be over the battlefield for about 3 seconds and so shouldn't really be in game either) out of the sky with flamers.
At the other extreme however, I think a hard counter system has major problems in an IGOUGO system. If you've bought 3 anti-tank units, and my "all-tanks army" just alpha-strikes them turn one, then you have none.
Yes. 40k has balance issues because the designers have created a nonsensical system/scale combination that can't every really work.
If you are going to do a platoon-scale game, use appropriate models and functions, don't include operational/strategic level assets because it screws everything up.
If you are going to use the IGOUGO system, you have to mitigate it so that one player can't just win the game in a single turn.
That's not a points problem, its a design problem.
Adding to that is the need to build a completely new gaming system every 3-5 years, so that whatever lessons learned and iterative improvements could have been implemented are lost.
Canadian 5th wrote: The devil is in the details though and those details need to be seen before one can say if the idea is a good one or not.
No, not really. This isn't a mathematical proof, a scientific paper, or even an exceptionally complex game.
Canadian 5th wrote: We've already given players 6s to wound any toughness so that every unit can harm anything else. Presumably, the anti-armor would need to be better than that but as we've seen with melta weapons the current trend is to make handheld anti-tank less reliable than it has been through 8th and 9th. So how good do you want non-dedicated anti-tank weapons to be and how do you propose this is done within the paradigm of 10th edition? There's also still the question of how to combat other forms of skew, why skew players should be punished for playing their list while other players get a buff for playing theirs, and which units get the buffs if not all units end up getting something.
You're looking at this through a lens of giving units broad and reliable anti-armor capabilities, rather than as in the example given specific and limited anti-armor capabilities. Krak grenades that can only be deployed in melee are not going to render meltaguns obsolete, but they might give units that otherwise wouldn't be able to damage tanks (under a system where S4 can't plink Knights to death) something to do and some capability to threaten armor if intelligently deployed. A game where the effectiveness of units heavily depends on how they're used is more interesting than one where everyone just starts shooting at full effectiveness from turn 1 and either it works or it doesn't. And weapons that can do significant damage under very specific circumstances render neither their targets nor more reliable alternatives obsolete.
I'm not going to engage with this rhetoric about 'punishing' players. Nobody's trying to 'punish' anyone, we're talking about how to make a better game, and a game where both players have interesting player-driven means of engaging the opponent is better than a game where one side cannot reasonably fight and has to just go for objectives.
Canadian 5th wrote: The devil is in the details though and those details need to be seen before one can say if the idea is a good one or not.
No, not really. This isn't a mathematical proof, a scientific paper, or even an exceptionally complex game.
Canadian 5th wrote: We've already given players 6s to wound any toughness so that every unit can harm anything else. Presumably, the anti-armor would need to be better than that but as we've seen with melta weapons the current trend is to make handheld anti-tank less reliable than it has been through 8th and 9th. So how good do you want non-dedicated anti-tank weapons to be and how do you propose this is done within the paradigm of 10th edition? There's also still the question of how to combat other forms of skew, why skew players should be punished for playing their list while other players get a buff for playing theirs, and which units get the buffs if not all units end up getting something.
You're looking at this through a lens of giving units broad and reliable anti-armor capabilities, rather than as in the example given specific and limited anti-armor capabilities. Krak grenades that can only be deployed in melee are not going to render meltaguns obsolete, but they might give units that otherwise wouldn't be able to damage tanks (under a system where S4 can't plink Knights to death) something to do and some capability to threaten armor if intelligently deployed. A game where the effectiveness of units heavily depends on how they're used is more interesting than one where everyone just starts shooting at full effectiveness from turn 1 and either it works or it doesn't. And weapons that can do significant damage under very specific circumstances render neither their targets nor more reliable alternatives obsolete.
I'm not going to engage with this rhetoric about 'punishing' players. Nobody's trying to 'punish' anyone, we're talking about how to make a better game, and a game where both players have interesting player-driven means of engaging the opponent is better than a game where one side cannot reasonably fight and has to just go for objectives.
Any unit can already, at least in theory, damage any target on 6s to wound and from what I've seen Insectum doesn't think that and skew lists being unlikely to win is enough. Thus I assumed that some capability beyond do 1W on an unsaved 6 to wound was what was being asked for and yes, that likely would be too much to give out to everybody as it seriously degrades the toughness of armor/monstrous creatures. Going into 10th edition where reduction of lethality appears to be a primary design goal this idea makes even less sense.
GW has always gotten at the point on some stuff and completely missed it on others. They have for 30 years so I really can't see they're being any iterative evolution there because they never seem to actually learn things consistently
Daedalus81 wrote: 10th is iterative of 8th and 9th. The choices made now are precisely a result of lessons over the past 6 years.
Awesome! I'm looking forward to the glowing reviews of each and every codex.
Snark aside I would say they have empirically demonstrated understanding with several of the changes so far.
And completely missing the point on others. Consolidating all combi-weapons into one single profile......
Keep cheerleading and drinking that Kool-aid, Daed.......
Do you people lack any sort of introspection or pragmatism?
Did I say ALL of the change? No, I didn't.
Would you say the reaction to most of the changes have been positive or negative? I think you'd be lying to yourself if you said negative.
If you're unable to process new information it's not me that's "drinking the koolaid". And what an absolutely pathetic statement from someone who lords a different game from the same company.
The GW hate train is so deep you forgot to stop and think.
Canadian 5th wrote: Any unit can already, at least in theory, damage any target on 6s to wound and from what I've seen Insectum doesn't think that and skew lists being unlikely to win is enough.
Because fishing for 6s is ineffective and shuffling onto objectives while mindlessly putting all your shooting into one model is boring.
A mechanic that requires you to use movement and positioning in order to inflict credible damage is more interesting to play. It can simultaneously be more effective if you can pull it off but also, by virtue of being difficult to pull off, not a reliable source of damage unless you seriously outplay your opponent.
If you can't see game design as anything other than average damage output on paper then you're not going to get it and we should move on.
Canadian 5th wrote: Any unit can already, at least in theory, damage any target on 6s to wound and from what I've seen Insectum doesn't think that and skew lists being unlikely to win is enough.
Because fishing for 6s is ineffective and shuffling onto objectives while mindlessly putting all your shooting into one model is boring.
A mechanic that requires you to use movement and positioning in order to inflict credible damage is more interesting to play. It can simultaneously be more effective if you can pull it off but also, by virtue of being difficult to pull off, not a reliable source of damage unless you seriously outplay your opponent.
If you can't see game design as anything other than average damage output on paper then you're not going to get it and we should move on.
I would prefer the broader game have more decision making than my primary decision making to be how to get behind a tank. It just doesn't offer as much in an IGOUGO system.
Baby steps. Dealing with armor essentially boiling down to 'either your army has enough firepower or it doesn't' is a specific symptom of broader lack of interactivity.
I'm sure people will have examples from other games - but I think its hard to make movement/positioning feel key in a turn-based game.
It always ends up boiling down to:
"Do you know the trick? No? Then learn the trick."
"Can you do the trick? If yes, do the trick. If no, possibly because your opponent is aware of this functionality, then you are out of luck."
This is a bit reductive - and its the sort of logic that goes "40k is easy, its always obvious exactly what the right decision is" (which in turn produces: "okay then, go win the LVO if its that straightforward.") But it holds up a bit I think. Like Tri-pointing was essential to make assault work in 8th edition. But it wasn't really "skillful" or feel good/fluffy.
Basically if you buff marines so they can melta-bomb Knight legs, don't you then need to buff Knights so they can do something without being insta-melta'ed?
Its the difference between say "I can shoot you in the back because I spent 3 turns patiently luring you into an ambush" and "I can shoot you in the back because I can pin-point DS anywhere on the board, so I set up right behind you".
Tyel wrote: I'm sure people will have examples from other games - but I think its hard to make movement/positioning feel key in a turn-based game.
Actually, it's dead easy. Make everything extremely deadly but remove kill points entirely. At the same time make positioning extremely effective in keeping your important dudes alive, and then force players to move out and clear the area to score. You know, like in chess
Jokes aside, exactly same trick works with wargames. Move the gravity of damage output calculations from innate units' abilities towards situational bonuses like cover, flanking, crossfire etc; create win conditions that require area control instead of mindless slaughter, and suddenly you have a... classic wargame, instead of this weird mashup of CCG, deckbuilder and dice game with miniatures sprinkled on top that 40k is.
I also suggest trying M.A.X, an old computer strategy game, which is IGOUGO with reactions (it can also be played in simultaneous moves mode), and is extremely focussed on movement and positioning.
Tyel wrote: I'm sure people will have examples from other games - but I think its hard to make movement/positioning feel key in a turn-based game.
It always ends up boiling down to:
"Do you know the trick? No? Then learn the trick."
"Can you do the trick? If yes, do the trick. If no, possibly because your opponent is aware of this functionality, then you are out of luck."
This is a bit reductive - and its the sort of logic that goes "40k is easy, its always obvious exactly what the right decision is" (which in turn produces: "okay then, go win the LVO if its that straightforward.") But it holds up a bit I think. Like Tri-pointing was essential to make assault work in 8th edition. But it wasn't really "skillful" or feel good/fluffy.
Basically if you buff marines so they can melta-bomb Knight legs, don't you then need to buff Knights so they can do something without being insta-melta'ed?
Its the difference between say "I can shoot you in the back because I spent 3 turns patiently luring you into an ambush" and "I can shoot you in the back because I can pin-point DS anywhere on the board, so I set up right behind you".
It's a valid concern.
Nou summed it up pretty well- making the effectiveness of your units dependent on board state makes your decision-making more relevant, particularly if they don't manifest as automatic best-practice tricks like tripointing. I think Epic is a good example because the C&C and morale elements create a more complex experience than just parking your units at optimal range and unloading. You need to manage your limited activations and prioritize, flank when appropriate without over-committing, decide when it's the right time to push into firefight range to break the enemy.
IGOUGO is a factor but it's only part of it. 40K actively de-emphasizes range and positioning; there's no incentive to manage distance if you shoot equally well at 30" (literally from one deployment zone to the other) as you do at point-blank range. No reason to flank the enemy if it doesn't do anything and only GSC have a crossfire mechanic. Minimal effect of cover, with blocking LOS being far more impactful in practice. Perfect information and perfect C&C, so it's pretty difficult to catch an enemy out of position without them being able to respond. These are all things you need to tweak if you want maneuver to outweigh spreadsheet math.
The reason you find 'tricks' is because they're optimal strategies with no tradeoff or downside. Shooting the Knight with your bolters is a no-brainer, regardless of how little damage it does, because there's nothing else to shoot at. But if running up to a Knight to meltabomb it means getting off the objective, there's a trade-off. If doing that on open terrain is suicide (even with multiple squads), and you're better off hugging terrain to close the distance without being exposed to fire, then there's layers to that decision and risk management beyond 'do the trick'. And maybe you shouldn't be able to circumvent that risk with a rock-solid 100% reliable deep strike mechanic that lets you drop right next to and instakill the Knight before it can respond, gg.
Infinity's an example of a game that does all this well, I find. It's harder to write a bad list because most units can be effective in the right context. Bad positioning and coordination can result in your team getting wiped out by reactions when you try to attack, or vulnerable to a single unit dancing through your lines and taking you out. You need to do a lot more than just stack capabilities.
Tyel wrote: I'm sure people will have examples from other games - but I think its hard to make movement/positioning feel key in a turn-based game.
It always ends up boiling down to:
"Do you know the trick? No? Then learn the trick."
"Can you do the trick? If yes, do the trick. If no, possibly because your opponent is aware of this functionality, then you are out of luck."
This is a bit reductive - and its the sort of logic that goes "40k is easy, its always obvious exactly what the right decision is" (which in turn produces: "okay then, go win the LVO if its that straightforward.") But it holds up a bit I think. Like Tri-pointing was essential to make assault work in 8th edition. But it wasn't really "skillful" or feel good/fluffy.
Basically if you buff marines so they can melta-bomb Knight legs, don't you then need to buff Knights so they can do something without being insta-melta'ed?
Its the difference between say "I can shoot you in the back because I spent 3 turns patiently luring you into an ambush" and "I can shoot you in the back because I can pin-point DS anywhere on the board, so I set up right behind you".
It's a valid concern.
Nou summed it up pretty well- making the effectiveness of your units dependent on board state makes your decision-making more relevant, particularly if they don't manifest as automatic best-practice tricks like tripointing. I think Epic is a good example because the C&C and morale elements create a more complex experience than just parking your units at optimal range and unloading. You need to manage your limited activations and prioritize, flank when appropriate without over-committing, decide when it's the right time to push into firefight range to break the enemy.
IGOUGO is a factor but it's only part of it. 40K actively de-emphasizes range and positioning; there's no incentive to manage distance if you shoot equally well at 30" (literally from one deployment zone to the other) as you do at point-blank range. No reason to flank the enemy if it doesn't do anything and only GSC have a crossfire mechanic. Minimal effect of cover, with blocking LOS being far more impactful in practice. Perfect information and perfect C&C, so it's pretty difficult to catch an enemy out of position without them being able to respond. These are all things you need to tweak if you want maneuver to outweigh spreadsheet math.
The reason you find 'tricks' is because they're optimal strategies with no tradeoff or downside. Shooting the Knight with your bolters is a no-brainer, regardless of how little damage it does, because there's nothing else to shoot at. But if running up to a Knight to meltabomb it means getting off the objective, there's a trade-off. If doing that on open terrain is suicide (even with multiple squads), and you're better off hugging terrain to close the distance without being exposed to fire, then there's layers to that decision and risk management beyond 'do the trick'. And maybe you shouldn't be able to circumvent that risk with a rock-solid 100% reliable deep strike mechanic that lets you drop right next to and instakill the Knight before it can respond, gg.
Infinity's an example of a game that does all this well, I find. It's harder to write a bad list because most units can be effective in the right context. Bad positioning and coordination can result in your team getting wiped out by reactions when you try to attack, or vulnerable to a single unit dancing through your lines and taking you out. You need to do a lot more than just stack capabilities.
There is one more way to shift even the IGOUGO game towards manouver and positioning - simultaneous damage resolution. In 40k, if you go out into the open ground against a strong enemy unit, but manage to wipe it out, you're safe from any retaliation. Even if you fail, provided you didn't fail completely, the retaliation is weak(er) so the game focuses on pure mathhammer attrition. In SDR game, you're wiped out as well, unless you can somehow manipulate the odds in your favour. But to make it work you have to have more board state skew sources than cover (which will not even be applicable for the most popular faction, against the most popular weapons anymore) and the newly introduced higher ground advantage.
Basically, to make a good wargame out of 40k, you must start by making it a wargame in the first place.
vict0988 wrote: Having both Wraithlords and Wraithknights available as single-entity units that are optional to include in a list makes the game imbalanced, points minimize this imbalance.
Tyel wrote: I'm sure people will have examples from other games - but I think its hard to make movement/positioning feel key in a turn-based game.
Actually, it's dead easy. Make everything extremely deadly but remove kill points entirely. At the same time make positioning extremely effective in keeping your important dudes alive, and then force players to move out and clear the area to score. You know, like in chess
Jokes aside, exactly same trick works with wargames. Move the gravity of damage output calculations from innate units' abilities towards situational bonuses like cover, flanking, crossfire etc; create win conditions that require area control instead of mindless slaughter, and suddenly you have a... classic wargame, instead of this weird mashup of CCG, deckbuilder and dice game with miniatures sprinkled on top that 40k is.
I also suggest trying M.A.X, an old computer strategy game, which is IGOUGO with reactions (it can also be played in simultaneous moves mode), and is extremely focussed on movement and positioning.
It can most certainly be done.
That might make an effective wargame but I'm not sure it fits with the ethos of 40k where the fantasy is Marines tanking bolter shots and tanks driving closer to hit people with melee weapons.
Daedalus81 wrote: Snark aside I would say they have empirically demonstrated understanding with several of the changes so far.
Again, show me the final product at launch. For 20 years I've watched the "THIS time we will make it the best one ever!" promos.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: Basically, to make a good wargame out of 40k, you must start by making it a wargame in the first place.
This is the core problem. It isn't a very good wargame, so it doesn't matter how you put points, they won't work.
No actual wargame would include the oddball scale-breaking items that 40k uses. Yes, squad/platoon games will have airstrikes, but it's just a blast effect or a strafing zone; they don't have fighters fly in circles over the itty-bitty battlefield.
Having Knights in the game is like having a destroyer anchor in lake in the middle of the battlefield. These are problems beyond mere points to solve.
Knights can work fine in 40k, there's no inherent problem with the scale there. Flyers are harder, but they make more sense if you understand the battlespace as nonlinear, and flyer behavior isn't that of a modern air force.
It's also an issue of just recognizing what 40k is for, which is that of using your cool models. Imo it's a core design pillar, even if incorperating these units feels awkward.
Daedalus81 wrote: 10th is iterative of 8th and 9th. The choices made now are precisely a result of lessons over the past 6 years.
Awesome! I'm looking forward to the glowing reviews of each and every codex.
Snark aside I would say they have empirically demonstrated understanding with several of the changes so far.
And completely missing the point on others. Consolidating all combi-weapons into one single profile......
Keep cheerleading and drinking that Kool-aid, Daed.......
Do you people lack any sort of introspection or pragmatism?
Did I say ALL of the change? No, I didn't.
Would you say the reaction to most of the changes have been positive or negative? I think you'd be lying to yourself if you said negative.
If you're unable to process new information it's not me that's "drinking the koolaid". And what an absolutely pathetic statement from someone who lords a different game from the same company.
The GW hate train is so deep you forgot to stop and think.
Ok, the "cheerleading and kool-aid" remarks were completely out of line, and I fully apologize for those, Daed. I'm sorry.
But you can't both point out that I "lord" another gw game and claim that I'm on the "GW hate train". I like some of the things that gw does, and dislike others.
And that gw game that I "lord"? I actively play it. I'm not just reacting to gw "hype" articles (read: advertisements). Every edition is the "best edition", and fixes everything wrong with the previous edition. It's marketing.
And how am I "you people"? Are you counting the voices in my head? Or just venting on me for everyone else that you've argued with about this? If it's the former, then stay away from them, they're MINE! If it's the latter? Then I hope you feel better.
