Switch Theme:

If Not Points, Then What?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






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.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 catbarf wrote:
Tittliewinks22 wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/01 01:12:36


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/01 02:44:46


   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/01 07:48:20


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Kanluwen wrote:
Breton wrote:

Will Subfactions even be a thing anymore?

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.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 catbarf wrote:
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.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Breton wrote:

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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 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.

Want a better way to do fantasy/historical miniatures battles?  Try Conqueror: Fields of Victory.

Do you like Star Wars but find the prequels and sequels disappointing?  Man of Destiny is the book series for you.

My 2nd edition Warhammer 40k resource page. Check out my other stuff at https://www.ahlloyd.com 
   
Made in us
Paramount Plague Censer Bearer





 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.

‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




nou 809475 11512784 wrote:

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.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

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.

   
Made in au
Noise Marine Terminator with Sonic Blaster





Melbourne

 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.

Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch."
Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!" 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 catbarf wrote:
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.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






^Aren't Dire Avengers troops?

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.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Angered Reaver Arena Champion





Breton wrote:
 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).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/04/02 08:05:55


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/04/02 11:24:40


Want a better way to do fantasy/historical miniatures battles?  Try Conqueror: Fields of Victory.

Do you like Star Wars but find the prequels and sequels disappointing?  Man of Destiny is the book series for you.

My 2nd edition Warhammer 40k resource page. Check out my other stuff at https://www.ahlloyd.com 
   
Made in us
Impassive Inquisitorial Interrogator






 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aren't Dire Avengers troops?

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.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Paramount Plague Censer Bearer





Personally, I play Skaven in 6th, and Core troops are irreplaceable. Clanrats are the lifeblood of my army.

‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

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.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Biloxi, MS USA

 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.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 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.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 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.

   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Kanluwen wrote:
Breton wrote:

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.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 Eldarsif wrote:
Breton wrote:
 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.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aren't Dire Avengers troops?

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 . . .

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aren't Dire Avengers troops?

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.
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Breton wrote:

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"
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 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.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Breton wrote:

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.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: