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.

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?

 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?

I think the post also encapsulates one of the problems that presents itself, not that there shouldn't be points, just the wrong combination of levers are used for the granularity offered.

Sometimes adjusting rules instead of points to make parity between 2 options might be a good idea, blasting open the points scale to allow more nuanced balances so that there is more room between 2 values, having more stuff baked into basic loadouts or removing some options might also simplify the situation.

PL are points by any other scale and come with it's own problems, I'd prefer points but I'd like the points to actually be reflective/mean something because the rules behind them are better defined/distinct and the values of said points actually have a tangible value.

 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?

Depends on do you want real balance or quick&easy roughly on ball park.


If quick&easy is goal points, pl, both works. Both result in imbalance but it's easy to set up.

Real balance? Both sides needs to be carefully balanced regarding each other in said scenario.

That gives you total balance but obviously is lot harder to do. You don't just pop up to flgs and start playing.

Well, even GW makes games without points. Kill team just provides rosters, and you get to pick a certain number of options.

You could create army lists that have ranges of internally balanced options, and you pick at each step. Honestly it would be a lot of work and probably not worth it, but it could be done.

One the whole, at the current level of customization and complexity at the UNIT level, let alone for a full army, points are probably necessary.

It seems that the Combat Patrol rules for 10th have no points. The army lists are fixed for each faction (combat patrol boxes) and the rules are ostensibly written with the specific lists in mind.

Aash wrote:
It seems that the Combat Patrol rules for 10th have no points. The army lists are fixed for each faction (combat patrol boxes) and the rules are ostensibly written with the specific lists in mind.

I am very interested in this game mode, and curious to see how the claim ends up. Sounds like a great way to have small pick-up games and contained hobby projects.

I think there is not any issue with points as a system.

I like the AOS System of points, where you pay for blocks of models (typically a box worth), But that assumes weapon option rules are written to be of equal value (flamer great into troops, Meltagun great into tanks, plasma mediocre into both sort of thing). Firstborn marines are an obvious problem with this outside of everything else, as they have so many options.

 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?

To clarify, it's often said in designer circles that points are a structuring or shaping mechanism, rather than a balancing mechanism per se.

Because the value of units and upgrades is contextual, points cannot objectively reflect their relative utility in all circumstances. Points are meant to provide constraints that put both players on a roughly level playing field and encourage the kinds of forces that the developers want to see, but cannot guarantee balance. How much a unit or upgrade is 'actually' worth in practice depends on the composition of the rest of your army, the battlefield, the scenario, and your opponent's army, and the consequence is that two 2000pt armies are not necessarily evenly matched.

That structuring/shaping concept affects points values too. If a designer wants to discourage MSU, for example, they might set a unit's base cost higher than just (model count * points)- eg you might have a unit that costs 100pts for 10 guys, or for 175pts gets you 20 guys. You might still take smaller units if their utility is worth the 'tax', but the designer is tacitly encouraging you to take larger units. They might make taking duplicates of a unit more expensive. They might make a buffing unit much more expensive than its raw stats would imply, so that you don't take it unless you also have lots of the things that it buffs. And so on.

There are ways to accomplish that structuring/shaping function besides just assigning a points value to everything. Some are just points presented differently, some are more abstract.

One example off the top of my head is Chain of Command, where you start by picking a platoon with fixed composition. Each platoon has a rating, and the difference in rating between your platoon and the enemy's becomes additional points for assets that the 'underdog' can pick before the game, in addition to asset points provided by the scenario. So if you're taking barely-trained Soviet conscripts up against crack Fallschirmjager, you probably get enough assets to bring along a tank, but if they're the defender, they get asset points that they'll probably use on AT weapons to counter your tank. Your platoon is fixed, but your support assets are chosen with the scenario and enemy known, so you don't have to worry about bringing an AT gun that ends up being useless because there are no tanks on the field.

A Billion Suns takes a different approach from most games. It's been a while since I played, but IIRC you generate resources each turn by controlling territory, and expend it to summon units of whatever types you want. The wrinkle is that those resources you accrue are also your victory points, so a player who's behind might decide to go all-in to claw back to a position of superiority, or a player on the verge of victory might elect not to bring in new units and try to hold on for long enough to win.

Lots of ways to implement army-selection- but any game where players are given choices is going to have more-optimal and less-optimal solutions.

What I find interesting is that people who get most angry about trying to change the status quo in the other threads never come in here to continue the discussion.

 catbarf 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?

To clarify, it's often said in designer circles that points are a structuring or shaping mechanism, rather than a balancing mechanism per se.

Because the value of units and upgrades is contextual, points cannot objectively reflect their relative utility in all circumstances. Points are meant to provide constraints that put both players on a roughly level playing field and encourage the kinds of forces that the developers want to see, but cannot guarantee balance. How much a unit or upgrade is 'actually' worth in practice depends on the composition of the rest of your army, the battlefield, the scenario, and your opponent's army, and the consequence is that two 2000pt armies are not necessarily evenly matched.

That structuring/shaping concept affects points values too. If a designer wants to discourage MSU, for example, they might set a unit's base cost higher than just (model count * points)- eg you might have a unit that costs 100pts for 10 guys, or for 175pts gets you 20 guys. You might still take smaller units if their utility is worth the 'tax', but the designer is tacitly encouraging you to take larger units. They might make taking duplicates of a unit more expensive. They might make a buffing unit much more expensive than its raw stats would imply, so that you don't take it unless you also have lots of the things that it buffs. And so on.

There are ways to accomplish that structuring/shaping function besides just assigning a points value to everything. Some are just points presented differently, some are more abstract.

One example off the top of my head is Chain of Command, where you start by picking a platoon with fixed composition. Each platoon has a rating, and the difference in rating between your platoon and the enemy's becomes additional points for assets that the 'underdog' can pick before the game, in addition to asset points provided by the scenario. So if you're taking barely-trained Soviet conscripts up against crack Fallschirmjager, you probably get enough assets to bring along a tank, but if they're the defender, they get asset points that they'll probably use on AT weapons to counter your tank. Your platoon is fixed, but your support assets are chosen with the scenario and enemy known, so you don't have to worry about bringing an AT gun that ends up being useless because there are no tanks on the field.

A Billion Suns takes a different approach from most games. It's been a while since I played, but IIRC you generate resources each turn by controlling territory, and expend it to summon units of whatever types you want. The wrinkle is that those resources you accrue are also your victory points, so a player who's behind might decide to go all-in to claw back to a position of superiority, or a player on the verge of victory might elect not to bring in new units and try to hold on for long enough to win.

Lots of ways to implement army-selection- but any game where players are given choices is going to have more-optimal and less-optimal solutions.

This is an excellent post, and I appreciate the insight.

And I should note, I don't think points are capable of achieving perfect balance, if perfect balance is even possible at all. But points can get you close enough for fun-a 2,000 point army versus another 2,000 point army, if the points are done well, won't be a one-sided stomp between two players of similar skill.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 catbarf 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?

To clarify, it's often said in designer circles that points are a structuring or shaping mechanism, rather than a balancing mechanism per se.

Because the value of units and upgrades is contextual, points cannot objectively reflect their relative utility in all circumstances. Points are meant to provide constraints that put both players on a roughly level playing field and encourage the kinds of forces that the developers want to see, but cannot guarantee balance. How much a unit or upgrade is 'actually' worth in practice depends on the composition of the rest of your army, the battlefield, the scenario, and your opponent's army, and the consequence is that two 2000pt armies are not necessarily evenly matched.

That structuring/shaping concept affects points values too. If a designer wants to discourage MSU, for example, they might set a unit's base cost higher than just (model count * points)- eg you might have a unit that costs 100pts for 10 guys, or for 175pts gets you 20 guys. You might still take smaller units if their utility is worth the 'tax', but the designer is tacitly encouraging you to take larger units. They might make taking duplicates of a unit more expensive. They might make a buffing unit much more expensive than its raw stats would imply, so that you don't take it unless you also have lots of the things that it buffs. And so on.

There are ways to accomplish that structuring/shaping function besides just assigning a points value to everything. Some are just points presented differently, some are more abstract.

One example off the top of my head is Chain of Command, where you start by picking a platoon with fixed composition. Each platoon has a rating, and the difference in rating between your platoon and the enemy's becomes additional points for assets that the 'underdog' can pick before the game, in addition to asset points provided by the scenario. So if you're taking barely-trained Soviet conscripts up against crack Fallschirmjager, you probably get enough assets to bring along a tank, but if they're the defender, they get asset points that they'll probably use on AT weapons to counter your tank. Your platoon is fixed, but your support assets are chosen with the scenario and enemy known, so you don't have to worry about bringing an AT gun that ends up being useless because there are no tanks on the field.

A Billion Suns takes a different approach from most games. It's been a while since I played, but IIRC you generate resources each turn by controlling territory, and expend it to summon units of whatever types you want. The wrinkle is that those resources you accrue are also your victory points, so a player who's behind might decide to go all-in to claw back to a position of superiority, or a player on the verge of victory might elect not to bring in new units and try to hold on for long enough to win.

Lots of ways to implement army-selection- but any game where players are given choices is going to have more-optimal and less-optimal solutions.

This is an excellent post, and I appreciate the insight.

And I should note, I don't think points are capable of achieving perfect balance, if perfect balance is even possible at all. But points can get you close enough for fun-a 2,000 point army versus another 2,000 point army, if the points are done well, won't be a one-sided stomp between two players of similar skill.

I echo the sentiment all round. I think some people need to stop holding points up as the holy grail however and accept other solutions, ideas or even simple stat changes in some cases can be as much of, if not better than a points tweak (looking at you multimelta).

There are few types of mechanics, that are employed in other games, that make them function entirely without or with only very rudimentary use of point systems.

You can have back and forth list construction. The most common implementation is well known from childhood games, where teams are picked on one at a time basis from the common pool of participants. It translates to wargames directly with the exception of common pool, however the most common objection is that such system favours players with huge collections. This solution is self-balancing given equal understanding of the game by both players, as it is basically structured cross-tailoring. This could be implemented in 40K directly.

The second method are endless reinforcements. You remove kill points as a win condition, make scenarios objective driven and allow summoning units back onto the table. Such games end up being all about manouver and applying pressure points, because attrition is effectively removed from the game. Some level of parity between choices has to be mantained, but it drifts away from simple damage output/surviveability calculations and units are balanced by tweaking utility. It is self-balncing, because the damage output/survivability imbalance is dynamically offset by greater manouver flexibility of units that are placed back on the board, provided of course, that the game mission structure is done properly. Example of such game is Warcaster.

Third option is strict FOC and tied choices of sidegrades or scaled sidegrades (e.g. you can choose a single copy of unit A or three copies of unit B, etc). Basically, pre-structured, pre-ballanced blocks. Such system is used in Turnip28.

There are also mechanics, that dynamically steer the game towards a draw, regarless of any imbalance of armies, such as giving the currently loosing side greater chance for keeping initiative. The game Confrontation had this kind of bonus to it's turn initiative roll.

Final option is fixing lists altogether. This removes "freedom" of listbuilding and is commonly perceived as reducing the flavour of the game, but in reality, when done properly, it is the exact opposite. In an open list building game, in order to have any semblance of balance, you have to more or less homogenise choices, depending on exact scenario structure. In fixed lists game however, you can introduce wildly different playstyles as long, as the statistical winrate of those lists is balanced enough. An example of such fixed lists game that has many times more flavour than 40k is Neuroshima Hex (which is not a miniatures game, but could easily be made as such).

You could also go the other way around, and use non-linear, multi-dimensional point system, that more accurately account for differences in particular aspects of units, like mobility, damage output and survivability and weight their impact on the result in the context of a scenario, but this approach is more appropriate for computer games, given that even introducing simple fractions is too complicated math for some.

And of course, everything what catbarf wrote above while I was typing my response. It never ceases to amaze me, how 40k community is hell bent on "fixing costs" despite 40 years of continuous proof, that it can't be done to widely enough satisfying degree.

nou wrote:

And of course, everything what catbarf wrote above while I was typing my response. It never ceases to amaze me, how 40k community is hell bent on "fixing costs" despite 40 years of continuous proof, that it can't be done to widely enough satisfying degree.

That's literally because of the writers themselves. Ya know, the same ones that brought you Scatterbikes and Conscript Spam and Rhino Rush.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

One example off the top of my head is Chain of Command, where you start by picking a platoon with fixed composition. Each platoon has a rating, and the difference in rating between your platoon and the enemy's becomes additional points for assets that the 'underdog' can pick before the game, in addition to asset points provided by the scenario. So if you're taking barely-trained Soviet conscripts up against crack Fallschirmjager, you probably get enough assets to bring along a tank, but if they're the defender, they get asset points that they'll probably use on AT weapons to counter your tank. Your platoon is fixed, but your support assets are chosen with the scenario and enemy known, so you don't have to worry about bringing an AT gun that ends up being useless because there are no tanks on the field.

That's called list tailoring.

And I should note, I don't think points are capable of achieving perfect balance, if perfect balance is even possible at all. But points can get you close enough for fun-a 2,000 point army versus another 2,000 point army, if the points are done well, won't be a one-sided stomp between two players of similar skill.

This is really what I want out of points. They don't have to be perfect, but they should be close enough to facilitate a reasonably close game.

That said, while I think keeping points is probably the right call, I do think we could maybe add on some additional list building mechanic to help ensure games are a better matchup. For instance, I recall my FLGS running a tournament back in 7th(?) edition where your army gained "spice points" (not the actual term) based on its composition. Lean heavy into vehicle spam? That earns you some spice points. Take that unit that's known to be really powerful in the current meta? Spice points. Take that OP psychic power that makes everyone groan? Spice points. And then based on how many spice points you had, you received some sort of drawback. I *think* the drawback was that your max score for each game was capped or something, but I don't recall the specifics.

Anyway, you could use a similar "spice meter" to help get an idea of how gnarly someone's list is and hand out some kind of (dis)advantage to help balance the scales.

Third option is strict FOC and tied choices of sidegrades or scaled sidegrades (e.g. you can choose a single copy of unit A or three copies of unit B, etc). Basically, pre-structured, pre-ballanced blocks. Such system is used in Turnip28.

Something like this could also work. You'd risk giving up some of your army building flexibility, but you could essentially build armies using something like the 7th edition Decurions. The idea being that a given "block" is relatively tame, and you have fewer opportunities to take blocks containing more powerful units. Then again, maybe that's just the force org chart but with more steps.

Basically, I think points are fine at what they do, but I want a mechanic for mitigating the chances of having a bad matchup (due to skew and/or different levels of list optimization.)

I think others have said the options rather well.

Limited choice is a great tool. Kill Team seems to be using it to great effect. You can have this many choices over these models, with some limitations and additional choices on the models in question.

In a large sandbox game like 40K, points is the only real option. The question big questions are granularity and timing of list build. How freely do you get to choose your models and how detailed are the points of those models? How much information about the game do you have before you create your list?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

One example off the top of my head is Chain of Command, where you start by picking a platoon with fixed composition. Each platoon has a rating, and the difference in rating between your platoon and the enemy's becomes additional points for assets that the 'underdog' can pick before the game, in addition to asset points provided by the scenario. So if you're taking barely-trained Soviet conscripts up against crack Fallschirmjager, you probably get enough assets to bring along a tank, but if they're the defender, they get asset points that they'll probably use on AT weapons to counter your tank. Your platoon is fixed, but your support assets are chosen with the scenario and enemy known, so you don't have to worry about bringing an AT gun that ends up being useless because there are no tanks on the field.

That's called list tailoring.

Which only carries pejorative connotations in a game that relies on the oldschool idea of writing up an army list with zero idea of what the enemy, objective, or battlefield look like.

In Chain of Command it's just playing the game as intended. You're supposed to choose your support assets based on the circumstances, and it makes them a lot easier to balance.

Dudeface wrote:
What I find interesting is that people who get most angry about trying to change the status quo in the other threads never come in here to continue the discussion.

Because nobody's said anything dumb in here yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me, how 40k community is hell bent on "fixing costs" despite 40 years of continuous proof, that it can't be done to widely enough satisfying degree.

I'd argue that's actually not true. In fact I think it's fairly widely felt that 8th edition, pre Marines 2.0, overall balance was in a pretty good spot. Some small tweaks here and there and things were alright.

But GW gotta churn, and churn they did. . .

Yeah, the whole point of Chain of Command's system is to list tailor, because armies do that in real life.

"Commander, your mission is to defend the bridge. Intel expects the enemy to have tanks so I am giving you the battalion AT guns in direct support and have tried to secure you first pick of the divisional assets."
Vs
"Commander, your mission is..." *Rolls a d6* "break through the enemy front and attack the enemy bridgehead. Good luck, I hope your extensive 700pt Fortification Detachment serves you well"

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What I find interesting is that people who get most angry about trying to change the status quo in the other threads never come in here to continue the discussion.

Because nobody's said anything dumb in here yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me, how 40k community is hell bent on "fixing costs" despite 40 years of continuous proof, that it can't be done to widely enough satisfying degree.

I'd argue that's actually not true. In fact I think it's fairly widely felt that 8th edition, pre Marines 2.0, overall balance was in a pretty good spot. Some small tweaks here and there and things were alright.

But GW gotta churn, and churn they did. . .

"widely enough satysfying degree" is a key phrase here. Trap buying choices always existed, faction tiers existed, etc... Just ask Karol, if he ever felt his GK were balanced enough. Competitive scene being varied beyond Gladius and Scatbike spam on 90% of tables and most factions having at least one viable build is very far from "widely satysfying degree" in my book.

Delightful!

If no points then I see one way to balance things out would be just a total unit count for each player but we know that we will get detachments on day one do there is some for of army structure intended, good or bad.
If points are in blocks like AoS then my own lists will be largely the same as I play a Primaris army when I get out to play now days, less models so less back pain. Maybe.
I'll bring what I bring and the other player is free to do the same. I do not play tournaments any more my last one was just before the 8th ed Ork codex. I might feel up to giving it a go again if the rules feel good to me but as I mostly play for fun I'm open to hashing things out before the game if needed.

If it's like power levels then all my options are available to swap under the same list between games based on what I am facing and that will be fun but probably not very useful to me out side of a small handful of units. Nothing I would expect would swing the game into a victory for me as my dice are traitorous and I will likely blunder through every turn as per usual. I've often thought it would be cool to win more with skill than arms but I don't see that happening any time soon.
also it depends on a few things but I'll be interested to see how I can stick a big knight into one of those lists in case of emergency. My friend brings the cheese and I would expect that to be laid on extra thick if we end up with block points.

nou wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What I find interesting is that people who get most angry about trying to change the status quo in the other threads never come in here to continue the discussion.

Because nobody's said anything dumb in here yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me, how 40k community is hell bent on "fixing costs" despite 40 years of continuous proof, that it can't be done to widely enough satisfying degree.

I'd argue that's actually not true. In fact I think it's fairly widely felt that 8th edition, pre Marines 2.0, overall balance was in a pretty good spot. Some small tweaks here and there and things were alright.

But GW gotta churn, and churn they did. . .

"widely enough satysfying degree" is a key phrase here. Trap buying choices always existed, faction tiers existed, etc... Just ask Karol, if he ever felt his GK were balanced enough. Competitive scene being varied beyond Gladius and Scatbike spam on 90% of tables and most factions having at least one viable build is very far from "widely satysfying degree" in my book.

^Agree. Although measuring balance gets to be a tricky thing. But yes, I'm pro not only "faction winrates" but also "diversity of builds".

And yes it's also true that "absolute balance" cannot (and arguably should not*) be achieved, but also that even at a pretty high level of balance, there will still be people screaming "OP/trash".


*because value depends hugely on context, such as opposition build, terrain, mission, meta etc.

 Insectum7 wrote:


^Agree. Although measuring balance gets to be a tricky thing. But yes, I'm pro not only "faction winrates" but also "diversity of builds".

Exactly why we will always have "balance is good" and "balance is terrible" camps present at the same time and arguing endlessly. It is somewhat a paradox, that competitive crowd is easier to satisfy than casual crowd when it comes to "good enough" level of balance.

Isn't it Infinity that has that system where you have a separate resource for buying extra wargear? I've been very against extra resources in Total War Warhammer but I think I might be coming around. Because the danger with everything using the same resource system is that balance is off and people ignore entire systems in the game. So if you want people to use both you can force them to do it by having PL and wargear points in the game, wargear points can only be used for extra wargear, relics and other upgrades of that nature, while PL is used to buy the base units. Now you're sure people don't just spam the basic units because the wargear options are all overcosted and you're sure people don't fully bling a deathball at the expense of bringing a reasonable amount of miniatures to a game. Skaven have two mechanics in Total War Warhammer, one that lets them speed up building at the cost of a unique resource, another that lets them build special buildings at the cost of basic gold. The cost for speeding up building is low and the cost of building special buildings is high, so I use the first mechanic, but not the second, but if the second mechanic had a third resource then that resource would not be competing for other uses and I would get to enjoy the second mechanic. The developers of Total War Warhammer could just lower the cost of the special buildings to a reasonable level and that would simplify the game, but balance is hard so using several currencies is a hack for achieving design goals without balancing the game.

Dudeface 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?

I think the post also encapsulates one of the problems that presents itself, not that there shouldn't be points, just the wrong combination of levers are used for the granularity offered.

Sometimes adjusting rules instead of points to make parity between 2 options might be a good idea, blasting open the points scale to allow more nuanced balances so that there is more room between 2 values, having more stuff baked into basic loadouts or removing some options might also simplify the situation.

PL are points by any other scale and come with it's own problems, I'd prefer points but I'd like the points to actually be reflective/mean something because the rules behind them are better defined/distinct and the values of said points actually have a tangible value.

Rules shouldn't be changed all the time because that creates a lot of mental load, you don't have to care about pts when the game has begun. If melta is good on Sternguard but bad on Tacticals then changing the rules of one or the other doesn't make sense, why would Sternguard melta be worse than Tactical melta weapons? It would also create mental load to have profiles that sound like they are the same be different for no in-world reason. Ideally, rules should never be changed, only alternative rules should be provided for playing different types of games, like Crusade, Combat Patrol, Matched Play and Maelstrom. Exceptions should only be made for rules that break the game and have no points lever. Half the datasheets as well as the Combat Doctrines of my codex being changed would make my codex worth zero (had I been dumb enough to buy one instead of loaning it).

 vict0988 wrote:
Isn't it Infinity that has that system where you have a separate resource for buying extra wargear? I've been very against extra resources in Total War Warhammer but I think I might be coming around.

It is not just weapons. It is stuff like taking a regular X to be a forward observer, engineer or a hacker. Certain powerful skills, not just weapons, will have a cost added to them. SWC are also a secondary limit to taking skew some big things. But the games are hard to compare Infinity caps at 15 models, all thanks to my "cousins", and skirmish systems with dynamic core rules, are very hard to impossible to compare to big systems like W40k, even if you count whole units vs an infinity single model.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the whole point of Chain of Command's system is to list tailor, because armies do that in real life.

"Commander, your mission is to defend the bridge. Intel expects the enemy to have tanks so I am giving you the battalion AT guns in direct support and have tried to secure you first pick of the divisional assets."
Vs
"Commander, your mission is..." *Rolls a d6* "break through the enemy front and attack the enemy bridgehead. Good luck, I hope your extensive 700pt Fortification Detachment serves you well"

Which really does bring up the point if 40k would benefit from a list sideboard type of thing. Not fully tailoring but not the ridiculous way it works now.

Wayniac wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the whole point of Chain of Command's system is to list tailor, because armies do that in real life.

"Commander, your mission is to defend the bridge. Intel expects the enemy to have tanks so I am giving you the battalion AT guns in direct support and have tried to secure you first pick of the divisional assets."
Vs
"Commander, your mission is..." *Rolls a d6* "break through the enemy front and attack the enemy bridgehead. Good luck, I hope your extensive 700pt Fortification Detachment serves you well"

Which really does bring up the point if 40k would benefit from a list sideboard type of thing. Not fully tailoring but not the ridiculous way it works now.

It would probably benefit the discussion to make clear what sort of 'Warhammer 40k' we're talking about here. A tournament with randomly selected contestants needs different things than a pick-up game at the store or regular narrative games in a consistent club gaming group. Unstated assumptions should be analyzed at the beginning of the discussion because otherwise people are talking at cross purposes.

Cookie cutter lists. Think chess neither side has point and in that case they are exactly equal. Well if you took armies and gave them each only 1-3 ways to build that army then do that with each army and test to get them balanced then you have no need of points.

You have dark angels and they will always be this certain set of units and evey dark angels army will be configured in 1-3 ways.

Sorta like formations only actually tested and balanced against each other.

Now weather anyone wants this is another question but this is an alternative to points and done right it would be more balanced as their would be fewer combinations to balance.

Boosykes wrote:
Cookie cutter lists. Think chess neither side has point and in that case they are exactly equal. Well if you took armies and gave them each only 1-3 ways to build that army then do that with each army and test to get them balanced then you have no need of points.

You have dark angels and they will always be this certain set of units and evey dark angels army will be configured in 1-3 ways.

Sorta like formations only actually tested and balanced against each other.

Now weather anyone wants this is another question but this is an alternative to points and done right it would be more balanced as their would be fewer combinations to balance.

It sounds like the new Combat Patrol option will be exactly this.

Boosykes wrote:
Cookie cutter lists. Think chess neither side has point and in that case they are exactly equal.

If I wanted to play chess, I'd play chess.

Part of the fun of games like 40k is to pick and choose what you bring to the table, to experiment with new lists, and to sometimes find yourself against the kind of list you've never faced before.

.

If you want the alternative to points, check out the wider wargaming world. It ranges from two similar forces fighting for a contested objective all the way to widely different forces with a mix of shared, independent and separate but able to be affected by the other side victory conditions.

Points work best the more variables you lock down. So set the victory conditions, limit the forces you can pick and playtest your points. But those points/worth change for a number of factors. The most common is adding a new model to an army. That changes the relative worth of the other models, and so on.

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?

Different structures.

GW’s kill-team has defined squad sizes to start with.

Privateer Press’ Warcaster NM has ‘unit caps on the board’ but you can ‘warp in’ units from your sideboard (akak collection) so long as it doesn’t breach the game unit cap. (very rough take!)

Chain of Command has set platoons and scenario-based support elements.

A lot of historical games don’t have ‘points costs’ and rely on the ‘eyeball’ method to determine ‘fair’ scenarios, or else the combating armies are structurally very similar. 'Eyeballing' is is often something I've seen amongst experienced garage hammer players even in 40k.

JNAProductions wrote:

This is an excellent post, and I appreciate the insight.

And I should note, I don't think points are capable of achieving perfect balance, if perfect balance is even possible at all. But points can get you close enough for fun-a 2,000 point army versus another 2,000 point army, if the points are done well, won't be a one-sided stomp between two players of similar skill.

Not really, verging towards a qualified 'sonetimes'.

Without turning it into 'the good is the enemy of the perfect', points can get you close enough, but only some of the time and only under some circumstances. There are so many other factors and angles to consider. You ignore ‘context’ the points used to cost out one specific scenario might be spot on, and when used in another scenario or match-up might be hopelessly skewed.

The bigger queation is how close is ‘close enough points costs', or rather, what does that look like in the real world. Hiw much imbalance is OK, given the understanding that perfect balance is impossible. In my experience the term is a moving goalpost. In your ‘close enough game’, how ‘big’ is a game? How many units on the field from factions that are how big in terms of SKU and much of the game is allowed to be over/under costed and over/under powered in comparison to the rest. So often I see ‘good enough’ and ‘close enough’ trotted out, but when you drill down, it’s a vague non-term with no specifics with so little daylight between it and the ‘perfect balance that doesn’t exist’ in intent that its functionally useless as a term.