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.

Pariah Press wrote:
Where's Gorkamorka? Where's Man O' War? Those games were dropped within months of their release. THAT was SOP back in the 90's. Yet NOW you can still buy an army for Epic: A four years after its release, and they've been selling BFG minis for I-don't-know-how-long-now.

I do miss Fanatic Online, though.

Gorkamorka is in a landfill from what I heard. they overproduced and undersold that product. Personally I think too many staff got the ork bug and tried to force this one out.. It fell flat on its face and never had a good target audience. I wish they'd have warehoused them and sold them later.. I know I'd have bought a few boxes.

oh and Gav Thorpe and Andy Chambers have no reason to delurk. They've distanced themselves from GW and cut all ties from what I understand. With good reason as far as I am concerned. If it were up to me, I'd get Andy Chambers involved, but I'd pass on Mr. Thorpe..

Speaking of raising the dead, hands up for Bommas!

carmachu wrote:Epic isnt available unless its through the taxed and overpriced shipping store. Same with BFG. But neither game is SUPPORTED. Support means rules, overview and otehr stuff.

BB, BFG, Epic and the rest arent supported at all.

Well, they just released a new edition of BB in the last year or so, and new models in the last month.

If a game works perfectly well, is there any need to keep messing with it? Do the Specialist Games need to be constantly evolving / expanding in order to be good? In the latest Epic rules update/FAQ, Jervis basically said that he was (as of that update) happy with how the rules were, and didn't anticipate making any further changes.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Nope, actually it is is because such mathematical methods are impossible to balance. Whether games workshop is lazy or not doesn't change the fact that thats like saying I don't get to work by teleporting there because I'm too lazy to do so.

That isn't entirely true. While it is difficult to model, it is not impossible. It is merely a complex system, and on that has relatively few variables at that. However, actually building the model would be damned near a thesis level project for a math PhD. It could be done, but I can understand why no one has really bothered.

I would also like to point out that greater granularity really would be a nice step, though perhaps in terms of stats instead of points (though points might not hurt either). It would alow for a space between Space Marine BS4 and Imp. Guardsmen BS3 for Sisters of Battle to live in, or between Marine St4 and IG Str3 for Orks to live in. Whether that means GW needs to go to a D10 system, and sell branded dice, I don't know. But it would be nice...

H.B.M.C. wrote:
So that sets an upper-limit on the new DE book at 16 years... we've had 10 so far right? So max of 6 more years guys. The US might have a new President by the time we get a new Archon. Hopefully we'll get it sooner though... the Archon that is, not the new President.

And by 'new stuff' I'm taking that to mean new armies and races. I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, what other sci-fi-mixed-with-fantasy archetypes are left to mine for content? Other than an AdMech army, what's left? Hrud (Space Skaven) and Demiurg (which they won't do). I'd also rather than keep working on the existing races to bring them into line. On the other hand it would be really sweet to get an AdMech army.

I swear that GW has the weirdest business model. It's like some giant bureaucracy that is slow, full of red tape and hugely expensive and just makes sales to sustain itself. They probably have twice the employees that they really need and those employees do 1/4 of the work they should actually be doing.

As far as granularity goes, a lot of this is easily covered by the new block pricing. 10 models for 45 pts nicely splits the difference between 4ppm and 5ppm.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yes, it is difficult to model 40K mathematically, but that's what they had to do to make Dawn Or War. So it's not impossible.

Dawn of war is an RTS. RTSs are easy create using mathematical models. You give a unit a number of hitpoints, an ammount of damage reduction, and a DPS. That dps is measured against its targets hitpoints and damage reduction. End of story. And even then, the actual resource cost of the units was judged "by feel". So really... Well I have no summation, I can't even think of why you would use this as an example.

I am a videogame producer and actually have some knowledge of what I am talking about.

There is no major difference in terms of mathematical modelling between an RTS and a game like 40K, except for LoS which can be abstracted.

As for judging the value of units "by feel", the point of computer modelling is that you can run very quick reiterations of trial values for unit variables and modify them according to a look-up table containing the values you want to test. It is extremely easy and quick to try the effect of making a gun worth 1,2,3 up to 10 S for example.

The key difference is that RTS is virtual, so you can test, bulk test, and retest more easily.

I am a videogame producer and actually have some knowledge of what I am talking about.

I'm on my second new media degree with the eventual far off hope of making games for a living (as either a designer, modeler/texturer, writer, or possibly concept artist if my artistic attempts pan out). I've got a relative amount of experience with the design and production process and have written (unofficially) in a review and interview capacity relating to the industry. What kinds of games are you producing? Big shiney ones? Or lower level mod/digital release/freeware/random solitaire on iphone type games. If its in one of the latter cattegories I'd love to help in some way .

There is no major difference in terms of mathematical modelling between an RTS and a game like 40K, except for LoS which can be abstracted.

There is far less variation in the dynamics of RTS warfare. Typical RTS units have no statline beyond damage resistance (sometimes to specific weapon types), damage output (sometimes varying depending on target), and and hitpoints. There is also range and in some games like Dawn of war melee capability.

These are some of what go into the possible models to compute points values. A * denotes its ability to be measured mathematically with a degree of precision, therefore making it useful in the model.

Dawn of war has to take into consideration:
-weapon specific range*
-unit specific speed*
-hitpoints*
-dps of melee and range*
-damage type*
-hitpoints*
-varying damage resistance depending on weapon type*
-a single form of terrain that halves damage taken*

tabletop 40k has to take into account:
-line of sight
-type of intervening terrain
-damage output of specific metaweapons*
-toughness values that are dependent on weapon strength*
-armor values that are dependent on weapon penetration values*
-initiative values in combat
-weapon skill values in combat
-ballistic skill values*
-unit speed*
-unit speed as affected by transports
-morale*
-morale as affected by combat multipliers
-morale as affected by unit size
-morale as affected by independent characters or special abilities
-possible non destructive damage to vehicles*
-possible non destructive damage to variably upgraded vehicles

I really could keep going. How much does a predator cost? How much does its storm bolter cost? How much is the side effect of the storm bolter requiring an extra weapon destroyed result to destroy the predator through purely glancing hits worth? How much is the storm bolter worth with extra armor ensuring it's ability to shoot a small statistical amount more regularly? How much is it worth taken against necrons verses taken against orks?

There is an inherent variability that exists in material things that can be exceedingly difficult to quantify and measure digitally. Dawn of war is not a complex game. At all. By comparison warhammer 40k or even something like mechwarrior dark age is ludicrously complicated.

The key difference is that RTS is virtual, so you can test, bulk test, and retest more easily.

The key difference is that it is a digital RTS built on an effectively two dimensional plane with three dimensional graphics. It is built from the ground up to conform to digital programming, testing, and exists in a tightly controlled digital environment that is scaleable and batch testable. It is inherently easier to test then something that is not a digital program.

ShumaGorath wrote: Thats because there is no mathematical model that can accurately reflect stalines and individual stats interaction with one another.

That isn't true at all. Most teams in the NBA employ statistical analysts to perform regression analysis of player statistics in order to come up with a synergistic rating which indicates his efficiency relative to other players on the floor. I personally know the guy who does this for the Cavaliers. Its been done in baseball for years as well.

That isn't true at all. Most teams in the NBA employ statistical analysts to perform regression analysis of player statistics in order to come up with a synergistic rating which indicates his efficiency relative to other players on the floor. I personally know the guy who does this for the Cavaliers. Its been done in baseball for years as well.

There is a difference between tracking statistics to value players in specific cattegories like hit calculations and synergistic values with charge and defensive blocking and abstract and complex customizeable wargaming. All basketball games are played on the same size and dimension court with the same rules and the same time constraints. There is an inherent variability to something as personally variable to the degree that wargaming (or really actual war in general) that most sports do not possess. Sports segue very well into digital batch testing because they are almost entirely driven by simple statistical values in a constant non variable setting (like a players hit percentage when compared to sliders versus fastballs).

ShumaGorath wrote:
There is a difference between tracking statistics to value players in specific cattegories like hit calculations and synergistic values with charge and defensive blocking and abstract and complex customizeable wargaming.

I wasn't talking about specific categorical statistics. Synergistic statistics are numerical values that relate the output of a given player to that of his teammates; allowing for the valuation of any given theoretical combination of players. This process could very easily be applied to wargaming. Edit: Here is the wiki article.

ShumaGorath wrote:
All basketball games are played on the same size and dimension court with the same rules and the same time constraints.

Most competitive wargames are played in fairly standardized environments. This is especially true when the vast majority of noise made over general imbalance is made by tournament players who see consistently comparable tables at every event.

ShumaGorath wrote:
There is an inherent variability to something as personally variable to the degree that wargaming (or really actual war in general) that most sports do not possess. Sports segue very well into digital batch testing because they are almost entirely driven by simple statistical values in a constant non variable setting (like a players hit percentage when compared to sliders versus fastballs).

If you really think that sports statistics are that simple you haven't paid much attention to their analysis. There is a great deal of difference, statistically and aesthetically, between a Greg Maddux slider and the same pitch throw by Johan Santana.

The truth is that wargames are no more statistically variable than baseball, basketball, or any other game. Even the army is quite fond of statistical analysis as a means of predicting the outcome of battlefield actions. You could make a case for this type of treatment being too expesnive for GW, but to say that it is impossible is flat out wrong.

Most competitive wargames are played in fairly standardized environments. This is especially true when the vast majority of noise made over general imbalance is made by tournament players who see consistently comparable tables at every event.

Unfortunately thats not really true. I for one have played in plenty of tournaments and the terrain and metagame are unique to every FLGS I'm in. This isn't true of modern sport fields which are generally built to a standard.

The truth is that wargames are no more statistically variable than baseball, basketball, or any other game. Even the army is quite fond of statistical analysis as a means of predicting the outcome of battlefield actions. You could make a case for this type of treatment being too expesnive for GW, but to say that it is impossible is flat out wrong.

I've never said that it was impossible to build statistical models. Only that it is impossible for those models to produce truly accurate point values, which in and of themselves serve to encompass the whole of a units statistical qualities, battlefield roles, and complimentary elements within a force.

Its one thing to find the synergistic values of basketball players given their history, demeanor, health, and game statistics. Its another entirely to then assign to him a single overall functioning point value with which a team can be constructed whole cloth by a lamen, and still have that team be competitive.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Unfortunately thats not really true. I for one have played in plenty of tournaments and the terrain and metagame are unique to every FLGS I'm in. This isn't true of modern sport fields which are generally built to a standard.

Generally, but the most statistically driven sport in the world, baseball, varies a great deal in terms of field parameters. Moreover, the idea that the environment can never be accounted for in statistical modeling is fraudulent. There are very simple ways to introduce predictable variations into the nominal synergistic equation which can account for variances in the overall environment.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I've never said that it was impossible to build statistical models. Only that it is impossible for those models to produce truly accurate point values, which in and of themselves serve to encompass the whole of a units statistical qualities, battlefield roles, and complimentary elements within a force.

Obviously there is a margin for error. That is the consequence that comes of utilizing any form of modeled balance. Just because it isn't a perfect system does not mean that there is no way to make the assessment more accurate.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Its one thing to find the synergistic values of basketball players given their history, demeanor, health, and game statistics. Its another entirely to then assign to him a single overall functioning point value with which a team can be constructed whole cloth by a lamen, and still have that team be competitive.

Except that is exactly what many of these teams pay professional statisticians to do. Moreover, since when are wargamers considered laymen in the 'field' of wargaming? That's like proposing that baseball managers, who are not statisticians, are laymen when it comes to applying batting averages to field decisions.

Except that is exactly what many of these teams pay professional statisticians to do. Moreover, since when are wargamers considered laymen in the 'field' of wargaming? That's like proposing that baseball managers, who are not statisticians, are laymen when it comes to applying batting averages to field decisions.

I meant a laymen to the methods used in the creation of said points values. Not to the respective games themselves.

I'm not at all certain that the proposed metrics are really equivalent to SABERmetrics in terms of what / how they measure.

IIRC, sports stats are based on results. So 40k unit metrics would be more like CC won/lost, CC models killed, avg VPs earned shooting, etc.

blinky wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Hrud (Space Skaven)

Not to derail the thread, but Hrud are a bit more like a cross between Chimpanzees and the creature from Alien.

Besides that, most of this info is good news, if it can be believed anyway.

as I'm de-railing now too, those are the Jokaero, are they not? (not the hrud, who are the space skaven)

This is a hrud. Pic straight out of xenology.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm not at all certain that the proposed metrics are really equivalent to SABERmetrics in terms of what / how they measure.

IIRC, sports stats are based on results. So 40k unit metrics would be more like CC won/lost, CC models killed, avg VPs earned shooting, etc.

The metric is based on probability which is derived from results. You could get the same measure for 40k units by finding the probability of causing a wound in every given situation, discarding outliers, and and taking the resultant average as a given value. Results are terribly critical when you have direct influence over the probability of any given event.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I meant a laymen to the methods used in the creation of said points values. Not to the respective games themselves.

That's why you hire consultants, or *gasp* learn.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
I meant a laymen to the methods used in the creation of said points values. Not to the respective games themselves.

That's why you hire consultants, or *gasp* learn.

For some reason I don't think the average wargamer wants to take the time to learn the complex algorithms your describing.

While an RTS may have fewer factors than another type of game, the key point about computer modelling is that the system can be programmed with a large number of variables, rapidly run automated simulations while changing one variable at a time, and record the results for analysis.

In some sense, having a larger number of variables may make it easier to achieve balance between units, since the effect of changing a single variable may not be great compared to the sum of the whole. It depends on the effect of the variable. For example, WS in 40K is less effective than BS, which is less effective than A.

deitpike wrote:

blinky wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Hrud (Space Skaven)

Not to derail the thread, but Hrud are a bit more like a cross between Chimpanzees and the creature from Alien.
Besides that, most of this info is good news, if it can be believed anyway.

as I'm de-railing now too, those are the Jokaero, are they not? (not the hrud, who are the space skaven)

The Jokaero were super-intelligent space orangutans. He's the one on the bottom right, obviously.

The Hrud were never actually space Skaven. There were like 4 sentences ever written about them, but due to 40k always having been a mirror of Fantasy Battle in the past- and GW being known for its recycling of ideas- people went and assumed that due to the fact that the incredibly sparse and vague things said about the Hrud could also easily be said about Skaven, that the Hrud must therefore be space Skaven, and the idea propagated itself throughout the nerdiverse as if it were fact. Then Xenology got published and eliminated once and for all the idea that they were any kind of sci-fi space rats. I quite like the inclusion of this tongue-in-cheek little bit: "The Hrud are a living enigma. Before even I came to have one in my possession- the result of a fortuitous incident aboard the Paternus Gloriem and the lucky placement of my mercantile associates- my quest for knowledge uncovered a single detail over and over again: nobody doubted that the Hrud existed, but nobody knew much about them."
Really, their entry in the book is quite interesting. In fact, Xenology is an all-around good time if you want obscure knowledge about obscure races that will never matter in the grand scheme of 40k. I know I do. Someone else already posted one of the two Hrud illustrations from the book. They look like a creepy amalgamation of humanoid insect and fungus. Not sure why anyone would associate them with chimpanzees.

Thanks to the plot of Xenology, the entire contents are plausibly deniable if GW ever want to use or change them.

ShumaGorath wrote:

For some reason I don't think the average wargamer wants to take the time to learn the complex algorithms your describing.

He doesn't have to, only the design team does. Neither you, nor I have been discussing anything but game design. SABREmetrics only needs to be applied with regard to the creation of rules, not the following of them. Nice try with the re-direct though. It might have worked when I was 11. But hey, a good barrage of smilies can be an effective disguise for ignorance, right?

I just remember the picture in the 3rd edition 40K rulebook of the Xenos races
There was an ambull, a necron, an enslaver, some big furry guy with huge claws, and a space skaven, that I thought the book had listed as a Hrud.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

For some reason I don't think the average wargamer wants to take the time to learn the complex algorithms your describing.

He doesn't have to, only the design team does. Neither you, nor I have been discussing anything but game design. SABREmetrics only needs to be applied with regard to the creation of rules, not the following of them. Nice try with the re-direct though. It might have worked when I was 11. But hey, a good barrage of smilies can be an effective disguise for ignorance, right?

Facepalm.jpeg

Sounds like more of the same to me.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And that's the same with an Imperial Lascannon. They're all R48" S9 AP2 Heavy 1, but the costs are very different depending on which FW makes them for which army. Forcing every Imperial model to pay the same 25-pts for a Lascannon probably doesn't work well for overall game balance. And it certainly doesn't work for theme.

Plus, there is this Fluff notion that not all armies are equally good at the same things. So making an army do what it's not supposed to do should be discouraged by deliberately higher points cost / inefficiency.

Point value and in-setting cost should not be interlinked. Point value is a measure of the item's effectiveness in the game to be used as a balancing method. If anything, your statement is a more valid argument for Guard LasCannons to be different from SpaM Lascannons... They're presumably different patterns as they go from hand-held/shoulder reinforced units build to work with super soldiers in power armor to barely man-portable units on tripods with separate battery packs.

Ideally, the weapon cost should be slightly less for a Guardsman than a Marine as the Guardsman is less survivable and less accurate.

GW has often tried to raise point values to make something artificially rarer because they feel an army shouldn't have too many of them. isn't there one HW that actually costs the Guard more than SpaM for no other reasont han because it is felt it shouldn't be as common?

I think the real point here is that players just want consistency across codexes as far as effects, so they don't have to track the differences between a SpaM Assault Cannon and a Grey Knight Assault Cannon.