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.

Question of the thread is the question of the OP:

Should all options in the game be equally points efficient and equally playable in game?

Should one unit selection be "better" than another unit selection?

Why or why not?

Equally playable? Yes. Equally efficient? No. It's about finding the area in between that keeps all the options available to you as potentials to mix into your playstyle, while also keeping each unit feeling unique and different from similar units.

And some units can be better than others, provided they're not in the same Codex - Guardsmen could cost the same as Cultists since the IG player has a completely different tool set to a CSM player, who will have to make do with an inferior unit in favour of the things he gets that an IG player doesn't have. Again, however, the unit still needs to end up being feasible to play.

G.A

define "good"

i would like to be able to build an army out of whatever units i enjoy and have a fair shot at winning with it

that doesn't mean all units need necessarily be as "good" as all other units

The question doesn't make sense. You would need to define better, points efficient, and playable to be able to answer this question. Even then, context matters; a unit that's good in one army could be terrible in another, so I'm not holding my breath on this going anywhere.

 BBAP wrote:
define "good"

Same points = basically the same capabilities. If I have a model with x statline over here, and I have a model with the exact same statline over here, assuming everything else is equal, they should cost the same thing.

No. A variety of situations occur in this game. What is "good" for one situation may be "bad" for another. It removes all flavor from the game if any option is just as good as any other in every situation.

In every other situation, yes, models with the same capabilities should cost the same. But I still voted "no" to alter your precious polling percentages.

 Lansirill wrote:
The question doesn't make sense. You would need to define better, points efficient, and playable to be able to answer this question. Even then, context matters; a unit that's good in one army could be terrible in another, so I'm not holding my breath on this going anywhere.

I'm going to give Traditio the benefit of the doubt on this one simply to keep the thread from turning into a garbage fire; I believe by having equal points efficiency, he means that each unit will (factoring in chance) translate equally in battlefield output to points spent on it.

The flaw in that is that some units are deliberately designed to be inefficient, such as a Big Mek with a Shokk Attack Gun. And like you said, context can have a massive effect on any unit's efficiency, as every unit in the game has its strengths and weaknesses.

 Traditio wrote:
Same points = basically the same capabilities. If I have a model with x statline over here, and I have a model with the exact same statline over here, assuming everything else is equal, they should cost the same thing.

I wouldn't base it around statlines, but there should be some kind of centralised points costing for capabilities on the tabletop. Be a hell of a thing to try and design, though.

No, because different armies should have different strengths and weaknesses. For example, Tau are good at shooting and movement but terrible in the assault phase. If GW gives Tau any assault units they should be weak for their point cost so that Tau keep the weakness of being bad if you can successfully charge them. The hypothetical Tau assault unit would be available if you really want to upgrade from "auto-lose if charged" to "can stop some weaker threats", but it wouldn't be efficient enough that you'd ever consider it a significant element of your strategy. If you assume that all options must be equally point-efficient then the only way to have Tau be good at shooting but weak in melee would be to give them no units at all which can do anything but automatically die when charged, since any unit which is even somewhat assault-focused in design concept would have to be as good in that role as assault units in assault-heavy armies.

Define good? At what task? Compared to what other units?

All units should be good, meaning they can all be used and work in the right list, so they should be equally playable. But no, not all units have to be equal for points

 Traditio wrote:

 BBAP wrote:
define "good"

Same points = basically the same capabilities. If I have a model with x statline over here, and I have a model with the exact same statline over here, assuming everything else is equal, they should cost the same thing.

(Preface: I'm assuming we're talking about units being roughly equally useful for their points, not necessarily identical in terms of their intended roles or abilities.)

My gut instinct is to say, "Of course things that have similar capabilities should have the same cost!" That said, I can see some solid alternative arguments.

As Peregrine has already mentioned, some armies are designed with certain strengths and weaknesses in mind. To modify his Tau example, Tau are (supposedly) designed around the idea that they bring quality firepower to the table, but they struggle if you can reach melee. This is part of their playstyle and identity. Therefor, any assault unit they have should probably not be as good at killing things in close combat as a melee unit of similar points. Now, that's not to say that a unit should just be flat-out worse for their points than the melee unit of another codex of similar cost. That would just mean that the melee unit was a terrible choice that never got fielded except for fluff purposes. A Tau "melee unit" that costs the same as a khornate melee unit might be less killy, but maybe it's relatively mobile or has hit & run thus allowing it to "block" enemies from assaulting shooty units and then disengage them so that the rest of your army can shoot them up on your turn.

You could also probably make an argument for some armies being intentionally having varying levels of points-efficiency in different places. For instance, it's arguably fluffy for tyranids to have relatively inefficient troops (cheap, but not cheap enough for their limited capabilities) and relatively efficient big bugs if we assume the theme of the army is to have lots of little bugs that are mostly there to distract/lock-down units while the big guys do all the heavy lifting. Not that that's necessarily where 'nids are right now, but you can see where that might be a reasonable design philosophy for them. If 200 points of gaunts were as good at killing a wide variety of targets as a 200 point MC, then you lose the feeling that the little guys are there to swarm you while the big guys do the heavy lifting.

There's also a really odd, counter-intuitive perspective that Riot developers have expressed in regards to their game League of Legends. At one point, a developer basically suggested that it was okay for some champions to be less effective/efficient/powerful than others because sometimes it's fun to intentionally play a more challenging champion knowing that you had to work that much harder for your win. As much as I want my dark eldar to get some love, part of me acknowledges that there's a certain appeal to winning with an underpowered army.

 BBAP wrote:
...define "good"...

This is the fundamental issue. When some people ask this question they're trying to make a rhetorical/sarcastic point about how making everything identical would kill the personality of the game.

The basic problem here is that we can ask the basic question "should every option be equally good?" and debate endlessly when the actual problem is that it's very difficult to work out what it means or how to do it. I'd suggest an alternative test and definition as follows:

A unit is "strictly better" than another rather than simply "better" if it fills the same role and is a superior choice in all circumstances and against all targets. In an ideal game no unit or Codex is strictly better than another, since you take choice away from the players and depth away from the game by reducing the possibility space, and you annoy people who pick their stuff based on how cool it looks before realizing how terrible it is. The issue with how 40k is designed is that too many units are sat in the same narrow design spaces and hence challenge the designers to avoid making one strictly better than another; if two units do the same thing but have different costs the choice between them becomes meaningless.

For a few points of comparison here let's look first at Grey Knight Strike Squads and Grey Knight Purifiers. A Strike Squad is ML1, and is 20pts/model for one Attack; Purifiers are 24pts/model for two Attacks (the same price as a Strike Squad would be with Falchions for that extra attack), with ML2 and an extra offensive power. The two units have almost identical profiles, equipment, and options, the difference is that the Purifiers are better at almost everything than the Strike squad. You could argue that the prices should be better-balanced but all you'd accomplish by doing that is changing which unit is strictly better; any way you price it either one is better or they're indistinguishable and the choice is meaningless.

Consider second Legion Tactical Squads versus Legion Veteran Tactical Squads in the 30k Legion list. A Tactical Squad is Scoring (in an environment where only Troops are Scoring), only armed with bolters, and has the power to fire their bolters twice in exchange for not shooting next turn, a Veteran Tactical Squad has special/heavy/melee weapon options and a few extra special rules. They're two units designed to do different things, by comparison to the usual Elites unit as Troops unit +stuff design philosophy that pervades 40k.

If there was more attention devoted to making sure every unit had a distinct and useful role, then the question of which units are 'better' becomes more manageable. You'd have the added benefit of dodging the concept of the 'tax' unit taken only because army-building restrictions require it, rather than because you actually want to use it, and the frustration/resentment that causes.

Some things should be less efficient in some codexes. Each codex should have built in weaknesses.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BBAP wrote:
...define "good"...

This is the fundamental issue. When some people ask this question they're trying to make a rhetorical/sarcastic point about how making everything identical would kill the personality of the game.

The basic problem here is that we can ask the basic question "should every option be equally good?" and debate endlessly when the actual problem is that it's very difficult to work out what it means or how to do it. I'd suggest an alternative test and definition as follows:

A unit is "strictly better" than another rather than simply "better" if it fills the same role and is a superior choice in all circumstances and against all targets. In an ideal game no unit or Codex is strictly better than another, since you take choice away from the players and depth away from the game by reducing the possibility space, and you annoy people who pick their stuff based on how cool it looks before realizing how terrible it is. The issue with how 40k is designed is that too many units are sat in the same narrow design spaces and hence challenge the designers to avoid making one strictly better than another; if two units do the same thing but have different costs the choice between them becomes meaningless.

For a few points of comparison here let's look first at Grey Knight Strike Squads and Grey Knight Purifiers. A Strike Squad is ML1, and is 20pts/model for one Attack; Purifiers are 24pts/model for two Attacks (the same price as a Strike Squad would be with Falchions for that extra attack), with ML2 and an extra offensive power. The two units have almost identical profiles, equipment, and options, the difference is that the Purifiers are better at almost everything than the Strike squad. You could argue that the prices should be better-balanced but all you'd accomplish by doing that is changing which unit is strictly better; any way you price it either one is better or they're indistinguishable and the choice is meaningless.

Consider second Legion Tactical Squads versus Legion Veteran Tactical Squads in the 30k Legion list. A Tactical Squad is Scoring (in an environment where only Troops are Scoring), only armed with bolters, and has the power to fire their bolters twice in exchange for not shooting next turn, a Veteran Tactical Squad has special/heavy/melee weapon options and a few extra special rules. They're two units designed to do different things, by comparison to the usual Elites unit as Troops unit +stuff design philosophy that pervades 40k.

If there was more attention devoted to making sure every unit had a distinct and useful role, then the question of which units are 'better' becomes more manageable. You'd have the added benefit of dodging the concept of the 'tax' unit taken only because army-building restrictions require it, rather than because you actually want to use it, and the frustration/resentment that causes.

Well said. Have an exalt.

Not an achievable goal, as value is ultimately contextual. Does a drop pod increase the value of melta guns? Should a drop pod cost different for a squad armed with lascannons compared to a squad armed with meltaguns?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Not an achievable goal, as value is ultimately contextual. Does a drop pod increase the value of melta guns? Should a drop pod cost different for a squad armed with lascannons compared to a squad armed with meltaguns?

Exactly, value is enormously contextual.

A meltagun in squad that can take three is much more valuable than in a squad that can only take one.

A meltagun is much more valuable in a squad that has an effective means of closing on an enemy unit.

A meltagun is more valuable in a unit that has higher BS.

A meltagun is more valuable in a unit that is harder to kill.

etc.

Every unit should have a purpose and be relatively viable. Perfect balance isn't possible but nothing should stand out as being terrible in every situation and nothing should stand out as being over the top op.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Not an achievable goal, as value is ultimately contextual. Does a drop pod increase the value of melta guns? Should a drop pod cost different for a squad armed with lascannons compared to a squad armed with meltaguns?

Very much an achievable goal. People often get hung up on trying to ensure everything is perfect, but all you need is "good enough". You figure out the cost of a drop pod based on a rough guess of how much it improves the usefulness of the units it can transport (and compared to other transports), then give it a point cost that straddles a good middle ground.

This allows players to find synergy without breaking the game. It means weapons like melts guns can have an effective role to play in a game where you could achieve the same result by parking a bunch of lascannons in the back field. It allows for variety of play styles.

We know balance like this is achievable simply because other games have achieved it. 40k isn't some special case where it can never be balanced and fixed. It's just another wargame and they all follow the same basic principles that you can balance if you take the time and effort.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Not an achievable goal, as value is ultimately contextual. Does a drop pod increase the value of melta guns? Should a drop pod cost different for a squad armed with lascannons compared to a squad armed with meltaguns?

Very much an achievable goal. People often get hung up on trying to ensure everything is perfect, but all you need is "good enough". You figure out the cost of a drop pod based on a rough guess of how much it improves the usefulness of the units it can transport (and compared to other transports), then give it a point cost that straddles a good middle ground.

This allows players to find synergy without breaking the game. It means weapons like melts guns can have an effective role to play in a game where you could achieve the same result by parking a bunch of lascannons in the back field. It allows for variety of play styles.

We know balance like this is achievable simply because other games have achieved it. 40k isn't some special case where it can never be balanced and fixed. It's just another wargame and they all follow the same basic principles that you can balance if you take the time and effort.

I think "perfect balance" is often what these thought exercises are about, which is why I say it's not achievable. But I agree that "good enough" is really the goal we're after.

However I also feel that 40Ks balance is "good enough".

And that's where we'll disagree. 40k's balance is far from good enough.

I think that the poll shows why the 40k community is so toxic.

There is basically a 50/50 split.

A little less than half of people agree with me:

Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.

The other half disagree:

No. There should be bad units, bad builds, etc. In other words, some lists should be auto-lose.

If you don't take a dakka flyrant, then yes, your tyrranids army should lose. Every time.

GW should DESIGN it that way.

Wow.

You put up a binary poll, ascribe a whole bunch of inference to "yes" or "no" that isn't explained in the OP AND try and use it as any sort of evidence when there's barely 50 responses?

Truly, every time I think you can't create a worse thread, you go ahead and prove me wrong.

To the rest of Dakka: This poster is deliberately wasting your time, stop giving him oxygen.

Boycott Traditio!

Wait, people are voting in a Traditio thread?

Can't we go ahead and discount most of the votes as being troll votes though?

 Traditio wrote:
The other half disagree:

No. There should be bad units, bad builds, etc. In other words, some lists should be auto-lose.

If you don't take a dakka flyrant, then yes, your tyrranids army should lose. Every time.

GW should DESIGN it that way.

Uh oh, troll voters are among us!

I voted no for the reasons I said in the very first response in this thread, not for some fairy tale narrative you've come up with to villainise me for not agreeing with you.

 Blacksails wrote:
Wait, people are voting in a Traditio thread?

Can't we go ahead and discount most of the votes as being troll votes though?

I think it's more that the OP asks two yes or no questions, meaning we've no way of knowing which one people are responding to, rendering the whole affair meaningless. As per.

Should all options in the game be equally points efficient and equally playable in game?

Should one unit selection be "better" than another unit selection?

 Blacksails wrote:
Wait, people are voting in a Traditio thread?

Can't we go ahead and discount most of the votes as being troll votes though?

I see no reason to do so. This basically corresponds to actual in-thread responses on dakka fora. Roughly half of all people, perhaps slightly less, are just as much against power creep, scale creep, etc. as I am.

The other half, perhaps slightly more, are mocking people for taking tactical marines, missile launchers and flame throwers in rhinos.

In other words:

"No. That shouldn't be good. That's an obvious trap choice. LOL at you for falling into the trap."

 Traditio wrote:
I think that the poll shows why the 40k community is so toxic.

There is basically a 50/50 split.

A little less than half of people agree with me:

Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.

The other half disagree:

No. There should be bad units, bad builds, etc. In other words, some lists should be auto-lose.

If you don't take a dakka flyrant, then yes, your tyrranids army should lose. Every time.

GW should DESIGN it that way.

Looks like someone is jumping to conclusions again.

Just because someone voted "no" doesn't mean that they think it's fine having some builds be bad. It just means that it's impossible to balance things as perfectly as you seem to think is possible. Your poll is way too generalized to be meaningful, and hasn't even been up long enough to get the black-and-white results that you are claiming.

And just because the poll is split does not somehow make the 40k community "toxic". Frankly, it's people like you making things toxic.

Why don't you just sell me your 40k stuff at a bargain and use the money to get stuff for another game if you think 40k is so broken. I mean, three (or more?) threads in one week complaining about this or that broken thing in 40k?

 Traditio wrote:
I think that the poll shows why the 40k community is so toxic.

No, your posts in this thread do a much better job of this. You've clearly decided that you don't like certain types of players, and this thread is just one more attempt to "prove" that you're right to dislike them.

A little less than half of people agree with me:

Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.

The other half disagree:

No. There should be bad units, bad builds, etc. In other words, some lists should be auto-lose.

First of all, that's not what the poll asks. You ask about unit selections in the poll, and now you present it as if people are endorsing your opinions on army balance.

Second, your idea that "I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning" is terrible game design. Should you, in a game where tanks exist, be able to deliberately take an army with zero weapons capable of hurting a tank and expect a decent chance of winning? Of course not. Good game design means that bad strategies are not effective. Otherwise you remove the elements that make a game a game, and replace interesting strategy with a 50/50 coin flip where both sides get a participation trophy no matter how badly they play.

Finally, your claim that "bad units" and "some lists should auto-lose" are equivalent is nonsense. Read the example I gave with the Tau. Giving Tau a weak assault unit (in line with their army concept of being good at shooting but poor at assault) means that there is a bad unit, and a bad build if you build your whole list around it. But that doesn't mean that any reasonable Tau list automatically loses because of it. If you're taking the assault unit in its intended role as a minor supporting element the Tau advantages in shooting and movement offset the weakness of the assault unit, and your list as a whole can still win just fine. You only get an auto-lose list if you, for some insane reason, decide to build your assault-focused army from the Tau codex instead of Khorne CSM. And see above about how bad ideas should not be effective.

If you don't take a dakka flyrant, then yes, your tyrranids army should lose. Every time.

That is a blatant straw man. Nobody is arguing that having a codex where you either take a single specific unit or lose every time is a good thing. Nobody. If you can't have a discussion without strawmanning the other side then please stop trying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
Roughly half of all people, perhaps slightly less, are just as much against power creep, scale creep, etc. as I am.

And there you go again, pretending that the poll is asking something other than what you put in the OP. The question your poll asks has nothing to do with power creep or scale creep.

Power creep is about increasing the power of the entire game over time. You start with weapons doing 1 damage against 10 HP targets, and after a few updates you've got weapons doing 10,000 damage against targets with 100,000 HP. And because power creep is generally a gradual process it doesn't necessarily produce major balance issues at any specific point in time. The new unit/army/whatever might be 5% more effective than some of the older stuff, but from an "is it fun" point of view that's not a major issue.

Scale creep is about increasing the size of models/units/armies. It has absolutely nothing to do with balance. It is possible to change 40k from a small-scale skirmish game to a default of 50,000 point Apocalypse games with multiple Warlord titan equivalents on each side without introducing any balance issues at all, as long as things like those Warlord titans have appropriate point costs for their rules.

 Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Wait, people are voting in a Traditio thread?

Can't we go ahead and discount most of the votes as being troll votes though?

I see no reason to do so. This basically corresponds to actual in-thread responses on dakka fora. Roughly half of all people, perhaps slightly less, are just as much against power creep, scale creep, etc. as I am.

The other half, perhaps slightly more, are mocking people for taking tactical marines, missile launchers and flame throwers in rhinos.

In other words:

"No. That shouldn't be good. That's an obvious trap choice. LOL at you for falling into the trap."

Nobody is getting mocked for taking tac marines though.