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.

Talys, what drawback would 40k have if every unit was appropriately pointed for its tabletop ability?

 Blacksails wrote:
Talys, what drawback would 40k have if every unit was appropriately pointed for its tabletop ability?

None at all. And I'm not suggesting that the perfect should be the enemy of the better. Game systems should always strive for "more balance" given whatever models are out there, I think.

However, if the question is, "This Bloodthirster | Helldrake | Revenant Titan is too powerful. Let's remove it?" My answer would almost universally be "no.".

Also, I'm not a fan of weakening mythologically powerful creatures, or mythologically powerful wizards. If Gandalf the White is in a game, by golly, he should be indestructible, and I don't care how that wrecks game balance. Of course, it's equally stupid to say, "Take Gandalf and win; don't take Gandalf and lose." So, it becomes incumbent on the scenario designer to say, the Gandalf side has goals other than just to kill off all the orcs.. because we know what Gandalf can do to a sea of them, right? The point is, I like characters like Gandalf in the game, even if he's the equivalent of 10,000 foot soldiers. I like Balrogs, even though the dwarves should have no chance of hurting it.

Likewise, if you had a superheroic character in a unit (like a 1,000 year old Dante), with his support units around him, yeah, he should be nigh unkillable. Or if you have a Warlord Titan, the object should be something OTHER than "kill the Warlord Titan". But I would love to see a game with a Warlord Titan! (how to move him... uh....)

Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.

Which you can do in a system with appropriate points for the tabletop abilities.

They would just cost a feth ton.

Holy sweet mother of all that is soft and fluffy, Az, you thrice cursed ninja.

Heh.

It's a gift. You wouldn't credit it but at 6'5" and 300lbs I can still sneak up on people in real life.

Had a subsequent, more on topic, thought too, Talys would be much better served by RPGs than by wargames, I'm sure a Thirster is ridiculous to deal with in the FFG titles.

 Talys wrote:
Also, I'm not a fan of weakening mythologically powerful creatures, or mythologically powerful wizards. If Gandalf the White is in a game, by golly, he should be indestructible, and I don't care how that wrecks game balance. Of course, it's equally stupid to say, "Take Gandalf and win; don't take Gandalf and lose." So, it becomes incumbent on the scenario designer to say, the Gandalf side has goals other than just to kill off all the orcs.. because we know what Gandalf can do to a sea of them, right? The point is, I like characters like Gandalf in the game, even if he's the equivalent of 10,000 foot soldiers. I like Balrogs, even though the dwarves should have no chance of hurting it.

On one level, this is one of the good things about the inclusion of fortifications in 40K... It allows you to include a little more firepower without breaking your light and fluffy army. Want to run an entire army of Gretchin, but still need to be able to damage armour? Throw in a plasma annihilator! Yay!

Because, while I agree that it's perfectly acceptable in a scenario-based game to have things that can't be hurt, for regular gameplay there has to be something that evens the playing field, so that the game is still fun for both players when you're not playing the game like a role-play.

Blacksails wrote:Which you can do in a system with appropriate points for the tabletop abilities.

They would just cost a feth ton.

Holy sweet mother of all that is soft and fluffy, Az, you thrice cursed ninja.

Well sure, but then Gandalf would be 100,000 points, and you'd never get to play him. Which is my point: I want to see Gandalf the White, in a battle against an minions of evil. And seeing him part them in a cinematic fashion is pretty cool. Or a Balrog destroy an army of dwarves.

Plus, like I've mentioned in other threads, force multipliers make all this really ahrd to calculate out, because units A B and C are different in values to taking them as a group. Taking out all the cool stuff leads to "blandness" to some.

I simply find my entertainment and escapism in a different place than "balance and strategy"... for tabletop miniatures... that's all.

Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.

And I'm happy for you, that you do what you like. It's too bad that you have to be so unhappy that I like something different.

I would suggest that you probably won't ever be happy with Games Workshop products, because this isn't their focus. Fortunately for me, cool miniatures are very much their focus, with a playable, fun -- and points-unbalanced -- game.

Getting Apocalpyse in your 40k is not the same as getting chocolate in your peanut butter! It's apocalyptic! Weakening mythologically powerful creatures is hardly the issue when they belong in a different scale of game in the first place, right?

 insaniak wrote:
Because, while I agree that it's perfectly acceptable in a scenario-based game to have things that can't be hurt, for regular gameplay there has to be something that evens the playing field, so that the game is still fun for both players when you're not playing the game like a role-play.

Yes, I agree

And like I said, the perfect should not be the enemy of the better, which often is the case of what happens with GW rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Juicifer wrote:
Getting Apocalpyse in your 40k is not the same as getting chocolate in your peanut butter! It's apocalyptic! Weakening mythologically powerful creatures is hardly the issue when they belong in a different scale of game in the first place, right?

But if nobody wanted them, nobody would buy the models, and it wouldn't matter, right?

 Talys wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.

And I'm happy for you, that you do what you like. It's too bad that you have to be so unhappy that I like something different.

I would suggest that you probably won't ever be happy with Games Workshop products, because this isn't their focus. Fortunately for me, cool miniatures are very much their focus, with a playable, fun -- and points-unbalanced -- game.

Really? This again?

I'll decide what I am happy and unhappy with, thanks. I'll also decide what I do and don't think is dumb.

I think your idea of how to play the game is dumb.

I'm allowed to think this, and I'm allowed to tell you I think it's dumb, just like you're allowed to enjoy it, I'm not passively aggressively telling you to do something else, I'm just telling you that I think it's dumb.

 jah-joshua wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Azreal13 you should know by now, critique is hate

But hey if i say the sigmarines box is the same price as the terminator, but the terminators have weapon options. then i am hating
Did they change the size to increase the price?
At least scibor miniatures will be the right size now.

the Stormcast Eternals Liberator box, while being the same price as a Terminator box, actually comes with more weapon options, and more parts cut (i.e. legs) for better detail...

i don't get the question, "Did they change the size to increase the price?"...
SE Liberators are a new product...
GW could have charged $60 if i am reading your logic correctly, like the BA and DA Terminator boxes, but didn't...
i would say that is a good thing...

as to Scibor minis, they cost more than GW minis...
if you want to pay more for worse minis, then more power to you...
it does go to show how some of the critique against GW is skewed into the realm of an illogical dislike of the company...

to all the people still going on about Gundam, looking at the sprues, it looks like the different colored bits on the same sprue are actually various sprues slotted together...
is that correct???

cheers
jah

Not passive aggressive eh?
"if you want to pay more for worse minis, then more power to you..."

I didn't know about the extra parts , So that is good, but Terminators are a elite unit while the storm cast eternals are a main unit, so i find the price to steep.
The quality of scibor miniatures is not inferior, if you don't like their aesthetics that is your prerogative.

If you had watched the link, you could have seen how the multi colored sprue came out of the machine around 3:24

In defence of Scibor, just thought I'd share a couple of WIPs he posted on FB over the weekend...

And another

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Azreal13 you should know by now, critique is hate

But hey if i say the sigmarines box is the same price as the terminator, but the terminators have weapon options. then i am hating
Did they change the size to increase the price?
At least scibor miniatures will be the right size now.

the Stormcast Eternals Liberator box, while being the same price as a Terminator box, actually comes with more weapon options, and more parts cut (i.e. legs) for better detail...

i don't get the question, "Did they change the size to increase the price?"...
SE Liberators are a new product...
GW could have charged $60 if i am reading your logic correctly, like the BA and DA Terminator boxes, but didn't...
i would say that is a good thing...

as to Scibor minis, they cost more than GW minis...
if you want to pay more for worse minis, then more power to you...
it does go to show how some of the critique against GW is skewed into the realm of an illogical dislike of the company...

to all the people still going on about Gundam, looking at the sprues, it looks like the different colored bits on the same sprue are actually various sprues slotted together...
is that correct???

cheers
jah

Not passive aggressive eh?
"if you want to pay more for worse minis, then more power to you..."

I didn't know about the extra parts , So that is good, but Terminators are a elite unit while the storm cast eternals are a main unit, so i find the price to steep.
The quality of scibor miniatures is not inferior, if you don't like their aesthetics that is your prerogative.

If you had watched the link, you could have seen how the multi colored sprue came out of the machine around 3:24

Spoiler:

Land prices what they are in Japan, Bandai could sell that Shizuoka plant and buy GW about 3X over. It really brings home how small potatoes GW is in the grand scheme of the model building hobby when they put up a cute little statue and Sunrise, the creators of Gundam do this:



Sunrise announced last year that they're looking into adding movement to the 60 foot tall statue. Let me know when GW's ready to enter the big leagues.

Edit:

Gundam alone pulled in $600million last year.

Makes their sigmarine statue look funny

I have heard (and believe) that modeling in Asia is HUGE. Historical models, Sci Fi models, Anime models etc are all huge. So much so that some companies sell kits in Asia that do not get sold in the west (Dragon japanese Infantry come to mind).

But for Gundam to make 600 MILLION is more than I would have thought. Thats awesome.

I mean GW does what? 30 Million at their height? Or was it 10 million? Either way I am blown away by that figure.

@Jehan-reznor: thanks for the embedded video...
for some reason you-tube, and links to it, don't work on my iPad since i crossed the border to L.A., but embedded vids on here do...
it was just an honest question, as all i had seen were pictures of sprues, or the loose grey Gunpla extras sprues in bags at the shop...
i am trying to learn and expand my knowledge here...

i am not a fan of Scibor's sculpting, although i like his Dwarves more than his "not Space Marines"...
he has not moved far anough away from his earlier press-mold style for things like weapons and shields...
also his Spartans have very basic sculpting on the abdominal plates that pales in comparison to the SE Liberators, to my eye...
add to that the inherent issues that resin has (bubbles, warping, mold slips, mold wear and tear) versus HIPS make the SE Liberators higher quality sculpts in my opinion, and they are less expensive, with more options than an equivilant Scibor sculpt...

i am happy for the guy, that he is still trucking along, and becoming a better sculptor, after a decade of hard work, though...
i like to see the little guy succeed, in any business, but if you actually think that his Spartan sculpts are on par with GW's Liberators, i would have to disagree...

cheers
jah

Spoilers!

For the love of god, SPOILERS!!

 Azreal13 wrote:
Spoilers!

For the love of god, SPOILERS!!

Agreed

Relapse wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Spoilers!

For the love of god, SPOILERS!!

Agreed

Hey, I'm posting from a tablet over here (imagine New York accent).

Yeah?

Well I'm readin on a tablet over here! (Similar accent)

@agnosto: that is awesome...
i have a lot of love for the stuff that comes out of Japan...
it has had a huge influence in my life ever since i saw the first episode of Robotech when it came to American T.V. back in the day...
i even married a Japanese woman...
i just haven't bought a kit in 25 years, because Space Marines took over my painting time...
i actually started through scale model kits, before miniatures took over my life...
there is just something so compelling about trying to perfect the art of painting a 28mm mini...

@Swatakowey: last year's GW revenue figure was £113.5m, so about one third of Gundam...

cheers
jah

 Azreal13 wrote:
In defence of Scibor, just thought I'd share a couple of WIPs he posted on FB over the weekend...

He also did the statue in the collector's edition of The Witcher 3.

 jah-joshua wrote:
@agnosto: that is awesome...
i have a lot of love for the stuff that comes out of Japan...
it has had a huge influence in my life ever since i saw the first episode of Robotech when it came to American T.V. back in the day...
i even married a Japanese woman...
i just haven't bought a kit in 25 years, because Space Marines took over my painting time...
i actually started through scale model kits, before miniatures took over my life...
there is just something so compelling about trying to perfect the art of painting a 28mm mini...

@Swatakowey: last year's GW revenue figure was £113.5m, so about one third of Gundam...

cheers
jah

We have that in common, first real anime was Robotech and I married a Japanese lady ad well but that was primarily a happenstance from living in Japan.

 Talys wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree that it is easier to balance historical rules because there is no difference between humans and humans.

There is a huge difference between a mediaeval knight on armoured horse, a peasant with a fire hardened stick, and a Roman Legionary. Not to mention the effect of "monsters" like elephants, camels and scythed chariots.

No whether there are humans or non-humans makes no difference. But the power levels between the weakest and most powerful unit does.

For example, balancing dwarves and humans? No problem. But when you're balancing a game where the weakest unit is an archer with a bow, and the most powerful unit is invincible machine the size skyscraper that isn't meant to be able to destroyed even by a million archers with bows (it could conceivably just step on all of them), then there is a problem balancing the game.
...
.

40K as a tabletop wargame doesn't include warmachines the size of skyscrapers. They are seen only in the fluff.

Anyway, this thread is about AOS, not 40K.

 Talys wrote:

For example, balancing dwarves and humans? No problem. But when you're balancing a game where the weakest unit is an archer with a bow, and the most powerful unit is invincible machine the size skyscraper that isn't meant to be able to destroyed even by a million archers with bows (it could conceivably just step on all of them), then there is a problem balancing the game.

An entirely artificial problem as such a unit has absolutely no place in a 28mm game, or any wargame in fact. You can't just throw anything in a game and hope for the best, there has to be appropriate rules design.

Point is still valid. How do you balance an imperial soldier to a carnifex. Yuo don't have to do that in an historical wargame.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.

And I'm happy for you, that you do what you like. It's too bad that you have to be so unhappy that I like something different.

I would suggest that you probably won't ever be happy with Games Workshop products, because this isn't their focus. Fortunately for me, cool miniatures are very much their focus, with a playable, fun -- and points-unbalanced -- game.

Really? This again?

I'll decide what I am happy and unhappy with, thanks. I'll also decide what I do and don't think is dumb.

I think your idea of how to play the game is dumb.

I'm allowed to think this, and I'm allowed to tell you I think it's dumb, just like you're allowed to enjoy it, I'm not passively aggressively telling you to do something else, I'm just telling you that I think it's dumb.

Azrael, I sincerely wonder if you can tell the difference between:

1. I think this game is dumb
2. Everyone other than you (ie the rest of us) think the game is dumb

One is an opinion I can respect if reasons are supplied. The other is an obviously untrue statement, as insulting and untrue as as, "You can be miserable, but the rest of us are having fun".

Stop speaking for nonspecific people, and I won't react that way to you.

By the way, you may think the way I game is dumb. That's just fine with me. Luckily for me, and unluckily for you, GW produces a game and models that are well suited for the way I play. Which obviously, I and at least the people I play with, do not think is dumb.

You know, creating awesome, fantastic battles in a fictional setting, where our top priority is socializing around the context of the cool miniatures that we spend thousands of hours modelling. And food and drink and catching up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Talys wrote:

For example, balancing dwarves and humans? No problem. But when you're balancing a game where the weakest unit is an archer with a bow, and the most powerful unit is invincible machine the size skyscraper that isn't meant to be able to destroyed even by a million archers with bows (it could conceivably just step on all of them), then there is a problem balancing the game.

An entirely artificial problem as such a unit has absolutely no place in a 28mm game, or any wargame in fact. You can't just throw anything in a game and hope for the best, there has to be appropriate rules design.

As I said, GW clearly thinks it is appropriate, and this the polarization of players. Since Imperial Knight was voted favorite model of 2014, I'm clearly not alone in liking models of little and awesome size on the same game.

The problem is that I don't think you can reconcile the group that wants to see the French and English face off in Agincourt, and the group would rather see the French and English eaten by Godzilla and Mothra... in the same game.

You'll get people like Azrael (or you) who say that's just dumb, and people like me, who will say, well, how awesome is the Godzilla model? I don't think either group is wrong. It's just where you find your fun.

RoninXiC wrote:
Point is still valid. How do you balance an imperial soldier to a carnifex. Yuo don't have to do that in an historical wargame.

You have to balance a Libyan light infantry skirmisher against an elephant, an organ gun, a Roman cavalryman, and a heavy scythed chariot.

It's done by appropriate points costs for each type of unit, and army lists that restrict the availability of units. Much like the system that 40K and WHFB used to have, imperfect through it was, which doesn't exist in AOS.

Historical designers also have to make their balancing produce historical results, a disadvantage that GW designers do not have.

To think about it logically, any wargame is an abstract system of mathematics, which must be solvable. GW didn't do such a bad job using their rule of thumb approach in 40K, considering. The problems arose largely because each edition of the game changed the values of some variables, and the codexes were never all fully updated to the new system. Also, each new codex changed more variables, especially by the inclusion of new special rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
40K as a tabletop wargame doesn't include warmachines the size of skyscrapers. They are seen only in the fluff.

Anyway, this thread is about AOS, not 40K.

Yes, fair enough, but we were also comparing historicals.

Strictly speaking in Fantasy/Sigmar, balancing Bretonians against Dwarves is one thing, that's no different than balancing French and English. Throw in Nagash, Bloodthirsters, and Glotkin: what exactly should an archer or knight do?

If I were a knight, I would point my horse in the opposite direction and ride off the board.

Philosophically, the greatest sorcerer of all time doesn't belong on a battle board with common footsoldiers **if you care about balance** be cause such manifestations should exceed the value of an entire army a civilization could muster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
Point is still valid. How do you balance an imperial soldier to a carnifex. Yuo don't have to do that in an historical wargame.

You have to balance a Libyan light infantry skirmisher against an elephant, an organ gun, a Roman cavalryman, and a heavy scythed chariot.

It's done by appropriate points costs for each type of unit, and army lists that restrict the availability of units. Much like the system that 40K and WHFB used to have, imperfect through it was, which doesn't exist in AOS.

Historical designers also have to make their balancing produce historical results, a disadvantage that GW designers do not have.

Right, but historical designers don't have to deal with the first and most powerful necromancer who bound the Wind of Death to hos will, resurrected the kings of old to do his bidding and is the manifestation of time and death?

How many dwarven warriors is that worth?