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.

Poly Ranger wrote:
With my BA codex using every slot how can I face this evenly:

(Rough estimate not having access to the codex but you'll get the point)
HQ
Seer council with full complement of warlocks and Farseers all on Jetbikes
Seer council, as above

Elites
10 Wraithguard with D Scythes in Wave serpents
As above
As above

Troops
10 jetbikes with scatter lasers and warlock
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above

Fast attack
10 Warp spiders with full exarch upgrades (Or a full complement of Hornets)
As above
As above

Heavy Support
Vauls Wrath support battery with 3 D cannons
As above
As above

LoW
Wraithknight with all the trimmings (or Revenant Titan if going silly)

Fortification
Macro cannon

Hell as the eldar player why would they take 9/10's of the rest of the codex?

It may be unbalanced now but slot selection rather than points makes it even worse!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also as R&H, without being able to take platoons, the best I can do for troops is 20 'guardsmen' without armour. They won't stand up long to the equivalent troops selection from almost any dex.

Forget R&H, how could anything stand a chance against just the troop selection, points or no points?

I guess if you forced me to play a game against that list, my escalated CSM list would look something like this:

- 1 x FDP with MoN and Black Mace

- Be'Lakor

- 3 x max squads of Chosen with Plasma / MoS / IoE / VotLW / melta bombs / whatever
- 3 x Chaos Dreadclaw Drop Pod

- 6 x max sized squads of Noise Marines with full sonic weapons, IoE, VotLW / Dirge Casters, extra weapons, melta bombs, and other upgrades
- 6 x Rhinos with extra armor, havoc launchers, warpflame gargoyles, dozer blades and anything else I can come up with.

- 3 x max sized squads of bikers with meltas / VotLW / MoN

- 3 x Fire Raptors

- MoN Chaos Reaver Titan with laser blasters, vortex missiles and hull mounted turbo lasers

- 1 x Macro-Cannon or Vortex Missile Aquila Strongpoint

Forgive me if this sounds naive, I know the Eldar would have all kinds of horrible weapons and all that, but I think I would stand a better chance of repelling them with Vortex bombs and turbo blasters than I would with a standard points-based army. Even at 1500 points, the Eldar can take D weapons, whereas the CSMs would not be able to afford the titan or the macro cannon without some serious sacrifices. OTOH, try shooting my invisible titan that I can suddenly afford.

 Dakkamite wrote:


Considering when I made this argument at my pro-GW club I got kicked out for being a "raging GW hater", I'd say yes, nopoints is a great reason to abandon the game if you didn't have 10 or 20 reasons to do so already

I think you misunderstand me, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm saying not to abandon the point system just because its currently poor. The bad balance in 40k is a good reason to leave the game, but its not a good reason to abandon the basic idea of assigning points to units (or a reasonable balancing alternative).

 techsoldaten wrote:
For example, gamers could decide a FOC slot can only be occupied by a single unit (sorry, AM platoons valkyrie spam)

So instead of using the very straightforward points system you'd rather ban entire units? Things like IG platoons, vehicle squadrons, etc, are all part of the game and shouldn't be banned. And the Valkyrie example was just one of the more extreme versions of the fundamental problem that FOC slots are not even close to equal in value. A 500-point terminator death star is way more powerful than a squad of ratlings, even though in theory both of them use up the same FOC slot.

I would say power creep becomes it's own balancing mechanism when points are not an issue. Most armies have a way to build OP units for a massive amount of points, it's not like this only cuts one way. The ones that don't have other strengths that can be unlocked.

Sorry, but "everyone can be blatantly overpowered" is not really a solution, especially when bringing those overpowered units is largely a matter of how much money you can afford to spend on the game. Even if both players in theory have access to overpowered super-units in practice budget limits are a major issue. If one player can afford to put 15,000 points of IG on the table with a single FOC while their opponent only has the models for a normal 2000 point army then no, there isn't equality in access to the overpowered stuff.

- There's always the mirror strategy. You want to bring an army of Terminators and Primarchs? Great, let's see how they fare against my terminators and primarchs, I can do it too. When neither side has an advantage, the game is just about skill - in other words, it starts to actually become competitive.

IOW, reduce the game to a tiny number of viable options for cramming the most "points" into a single FOC slot, while everything else in the codex is completely useless. How exactly is this a good idea?

And, again, model access is a problem. Your theoretical "everyone can bring a mirror strategy" situation doesn't exist in the real world because most people don't have the models required to build the most powerful armies under your system. In the real world you'll have a small minority of players who can put Apocalypse-level armies into a single FOC while nobody has the models required to match them.

- Then there's the question of actual unit choices. You want to bring a Titan as a LOW? Great, but let's do double FOCs and let me pit you against 12 squads of cultists that (on average) will take you 24 rounds to kill off in a 7 turn game. The mechanics of 40k don't go away just because the points do.

Why are you assuming that it's one titan vs. lots of cultists? The titan's player will have their own 12 IG platoons (about 1,500 models, btw) to support the titan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I would actually reccomend though to someone considering trying this to set a point limit for upgrades. Say 500pts of wargear for a full CAD.

IOW, "don't use point costs, but you have to use point costs".

Most of you however seem to be of the opinion that everyone who plays this game is secretly a grandma sodomizer just waiting for somene to suggest an idea like ths so they can slap five wraithknights on the board.

If your proposed balance system can't survive even a trivial attempt to break it then it's a terrible system. And you can't depend on people being nice and not exploiting your bad rules.

Although I'm enjoying AoS without points, I would not like to see it in 40k. Reasons:

1. I enjoy making 40k lists, and squeezing stuff into a point limit.
2. You can't remove points without removing gearing options: why ever take a heavy bolter over a grav cannon? Why not always take relics where possible?
3. No points works for 20-30 models because we're pretty good at estimating effectiveness. 80-200 models? No way.
4. No points breaks the best thing that's happened to 40k IMO - If you take x and y and z, you get a for free or special ability b. All the sudden, fret units or upgrades mean nothing. Even free specials are greatly devalued, because there's probably something else with a better special that just costs more.
5. Some units become pointless. Why ever take assault marines -- death company are better. Why ever take death company -- sanguinary guard are better. Why ever take a level 2 psyker, when you can take a level 3?

In any case, as long as 40k is selling, there's no way GW would fundamentally change the game like that.

 Dakkamite wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:


*Edit* And I want to make this clear. Do not confuse a bad point system for a good reason to abandon it altogether. A bad point system means there's a need for a good one, of which several games have accomplished.

Considering when I made this argument at my pro-GW club I got kicked out for being a "raging GW hater", I'd say yes, nopoints is a great reason to abandon the game if you didn't have 10 or 20 reasons to do so already

Don't question the TRUE FAITH tm or the GTFO crowd will get ya.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
Although I'm enjoying AoS without points, I would not like to see it in 40k. Reasons:

1. I enjoy making 40k lists, and squeezing stuff into a point limit.
2. You can't remove points without removing gearing options: why ever take a heavy bolter over a grav cannon? Why not always take relics where possible?
3. No points works for 20-30 models because we're pretty good at estimating effectiveness. 80-200 models? No way.
4. No points breaks the best thing that's happened to 40k IMO - If you take x and y and z, you get a for free or special ability b. All the sudden, fret units or upgrades mean nothing. Even free specials are greatly devalued, because there's probably something else with a better special that just costs more.
5. Some units become pointless. Why ever take assault marines -- death company are better. Why ever take death company -- sanguinary guard are better. Why ever take a level 2 psyker, when you can take a level 3?

In any case, as long as 40k is selling, there's no way GW would fundamentally change the game like that.

Yes they would. If AoS is a big hit it will happen. Or if profits continues to slip it will happen. In the past year GW has learned two things; formations move product and minimalist effort can be put into the rules saving development time and publishing costs. This is the future of GW.

 Crimson Devil wrote:


Yes they would. If AoS is a big hit it will happen. Or if profits continues to slip it will happen. In the past year GW has learned two things; formations move product and minimalist effort can be put into the rules saving development time and publishing costs. This is the future of GW.

Cynical as this is I sadly agree that this step is very likely even in 40k. In their mind they could even be addressing the problems their players have been clamoring about for all these years while doing this.

My real question overall is with GW's fluctuating revenues and very touchy bottom line these days, where exactly are they planning to make up the revenue lost from the sale of WHFB rule books, army books and supplements? Sure they will have a requisite cut in production costs as well, but given their stuff is already way overpriced they are going to be heavily leaning towards the negative numbers in comparison there. So how will they make up that revenue?

 Skriker wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:


Yes they would. If AoS is a big hit it will happen. Or if profits continues to slip it will happen. In the past year GW has learned two things; formations move product and minimalist effort can be put into the rules saving development time and publishing costs. This is the future of GW.

Cynical as this is I sadly agree that this step is very likely even in 40k. In their mind they could even be addressing the problems their players have been clamoring about for all these years while doing this.

My real question overall is with GW's fluctuating revenues and very touchy bottom line these days, where exactly are they planning to make up the revenue lost from the sale of WHFB rule books, army books and supplements? Sure they will have a requisite cut in production costs as well, but given their stuff is already way overpriced they are going to be heavily leaning towards the negative numbers in comparison there. So how will they make up that revenue?

With AoS, GW is giving out the rules for free as part of an adoption strategy that encourages people to try the game. The barrier to entry with this game has been massively reduced, so much so that someone can get into the game for a few hundred dollars and still have a satisfying experience.

The plan has to be to make up for lost book sales by selling more models. The margins they see on the sale of a popular miniature boxed set probably averages to around 90% in all regions, and they are more likely to move because it's new. The margins on books is probably significantly less, and they probably don't move off the shelf as fast.

I am sure AOS results in a net positive for GW even without the books. Over time, they will probably move into narrative campaigns and other things AOS seems well suited for.

With regards to 40k moving to this model, I am sure GW is using AOS as a market test to see what happens when they reboot a product. WHFB sales have been slipping for years, a reboot was not only necessary to generate more interest but will also prove to be popular amongst fans. The same imbalance issues existed for WHFB as do with 40k.

I guess if you really like points for your armies you should not go and buy AOS.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Wish they'd done something like SAGA. Each Warscroll would be equal in power - instead of "10 or more Orcs in the unit" say "25 Orcs". Take X Warscrolls and thats your army. 40k would could great that way too - a Tactical Marine "unit" would be 10 dudes, two weapons, and a transport, and now cost one "slot" as opposed to "123 points". A "Boyz Mob" could be 30 boyz, or 20 Boyz with a power klaw Nob leader - a couple of choices within each scroll-equivalent that are equal in value. Army building would be faster and less wanky that way IMO

Oh, if the Warscrolls were of even values! Oh that would have been good. the fluff would still infuriate me immensely, but I'd be more wiling to try the game.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
With my BA codex using every slot how can I face this evenly:

(Rough estimate not having access to the codex but you'll get the point)
HQ
Seer council with full complement of warlocks and Farseers all on Jetbikes
Seer council, as above

Elites
10 Wraithguard with D Scythes in Wave serpents
As above
As above

Troops
10 jetbikes with scatter lasers and warlock
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above

Fast attack
10 Warp spiders with full exarch upgrades (Or a full complement of Hornets)
As above
As above

Heavy Support
Vauls Wrath support battery with 3 D cannons
As above
As above

LoW
Wraithknight with all the trimmings (or Revenant Titan if going silly)

Fortification
Macro cannon

Hell as the eldar player why would they take 9/10's of the rest of the codex?

It may be unbalanced now but slot selection rather than points makes it even worse!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also as R&H, without being able to take platoons, the best I can do for troops is 20 'guardsmen' without armour. They won't stand up long to the equivalent troops selection from almost any dex.

Forget R&H, how could anything stand a chance against just the troop selection, points or no points?

I guess if you forced me to play a game against that list, my escalated CSM list would look something like this:

- 1 x FDP with MoN and Black Mace

- Be'Lakor

- 3 x max squads of Chosen with Plasma / MoS / IoE / VotLW / melta bombs / whatever
- 3 x Chaos Dreadclaw Drop Pod

- 6 x max sized squads of Noise Marines with full sonic weapons, IoE, VotLW / Dirge Casters, extra weapons, melta bombs, and other upgrades
- 6 x Rhinos with extra armor, havoc launchers, warpflame gargoyles, dozer blades and anything else I can come up with.

- 3 x max sized squads of bikers with meltas / VotLW / MoN

- 3 x Fire Raptors

- MoN Chaos Reaver Titan with laser blasters, vortex missiles and hull mounted turbo lasers

- 1 x Macro-Cannon or Vortex Missile Aquila Strongpoint

Forgive me if this sounds naive, I know the Eldar would have all kinds of horrible weapons and all that, but I think I would stand a better chance of repelling them with Vortex bombs and turbo blasters than I would with a standard points-based army. Even at 1500 points, the Eldar can take D weapons, whereas the CSMs would not be able to afford the titan or the macro cannon without some serious sacrifices. OTOH, try shooting my invisible titan that I can suddenly afford.

Not bad to be honest. I still think Eldar would take it though. Try doing the same for BA, IG without platoons, DE, Renegades without platoons, etc. Some armies would just be crushed.
Also what happens if you want a small game? Do you say 1HQ, 2 troops and one other non LoW/Fort slot of choice?
If so what beats:
Seer council on jet bikes
10 scatbikes
10 scatbikes
10 fire dragons/wraithguard in a serpent

For every army.

Necrons would with Ghost Arks and Warriors, kill the Wave Serpent and Fire Dragons, park the rears of each Ark next to each other so you've got AV13 all around and then laugh because Scatter Lasers are only S6.

Don't forget the seer council.

And every other army? What if I want to take BA or Renegades? Right now I have a slim chance with my BA and a decent chance with my renegades. What chance do I have with 20 tactical marines against 20 scatbikes?

What about Guard? Allow platoons and I therefore allow ~900 models in one slot, or disallow platoons and pit 10veterans and a chimera against 10 scatbikes?

Dark Eldar. 10warriors and a raider - no chance!

And when would you ever see guardians?

You don't NEED points but any substitute for points just becomes more annoying and convoluted in the end.

I've only gotten partway through page 2 so far, but I wanted to make an observation.

I think a large part of a want for points is because it subconsciously puts a size value on your model collection.

Just look at most people's signatures (2,000 pt such-and-such army, 5,000 pt so-and-so army)

We get familiar with average size game based on point value, then we compare the point value of our total collection to that point value and it makes us feel good about our collections and drives us to buy more.

This is actually a good thing because we have a different perspective about something we put a personal value on. For example, your entire 40k collection or a bucket full of green army men?

Now that I think I've adequately explained that, I am totally in favor of a points system because I like having to pick and choose which models I can take and which are going to have to be left behind this session. What models I can afford to put on the table, and which ones are just too expensive this time around. To me, it's part of the fun of the hobby.

Ehhhh... For some perhaps. I've never cared about total points owned so much as I've cared for having a force that makes sense to me within a theme and some options to muck about with.

I don't doubt there are some players that enjoy some sort of point peen measuring satisfaction, but I don't think it's a primary motivation.

Yes.

AoS is a hot mess without points, it doesn't actually work as game-- the rules are basically "throw every model you want on the board and hope for the best", rather than balance. The compromise around wound count is inferior to the points system, and that's even after accounting for the fact that WHFB's points system was deeply flawed to begin with-- wounds as a balancing measure for whole armies are inferior even to that.

 Matthew wrote:
Will we use wounds instead? Think about it like this: An IK has 6 hull points. A Tactical Squad has 10. Does this make it more worth it to only have IK's?

So i don't know how many points an IK is but at a rough guess are 3 tac squads a similar cost? Do they stand a chance vs an IK? Balance is a seriously subjective beast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Yes.

AoS is a hot mess without points, it doesn't actually work as game-- the rules are basically "throw every model you want on the board and hope for the best", rather than balance. The compromise around wound count is inferior to the points system, and that's even after accounting for the fact that WHFB's points system was deeply flawed to begin with-- wounds as a balancing measure for whole armies are inferior even to that.

I'm not sure a mess is really true... How many games of AoS have you playd and where you trying to break the game or trying to be fair?! Because I'm pretty sure I could make an army of IK riptide and WK and have few PTS based armed face up too it... I'm not saying AoS is a good system up I find no semblance of balance in it's predecessors either.

All in all, points are not ''NECESSARY'', but we lose them, I'm going to cry a river :(

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
where you trying to break the game or trying to be fair?!

If the game was properly made, it wouldn't matter. The game itself is pre-broken, it doesn't require people to try to break it.

A unit of 10 space marines with 10 bolters is stronger than 10 IG with 10 lasguns. Also, since they have ATSKNF, those 10 marines are better than 10 CSM with bolters (and no marks). now throw marks in. Now throw special and heavy weapons in. Now throw in an LR transport versus a rhino transport.

How do you get around that without points?

I am not super familiar with WHFB, but for those of you that are: when they made the warscrolls for the old WHFB armies to play in AoS, did they significantly change the various units?

I see a lot of the conversation above assuming that a given 40k unit will play the same as it does today (i.e., have the same model and weapon stats). But I am under the impression that under an AoS type ruleset, any given 40k unit will not be the same. In fact they could be very different in such a way that most models play very similar with the exception of their one or two "special" powers unique to their unit.

So i don't know how many points an IK is but at a rough guess are 3 tac squads a similar cost? Do they stand a chance vs an IK? Balance is a seriously subjective beast.

Armed with just bolters? Probably not, though kinda depends on the specific Knight.

 kronk wrote:
A unit of 10 space marines with 10 bolters is stronger than 10 IG with 10 lasguns. Also, since they have ATSKNF, those 10 marines are better than 10 CSM with bolters (and no marks). now throw marks in. Now throw special and heavy weapons in. Now throw in an LR transport versus a rhino transport.

How do you get around that without points?

I think kronk has the right of it. If there aren't points, balance has to come from somewhere. Having no prescribed method of how to make a game fair doesn't necessarily make it impossible to play, but it significantly erodes the have the play a to-the-defintion game, which most people expect when playing...well, a game, as opposed to something more in the line of "cops and robbers."

 Poop Deck wrote:
I am not super familiar with WHFB, but for those of you that are: when they made the warscrolls for the old WHFB armies to play in AoS, did they significantly change the various units?

I see a lot of the conversation above assuming that a given 40k unit will play the same as it does today (i.e., have the same model and weapon stats). But I am under the impression that under an AoS type ruleset, any given 40k unit will not be the same. In fact they could be very different in such a way that most models play very similar with the exception of their one or two "special" powers unique to their unit.

Effectively they removed several stats, most of the rules for terrain, movement, facings, magic, and morale. Also all customization for characters was removed in additional upgrades can be taken on units or not. There is no max size on units.

So to compare it to 40k

1 warscroll could equal 10 skinks (guardsman) or 10 Temple guard (Space Marines) with full unit upgrades It is horrifically not balanced. Balance only can occur if both players literally sit down and decide what each other will take and self balance.

the sheer amount of units and customization in 40k would require scrapping almost everything to implement this. For me i love Character upgrades and vehicles upgrades and individual model within unit upgrades of 40k.

Point values are not necessary for co-operative games where the players are working towards a common goal, to beat the game or the GM.

However, as war games are by nature games of opposing objectives.
Unless the players have the time to write their own narrative scenarios with what ever objectives and special rules they want to include.

The game needs a way to let players establish enough balance for fun pick up games quickly.
And point values and force organization are the common methods used to achieve this.

The local FLGS runs a lot of escalation leagues.

For 40k, the campaigns usually run for 4 weeks and the battles are 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 points.

In 8th edition WHFB, the battles were typically 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 points.

My problem with points is that some armies were inherently better at certain point values than other armies. If points are truly a balancing factor then every army should be good at every point value. However, in every campaign, both 40k and WHFB, it was clearly evident that some armies didn't get viable until higher point values.

Add in the problem of certain formations getting valuable upgrades for free (the BA one comes to mind) or the ability to summon extra models to the fight (demons and VC) then you really have to wonder how balancing points are for a game.

No you don't. GW sometimes does a bad job of balancing points, but other methods of balance are even worse-- like wounds or model count.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Remember when GW tried to make a hellbrute more balanced in their FaQ when they reduced its price by 5pts?
It feels like a long list memory that.

Typo (mentioned already), but the dataslate tried making them more useful, and succeeded. Helcults <3

pejota wrote:
then you really have to wonder how balancing points are for a game.

They're still better than nothing. If you aren't happy with the points balance, it still serves as a starting point so that after a game or two you can decide which armies need more or less points to be fair. It's just minor tweaking you have to do.

If you don't even have any points to begin with, you're just in the dark as to where to even start balancing the game.

 Melissia wrote:
No you don't. GW sometimes does a bad job of balancing points, but other methods of balance are even worse-- like wounds or model count.

This.

People are going to find some way to compare warscrolls/dataslates, whether it be wounds, model count, etc.

Or they'll spend time playing each other and getting an idea of what measures up well to each other through testing and come up with some sort of standard to compare them... oh I'm describing the process of play testing and allocating points to a model.

I don't want to do GW's work for them.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

pejota wrote:
then you really have to wonder how balancing points are for a game.

They're still better than nothing. If you aren't happy with the points balance, it still serves as a starting point so that after a game or two you can decide which armies need more or less points to be fair. It's just minor tweaking you have to do.

If you don't even have any points to begin with, you're just in the dark as to where to even start balancing the game.

That's a good point as well. If we agree to 1500 points then at least we have a ball park in which to start.

However, if I paid $85 for the 40k main rulebook and $58 for the Space Marine codex why should I have to experiment and tweak $143 US dollars worth of rules to make things fair?