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.

Assuming each Support card has at least a couple of upgrades (several seemed to have at least one in the cards we had revealed a while ago), and it's possible to either hire cheap pregen/created characters (such as Mister "Big 5 Points" Rick), balancing the numbers at a low level shouldn't be that big a problem.

And you're missing the point entirely; it doesn't matter if a trio of Gnerls can take on a MAC II (note: they're 35 points, it should indeed be a fair fight, and depending on terrain and starting positions, I could see it going either way), it's an issue with the 'quite easy pick up game' ignoring a key force building mechanic for apparently no reason.

Points balances for those games are recommended, but it never lays out specific requirements

Right, which is a bad idea for all the reasons that points are used in the larger scale games.

If someone says "take a Support card" versus "take a support card/upgrades and/or characters worth 40 points or less", the former gives me 1 card (probably the most powerful one I have available based on the mission, terrain and what I might know of my opponent). 40 points lets me take a card and maybe an upgrade, or a character, or both, or just one badass set of units, etc.

It acts as an introduction to force building on a small scale, theoretically keeps balance between the forces (my Glaug vs MAC fight, at least I'd probably be rocking a solid character or some serious upgrades to even out the fight) and keeps everyone on the same page.

Just saying "take one upgrade card" assumes all upgrade cards are created equal. The fact that different upgrade cards have different costs indicates to me that they are not.

It seems like a bad design choice, all the moreso because I imagine the skirmish game will be how many new/potential players are introduced to the game. "oh, but the person setting up the demo will make a fair/fun/balanced fight!" isn't a justification for ignoring what we've long understood to be a primary balancing factor between asymmetrical squads.

Which ties back to my incredulity about ignoring "Life is Cheap". All else being equal, a squad of 6 Battle Pods (35 points, 0 command points) should be a roughly fair fight for 2 VTs (40 points, 2 command points). Just giving them 6 command points for gaks and giggles because reasons indicates to me that something is very fishy in the math for command points if that swing in availability supposedly remains balanced on the small scale.

Though this reminds me of some discussions that were had around Gencon about the Zentraedi players seeming to get a significant boost in command points compared to what we expected them to have. At the time we thought it might've been a miscommunication or something. Hopefully they just sent you the same rules set from then and have revisited that matter, because if those are the easy to spot matters that remain in the skirmish, I'm afraid of what I'll find in the larger scale games.

Just like Starfleet Battles was not designed to play with 20 ships/side. The cards themselves are not made to balance based on small or individual units but the points do. This game is based on using 1+ Core Squadrons and building up from there.

I did the 6 Command points myself since I did not see it explicitly explained anywhere. Again this could have been changed with a newer version of the rules.

Now I do have a spreadsheet that gives us a breakdown all the way to single units against single units if you want that kinds of breakdown and balance......

... if the cards aren't at least vaguely balanced then the people who worked out the numbers should feel ashamed of themselves and need to go have a long time out in the corner while they think about what they've failed to do.

If they aren't at least vaguely balanced on the small scale, that is only going to become exacerbated on the larger scale. If 35 points of Battlepods stomp the crap out of 40 points of Veritechs, it is highly unlikely that this will rectify itself when scaled up by a factor of 8. If anything, that disparity should become even more pronounced.

Edit: and on further examination, you've contradicted yourself. The core cards are, barring minor alterations like swapping a 1J for a 1A (an improvement, but by no means an enormous one mathematically), just larger versions of the Support cards.

If the game isn't balanced support to support, then it's not balanced core to core either, and we have a problem.

What I meant by cards is that some are worth 30 points, others 75. Picking a random card is not going to give you equal forces. That is why I said the points values are. Support cards can be smaller things worth 10 points like a Quel-Gulnau or bigger ones like a pair of Veritechs and picking any support card does not mean they are equivalent firepower in any way shape or form.

So one card does not equal another. 100 points of cards is equal forcewise to 100 points of cards. I did not contradict myself one bit. You just gotta read a little better.


Just like Starfleet Battles was not designed to play with 20 ships/side. The cards themselves are not made to balance based on small or individual units BUT THE POINTS DO. This game is based on using 1+ Core Squadrons and building up from there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is there a point to this argument? We are on the same side here.

Except Forar is saying that it's a bad thing that Skirmish does to care about the points on a support card, while it seems like you're defending that.

Just my third party reading.

His whole deal is that he wants me to say for Skirmish battles use 2 support cards with a total of 100 points or some such. There is so much variation in support card costs that that would be the wrong way to do things. Let players determine how many points and how many support cards they wish to use and go from there. But since that is not explicitly written in the rules that I have then of course they are badly written. Skirmish was never a focus and the skirmish rules takes a total of 3 or 4 paragraphs. Skirmish was added for a quick pickup game but was never part of the game design. But if I say just go choose how many points you want to use then how dare I! The rules must be perfect and explain every case and possibility and nothing should ever be left to us to work out. It's a no win.

There is too much variation in Support card uses and costs to set any point range because you might want to do 40 points or 80 depending upon what you have in mind.

It's like telling someone pick a lance in battletech. A lance can have anywhere from 80 to 400 tons. You need to set limits on whether you want a heavy hitter skirmish or not. That is something that the rules do not need to have written up and specified.

You said that the skirmish does not use the points, that you just pick a support card, special, or combination thereof.

I said this was a bad idea.

Anything else is either a miscommunication or you missing my point.

rigeld2 has caught what I'm trying to convey exactly. And it doesn't need to be complicated. "A skirmish game is a small scale variation that can be used to teach newer players or slip in a fast 20-30 minute round when a longer or larger game might not be feasible. Select a point total (typically 50 or 100) to build your forces with, and using only Support Cards, Special Cards, Characters and card upgrades, try to reach as close as possible to that total without going over."

BAM, skirmish game that uses the points total described in one paragraph.

Except, y'know, I'm sure professional game designers could probably do it concisely in half the words and twice as elegantly.

YOU are the one who gave the "3 options for skirmishes" as how they're presented. If that's how they are in fact presented, then yes, the rules as they exist in the copy you received are "badly written", which is something I've been hoping wouldn't be the case for nearly a year now.

It shouldn't be this frakking difficult.

The game recommends balancing using points. It does not say specifically to do so.

Meh, semantics.

I said there are really only three options. The rules say pick one or two support or special cards. Nothing more.

That leaves you with only 3 options and I stated them.

Maybe I should just type up the 3-4 paragraphs from the book.....

Mike1975 wrote:
It's like telling someone pick a lance in battletech. A lance can have anywhere from 80 to 400 tons. You need to set limits on whether you want a heavy hitter skirmish or not. That is something that the rules do not need to have written up and specified.

Absolutely disagree. The rules NEED to have that type of stuff written up and specified to prevent strangers from arguing about it unnecessarily. Having things be loosey goosey and unclear is why so many gamers hate palladium rules. It's obvious that people are free to house rule whatever they want but there should be a standardized structure to pickup games that they can refer to if there isn't an agreement on what to change or add. If you want an example of nebulous left up to others "what's included" gaming, feel free to check out the weekly vehement arguments about whether FW is a part of "standard" 40k.

Let players determine how ruins work. I'm sure that'll go well.
Let players determine LoS. I'm sure that'll go well.
Let players determine what books are "legal". I'm sure that'll go well.
Let players determine anything and if they can't agree, just 4+ it. I'm sure that'll go well.

These are things that GW (rightly) gets mocked for doing wrong. Saying "the rules do not need to have [it] written up and specified" is simply incorrect. Especially when there's a perfect way to balance them already - the points on the damn card.

The less discussion about the rules you have before a game, the better the game is. Instead of ignoring the point values that have been play tested and balanced, use them. It's idiotic not to.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I ran into a guy from Ninja Division over the Templecon Weekend. I gave him some flak for the Robotech thing (basically I jokingly said, "Hey, when am I getting my Robotech stuff?" and he got upset).

Did he respond?

 warboss wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
It's like telling someone pick a lance in battletech. A lance can have anywhere from 80 to 400 tons. You need to set limits on whether you want a heavy hitter skirmish or not. That is something that the rules do not need to have written up and specified.

Absolutely disagree. The rules NEED to have that type of stuff written up and specified to prevent strangers from arguing about it unnecessarily. Having things be loosey goosey and unclear is why so many gamers hate palladium rules. It's obvious that people are free to house rule whatever they want but there should be a standardized structure to pickup games that they can refer to if there isn't an agreement on what to change or add. If you want an example of nebulous left up to others "what's included" gaming, feel free to check out the weekly vehement arguments about whether FW is a part of "standard" 40k.

I completely disagree with you here. You have to think about how the game is set up. The rules recommend that you balance things out with points in a skirmish game but do not expressly push that fact. On this you fear abuse. Support cards range from a price of 10 to 60+ depending upon upgrades. You can't set a specific points limit per the rules because then you are excluding the use of many support cards for a skirmish game. So if you stick to 30 points for a skirmish game then you eliminate the use of a FPA. If you say 50 points nobody will ever even try Zen infantry in a skirmish game. Specifying a specific point limit for all Skirmish games would limit the game not enhance it. That would be similar to saying that each and every core squadron in a 300 point game MUST cost 150 points. That means you cannot have one that costs 120 and the other 180 or one that costs 145 and the other 150. What you COULD do is maybe put in a couple of recommendations as far as point levels. Something like mini skirmish game at 20-25 points/side and one card each, medium using 2 cards and 50-60 points per side and heavy at 75 points/side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think your fear is that someone will pull out a FPA or two while the other player pulls out a couple Defenders and the battle is completely one sided. Fair enough. Decide before picking how many points each side should use and then pick cards.

But if you explicitly limit skirmish games to SPECIFIC point values you will eliminate the use of a number of units in a Skirmish style game. Vermillion Squad, what would they cost? If you limit a Skirmish game to 60 points would you still be able to play them? That is like saying at a maximum all games under the core rules must be played with at least 300 point armies and at max a 600 points army and now nobody can have these super table spanning games that they hope for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Let players determine how ruins work. I'm sure that'll go well.
Let players determine LoS. I'm sure that'll go well.
Let players determine what books are "legal". I'm sure that'll go well.
Let players determine anything and if they can't agree, just 4+ it. I'm sure that'll go well.

These are things that GW (rightly) gets mocked for doing wrong. Saying "the rules do not need to have [it] written up and specified" is simply incorrect. Especially when there's a perfect way to balance them already - the points on the damn card.

The less discussion about the rules you have before a game, the better the game is. Instead of ignoring the point values that have been play tested and balanced, use them. It's idiotic not to.

BUT one thing you ALWAYS discuss is setting a point size for your game. Does 40K say you HAVE to play with 2000 or 2500 or even 5000 point armies, no. Same difference. Skirmish games allows the players to set the game size before picking their forces, they don't force you into a corner and tell you how big that game MUST be. I'm not talking about just randomly putting figs on the table and saying that is my army this time around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So after looking at the back and forth we are essentially arguing one specific difference.

Some want specific points for a skirmish game given to them

I think that that will limit players needlessly. Allow players to decide how many points they want for a skirmish game.

... but require they set a point limit. From what you've said there isn't that requirement. And that's the thing that is bad.

I don't want them to say "Skirmish games must always be 30 points, 20 support." or whatever.

I do not want them to say "points don't matter - balance it amongst yourselves." because that's stupid game design.

So if the only change is that the rules say specifically that players should agree on a point limit before choosing cards in a skirmish game then everything is now ok?

Instead of recommending that players choose a point limit for a skirmish game?

That change may have already been made but I will point it out.

Semantics

Mike1975 wrote:
So if the only change is that the rules say specifically that players should agree on a point limit before choosing cards in a skirmish game then everything is now ok?

Instead of recommending that players choose a point limit for a skirmish game?

That change may have already been made but I will point it out.

Semantics

It's not semantics.

There should never - ever - be a reason for people who design a game to say "See that number in a box over there? For this game type it doesn't matter, just ignore it. Everything will be balanced fine. Unless it isn't, then you should pay attention to the number, but there's no limit to how high it can go."

Do you understand why that's bad? Do you understand that's exactly what you're saying is okay?
GW is mocked for having crap, loosely written rules. And rightly so.
PB, creating a new game from scratch, shouldn't fall into that trap.

If you are playing with a 2000 point army against a 5000 point army and expect it to balance then, yes the system is broken.

If both sides know going into things that there are victory conditions that allow a chance for each side to win regardless of the point disparity then things are fine.

I will make the suggestion. I understand your concerns.

Mike1975 wrote:
Specifying a specific point limit for all Skirmish games would limit the game not enhance it. That would be similar to saying that each and every core squadron in a 300 point game MUST cost 150 points. That means you cannot have one that costs 120 and the other 180 or one that costs 145 and the other 150. What you COULD do is maybe put in a couple of recommendations as far as point levels. Something like mini skirmish game at 20-25 points/side and one card each, medium using 2 cards and 50-60 points per side and heavy at 75 points/side.

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.

I'm NOT saying "skirmishes MUST BE 50 POINTS OR PALLADIUM COMES TO YOUR HOUSE AND CRUSHES YOUR MODELS".

I AM saying "having a reasonable points range that players use to choose the size of their skirmish and then build their force with, JUST LIKE THE NORMAL SIZED GAMES, BUT SMALLER, is a sensible piece of game design." Maybe that suggested range is 25-100, but whatever it is, not all support cards are created equal, so basing it off cards alone is innately fraught with peril. There shouldn't be any need to specify how many cards are available, the points cap already limits it.

"A skirmish is generally played between 25 and 100 points, to be determined before the players begin choosing their forces" is a reasonable guideline. "Use 2 support cards" is not.

Mike1975 wrote:

So after looking at the back and forth we are essentially arguing one specific difference.

Some want specific points for a skirmish game given to them

I think that that will limit players needlessly. Allow players to decide how many points they want for a skirmish game.

No. Wrong. Bad.

The force building has to be determined somehow. You, YOU said that it was done by cards. I pointed out that this is an asinine way to balance forces. How many times do I need to repeat it, I'M NOT ASKING FOR A SPECIFIC NUMBER, BUT THAT THEY NOTE THE PLAYERS CHOOSE A POINTS TOTAL AND BUILD FROM IT.

Guys, am I speaking in tongues? Have I lapsed into a dead language?

Mike1975 wrote:
I will make the suggestion. I understand your concerns.

I really don't think you do.

Where are you from Forar? Must have some French or Latin blood in you.

I'm a big 'ol Canadian mutt, born and bred.

... seriously, there's a mix of German, Ukranian, French, English, and possibly one or two others going back only 2 generations or so.

At war with myself all the damned time.

So you called it, though it's a small part of the larger quilt that is my checkered heritage. :-D

Mike1975 wrote:
If you are playing with a 2000 point army against a 5000 point army and expect it to balance then, yes the system is broken.

And this is literally exactly what "just ignore those pesky point values" will lead to.

If both sides know going into things that there are victory conditions that allow a chance for each side to win regardless of the point disparity then things are fine.

Which is rare, and very difficult to balance, and I seriously - SERIOUSLY - doubt PB will put that much effort into it.

I will make the suggestion. I understand your concerns.

I'm not sure you do, but thanks.

Mike1975 wrote:

So after looking at the back and forth we are essentially arguing one specific difference.

Some want specific points for a skirmish game given to them

I think that that will limit players needlessly. Allow players to decide how many points they want for a skirmish game.

I don't think anyone is talking about that but you (but if anyone is, feel free to correct me). What we all are asking for/about is that skirmish games require players to agree to an equal points value (of their choice) ahead of time instead of just a number of cards as your post referred to with wildly varying points on either side. If you don't require agreement before hand, you will end up with people who try and take 400 ton lances versus 80 ton lances from your BT example because they can. The 40k equivalent would be requiring players to take specifically only a few certain force org slots but not requiring a points value allowing for instance massive 80 man IG blob squads with all the fixings versus a 5 man marine squad.

Like I said I understand your points, I told PB that I'd recommend a line requiring players to decide upon an amount of points or range of points for a skirmish game before selecting their support and/or special cards for a skirmish game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically you want to eliminate the recommendation part and make it a rule to choose a points value or range for all skirmish games in order to help maintain balance and prevent abuse.

Mike1975 wrote:
So if the only change is that the rules say specifically that players should agree on a point limit before choosing cards in a skirmish game then everything is now ok?

Instead of recommending that players choose a point limit for a skirmish game?

That change may have already been made but I will point it out.

Semantics

It's not meaningless semantics but rather an important point to make that is one of the most basic in any game where forces are supposed to be "equal" in some way. Mike, your game reports always show your garage IIRC so it's likely you play with friends and "semantics" don't generally come up as an argument as often I'd gather. When you're playing against complete strangers that you met seconds earlier in a store or convention, you don't know what they'll try to pull or what is considered "normal" in their area but frowned upon in yours. The rules are supposed to provide you with a complete concrete common ground to start from if you do agree to change things or default back to if you can't. If the "default" is nebulous enough to not allow a fair game as per the written rules then the rules writers have failed. Taking out a 40pt squadron only to see that your opponent has completely legally according to the rules chosen a 60pt squadron doesn't make the game fun. Now I fully understand that some games have asymetric forces for specific missions that take the difference into account but that isn't what we're talking about here.

Just to clarify again.. no one that I know of in this thread is advocating a set pts limit for skirmish games but simply rather that the rules specificy that a points limit be agreed upon by the players (on top of the other restrictions you said) prior to the game.

 warboss wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
So if the only change is that the rules say specifically that players should agree on a point limit before choosing cards in a skirmish game then everything is now ok?

Instead of recommending that players choose a point limit for a skirmish game?

That change may have already been made but I will point it out.

Semantics

It's not meaningless semantics but rather an important point to make that is one of the most basic in any game where forces are supposed to be "equal" in some way. Mike, your game reports always show your garage IIRC so it's likely you play with friends and "semantics" don't generally come up as an argument as often I'd gather. When you're playing against complete strangers that you met seconds earlier in a store or convention, you don't know what they'll try to pull or what is considered "normal" in their area but frowned upon in yours. The rules are supposed to provide you with a complete concrete common ground to start from if you do agree to change things or default back to if you can't. If the "default" is nebulous enough to not allow a fair game as per the written rules then the rules writers have failed. Taking out a 40pt squadron only to see that your opponent has completely legally according to the rules chosen a 60pt squadron doesn't make the game fun. Now I fully understand that some games have asymetric forces for specific missions that take the difference into account but that isn't what we're talking about here.

Just to clarify again.. no one that I know of in this thread is advocating a set pts limit for skirmish games but simply rather that the rules specificy that a points limit be agreed upon by the players (on top of the other restrictions you said) prior to the game.

I've played in conventions and know how rules-lawyers can be. I once had a battle called as a draw because the one enemy player left hid in some water and there were no rules for firing into or out of water. The pond was not big enough for me to go in after him. I've also seen my brother bring space marines armies fitted with sights to see through smoke and use smoke grenades. It would wipe out enemies unprepared for smoke. Cheesy, yes, but within the rules.

Like I said, suggestion made. I can see your point. We were on the same track for most of the time just possbilby arriving from different directions.

Is the 'Skirmish mode' intended as a sort of learning/demo tool that is only really played by people who are new to the game, perhaps?

Mike1975 wrote:
Like I said I understand your points, I told PB that I'd recommend a line requiring players to decide upon an amount of points or range of points for a skirmish game before selecting their support and/or special cards for a skirmish game.

Basically you want to eliminate the recommendation part and make it a rule to choose a points value or range for all skirmish games in order to help maintain balance and prevent abuse.

Yes. This. Exactly. High fives and cookies all around!

If the players choose a point limit to abide by, everything else falls into place. If it's 50 points, I don't need to know that it's "one special, or one support, or two supports, or one special and one support", I just know that with 50 points I can field any of those (depending on how much each costs), possibly with some upgrades, possibly with a cheap character or two, etc, etc.

It's far more elegant to have the players work within the system, doubly so in that it gets them in the mindset of working within those guidelines for the larger games. Gives them experience making the tradeoff between having one giant badass unit versus a 'swarm' (much as a swarm can be at that game size), or one solid unit with a cheap character and some chaff to blunt the opposition's attacks, etc, etc. If there's a point limit agreed upon, the other suggestions are superfluous; one simply cannot take 4 support cards of anything (far as I know) with only 50 points, so it doesn't need saying.

And with a suggested range, if we agree to 100 points, maybe I do try out running 5 pairs of Defenders, just to see if they can stand up to 12 Battlepods and a Glaug (and whatever else makes up 10 points).

Its flexible, scales up and down with the players time/space/model/experience limit, a win all around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Balance wrote:
Is the 'Skirmish mode' intended as a sort of learning/demo tool that is only really played by people who are new to the game, perhaps?

My understanding is that it's meant as a small scale game that can be played for a variety of reasons; limited space (not enough table/floor to field a full scale game), limited time (few units/interactions should keep things swift in case it's an issue), and yes, it'd probably be a good manner of teaching as well.

Mike1975 wrote:
Like I said I understand your points, I told PB that I'd recommend a line requiring players to decide upon an amount of points or range of points for a skirmish game before selecting their support and/or special cards for a skirmish game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically you want to eliminate the recommendation part and make it a rule to choose a points value or range for all skirmish games in order to help maintain balance and prevent abuse.

No range but rather have the players agree ahead of time to a single max points value of their choice. Thanks for passing that along as (you can see) it's an important and easily fixable point for some of us in the thread.

Also, you may want to pass along that these types of things would be more easily found with a release of the rules (minus the art). I know you said HG is the stopper on that, but given Palladium's decade long reticence to not offer for sale digitally anything they consider to be worth reprinting, I suspect they're just as much of a roadblock on that as HG ever could be. If something as basic as that (along with the LOS rules and no VF-1J in skirmish) wasn't caught by their 100+ playtesters, that worries me.

And that is something I may have been less than clear about. When I've said "a range" I mean a suggested range for skirmish size games. The players pick a firm size for their specific game (maybe it's 25 for one game, 100 the next, 75 the game after that, etc).

And even that doesn't stop players from playing super small (20 points, 2 defenders versus one Officer's Pod, go!) or super large (300 points using only supports and specials might lead to some odd force building. And the lack of 1J's would probably hurt the RDF at that size). But a guideline is probably a good idea to keep new players on the same page, if nothing else.