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.

So, as I get my own rules down (which I will post here eventually) and enter the first few test games, I wonder what to look for when I test my rules. My feel for what is and isn't balanced is fuzzy just because I haven't been doing this as long as some people, so as a substitute for intuition, what are some general principles when testing my game? What should I be looking for as I play? What do balanced mechanics feel like? What are some red flags that I should be keeping an eye out for?

*Are your rules fun to use, or are they just complicating things/giving you more to remember?

* Is your opponent enjoying having the rules used against him, or are these rules making his game less enjoyable? A lot of people would say rules like the warp spiders' flickerjump falls into the latter. Generally, rules that are enjoyable to have used against you are rules that do *not* remove player choice. 5th edition Reanimation Protocols made players focus fire on units to avoid letting them stand back up. Current Reanimation Protocol rules don't let you do that thus making them less enjoyable to face off against.

* Is one player winning by a large margin?

*Followup to the last one, is that player specifically winning as a result of your homebrew rules, or is there a different reason (stronger list/bad list matchup/bad dice rolls.)

* Are the dice following probability? This relates to the last point, but specifically pay attention to the dice rolls related to your homebrew rule. Say you were playtesting a weapon that fires d6 shots, but you're consistently rolling a 3 or less. That means you're rolling below average on your number of shots. So if the weapon feels weak, it might just be that you had bad luck. If it feels strong, it's probably a bit too strong!

* What cheesy jerk moves could you pull off if you used these rules with a list specifically made to abuse/break them?

* How long is it taking to resolve these rules? If it's adding time to the game, is there a way I could simplify them or make them take less time to resolve?

* How much bookkeeping am I doing for these rules? Is there a way to cut down on the notes I have to take?

* Can my opponent follow my homebrew rules? If they're confused, why? Am I not explaining/organizing my rules well enough? Are they simply too complex?

* Why did I write these rules? What is the purpose of this set of rules rather than using what's already written for 40k. Am I trying to reflect a unit that doesn't have rules? Am I trying to speed up the game or maybe bring out the flavor of various sub-factions? Whatever the case, understand why the rules you wrote exist, and use that to figure out if they've done their job or not.

*Followup to the last one: Are my rules accomplishing this, and if not, why not? Are they partially accomplishing it or missing the mark entirely?

Wyldhunt wrote:
*Are your rules fun to use, or are they just complicating things/giving you more to remember?

* Is your opponent enjoying having the rules used against him, or are these rules making his game less enjoyable? A lot of people would say rules like the warp spiders' flickerjump falls into the latter. Generally, rules that are enjoyable to have used against you are rules that do *not* remove player choice. 5th edition Reanimation Protocols made players focus fire on units to avoid letting them stand back up. Current Reanimation Protocol rules don't let you do that thus making them less enjoyable to face off against.

* Is one player winning by a large margin?

*Followup to the last one, is that player specifically winning as a result of your homebrew rules, or is there a different reason (stronger list/bad list matchup/bad dice rolls.)

* Are the dice following probability? This relates to the last point, but specifically pay attention to the dice rolls related to your homebrew rule. Say you were playtesting a weapon that fires d6 shots, but you're consistently rolling a 3 or less. That means you're rolling below average on your number of shots. So if the weapon feels weak, it might just be that you had bad luck. If it feels strong, it's probably a bit too strong!

* What cheesy jerk moves could you pull off if you used these rules with a list specifically made to abuse/break them?

* How long is it taking to resolve these rules? If it's adding time to the game, is there a way I could simplify them or make them take less time to resolve?

* How much bookkeeping am I doing for these rules? Is there a way to cut down on the notes I have to take?

* Can my opponent follow my homebrew rules? If they're confused, why? Am I not explaining/organizing my rules well enough? Are they simply too complex?

* Why did I write these rules? What is the purpose of this set of rules rather than using what's already written for 40k. Am I trying to reflect a unit that doesn't have rules? Am I trying to speed up the game or maybe bring out the flavor of various sub-factions? Whatever the case, understand why the rules you wrote exist, and use that to figure out if they've done their job or not.

*Followup to the last one: Are my rules accomplishing this, and if not, why not? Are they partially accomplishing it or missing the mark entirely?

I'm gonna print this out and keep a little cheat sheet next to me for my first couple games. Thanks!

It would seem anyone who didn't arrive in time for that second post basically missed out on the entire discussion. Nothing more needs to be said, except "yes, do what he said".

Breaking the glitches out of the rules.