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

GW needs to go entirely digital and have all data sheets being living documents that they will tinker with as problems arise.

Unfortunately, the only way to actually balance this game would require both a complete ground-up rewrite of the rules combined with complete overhauls of all the codices. My first thing would be to put a moratorium on book releases for probably a year. For that time, to make revenue, they would concentrate on releasing updated model kits for all of the long neglected units that are out there. Take that year and rebuild things from the ground up with playtesting and balancing at the forefront. Ditch unbound entirely, reintroduce the FOC, and while I don't think you have to totally trash formations, give formations appropriate point costs and make sure the benefits of the formations are thorughly tested and costed. The codices would definitely be smaller and much cheaper than they are currently. I would look at them almost as a loss leader for getting people to buy the stuff you're really making money on, which are the models. For the rulebook, I would have 2 versions made, 1 stripped down book like the one they include with the boxed sets and one "Collector's Edition" with all of the fluff and bells and whistles.

Finally, if given COMPLETE free rein, I would get rid of the one sacred cow that's hamstringing a lot of the ideas presented before: the d6 - there's not enough variety available in the d6 system for all of the varied units that are out there. We would need a system based either off a d10 or a d12 to make this really hum smoothly.

There is a simple way to play with the current rules and make things fairer - a handicap system. If you lose a game, you get 5% more points for the next one. If you win, you get 5% fewer points.

This would work if you have a regular gaming partner or go to a club - even if you play different people each week. Although for tournaments you'd need a standard points limit.

A handicap means you can use the models you like and have a chance of winning. Choosing models because they're competitive would be a thing of the past. There'd be more variety and more themed lists.

For some reason people seem to think you have to have equal points for each player for it to be fair, but that isn't true!

I havent read all 5 pages so forgive me jumping in but this is a great post topic. I think the game could be balanced with a community handicap system on top of points. EG some units would be zero handicap and you can take as many as you like. Some might even be NEGATIVE handicap. IE they are so rubbish taking then actually GIVES you better options elsewhere. Good units would be POSITIVE handicap.

Then games would be like this: 1850 points zero handicap.

So Eldar, Tau and Necrons are going to struggle as alpha codex's because almost all of their codex choices would have positive handicap scores.

Lets take eldar as an example WraithKnights would be (say) plus 100 handicap each unless you have one already then the 2nd is 150 handicap. Crappy units might be negative handicap like storm guardians vibro canon and vypers without upgrades

If you end up in a 1850 zero handicap games and you want.to take 2 Wraith Knights you need to DEDUCT 250 points from your 1850 (and take 1600 points) unless you take 40 storm guardians on foot (with no special weapons plus no warlock or IC) who have a balance of plus 80 each squad of 20 and you take 3 vibro canon cos they have a negative handicap of 10 each and 3 vypers with no upgrades which remove 20 each. That way you can take 1850 points again

Who is going to decide on the method that is used to arrive at these handicap values?
Who is going to agree to this method?
Who will agree to these imposed values?
Who is going to organize it ?

How are you going to deal with the imbalance in the core rules?

Lanrak wrote:
Who is going to decide on the method that is used to arrive at these handicap values?
Who is going to agree to this method?
Who will agree to these imposed values?
Who is going to organize it ?

How are you going to deal with the imbalance in the core rules?

that is the same question 4 ways plus another question ^^

Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, the community and software - there could be playtesting - including community software (like an app) that can be written to use battlescribes xml data formats where volunteers simply append them and then you punch in who won (EG: a simple points left on last turn is a good one)

Q5 the handicap of those units




Automatically Appended Next Post:
you have to remember I am talking about tournament play here - so it could be part of tournament rules to post results

I also gave this some thought - if there was a handicap imbalance you could either "ask" your opponent to remove the quantity in points from their list

or (and this is interesting, at least to me)

have a rule dynamic - so that you can have "advantages for points"

here are some examples off the top of my head:

- 50 points imbalance - one unit gets scout special rule
- 100 point imbalance - one unit can arrive from reserve automatically on turn 1
- 200 points - one unit can start game in combat with an opponent unit

now.

i know the last one seems crazy but it really isn't it could simply be that the unit in close combat *started* the game in close combat because that is the *ambush* that caused the bullets to fly

@ConanMan.
Ok so what part of the 40k playing community are you referring to?As far as I can tell most tournament organizers use some form of handicap system, to try to improve the balance a bit.

But they do not all use the same method.

And what about those people who prefer more narrative games?Why should some units be so bad at the concept level everyone sees tham as a handicap if they take them?And some players claim to be 'narrative players' just because they take these units with limited function and wave it in the face of everyone else as a virtue!

How is this going to fix pick up and play games, and free them of all the negotiation before hand?

And please do not be so dismissive of the massive imbalance problems created by the current core rules.

GW has spent years trying to remove all player skill from the game and replace it with randum rolls.

How is this handicap system going to address the alpha strike problem cause by alternating game turns?

How is this handicap system going to address the imbalance between shooting and assault that has been in the core rules since 3rd ed?

How is the handicap systems going to deal with the all or nothing natures of the AP systems and so many special rules?

If the core rules covered more of the game play and special rules were kept to a minimum, like other well written war game.
Balancing 40k to a similar level to suit everyone would be just as straight forward.

I don't agree the game is highly random. I've lost 2 games in 2 years. And I can tell you what the odds are for any given situation in my head. I just do it naturally. This is not a boast, it helps me guesstimate how useful various tactics are.

Ok so firstly the mechanics being bad. We all agree there is a derth on assault. But not all units have it so bad. I think space wolves can partially be made to work. Especially with TWC with storm sheilds and Wulfen. But then harlies have it bad. In this game context Assault units simply would have a negative balance. You have to then assign more or less of a handicap negative balance from TRULY bad close combat troops separated from mere fairly bad. Not only by points but also by a handicap.

The implication would be, either your army has a heroic negative balance (no shame losing) or you get to take some sort of bonus before game or you get to take 2 imperial knights. That sort of thing.

I am a software developer actually open source. I have seen similar things get balance. I think I could probably work out the handicaps for my fave two codexes, and you can too.

The handicap system doesn't "deal" with an issues it compensates you I you endure them. The implication is you would (to be competitive) ally ur self back to a zero balance. OR suffer a army tax. I think it would make 40k much more interesting (variety of oft left out units) and mean it would be hard to face 6 imperial Knights. I think that basically under costed units could have a handicap tax and over powered codexes might even need allies to ever really take. It gives sisters a role it gives dark eldar wytches a role. I..e better to take them than have points deducted

ConanMan wrote:
I don't agree the game is highly random. I've lost 2 games in 2 years. And I can tell you what the odds are for any given situation in my head. I just do it naturally. This is not a boast, it helps me guesstimate how useful various tactics are.

Ok so firstly the mechanics being bad. We all agree there is a derth on assault. But not all units have it so bad. I think space wolves can partially be made to work. Especially with TWC with storm sheilds and Wulfen. But then harlies have it bad. In this game context Assault units simply would have a negative balance. You have to then assign more or less of a handicap negative balance from TRULY bad close combat troops separated from mere fairly bad. Not only by points but also by a handicap.

The implication would be, either your army has a heroic negative balance (no shame losing) or you get to take some sort of bonus before game or you get to take 2 imperial knights. That sort of thing.

I am a software developer actually open source. I have seen similar things get balance. I think I could probably work out the handicaps for my fave two codexes, and you can too.

The handicap system doesn't "deal" with an issues it compensates you I you endure them. The implication is you would (to be competitive) ally ur self back to a zero balance. OR suffer a army tax. I think it would make 40k much more interesting (variety of oft left out units) and mean it would be hard to face 6 imperial Knights. I think that basically under costed units could have a handicap tax and over powered codexes might even need allies to ever really take. It gives sisters a role it gives dark eldar wytches a role. I..e better to take them than have points deducted

Basically, this just fixes to point costs, though. Oh, that overcosted unit of posessed? You take it and you get 30 extra points for your tournament game, effectively negating 30 of the points you just spent on it. So, basically, it now costs 30 points less. What you're saying is that the only thing you need to balance 40k is better point costs.

Not really, it's saying that weaker units WILL be chosen. Basically under costed units would become rarer and over costed units more plentiful.

If the handicap was 100% right it would work. You'd see a mix of powerful and crap units in an army. And your opponent would have the same too. A mix. Points adjustment doesn't give you that. The main benefit is how good are you at getting full value out of your crappiest units. If you're good you win.

Most old codexes suffer from useless out of date units. I am only suggesting a handicap for tournament competitive play. I.E. you could still use (and ignore) it in the social sphere but there it'd be merely useful to know how op a list is. I.e. if I was playing sisters of battle with a minus 600 handicap and I got my a$$ handed by a plus 550 list 3 WraithKnights I'd not feel too bad even if it didn't use the handicap system we were both 1850 on the table I could take a look after sort of thing and not feel so bothered.

Everyone seems agreed that point costs are a mess. However, I think the best long-term solution suggested thus far is to to start with an extremely basic unit, and balance the costs of all other units up from there.

The suggestion of leaving some units over-costed, but adding modifiers to the total number of points allowed just seems to add too many steps.
ex: If a unit should be 100 points, and it is currently 150 points, the first method would simply reduce the cost of the unit to 100 points, while the second method would leave it at 150 points, but increase the army's total pool of points by 50. They both get you there, but the one is far more user friendly.

@Bill1138.
Are they any basic units left in 40k?I thought they all had special rules of some sort now.

Accurate point costs can only be proven if the relationship between in game effects are proportional.
40k does not even use the same resolution methods across all units so how can you prove the values are accurate?

I am sure you can get then closer than the laughable mess that GW plc sell you.

But how can you accurately cost the 'all or nothing' type rules GW seem to prefer?

Get rid of many of those rules.

The handicap system would be a good patchwork while working on a full rewrite, but it's only a patchwork system. I still contend you can only fix this game with a complete rewrite of the rules and the codices - anything else is barely useful

 Battlesong wrote:
The handicap system would be a good patchwork while working on a full rewrite, but it's only a patchwork system. I still contend you can only fix this game with a complete rewrite of the rules and the codices - anything else is barely useful

At the very least, they need to do away with the current release model. It's almost impossible to balance two codices against each other when they are released a year and a half apart with six other codices between them. I realize that releasing every codex at the same time isn't really feasible, but within six months wouldn't be unreasonable. As others have mentioned, though, the idea of an online "living codex" would probably be the best idea since it would be easy to update, and rules for new models could be added as they are released.

@EnTyme.
If the core rules and stat line covered the majority of the game play,and GW had a clearly defined design brief that they stuck to across an entire edition of the game.
The current release schedule would not be such a problem.

But as the design brief can change between codex releases, and the core rules are inadequate, and have to rely on layers of extra rules to cover the game play.
Any issues with the current release method are magnified a thousand fold.

I agree a more balance focused release would be better.But without the significant changes to the core rules a re-write would bring.
Any attempt at game balance will be severely hampered.

It needs to be mathematical.

Base troop
[WS+BS+S+T+(7-Sv)+Ld]xW

Weapon(s)
Similar incl range BS St AP special rules as multipliers.

Start with USRs cause blanket 5% per rule (ATSKNF, RELENTLESS, JetBike, IC, monsterous creature unlocks garg creature =10% etc )

A good (sorry possible) starting point.

Purely mathematical won't cut it because of synergitc effects. You need empirical testing.

Martel732 wrote:
Purely mathematical won't cut it because of synergitc effects. You need empirical testing.

You need a LOT of testing. playtesting is how lots of games are balanaced out. and more importantly once those imbalances are found then the company actually HAS to act on it. which is where i think GW is failing at.

I dont mind the Purely mathematical approach to get close to a final game though.

Averages should be Average and makes it simpler to understand that 3s for most stats = chump basic dude at a glance.

Martel732 wrote:
Purely mathematical won't cut it because of synergitc effects. You need empirical testing.

I firmly agree; lots of playtesting and playtesting with the intent of breaking the game with everything. If they ever get this, then they'll be able to move on to the actual work on fixing the game. As it is now, it seems that each book is written in a vacuum and each unit and formation in each book is simply given rules that the designers feel fit the fluff and then influenced by what they need to sell. Basically the absolute worst way to design a game......

While we are discussing balance.I think it is important to allocate point values at the level of the interaction.

If the game is all about unit interaction, then allocate the point values at the unit level.

Not allocate the point values for the model/equipment/weapons that make up the units.(Totally missing the synergistic effects within units.)
And then try to balance things up at the army level adjusting point values instead of restrictions to availability.(Totally missing the synergistic effects at the army composition level.)

In fact GW plc are very consistent in using the worst practices in game development and game balancing .

See GW plc are the best in the world , at doing things the worst way possible.

I like the idea of a "floating point system" that GW can control.... if theyd exercise that control week to week.

I also like the idea of unit costs. This unit is made of 5 marines with this cost. This unit is made of 10 with this. It would take away lots of versatility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about the 9th age guys?

 doktor_g wrote:

What about the 9th age guys?

I don't like it very much.
The main reason is that this project wants to continue "the spirit of the 8th edition" which is not the best idea imho (those who skipped warhammer because of 8th edition will not come back and those and for new players it doesn't matter what the rules looked like before. So this only suits the small group which liked the 8th)


If you want to make the 8th edition of 40k, you need a new ruleset written from scratch, with the best of 2nd-7th edition and new ideas (and/or the next logic step for existing rules, like "Decurion for all")

If you do it like T9A and just make a cleaned up 7th with "balanced" army rules, people will continue to play the "official" rules because there is no real advantage for using it over already existing house rules

 doktor_g wrote:
It needs to be mathematical.

Base troop
[WS+BS+S+T+(7-Sv)+Ld]xW

Weapon(s)
Similar incl range BS St AP special rules as multipliers.

Start with USRs cause blanket 5% per rule (ATSKNF, RELENTLESS, JetBike, IC, monsterous creature unlocks garg creature =10% etc )

And your math failed

First one, never sum up values, you need to multiply them
Second one, you need to work with probabilities and not fixed values

It is more like, (chance to hit * rate of fire * (expected turns per game/range value)*(chance to hit in CC * attacks * chance to wound) * chance to take a wound * wounds)

Than you have the problem that AP values as used by 40k cannot be calculated because AP2 is worthless against armies without a 2+ save

I tried to get it working for 4 months now and failed, because it only works for standard troops without synergies (A normal Space Marine would cost around 15 points, but a calculated IG soldier will cost 1 point than, while a unit of both will not cost 10 times the base + equipment)

The issue with any mathematical approach is as people have pointed out is synergy between rules and stats.

If we just go with Doktor_G's formula.

(WS + BS + S + T + (7-SV) + Ld) x W

First off it leaves out attacks, which make a big difference as far as WS is concerned. A unit with WS 10 and 1 attack is still bad at close combat. Beyond that lets look at 2 hypothetical units that are the same cost.

(WS 10 + BS 1 +S 10 + T 1 + 1 (6+ save) + LD 5) x 2 wounds

(WS 4 + BS 4 + S 4 + T4 + 4(3+ Save) +LD 8) x 2 wounds

Each of these would be 56 points, but the first unit will die in a stiff breeze, vs the far more durable second unit.

Further more a unit that is specialized for shooting would get less value from higher stats in things like S and WS, than a CC unit.

Same with rules like fleet for non-CC units, or Jink on units with good invunerable saves, or a unit with NO guns.

I feel in general what would need to happen is for GW to do away with the Codex model and go to a release schedule that releases a few models for each faction at a time. This allows for small additions to be playtested against the current system.

Breng77 wrote:

I feel in general what would need to happen is for GW to do away with the Codex model and go to a release schedule that releases a few models for each faction at a time.

You know that GW has already done this?
We will never see a regular Codex release again, just Campaign Books and Formation Upgrades

And GW will never ever do playtesting or think twice about how good rules fit into their current system. Even point values are chosen randomly or just because they look "cool"

I believe Breng77 was trying to say start with the few basic HQ unit and core units for all the factions, and get them balanced at the unit level.By heavy and diligent play testing.

Then AFTER the cores of the factions are balanced to the satisfaction of the majority of player,Then add a few more units to each faction.
Balance these new units to each other and the core units to the satisfaction of the majority of players then rinse and repeat.

This is the sensible and practical way to balance a war game, ,and is basically how most game companies balance games.AFAIK.

Lanrak wrote:
I believe Breng77 was trying to say start with the few basic HQ unit and core units for all the factions, and get them balanced at the unit level.By heavy and diligent play testing.

Then AFTER the cores of the factions are balanced to the satisfaction of the majority of player,Then add a few more units to each faction.
Balance these new units to each other and the core units to the satisfaction of the majority of players then rinse and repeat.

This is the sensible and practical way to balance a war game, ,and is basically how most game companies balance games.AFAIK.

I fully agree that this would be an extremely effective way to balance a game, but can you imagine the backlash from the community if we were told all but a few of our units are now (temporarily) illegal in the game? You'd basically squatting the entire game for a short time. I'm a pretty laid back guy, but if you told me I couldn't use my Wraiths because they haven't been updated yet, I'll be the first to tell you exactly where you can stick those new rules no matter how balanced they are.

You shouldn't be able to use Wraiths as they exist currently anyway. They are stupid broken.

Martel732 wrote:
You shouldn't be able to use Wraiths as they exist currently anyway. They are stupid broken.

"Stupidly broken" might be a little harsh. "Seriously undercosted" would be a better description. Even then, they're only really bad in the Decurion (which is one of the things that I agree needs to be rebalanced).

 EnTyme wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You shouldn't be able to use Wraiths as they exist currently anyway. They are stupid broken.

"Stupidly broken" might be a little harsh. "Seriously undercosted" would be a better description. Even then, they're only really bad in the Decurion (which is one of the things that I agree needs to be rebalanced).

The amount of damage they sponge puts them into "stupidly broken" territory. There is no assault unit they can't tarpit basically forever. They are a hit and run check.