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.

Visit www.eldararmy.com .. today was 18 c outside.. too nice to do more watch the website though it'll be possible to register soon and do discussion and add values

now I understand what you mean.

Nothing new here, because some tournaments in germany use a similar system to make games more balanced.
But it does notbsolve the problem with 40k.

you still need a tournament FAQ with several pages and an additional "how to organize an army" errata.

@kudos not at all.. once the values are agreed you just place these community derived values into the XML used in battlescribe.. and it will inform any list what the handicap is.. the reason this fixes once and for all is that whatever comes out whatever points value GW give it the community handicap can be placed upon it to give it a real weight.

I hate to sound passé but this really does answer the OP.

Stage 1) set up a network where people decide /vote on handicap values
Stage 2) implement that into the XML battlescribe uses
Stage 3) ask battlescribe to support it (trivial)

the problem is still that there are a lot of rules were the community is devided how to use them.

how can your system handel stuff like one third plays the SW Dread with +1 attack and all time ward save, one third with +1 attack and save only in CC and one third with base attacks and save only in CC.

or the Tau hunter cadre and similar stuff

this system is good to get extrem lists balanced against weak/fluffy lists, but not solve the initial problem with broken/unclear rules. (it only affects the imbalanced point cost of units and formations)

@kodos if you are talking about rule interpretations that isn't something that this thread was actually asking - but in theory you could have 3 values for the SW dread. or at least declare the assumptions for each units rules - the same could be said about GC and how often it can shoot.

but that aside those are minor when compared to the fact that at tournaments literally the same list is rolled out repeatedly. having a handicap system that simply was based on tournament lists that people attempted to bring would tell you immediately what units need to be handicapped.

GW state they don't do tournaments .. so it's ok for a 3rd party to get behind the gap ... ITC do it with the rules but there is still the issue of "the same list all the time" which is boring and not really doing the game justice.

I want a way where two people can play whatever they like (Orks on foot vs decurion necrons) and even if they KNOW that the Orks are MINUS 900 handicap and the Necrons are PLUS 900 at least they KNOW,

I want a way to give players a REASON to take heavy bolters in devastators squads or terminators with storm bolters.

I want a way to secure older codexes for future value

ConanMan wrote:
@kodos if you are talking about rule interpretations that isn't something that this thread was actually asking - but in theory you could have 3 values for the SW dread. or at least declare the assumptions for each units rules - the same could be said about GC and how often it can shoot.

but that aside those are minor when compared to the fact that at tournaments literally the same list is rolled out repeatedly.

IMHO those "minor" problems are the first to address. And interpretations are a topic because you never would get a balanced system if you don't have clear and consistent rules.

And if the only reason to take specific weapon/units is that you get the broken units into the list than this is the same like GW's decurion.

the good codex list will still take out everything no matter how many heavy bolter the must take.
(and for the game it makes no difference if the heavy bolter stand useless innthe shekf orvuseless on the table)


Without solving the problems of the core rules, codex rules cannot be balanced by a handycap/fluffpoint/etc system.

Lanrak wrote:@eosgreen.
In all the polls I have seen across the forums.The people who voted for GWs rules as the reason they enjoyed playing 40k.
NEVER went above 5% in ANY of the polls at their end.
The Majority of the people voted for the background/art, or the minatures.etc.

I hope that makes my point it a bit clearer.

k it didn't make your point less ore more clear because I am simply pointing out that you took polls that were not the same at all from various times and forums and then without seeing them in front of you added them all up to determine this number. all in your head off memory. i have seen maybe one of two polls where this type of topic was brought up and since no one makes these topics on painting forums, more people vote for the game so im more interested to have you list these polls and where you got them than anything else

Bill1138 wrote:

eosgreen wrote:
there will never be balance in this game. its impossible. you can get a "semblance" of balance but there are too many variables. if each army has to be special in its own way, then it can never be balanced.

I would appreciate if comments were kept constructive. We're brainstorming ways to improve the game for everyone, not attempting cold fusion.

Now if we revisit the idea of doing away with the Wound/Hull Point dichotomy, how many unit types does the game need to encompass all of the various units?

i get that but this topic is brought up so often. its akin to a girl who doesn't like a guy but the guy won't accept it. the core of wh40k will never allow for the game to be balanced.

- non standard maps
- randomized missions
- incredibly diverse armys where some factions lack entire options all together from a DESIGN point. it would be fine if we simply had to add combat to x army and take away shooting from y army. we can't do that. to balance 40k you would have to make a new game, and then its not 40k is it

kodos wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
Which original GW 40k design are you referring to?

The core of the game that never changed.
(stuff like that you have a ranged value with flat to hit, a melee stat vs melee stat table, IGYG with phases etc). You can break down the original design on one page and than turn it into a 10 model skirmish, fantasy unit based or sci fi mass skirmish game)

Lanrak wrote:
Mantics Warpath is a fine game as it follows its design brief.But is simply has not got enough detailed unit interaction ,to cover the wider variety of units found in the 40k game.

You looked into the latest Beta rules?
Warpath 3 allows more variety for units than 40k with all its special rules can. The may look not that different on paper but turn out to play more different than any two 40k armies do.

Lanrak wrote:
In all the polls I have seen on why people like 40k , LESS THAN 5% of people voted for the GW rules as the reason they liked playing 40k.

Yeah, everyone want to have better rules
And still, if you come up with changes or alternative rules, everyone want to stay with the original rules because your suggestions are going to far and the game will not be 40k any more.

eosgreen wrote:
there will never be balance in this game. its impossible. you can get a "semblance" of balance but there are too many variables. if each army has to be special in its own way, then it can never be balanced. we have FAR too many armys and rules

Compared to other games, in 40k is no difference between different fractions or armies. they are more or less all the same and what makes them feel different is the imbalance of their special rules.

For an example, Flames of War has much more different units, fractions, armies and rules than 40k (the 3 different possible lists of a single minor fraction play more different than all 40k armies together) and while it is not 100% balanced, compared to 40k it is light years ahead.

light years ahead is what exactly? these types of games CAN NEVER have real balance.

@Kodos.
''IMHO those "minor" problems are the first to address. And interpretations are a topic because you never would get a balanced system if you don't have clear and consistent rules.

And if the only reason to take specific weapon/units is that you get the broken units into the list than this is the same like GW's decurion.

the good codex list will still take out everything no matter how many heavy bolter the must take.
(and for the game it makes no difference if the heavy bolter stand useless innthe shekf orvuseless on the table)


Without solving the problems of the core rules, codex rules cannot be balanced by a handycap/fluffpoint/etc system.''

I totally and completely agree with this statement.

Its just I believe clear and consistent rules means writing rules for the units currently in the game.(Rather than modifying WHFB based 2nd ed in some way.)

If the resolution process is the same across all units, and the results are proportional . than the game balance will be as easy to achieve as it is with other well defined war games.

@eosgreen.
Fair point.
How about.
Of the people who showed an interest in posting what was the main reason they played 40k .The overwhelming majority stated was NOT the rules GW plc make them pay for.

And the majority of people seem to have stated the poor rules writing and cost of products, the main reason they do not buy into, no longer play 40k.

Therefore I would assume a better written rules set should be a priority.

No one expects perfect balance, as this is impossible.

Some games get close to perfect imbalance though.(Slight and organic growth of strategic and tactical play between the players as they find MINOR advantages and MINOR counters .)

All the war games I have played with the exception of 40k/WHFB, have much better level of balance, in the fact players tend to have to play the game extensively to find if there are any issues with balance!


40k is so imbalanced it spoils the enjoyment of all but the most determined players, or those with a very low expectation of the rules GW plc sell them.
As soon as a new codex is out the internet is buzzing with what units are considered under powered/over powered, under or over costed.(Power is the suitability of units in the game rather than cost issues.)

And the interpretation of poorly worded rules is another source of aggravation that could EASILY be avoided.

Note the inability of some forces to deal with other forces in 40k is due to the complete lack of tactical options found in better developed war games.

If you change the rules the game play can still be 40k.

In the same way Epic had 4 completely different rule sets written for it .But it still was Epic game play.

Many people have played 40k skirmish games with lots of other war game conversions.As long as the factions interact how the players expect the game they play is as 40k , as RT or 2nd ed is 40k.

- the #1 problem imo is that rules of codex/game trump the map. this causes tactical problems which would make up for codex strength. when a certain tactic on a map is far stronger than the fact that you have an army thats stronger than me in straight up dice roll strength, it at the very least lessens the problem

maps need to be the #1 factor in every game. instead of saying "well how can i kill x unt with this army" or "but i'll struggle to kill this unit" people should be saying "how can I win with this map. the problem is that the codexes, lal of them, would need rewrites

- can you imagine a warp spider spam list struggling on a map? it kinda functions the same always as does a daemon summoning list and a gladius strike force. they all kinda functon the same no matter what. its why they are strong but thats a problem. taking strong formations/lists is the #1 way to do well which means its list vs list. thats dice and stats, not tactics and will certainly yield very similar armys

@eosgreen.
If you are saying the sales drive that is the GW codex releases, should be replaced with something more focused on delivering a tactically complex and diverse problem solving, with a wide array of playable forces, then I agree.

The the core rules are no longer suitable for the game play 40k has evolved into.
GW plc corporate management and sales department have refused to let the game devs re-write the rules to suit the new game play.

So now the sales department have focused the studio on maximizing the returns on new releases.

This means Codex special snowflake special rules, and scenarios/maps to show off how awesome the latest releases are supposed to be.

If a rule set was written specifically for the current game play of 40k, eg sort of Epic with more detailed unit interaction .(NOT an Epic conversion due to conflict of scale.)

Then as there would be more tactical options in game, more units could perform useful in game functions,and allow more varied and playable selections from a particular faction.

Currently 40k has complicated rules and very simple /restricted game play.
To let it be as good as other war games, we need to achieve complex game play with straightforward rules.

This needs a complete ground up re-write for 40k IMO.

How does everyone feel about the Stat line? It was suggested that unit types be removed and the stat line expanded, so what attributes should it include?

Perhaps something like:

Weapon Skill: an opposed chart between the attacker's WS and the defender's WS.

Ballistic Skill: an opposed chart between the attacker's BS and the defender's Evasion.

Evasion: see Ballistic Skill. Evasion incorporates the units size, speed, and camouflage into one value of how hard it is to hit.

Strength: an opposed table against Toughness.

Toughness: See Strength. Toughness is the sheer durability of a unit, be it organic or mechanical.

Hit Points: This is the amount of health a unit has, be it organic or mechanical.

Attacks: This is how many dice the unit gets when making melee attacks before any modifiers.

Initiative: This determines the order of attack.

Speed: Denoted by a number (showing how far in inches the unit can move), and a letter (showing what type of movement it is).

Discipline: How prone a unit is to yielding to fear or running away.

Perhaps maybe a stat for how close the models have to be to each other to be in "unit coherency" where most units have something like 2" while stealth units such as Snipers may have 3-4", and Vehicles may have 6" or more?

Any other ideas or refinements on this one?

The stat line I use
Movement, BS, WS, STR, T, ATT, Leadership, Healthpoints, Size, Trait.

BS is flat, but evasion is available as Trait for special units
WS vs WS and STR vs T, but with a +2 cap (-3 is auto hit or wound, +3 is not possible) for both.

Perhaps maybe a stat for how close the models have to be to each other to be in "unit coherency" where most units have something like 2" while stealth units such as Snipers may have 3-4", and Vehicles may have 6" or more?

therefore I use "size".
It gives the range for close combat, model size for cover determination, range for unit formation and indicates the base size.

I think most people can see room for improvement in the stat line used by 40k.

The most obvious is the lack of a stat for mobility, movement, speed , what ever we decide to call it.
It is an important part of how effective a unit is on the battle field and should be on the stat line , if there is a wide variety of values as their are in 40k.

I am a fan of using opposed values from 1 to 10 in a universal resolution chart, to remove the pointless complication of several separate resolution methods.

I would rather have a dedicated stat for how hard the unit is to hit at range.Opposed to the attackers BS.(Evasion / Stealth or what ever we call it.)
As it removes the need to use special rules/lots of modifiers to do the same job.
As the opposed stats can give us a proportional and intuitive way to determine the chance to hit as part of the basic resolution.

40k players are used to looking up the score needed to wound on a chart , so it is not a new resolution method.

If we are using a more interactive game turn, then the Initiative stat, is sort of redundant.I would prefer to change this stat to an opposed stat to WS.
WS is how good the unit is hitting things in close combat.
The new 'Agility' stat can represent how good the unit is a not being hit in close combat.(We can use the Initiative values as a base line for the new Agility stat.)

For example an Ork Slugga Boy is just as good at hitting things in close combat as an Eldar Banshee.(WS 4)
But the Orks Agility of 2, means it is much more likely to be hit in close combat than the Eldar Banshee with its Agility of 5.

This gives a similar function as the initiative stat, but allows close combat and shooting to be resolved in the same way.

Imagine the Orks boy lumbers towards the Eldar swinging wildly, the Eldar elegantly side steps the Orks clumsy swings, and deftly despatches the Ork with a graceful and deadly acrobatic movement.
The current Initiative value just gives you the likely end result that the Ork will not land the first blow.IMO.


I would like to give all units a Armour value from 1 to 10.
And all weapons an AP value from 1 to 10.
And use these values to determine the save a model gets depending on the AP of the weapon hit.

This means to hit and to save uses the same resolution method.

How do you feel about using the terms Damage and Resilience , instead of strength and toughness as these are more generic?

Units have a resilience value of 1 to 10.
Weapons have damage value of 1 to 10.
These values are opposed in the universal resolution table to see the score needed to inflict hit points loss on the enemy.

Now we have to hit ,(in close combat and at range), to save, and to damage .All using the same resolution method that gives intuitive proportional results .

I know this adds 2 new stats to the stat line.BUT if we give each units its own weapons data .(Close combat and ranged weapons.)
(Similar to F,O,W .)
Then the models Attacks ,and Strength can be shown on the units close combat weapons profile.

This has the added advantage of letting all units have the same stat line.

Discipline or Morale can be used to show how willing the unit is to fight on .

Command can be a separate value,to show how good the units leader.attached character is at controlling the unit.
EG Command 6"/1 means the unit leader has a coherency of 6" and can add 1 to ONE dice roll per game turn. (The unit has to remain withing a 6" diameter circle.Sort of an imaginary base the models have to stay on.)

This alternative coherency allows much quicker movement and freedom of movement .
As higher Command values of characters can allow the unit to spread out more and remain effective.

Sorry about the long post.I will be happy to explain things in a bit more detail if needed.

I was thinking about this just now.

YOU HAVE ONLY YOURSELVES TO BLAME THAT 40K IS UNBALANCED!

Why?

Because when they put out OP, unbalanced units, people rush out to buy the new, expensive shiny.

And then other people rush out to buy the units which counter those OP, unbalanced units.

And GW makes money off of it.

Why should GW balance the game? 40k players are dumb enough to keep buying into the imbalance.

You want 40k to be balanced? Then start saying NO to GW with your wallets.

Don't buy those wraithknights. Don't buy that Tau codex. Don't buy that stormsurge. Don't buy those Riptides. Don't buy those windrider bikes with scatterlasers. Don't buy those fliers. Don't buy those grav centurions.

Eventually, GW will either take the hint, or else, go out of business.

Traditio wrote:
I was thinking about this just now.

YOU HAVE ONLY YOURSELVES TO BLAME THAT 40K IS UNBALANCED!

Why?

Because when they put out OP, unbalanced units, people rush out to buy the new, expensive shiny.

And then other people rush out to buy the units which counter those OP, unbalanced units.

And GW makes money off of it.

Why should GW balance the game? 40k players are dumb enough to keep buying into the imbalance.

You want 40k to be balanced? Then start saying NO to GW with your wallets.

Don't buy those wraithknights. Don't buy that Tau codex. Don't buy that stormsurge. Don't buy those Riptides. Don't buy those windrider bikes with scatterlasers. Don't buy those fliers. Don't buy those grav centurions.

Eventually, GW will either take the hint, or else, go out of business.

I'm already not buying anything from GW. In fact, I'm currently not even playing the game, because my primary army was Grey Knights, and everyone knows how much they were ground underfoot with their last Codex update. And my second army (Imperial Guard) isn't much better. I initiated a thread for gamers to colaborate to try to build their own set of alternate rules so that we can use the models we already have in spite of the rules GW makes.

You showing up and pointing fingers at us doesn't help anything. Please keep comments constructive.

Bill wrote:I'm already not buying anything from GW. In fact, I'm currently not even playing the game, because my primary army was Grey Knights, and everyone knows how much they were ground underfoot with their last Codex update. And my second army (Imperial Guard) isn't much better. I initiated a thread for gamers to colaborate to try to build their own set of alternate rules so that we can use the models we already have in spite of the rules GW makes.

You showing up and pointing fingers at us doesn't help anything. Please keep comments constructive.

What I said was perfectly constructive. Yes, you aren't buying anything from GW. But tons of other people are.

Just read the comments in the tactics section, the general discussion section, etc.

Fact is, for everyone who doesn't approve of the codex power creep, there's somebody else who is going to jump on the "new shiny" bandwagon.

Until pretty much the entire customer base says "NO" with their wallets, GW has little incentive to balance the game.

I think it is pretty obvious that GW corporate management have convinced them selves that 40k/AOS rules are just a short term sales promotion tool.

And so any actual meaningful game development to correct all the issues with the current 40k rules would be from the gaming community.

As enough of the remaining collectors are happy enough to pay for the with new shiny models , to keep the GW plc from going bankrupt any time soon.

If GW were going to notice players dropping 40k in droves, they would have noticed it by now!(GW plc have lost nearly 2/3rds of the sales volumes they had over 12 years ago!)

So folks it is pretty much up to us to write the rules set specifically for the 40k battle game using 28mm minatures!

Therefore , I think It would be appreciated if people kept comments/questions to the ideas expressed in this thread about game balance and game development.

Lanrak wrote:
I think it is pretty obvious that GW corporate management have convinced them selves that 40k/AOS rules are just a short term sales promotion tool.

Because it works.

Yes, sales may be down overall, but the simple fact remains that the people who are buying do in fact buy the new OP shinies.

Simply check out this thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/684917.page

It's pretty much characteristic, so far as I can tell, of the competitive part of the 40k community.

So long as GW keeps churning out unbalanced, OP new shinies, people like my opponents in this thread will just keep on buying.

Is it a short term sales promotion gimmick? You betcha.

Does it work?

Unfortunately, it does.

That's why GW keeps doing it.

If there's going to be change, it has to come from all 40k players, including the competitive players, who are still in the hobby collectively saying NO to GW's new shinies.

But of course, that won't happen, because that contingent of the playerbase are WAAC TFGs with more money than sense.

They're like the people who pay more for the pre-release of a shooting game just so that they can get the super powerful guns unlocked while everyone is running around with standard newb gear.

God forbid someone buy something for reasons other than how powerful it is on the table top.

 Blacksails wrote:
God forbid someone buy something for reasons other than how powerful it is on the table top.

Sorry, but GW doesn't require you to fill out a survey when you buy a product. You don't have to say why you bought a product.

All that they know is:

1. They gave this model OP rules.
2. This model is selling.

If you want game balance, do not buy OP models, regardless of your motivations for so doing. I don't care if you want to display the stormsurge on your shelf and have no intention of running it. If you purchase it, the vote you are casting, in the eyes of GW, is: "MAKE MORE OP SHINIES!"

If you buy it anyway, then you can't complain about game imbalance. You voted for it with your wallet.

Equally they don't know why you AREN'T buying it. You could not buy a Wraithknight because it's cheese or it could be because you think it's ugly. Your point is doesn't make sense.

pm713 wrote:
Equally they don't know why you AREN'T buying it. You could not buy a Wraithknight because it's cheese or it could be because you think it's ugly.

This is a perfectly fair point, and it's not in conflict with what I am saying.

Ultimately, you only can cast one of two votes:

1: "I WANT THAT NEW SHINY!"

2: "I DON'T WANT THAT NEW SHINY!"

If you cast your vote in favor of the former, then you have nobody but yourself to blame for the game imbalances.

If you cast your vote in favor of the latter, then it's perfectly true that GW doesn't know why you cast that vote. Nonetheless, if enough people cast that vote, it would force GW to take a step back and ask why people don't want the new shinies.

Currently, they don't even have to do that. Why? Because people buy the new shinies. Are sales down overall? Sure. But people are buying the new shinies.

And note, this is not in the least a call for a boycott against GW. By all means, if you have a group of people who agree not to buy the new shinies, then buy Khorne Berserkers, tactical marines, and all of the "oldies but goodies."

You're still ignoring that one of the reasons for buying something could be because it looks fly as feth and buying it might send a message to GW saying "make more fly as feth models like this".

 Blacksails wrote:
You're still ignoring that one of the reasons for buying something could be because it looks fly as feth and buying it might send a message to GW saying "make more fly as feth models like this".

Again, GW doesn't know your motivations. There are two and only two votes that you can cast:

1: "I WANT THE NEW SHINY!"
2: "I DON'T WANT THE NEW SHINY!"

Regardless of your actual intents and purposes, a vote for 1 is, practically speaking, a vote for game imbalance.

It's like voting Republican. Even if you are voting Republican for the economic issues, you are still voting for the guy who has such and such opinions about global warming, whether or not you agree with those opinions. By casting your vote, you are, practically speaking, voting for the guy who will block efforts to prevent the burning of fossil fuels.

Can we drag the post back on topic?

What basic abilities used in basic combat should be on the stat line for 40k but are not?
Eg the things that are so varied between units, if we do not include a stat for them we will need to use special rules.

My list is ...

Movement

To hit at range .
To avoid being hit at range.(Size, silhouette, ability to reduce profile, kneel lay down etc.)

To hit in close combat
To avoid being hit in close combat.(The ability to dodge /parry etc.Replaces Initiative stat)

Armour value.(How much protection the unit has.)

Resilience.(How hard it is to damage the unit with a penetrating hit that beat the armour.)

Hit points, (Wounds/structure.)

Morale,(how willing the unit is to fight on.)

Command.(How well lead the unit is, determining unit coherency, etc.)

We could move the Strenght(damage) and Attacks values from the stat line and put them in the units weapon data.
Wg the units weapons are listed under the stst line , with the net effect of the user/weapon.This means we do nopt have to remember the stst lines for all the weapons and what effects they have on user S.

Weapons profile.(fr close combat and ranged weapons in the unit.)
Name, Range, Attacks.AP.Damage.Notes

This is mainly a change in how information is presented.(For clarity. )