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.

Okay, I keep hearing people bitch about someone taking 6 carnifexes, or 9 leman russes in a low point game being waay cheesy.

What is GW's response to this?

Has GW ever put out some sort of formula on how they come up with these magical numbers of impending doom?

If so, give it to me.

If not, let's come up with some basics, shall we?

GW's basic attitude is you shouldn't take things so seriously.

They did something to fix the unit spread by making Troops much more valuable in 5e.

You must have missed out on the open ended point delirium of Rogue Trader.

Hi all.
If a game is to be used for balanced competative play,it is usualy developed with this in mind.As it is desirable to have provable levels of imballance.
Therfore the game and game mechanics tend to be written inclusivley and as simply as possible.

WH and 40k have only ever been written to help sell 'Citadel Minatures'.(After Brian Ansell bought GW anyway.)
The GW games developers have been making it far more difficult to assign PV mathematicaly with thier ever more 'artistic' appproach to game development.(Loads of additions/ exceptions in the form of special rules.)

And even if you managed to get an accurate PV and force allocation system like Thane Games 'Armies Of Arcana.'
Would GW use it?
No becuse then they wouldnt be able to fudge PV to aid marketing , would they?

The argument ' a unit is worth more points in one army compared to its value in another army,' is a classic example of how 'artisticly motivated ' GW devs are.

In game effect=P.V.
Tactical worth to army = F.O.C.

WH and 40k are fun dice rolling games for ages 11 and up.
If you want a tacticaly rich wargame suitable for ballanced competative play, look elsewhere!

If you want to run a set simulation to get comparative PV for all the units in 40k/WH then good luck.By the time you have got it sorted the next edition will be out to turn it all on it head again.
GW do NOT want provable levels of balance, just except what they tell you ,(untill they change thier oppinions again.)Or get a different game.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Look up the WH40K "Creature Feature"

Because points are not the great leveller. There are units that are worth more than the sum of their parts regardless of points, and some things that cannot be balanced via points.

GW does benchmarking instead - define a baseline, the point and rules that govern it, and then go up or down from there. They're really bad at it, and factor shiny new model kits more often than rules balance, but that at least is the theory behind it.

H.B.M.C has hit it on the head.

A part that he's missed is that it's in GW's interest to fudge the numbers slightly, because otherwise they don't have anything to correct in the next edition of a codex.

Sorry, yes, you're right. They do do that.

GW also designs Codices in a vacuum a lot of the time, hence the reason you get units like 11 point Sisters of Battle vs 10 point Storm Troopers. The Stormies were copied from the previous Guard Codex almost verbatim with no consideration given to how they mix with the rest of the army. Same goes for things like Ogryn that are nearly as expensive as Grey Knights.

Their design 'process' has more to do with the personal whims of the monkey writing the Codex, rather than any unified theory. Liken it to a TV show that has 6 writers, only those writers never really read each other's scripts and don't really ever try to follow on from the previously written episode.

The argument ' a unit is worth more points in one army compared to its value in another army,' is a classic example of how 'artisticly motivated ' GW devs are.

Ok, question, how much are ld reducing things like the PBS worth?

What about in combination with an army that has lots of pinning weapons?
What about in combination with an army that is assault-heavy?
What about vs a fearless/stubborn army, like cult marines/sisters of battle?
What about vs Tau, who are almost universally Ld7-8?

Hi Sangiune Sympathy.

My point was that if 'unit As' abilities are worth 100 points, then any unit with IDENTICAL abilities (stats) are worth 100 points.
GW devs ,(and others,) state a units value alters depending if its in a SM force or an IG force, (for example).
(But why are there not seperate PV in the DH codex for SM and IG allies?)

Yet GW devs constantly justify 'points breaks' on units because of 'tactical' worth!Eg a 'shooty unit' in a 'shooty army' is not worth as much as a 'shooty unit' in a 'assaulty army'.The varuiance in worth here is purley tactical NOT comparative PV based.

Simply undercosting 'thematicaly common' units and over costing 'thematicaly rarer' units in the vacuum of a codex is ameterish IMO.

If you look at rule sets developed for 'ballanced competative play' the 'basic development method' is diametricaly opposite to GWs 'development method.'

Games company.
Game play-game system -mechanics & rules -ashetics.

GW
Asthetics - marketing- game system -mechanics & rules.

The games I have played that are developed for ballanced competative play have more straightforward rules that cover ALL the game play.40k has simple rules that DONT cover the game play , so loads of exceptions are needed.
This makes it difficult to determine the exact process of function, let alone ascribe valid comparative values, and structured composition.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Hi again.
I agree with H.M.B.C that 'accuratley assigned PV' is only half the work in getting a ballanced game.

The army composition has a great impact on how it performs.The synergistic effects of unit combinations can alter the effetivness of any army selection.

GW seem to take this as negating the relevence of accuratley assigned PV , and as long as the 'armies balance out at the army level ' thats all that matters.
Rather than seeing it calls for a 2 stage process pv allocation and army compostion restrictions.

Unfortunatley WH and 40k are games of unit interaction , so arbitarily assigning PV per model then adjusting it at the army level misses out the UNIT level where the balance of these games if focused!

Not to mention not standardising the building blocks of game ballance( PV) make is very difficult to attain army level balance.Especialy if synergistic optimums are not concidered in army composition, but ajdusted arbiterily in model PV!

IF GW play tested EVERY possible combination in a codex army book, vs every other possible combination in other codex army books, they could get better game ballance over all.But they just take one of each unit and see roughly how they do and allocate PV at 3/4 of the maximum effectivness comparison.

So when players 'spam units' to get massive increases in effectivness , they prove the lack of playtesting of the GW games.

However , most other game manufacturers EITHER write rules with game balance in mind to make calcualable PV far easier , therfore synergistic optimums more obvious, therfore easier prove the level of game imballance.

OR leave 'game ballance' out of the equasion and go for maximum game play.

If GW made it obviuos that thier PV allocation was just a' rough guide for pick up and play games' , then perhaps there wouldnt be this mis-understanding about them.But then the players with a more competative mind set might feel less compelled to get the latest uber unit perhaps?

TFN
Lanrak,

Its hard to make a points formula because certain things may be better or worse against different things. I cant think of an example in 40K but in WHFB an all goblin unit would be worth less when facing a high elf army since they fear all elf units they dont outnumber 2:1

Here's the other thing that I'm surprised that no one has really mentioned yet - if GW had a formula, why would they want to publish it? If they did that, then instead of folks going out and buying Codices and playing with them, people would just design their own armies to play with (not that they don't already - but more people would.) It's in GW's best interest as a company to make their game design as opaque and incomprehensible as possible to prevent us plebes from ginning up our own homegrown Codices.

People are sheep. Posting the 11 Secret Herbs & Spices of unit creation won't stop the masses from lapping up whatever crap Jervis and his cronies come up with next month.

Yeah. This month it's Space Hulk, the next it'll be a 15mm version of Epic Armageddon. Tzeentch only knows what sort of horror they'll unleash on us next. Undoubtedly the Dark Lord is in his dungeons, scrying on us via a cauldron of gamer's tears, rejoicing at the misery he's caused, and planning whose cornflakes he's going to piss in next!

I think that instead of using points, game balance should be determined by the lowest value single model. In 40k, that would be the grot. So, for example, a space marine would be worth five grots, an ork boy would be two grots, a leman russ would be fifty grots, etc. Game balance is clearly determined by how many grots a single model can kill before both parties get bored and start watching TV.

Nurglitch wrote:...the next it'll be a 15mm version of Epic Armageddon.

That's a game they'd have to support, and we know how they are when it comes to supporting more games than Alessio can count up to.

We do?

Ummmmmmm, since GW doesn't have any real armies to enforce their will upon you ( I think), you can just come up with things and try them out to see if its fun to play. If you have a good group of gamers this is a great deal of fun.

Here's an idea I had a while back.

No guide from anyone just imagining

"The Zero"

This vehicle is a light speeder that has been redesigned for the most desperate and committed pilots. Selfless and/or suicidal, these individuals take off with no hope of returning safely. The Zero squadron motto, "I'm taking you with me!!"

Built simply and for a single purpose, the Zero is incredibly reliable and resilient. There are no weapons other that the ram and the Zero benefits/suffers from the Design Flaw rule when being shot at. (See Below)

The Zero's ram contains an explosive charge that can take out even the most heavily armored tanks, consuming the martyr and his steed in the process.

Zero

0-3 Zeros may be taken as a single fast attack choice, however they are deployed and act independently

Fast, Skimmer
Front 14 Side 9 Rear 9

Wargear
Explosive Ram-This shaped explosive charge allows the Zero to make a ramming attack like a tank. The Ram gives an extra d6 strength to the ramming attack.

Special Rules
Design Flaw-The explosive ram mounted on the front of the Zero is a volatile package that is exposed to incoming enemy fire. On hits to the front of the Zero, don't roll for armor penetration, instead roll a d6 for each successful hit. On a 6 the Zero's ram detonates. Place a large blast template over the zero. Any models under the template take a s8 ap1 hit. The Zero is of course destroyed. This roll replaces the roll on the vehicle damage table. Penetrating hits are rolled for as normal.

Bowling-The Zero can target a squad instead of a vehicle if the pilot decides to do so. The Zero must travel at least 12" before coming into contact with the targeted model. Place the large blast template on the targeted model. The template will scatter a full 2d6 in the direction that the Zero was traveling. Any models under the template take a Strength 8 AP1 hit.

Horrifying-The shear desperation and desire to win at all costs staggers the enemies who are victims of a Zero's ramming attack. All non-fearless models within 12" of a Zero that rams a squad or vehicle must take a leadership test with the following modifiers.

-1 Leadership for each casualty removed from a squad
-1 Leadership for a stunned or shaken result on the damage table
-2 Leadership for a weapon destroyed, immobilized, or wrecked result on the damage
table
-3 Leadership for a explodes result on the damage table

Even if the Zero causes no casualties or damage a leadership test must be taken, but with no modifiers from the Zero's actions. Other modifiers still apply.

If the Zero is destroyed because of its design flaw, no leadership test is needed, regardless of the results.

How about 75 points each??

What do you think guys??

which space marine/Imperium army is gonna run that? Imperium navy Space Balls unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sounds very orky tho

Not trying to veer off topic, but the 'Zero' leadership modifiers are to lengthy. Why does this tiny little speeder get these special rules when a deff rollin' battle wagon has no such modifiers.

Other than that, Yeah I'd totally let you run it against me.

Play test it. I'd say.

Yeah I just made it up and its probably way off from being fair, but can't you see the penal legions just being strapped into these things for a last ditch attempt against an unstoppable advance...

The drivers of the Battle Wagon aren't trying to kill themselves, they want to live. Suicidal behavior is what creates the fear in your enemy. So the leadership modifiers are meant to be very fluffy.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that GW just comes up with stuff and tests it so why can't we.