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.

Why would someone not want to do this?

When you forget about points and focus on strange configurations, games can be a lot of fun. When I got my Spartan and Fire Raptor in 7th edition, I played a series of games like this.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[Peregrine]But how did you balance it without points?[/Peregrine]

How do you balance it without points? A game where the zombies are very weak is boring because they just appear and are immediately gunned down, and the other side is never in any danger. A game where the zombies are very strong is also boring because they immediately overwhelm the other side and wipe them off the table before you can get any "desperate last stand" moments. It's almost like you want to have a way of evaluating the strength of each side so that you can find the right balance that allows an interesting game...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kharneth wrote:
What would be literally no fun is adding up the points and saying whoever has the most points wins. What would be really fun is trying to overcome greater odds.

Then why are you playing 40k at all? 40k is not a subtle or complex game, where clever strategy is the most important thing and a weaker force can overcome a stronger one through superior play. The dominant factor in who wins, by far, is the relative strengths of the lists. In a 2000 point game the winner is normally the player who brought the most overpowered stuff, and it usually takes some pretty catastrophic stupid choices to surrender the list strength advantage and give the underdog a chance to win. In a game of 10,000 points vs. 100,000 points the smaller army is simply going to be wiped off the table. There is no clever strategy or chance to overcome the odds, you just roll a bunch of dice on turn 1 and remove the smaller army as casualties. Unless the side with the larger army is composed of utter ing idiots and/or deliberately sabotages themselves by "forgetting" to shoot with most of their units the game is going to be a boring and one-sided massacre.

Now, maybe the point totals in your group aren't as one-sided as that 10:1 example, but the dominant factor is still going to be which side brings more points to the game. And it's even worse than a normal game because packing that many models onto the table removes what little maneuvering and strategy exist in a normal game. You just don't have anywhere to go with your units, you either deploy at the back and shoot without ever moving or deploy up front and charge straight ahead into melee because that's the only empty space on the table. The winner is almost entirely determined by whoever rolls more/better dice, and the best way to improve your dice is to have more points on the table.

With my friends maybe but if it was just a group of players from my FLGS that I didn't really know probably not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[Peregrine]But how did you balance it without points?[/Peregrine]

How do you balance it without points? A game where the zombies are very weak is boring because they just appear and are immediately gunned down, and the other side is never in any danger. A game where the zombies are very strong is also boring because they immediately overwhelm the other side and wipe them off the table before you can get any "desperate last stand" moments. It's almost like you want to have a way of evaluating the strength of each side so that you can find the right balance that allows an interesting game...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kharneth wrote:
What would be literally no fun is adding up the points and saying whoever has the most points wins. What would be really fun is trying to overcome greater odds.

Then why are you playing 40k at all? 40k is not a subtle or complex game, where clever strategy is the most important thing and a weaker force can overcome a stronger one through superior play. The dominant factor in who wins, by far, is the relative strengths of the lists. In a 2000 point game the winner is normally the player who brought the most overpowered stuff, and it usually takes some pretty catastrophic stupid choices to surrender the list strength advantage and give the underdog a chance to win. In a game of 10,000 points vs. 100,000 points the smaller army is simply going to be wiped off the table. There is no clever strategy or chance to overcome the odds, you just roll a bunch of dice on turn 1 and remove the smaller army as casualties. Unless the side with the larger army is composed of utter ing idiots and/or deliberately sabotages themselves by "forgetting" to shoot with most of their units the game is going to be a boring and one-sided massacre.

Now, maybe the point totals in your group aren't as one-sided as that 10:1 example, but the dominant factor is still going to be which side brings more points to the game. And it's even worse than a normal game because packing that many models onto the table removes what little maneuvering and strategy exist in a normal game. You just don't have anywhere to go with your units, you either deploy at the back and shoot without ever moving or deploy up front and charge straight ahead into melee because that's the only empty space on the table. The winner is almost entirely determined by whoever rolls more/better dice, and the best way to improve your dice is to have more points on the table.

You're so confined. How big is my table? Why are you making assumptions? Warhammer is fun, I wouldn't want to do an apocalypse game if it wasn't Warhammer... so...

Also, if you think the fun of this game is adding up points and seeing who has the most than you are sadly mistaken. The fun of 40k is playing. I love playing with my Khorne Berzerkers. I love it when they get shot to pieces without reaching combat. I love it when they annihilate the entire enemy on turn 2. I love it when a couple reach the front lines and slaughter through unit after unit.

This game is fun to play and that's why I play. You've been playing too many competitive games to realize what can be done in this game. I play normal people, not tryhards. I could probably beat my friend's 2,000 points of Space Marines with 1,000 points of World Eaters, but I wouldn't ask him to try it because that might upset him lol. We're all fething idiots. I don't always do what is the most tactical thing to do, sometimes I make stupid decisions for the sake of my army. I play Chaos. If my enemy has a 50 point hero in the corner of his map who calls out my Demon Prince, looking for a duel, you can bet your ass I'm going to fly over to the other side of the board with my 200 point monster to duel that character even though it's probably a waste of his time.

It's not about winning or losing, it's about playing. I don't understand how so many people don't see this. If a game isn't fun to play, there is no enjoyment in winning. If a game is fun to play, there is enjoyment even in losing. This is why I bring my super fluffy lists to tournaments - to remind people why we love this game in the first place.

@KharnethMade, well said!

 Kharneth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[Peregrine]But how did you balance it without points?[/Peregrine]

How do you balance it without points? A game where the zombies are very weak is boring because they just appear and are immediately gunned down, and the other side is never in any danger. A game where the zombies are very strong is also boring because they immediately overwhelm the other side and wipe them off the table before you can get any "desperate last stand" moments. It's almost like you want to have a way of evaluating the strength of each side so that you can find the right balance that allows an interesting game...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kharneth wrote:
What would be literally no fun is adding up the points and saying whoever has the most points wins. What would be really fun is trying to overcome greater odds.

Then why are you playing 40k at all? 40k is not a subtle or complex game, where clever strategy is the most important thing and a weaker force can overcome a stronger one through superior play. The dominant factor in who wins, by far, is the relative strengths of the lists. In a 2000 point game the winner is normally the player who brought the most overpowered stuff, and it usually takes some pretty catastrophic stupid choices to surrender the list strength advantage and give the underdog a chance to win. In a game of 10,000 points vs. 100,000 points the smaller army is simply going to be wiped off the table. There is no clever strategy or chance to overcome the odds, you just roll a bunch of dice on turn 1 and remove the smaller army as casualties. Unless the side with the larger army is composed of utter ing idiots and/or deliberately sabotages themselves by "forgetting" to shoot with most of their units the game is going to be a boring and one-sided massacre.

Now, maybe the point totals in your group aren't as one-sided as that 10:1 example, but the dominant factor is still going to be which side brings more points to the game. And it's even worse than a normal game because packing that many models onto the table removes what little maneuvering and strategy exist in a normal game. You just don't have anywhere to go with your units, you either deploy at the back and shoot without ever moving or deploy up front and charge straight ahead into melee because that's the only empty space on the table. The winner is almost entirely determined by whoever rolls more/better dice, and the best way to improve your dice is to have more points on the table.

You're so confined. How big is my table? Why are you making assumptions? Warhammer is fun, I wouldn't want to do an apocalypse game if it wasn't Warhammer... so...

Also, if you think the fun of this game is adding up points and seeing who has the most than you are sadly mistaken. The fun of 40k is playing. I love playing with my Khorne Berzerkers. I love it when they get shot to pieces without reaching combat. I love it when they annihilate the entire enemy on turn 2. I love it when a couple reach the front lines and slaughter through unit after unit.

This game is fun to play and that's why I play. You've been playing too many competitive games to realize what can be done in this game. I play normal people, not tryhards. I could probably beat my friend's 2,000 points of Space Marines with 1,000 points of World Eaters, but I wouldn't ask him to try it because that might upset him lol. We're all fething idiots. I don't always do what is the most tactical thing to do, sometimes I make stupid decisions for the sake of my army. I play Chaos. If my enemy has a 50 point hero in the corner of his map who calls out my Demon Prince, looking for a duel, you can bet your ass I'm going to fly over to the other side of the board with my 200 point monster to duel that character even though it's probably a waste of his time.

It's not about winning or losing, it's about playing. I don't understand how so many people don't see this. If a game isn't fun to play, there is no enjoyment in winning. If a game is fun to play, there is enjoyment even in losing. This is why I bring my super fluffy lists to tournaments - to remind people why we love this game in the first place.

From all my discussion enounters with Peregrine, it seems that the only reason to play games he understands is very narrowly defined intelectual challange of direct skill duel in an absolute context - that is any self-constraints or self imposed limitations like deliberately playing underdog faction, not playing optimal units/upgrades or intentionally playing an unfair scenario is not only virtue signaling but totally unreasonable and even insulting for the opponent (in pickup setting). Moreover - he is so confident, that outcome of any 40k game is so forseeable, that there is no point in actually play anything that isn't close to 100% ballanced skill test. All of which is fascinating, given that he admitted couple of months ago, that he hasn't played 40K since 5th ed.

Yup, Peregrine lacks imagination beyond a standard match play game.

10,000 points vs 100,000 points? What are the armies? What is the table size?

What if I'm playing 10,000 points of imperial guard Basilisks against 100,000 points of foot melee tyranids on a 30' long table. We can argue about whether that game is fun, but it is not a foregone conclusion that the 100,000 points will win, it will take them so many turns to get to me that they might all be dead before they get there.

The point is you can design scenarios where it is not a foregone conclusion that more points = auto win. You need to forget about competitive lists to do it though, and you are unable to do that.

Aren't defending armies in a planetstrike game at a points deficiency? How do they perform against the attacker?

@Kharneth, Exalted!

I probably wouldn't play a no-points game in the manner the OP described. I would definitely play one with a bit more structure to the scenario rather than just "all our models on the table". There are dozens of potential scenarios that lend themselves well to mismatched forces. In fact, I seem to recall one of my favourite 40k battle reports from WD was the "Ork's Drift" scenario based on the film Zulu, which had hordes of Orks assaulting a fortified outpost manned by a bunch of random IG guys.

You do need a bit of experience to run these types of games, IMO, to avoid them becoming pointless, one-sided affairs. Even better is if you can have a neutral judge who can make adjustments during the game to nudge the game towards balanced if things are getting out of hand. Even in unbalanced games you can run the scenario twice with players taking turns on each side. It takes a completely different mindset when building the armies too, as you need to think narratively rather than in terms of the standard rules.

Slipspace wrote:
I probably wouldn't play a no-points game in the manner the OP described. I would definitely play one with a bit more structure to the scenario rather than just "all our models on the table". There are dozens of potential scenarios that lend themselves well to mismatched forces. In fact, I seem to recall one of my favourite 40k battle reports from WD was the "Ork's Drift" scenario based on the film Zulu, which had hordes of Orks assaulting a fortified outpost manned by a bunch of random IG guys.

You do need a bit of experience to run these types of games, IMO, to avoid them becoming pointless, one-sided affairs. Even better is if you can have a neutral judge who can make adjustments during the game to nudge the game towards balanced if things are getting out of hand. Even in unbalanced games you can run the scenario twice with players taking turns on each side. It takes a completely different mindset when building the armies too, as you need to think narratively rather than in terms of the standard rules.

Playing a scenario twice with switched roles and treating this as a single game with cumulative score is the easiest "hack" there is to effectively ballance the scenario layer of the game - this is my basic mode of play for more than two years now and while it is not entirely "care free" it makes all sorts of skewed games fair overall. The only drawback to this is time needed for double match or means of recreating the exact setup later. And there is another, educative bonus in such approach - you learn "out of the matched play ruts" 40k management a lot faster when you experience every scenario design decision from both ends.

 Kharneth wrote:
It's not about winning or losing, it's about playing. I don't understand how so many people don't see this. If a game isn't fun to play, there is no enjoyment in winning.

And this is why points matter, and your idea for your game is broken. A game of 10,000 points vs. 100,000 points is not fun to play. There are no meaningful decisions or interesting events or anything that might provide entertainment. The side with the 10:1 advantage in points simply rolls dice until there are no more enemy models left, then the game ends. And it probably ends on the first turn's shooting phase. There is nothing the side at a points disadvantage can do to influence the outcome of the game, they just get to sit there removing models until all of their models are gone. There is no point in playing this "game". Just add up the points for each side and congratulate the players with 100,000 points on building a really huge army.

Points let you balance the game at least roughly and avoid the situation where one side is hopelessly outnumbered and the game won't be fun. If you add up the points for each side and find that it's really uneven maybe you have that side leave some models at home, or suddenly the Tau player betrays the Imperium and joins the Chaos side to make things more even. This produces a more entertaining game for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
What if I'm playing 10,000 points of imperial guard Basilisks against 100,000 points of foot melee tyranids on a 30' long table. We can argue about whether that game is fun, but it is not a foregone conclusion that the 100,000 points will win, it will take them so many turns to get to me that they might all be dead before they get there.

Yes, if you design a really stupid scenario involving models that nobody has for the sole purpose of "proving" that you can make a scenario unbalanced enough to compensate for a 10:1 points advantage you can make each side have an equal chance of winning. It won't be fun, it isn't realistic, and I have no idea why you're bothering to waste time with such a ridiculous example.

Also, if you aren't using points how do you know you got the sides right? Maybe it's 100,000 points of Basilisks on that 30' table against 10,000 points of melee Tyranids and the game ends after a single shooting phase with both players saying "WTF was that stupidity, why did we bother playing".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
From all my discussion enounters with Peregrine, it seems that the only reason to play games he understands is very narrowly defined intelectual challange of direct skill duel in an absolute context - that is any self-constraints or self imposed limitations like deliberately playing underdog faction, not playing optimal units/upgrades or intentionally playing an unfair scenario is not only virtue signaling but totally unreasonable and even insulting for the opponent (in pickup setting).

Not true at all, but thanks for trying. There are plenty of other reasons to play games, but if you're playing a game you still want the actual game part of it to be interesting. A one-sided slaughter where the outcome is never in doubt is boring, and a game where you ignore all of the rules and actively rig the scenario (by things like mid-game "reinforcements" if one player falls behind) to produce the outcome you agreed to have is a waste of time compared to just writing a story together. The point cost mechanic allows you to create the required balance so that both players feel like they have a chance of winning and the game has a purpose. Removing points, on the other hand, produces no improvements in any style of game. Not in competitive games, not in casual pickup games, not in narrative games. It is 100% pure virtue signalling, deliberately sabotaging the quality of your game so that you can prove how "casual" you are.

Moreover - he is so confident, that outcome of any 40k game is so forseeable, that there is no point in actually play anything that isn't close to 100% ballanced skill test.

Also not true at all. Many games have the outcome in doubt, if you use the available balance mechanics and produce relatively even forces. But if you refuse to use the point system and just throw random models on the table you are likely to get a game where the forces are so uneven that the outcome is obvious and there is no purpose to playing.

All of which is fascinating, given that he admitted couple of months ago, that he hasn't played 40K since 5th ed.

And there you go, 0 for 3 on making stuff up about me. I haven't played much since 5th edition, because the game has become an unplayable dumpster fire, but I have played. And it's not like this whole no-points insanity depends on deep knowledge of 8th edition. It's an obviously stupid idea that would have been just as stupid in any other edition.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kharneth wrote:
It's not about winning or losing, it's about playing. I don't understand how so many people don't see this. If a game isn't fun to play, there is no enjoyment in winning.

And this is why points matter, and your idea for your game is broken. A game of 10,000 points vs. 100,000 points is not fun to play. There are no meaningful decisions or interesting events or anything that might provide entertainment. The side with the 10:1 advantage in points simply rolls dice until there are no more enemy models left, then the game ends. And it probably ends on the first turn's shooting phase. There is nothing the side at a points disadvantage can do to influence the outcome of the game, they just get to sit there removing models until all of their models are gone. There is no point in playing this "game". Just add up the points for each side and congratulate the players with 100,000 points on building a really huge army.

Points let you balance the game at least roughly and avoid the situation where one side is hopelessly outnumbered and the game won't be fun. If you add up the points for each side and find that it's really uneven maybe you have that side leave some models at home, or suddenly the Tau player betrays the Imperium and joins the Chaos side to make things more even. This produces a more entertaining game for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
What if I'm playing 10,000 points of imperial guard Basilisks against 100,000 points of foot melee tyranids on a 30' long table. We can argue about whether that game is fun, but it is not a foregone conclusion that the 100,000 points will win, it will take them so many turns to get to me that they might all be dead before they get there.

Yes, if you design a really stupid scenario involving models that nobody has for the sole purpose of "proving" that you can make a scenario unbalanced enough to compensate for a 10:1 points advantage you can make each side have an equal chance of winning. It won't be fun, it isn't realistic, and I have no idea why you're bothering to waste time with such a ridiculous example.

Also, if you aren't using points how do you know you got the sides right? Maybe it's 100,000 points of Basilisks on that 30' table against 10,000 points of melee Tyranids and the game ends after a single shooting phase with both players saying "WTF was that stupidity, why did we bother playing".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
From all my discussion enounters with Peregrine, it seems that the only reason to play games he understands is very narrowly defined intelectual challange of direct skill duel in an absolute context - that is any self-constraints or self imposed limitations like deliberately playing underdog faction, not playing optimal units/upgrades or intentionally playing an unfair scenario is not only virtue signaling but totally unreasonable and even insulting for the opponent (in pickup setting).

Not true at all, but thanks for trying. There are plenty of other reasons to play games, but if you're playing a game you still want the actual game part of it to be interesting. A one-sided slaughter where the outcome is never in doubt is boring, and a game where you ignore all of the rules and actively rig the scenario (by things like mid-game "reinforcements" if one player falls behind) to produce the outcome you agreed to have is a waste of time compared to just writing a story together. The point cost mechanic allows you to create the required balance so that both players feel like they have a chance of winning and the game has a purpose. Removing points, on the other hand, produces no improvements in any style of game. Not in competitive games, not in casual pickup games, not in narrative games. It is 100% pure virtue signalling, deliberately sabotaging the quality of your game so that you can prove how "casual" you are.

Moreover - he is so confident, that outcome of any 40k game is so forseeable, that there is no point in actually play anything that isn't close to 100% ballanced skill test.

Also not true at all. Many games have the outcome in doubt, if you use the available balance mechanics and produce relatively even forces. But if you refuse to use the point system and just throw random models on the table you are likely to get a game where the forces are so uneven that the outcome is obvious and there is no purpose to playing.

All of which is fascinating, given that he admitted couple of months ago, that he hasn't played 40K since 5th ed.

And there you go, 0 for 3 on making stuff up about me. I haven't played much since 5th edition, because the game has become an unplayable dumpster fire, but I have played. And it's not like this whole no-points insanity depends on deep knowledge of 8th edition. It's an obviously stupid idea that would have been just as stupid in any other edition.

At points 1&2: your replies just reinforce my summaries, especially your second reply is just rewording my point.

I admit, I exaggerated a bit on the third in a way that enabled you to dismiss my point as "being wrong", so let me just quote our conversation from "State of 40K" thread about it so everyone can see where my impression about your practical knowledge of 40k comes from:

my question: "How often do you play? How many games of 40K have you had in the last decade? How much practical experience with actually playing any wargame do you actually have and how much of your arguments are purely theoretical "I think that all of you would be happier if you just listened to what I think is good fun but I have totally no idea how to forge it into actual and succesfull game mechanics"?"

your answer: "Last decade? Quite a few, most of them of the casual/narrative kind. Last couple of years? Not many, as the poor quality of the 40k rules has resulted in most of my gaming time being spent on X-Wing instead (a game I play several times a week on average). Every game of 40k I've played since 5th edition (or maybe early 6th) has been a miserable experience that was, at best, barely justified by the enjoyment of seeing my fully-painted army on the table."

Given the amount of self-righteousness in your posts and proving post after post that you have literally no clue at all about what practically every poster in this thread writes about, your "not many since 5th ed" sounds very much like zero practical knowledge about how 6th, 7th and 8th eds play out on the actual table. So simple and direct question for you - how many games since 5th have you actually played? How many annually? Where your vast experience and knowledge about 40K and how easy it is to predict the outcome of a scenario comes from? I'm genuinely courious, as pretty much your every post during both 7th and 8th editions contradict my whole 40K experience and I played 40K as often as you played X-wing. Do you actually believe, that you can have same in-depth knowledge about 40K as you have about X-wing without playing the game as often, just theoryhammering in the void?

@peregrine- you’re the one who came up with the rediculous 10k vs 100k example. If you can go to that point why not go to the point of a scenario where that has a chance of being enjoyable? You keep acting like these games are blind pickup games they aren’t so there is 0 chance of the 100k of basilisks vs 10k of Nids. No one is advocating for “let’s each bring buckets full of models and then we’ll roll of an eternal war mission, then dump those buckets on the table with no discussion prior to the game”. Your belief that they are is far more ridiculous than designing a scenario to make the game enjoyable for both people. And given no one is bringing 10-1 ratio of points you don’t need such a ridiculous scenario. Maybe it is 5k of bugs vs 2k marines and player set up a last stand defending a fort, where “winning” for marines is surviving a set number of turns. The whole point is that players will need to figure out how to make the game enjoyable. If you don’t like that style of play it is fine, but to pretend others don’t or it cannot work makes you seem highly unimaginative. Not every game is matched play pick up games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps if points are not 10-1 it will be abundantly clear who has the advantage. Even 2-1 is pretty clear if you have any experience in the game, which you need for a fair points game as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also removing points can absolutely provide for a better experience in a casual game. If I enjoy under powered units because of their theme and fluff, and you enjoy powerful ones, we might as well throw points out the window they do nothing to balance the game between us at all, if we play even points I’ll lose every game.

I don't know why do you guys keep responding to Peregrine. He has come here with nothing more than strawmans.

Theres tons of games that work perfectly without points. Normally, in the custom scenarios style. But thats exactly what you should do if you play with a friend without points, try to make an interesting scenario and discuss your lists.

 Galas wrote:
Theres tons of games that work perfectly without points

No there aren't. No game is ever improved by not using points. Even if it somehow works without them it would still work better with points. Ignorance is never an advantage.

You keep acting like these games are blind pickup games they aren’t

Oh really? Because the person I was responding to explicitly said that it's a game of "everyone put your entire collection on the table" with no advance discussion or balancing efforts or careful scenario design.

Maybe it is 5k of bugs vs 2k marines and player set up a last stand defending a fort

How do you know? How do you know that it isn't 2k of bugs vs. 5k of marines, and the "last stand" ends with the bugs making a few futile attacks against overwhelming firepower before the Tyranid player gives up and never plays a no-points game again?

Also removing points can absolutely provide for a better experience in a casual game. If I enjoy under powered units because of their theme and fluff, and you enjoy powerful ones, we might as well throw points out the window they do nothing to balance the game between us at all, if we play even points I’ll lose every game.

Uh, no. That's not how it works. Using points does not necessarily mean both players have the same point total. If you're in that situation maybe you give the "fluff" player a 25% bonus, playing at 2500 vs. 2000 points. That's certainly going to be better than ignoring points and having equal chances of a balanced game and a game where the player with the optimized tournament units also gets double the point value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Do you actually believe, that you can have same in-depth knowledge about 40K as you have about X-wing without playing the game as often, just theoryhammering in the void?

Do you honestly believe that this question matters? It doesn't. You don't need in-depth knowledge to understand that refusing to use a point system is self-destructive and never a good idea because it's a universal truth about all games with a "build your own army" element. EVERY SINGLE GAME is better with a point system. 5th edition 40k is, 8th edition 40k is, X-Wing is. Nothing about 8th edition magically changes this fact. The only difference between no-points 5th edition and no-points 8th edition is that now, between 8th edition and AoS, GW has endorsed no-points games as "casual" and therefore the "casual" players have embraced it as their current method of virtue signalling.

So to counter virtue signalling, you're virtue signalling. Interesting concept.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
So to counter virtue signalling, you're virtue signalling. Interesting concept.

NO YOU ARE WHAT AM I.

Seriously, is that your best argument? Do you even understand what the term 'virtue signalling' means?

Yes, you are establishing your moral superiority to the rest of the group by attacking those you deem inferior to yourself. Which in this case is everyone.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Yes, you are establishing your moral superiority to the rest of the group by attacking those you deem inferior to yourself. Which in this case is everyone.

Yeah, the moral superiority of "GW should make well-designed games and players should use the best rules"...

Ah good old Peregrine thinking points are somehow essential when they are only good to ensure you never ever EVER will have balanced game.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah good old Peregrine thinking points are somehow essential when they are only good to ensure you never ever EVER will have balanced game.

Your odds of having a balanced game with a point system are far better than your odds of having a balanced game without one.

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ah good old Peregrine thinking points are somehow essential when they are only good to ensure you never ever EVER will have balanced game.

Your odds of having a balanced game with a point system are far better than your odds of having a balanced game without one.

Now that I do not agree with. Two armies specifically balanced against each by the players and within the context of the scenario can be more balanced than points. The composition of your opponents army can make your units more or less valuable. The scenario can make your units more or less valuable.

Collaborative list building is absolutely capable of being more balanced than points.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Now that I do not agree with. Two armies specifically balanced against each by the players and within the context of the scenario can be more balanced than points. The composition of your opponents army can make your units more or less valuable. The scenario can make your units more or less valuable.

Collaborative list building is absolutely capable of being more balanced than points.

Even in that case if you're doing it right you're normally starting with points. X unit is too good for its points, so consider that in adjusting the other side's points. Etc. If you have no knowledge of the point cost of each unit, and therefore no way to know if it's overpowered or underpowered, you'll find it difficult if not impossible to figure out how to balance the scenario.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ah good old Peregrine thinking points are somehow essential when they are only good to ensure you never ever EVER will have balanced game.

Your odds of having a balanced game with a point system are far better than your odds of having a balanced game without one.

Now that I do not agree with. Two armies specifically balanced against each by the players and within the context of the scenario can be more balanced than points. The composition of your opponents army can make your units more or less valuable. The scenario can make your units more or less valuable.

Collaborative list building is absolutely capable of being more balanced than points.

How exactly do you tailor two lists against one another when you have zero idea what the relative value of each unit is?

You think that a Space Marine is worth 4 guardsmen because you have years of SM being 13 points and guardsman being 3 (or 4, whatever) informing that decision. If there are no points costs and I assert that a Space Marine is worth 10 guardsman and therefore you should only have one marine in your list for every 10 of my guardsman, how do you argue otherwise?

[game design 101 lecture]
What point systems are and try to accomplish is to project a multi-dimensional space of game system mechanics onto a linear dimension of "effectiveness value". With just two dimensions, offence and defence, this projection isn't lossless and is just a crippled derivative. In 40k you have movement, durability, shooting offence, melee offence, leadership, things like buff auras/powers which aren't even quantifiable as a separate dimensions, many parameters rely heavily on opposing force/terrain/scenario and their value can only be established once the whole game has been roughly set up and only then can be iteratively refined to a desired tolerance of ballance.

When players do not have enough insight or experience they have to rely on crippled measures as the only ones available to them. But as points are not a fundament of a system (you do not roll against point value ever) they not only CAN be dismissed as a usefull measure, but HAVE to be dismissed if you want to write ballanced asymmetrical scenario without using "hacks" like rematch, sudden death objectives etc. You HAVE to ballance list and environment on functional level - looking directly at mobility, durability, offence, synnergies, cross counters etc... The whole picture. Funnily enough, this is exactly what tournament players do when arguing about necessary point cost changes (the context of relative efficiency in a terrain/mission pack contexts) but in modern, not prebuilt but open lists formats or in pickup-with-limited-discussion game culture this is trully the only measure available, no matter how flawed. But with custom scenarios in cooperative preparation context you can go sooooooo much further and weight parameters of the game directly, without point system as a middle-man entirely or utilising other ballancing factors on top of point system (many of them are directly or indirectly correcting the flawed nature of point values in the specific context of a given scenario).
[/game design 101 lecture]

But all of this comes with practical experience and cannot be done with just dozen of games through couple of changing editions under one's belt. Not in a game with more than 400 hundreds of unique faction vs faction matchups, dozen BRB scenarios and literally infinite possible terrain setups. I can work this way only because I play in limited context of just small fraction of factions, can tailor terrain against lists or lists against terrain, utilise a number of self-ballancing scenario mechanisms. Even in such subset of 40k system static point values of units cannot be established well enough to be treated as foundation for ballance - they swing both ways so much, that the only thing point limit on it's own is good for is a guideline for necessary table size. In many scenarios some units are underperforming so much, that when projected onto linear point system they should be assigned negative point value as they are effectively a liability (an example - a fragile melee unit without means of delivery is just target practice for long range shooting in most cases and isn't even a target priority question - it dies when there is ammo available to spare on them; or a scatter-only shooting against small and dispersed elite force...).

All of the above is pretty much basics of ballancing complex sanbox games... Peregrine, the reason why no-point games aren't working for you is you and your religious-like belief in point systems and lack of knowldge and skill (including social skills) to approach them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Now that I do not agree with. Two armies specifically balanced against each by the players and within the context of the scenario can be more balanced than points. The composition of your opponents army can make your units more or less valuable. The scenario can make your units more or less valuable.

Collaborative list building is absolutely capable of being more balanced than points.

Even in that case if you're doing it right you're normally starting with points. X unit is too good for its points, so consider that in adjusting the other side's points. Etc. If you have no knowledge of the point cost of each unit, and therefore no way to know if it's overpowered or underpowered, you'll find it difficult if not impossible to figure out how to balance the scenario.

It's not about a unit being too good for it's points - it's about the value of the unit in this specific scenario and against that specific army. The value of plasma will go up or down depending on the enemy composition. The value of mobility is greater or lesser depending on the scenario. The capabilities of the units can be compared and contrasted without requiring points.

A well considered comparison of two specific armies in the context of the scenario will always be fundamentally better than points which are trying to abstract the value of that unit in a whole range of situations.

This is why point-less systems exist albeit these generally contain substantially less variety than 40K which makes these comparisons much easier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
How exactly do you tailor two lists against one another when you have zero idea what the relative value of each unit is?

You think that a Space Marine is worth 4 guardsmen because you have years of SM being 13 points and guardsman being 3 (or 4, whatever) informing that decision. If there are no points costs and I assert that a Space Marine is worth 10 guardsman and therefore you should only have one marine in your list for every 10 of my guardsman, how do you argue otherwise?

Do you really think it's not possible to look at the units and determine their relative value? Especially when you are comparing a specific handful of units in a specific scenario vs. trying to determine the value of unit against everything else in the game in dozens of scenarios? Do you think GW have some divine insight not available to mere players?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Now that I do not agree with. Two armies specifically balanced against each by the players and within the context of the scenario can be more balanced than points. The composition of your opponents army can make your units more or less valuable. The scenario can make your units more or less valuable.

Collaborative list building is absolutely capable of being more balanced than points.

Even in that case if you're doing it right you're normally starting with points. X unit is too good for its points, so consider that in adjusting the other side's points. Etc. If you have no knowledge of the point cost of each unit, and therefore no way to know if it's overpowered or underpowered, you'll find it difficult if not impossible to figure out how to balance the scenario.

It's not about a unit being too good for it's points - it's about the value of the unit in this specific scenario and against that specific army. The value of plasma will go up or down depending on the enemy composition. The value of mobility is greater or lesser depending on the scenario. The capabilities of the units can be compared and contrasted without requiring points.

A well considered comparison of two specific armies in the context of the scenario will always be fundamentally better than points which are trying to abstract the value of that unit in a whole range of situations.

This is why point-less systems exist albeit these generally contain substantially less variety than 40K which makes these comparisons much easier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
How exactly do you tailor two lists against one another when you have zero idea what the relative value of each unit is?

You think that a Space Marine is worth 4 guardsmen because you have years of SM being 13 points and guardsman being 3 (or 4, whatever) informing that decision. If there are no points costs and I assert that a Space Marine is worth 10 guardsman and therefore you should only have one marine in your list for every 10 of my guardsman, how do you argue otherwise?

Do you really think it's not possible to look at the units and determine their relative value? Especially when you are comparing a specific handful of units in a specific scenario vs. trying to determine the value of unit against everything else in the game in dozens of scenarios? Do you think GW have some divine insight not available to mere players?

I wonder how many such well put in words reiterations of those fundamentals is required to finally burst Peregrine's bubble... Is it less than googol number?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
This is why point-less systems exist albeit these generally contain substantially less variety than 40K which makes these comparisons much easier.

And now you come to the key issue: a no-points system (really, a scaling point system) can kind of work in a very simple game, preferably a historical game where the two sides have units that are roughly equal in capability and you have historical battles to give you a good idea of what forces should be involved in a particular scenario. A squad of US WWII infantry is probably similar enough in power to a squad of WWII German infantry that you can consider them equal in designing a scenario. But the same isn't true in 40k, where you have massive power differences between a squad of guardsmen and a squad of custodes.

Do you really think it's not possible to look at the units and determine their relative value? Especially when you are comparing a specific handful of units in a specific scenario vs. trying to determine the value of unit against everything else in the game in dozens of scenarios? Do you think GW have some divine insight not available to mere players?

IOW, "have the players determine a point system and then use it". GW doesn't have any special insight, they just (kind of shockingly, given their general incompetence) have the sense to use a point system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
[failed attempt at a game design 101 lecture]

Yes, you have identified the limitations of a point system. But what you haven't done is establish that the alternative is any better. A point system that can only roughly approximate the value of a unit is sure as hell better for balancing a game than throwing down a bunch of models and saying "that looks about right". And you are never going to play the exact same scenario (using the same forces) enough times to get it balanced based on looking at unit values in that particular scenario. Nobody is going to slog through 100 iterations of the same game so they can finally have an enjoyable game on the 101st try. What is actually going to happen is that the players use the point system (whether by looking up the correct values or by what they remember as roughly accurate) as a starting point and adjust those values based on their opinions of how much a unit should be worth.

And your condescending attitude about "game design 101" seems rather unjustified when every major miniatures game uses a point system. 40k does, AoS does, WM/H does, Infinity does, all of FFG's games do. Maybe you can find some obscure historical game with 10 players (all of them friends of the author) that doesn't use points, but essentially every modern game designer has agreed that points are the best way to balance a game and incorporated a point system into their games. Only GW advocates playing without points, and only in their idiotic "BUY ALL THE NEW SPACE MARINES EVEN IF YOU PLAY TYRANIDS" open play nonsense.

 Peregrine wrote:

IOW, "have the players determine a point system and then use it".

You just can't decouple yourself from the idea that points are a necessity, can you?

Points will always be fundamentally flawed because they try to create an absolute value for the unit in every possible situation which simply isn't possible. The mission, the terrain, the composition of both armies all change the value of the unit.

Comparing a specific army against a specific army within a known scenario allows for better balancing than anything that's possible with points.