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.

 jonolikespie wrote:

IMO it often shows that someone has done a crappy job balancing the game, in all the well balanced games I play there is a clear and noticeable lack of unfair match ups except when one player is clearly more skilled than they other.

Thought we covered this already. Points are not a balancing mechanism. Points are about creating efficiency from constraint. The entire point to a point system is to be so efficient in minmaxing the points that you gain a significant advantage in battle. If points were actually a balancing mechanism, they would be representative of a unit's actual worth in the army. Any army of a specific value should be perfectly balanced against any other army of the same value, and that's NEVER been the case. Ever.

You may believe that the advantage you gain from minmaxing your point limitation is earned fairly and as such, you deserve the advantage because of your superior logistical skills, but not everybody agrees on that. I actually do and think that army building is part of the challenge of conflict. However, with army lists being shared on the internet, leading to people taking better armies without working for it, or the end result becoming a handful of homogenized super lists, that maybe army points are no longer a reflection of player skill - and indeed, I would say that downloading an army list for the purpose of gaining an (unearned) advantage over your opponents does reflect poorly on a person's nature.

Can you play a balanced game with points? Absolutely. Though I argue that balance isn't something that is objectively balanced, but instead something which simply feels balanced. You have a game where it feels like you have a chance of winning, not a game where you actually do - and I think that a large part of that feel comes from the faith that points create a balanced game. You think the game is balanced and confirmation bias does the rest. In that case, I don't think points are the only (or best) way to get that feeling of balance from a game, and it could be had just as easily by any system which one puts their faith in, so long as it didn't push your faith to its breaking point. After all, 40k apparently has some seriously broken units, but the are limited enough that you blame the units themselves instead of losing faith in point values.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Thought we covered this already. Points are not a balancing mechanism. Points are about creating efficiency from constraint. The entire point to a point system is to be so efficient in minmaxing the points that you gain a significant advantage in battle. If points were actually a balancing mechanism, they would be representative of a unit's actual worth in the army. Any army of a specific value should be perfectly balanced against any other army of the same value, and that's NEVER been the case. Ever.

That is literally the worst explanation of balance I have ever heard.

A) An army of any value is going to be at a distinct disadvantage if it is built with no anti-tank weaponry if the opposing army if built of entirely tanks. You have to put at least SOME thought into what you bring, at least a little of the responsibility is on the player to not leave a hole like that in their list.

B) In well balanced games points ARE representative of the value of a unit in an army. It is a distinctly GW problem were things are overcosted and undercosted, leading to this game of finding the best cost efficiency. Warmachine is not perfect, but they aim for that and are willing to put in work to achieve it. Infinity simply does not have that problem. Nor does any other tabletop non-GW wargame to any serious extent that I am aware of.

Arguing points don't work simply shows a complete lack of understanding of non-GW games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
After all, 40k apparently has some seriously broken units, but the are limited enough that you blame the units themselves instead of losing faith in point values.

No, I just lost faith in 40k as a system.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

IMO it often shows that someone has done a crappy job balancing the game, in all the well balanced games I play there is a clear and noticeable lack of unfair match ups except when one player is clearly more skilled than they other.

Thought we covered this already. Points are not a balancing mechanism. Points are about creating efficiency from constraint. The entire point to a point system is to be so efficient in minmaxing the points that you gain a significant advantage in battle. If points were actually a balancing mechanism, they would be representative of a unit's actual worth in the army. Any army of a specific value should be perfectly balanced against any other army of the same value, and that's NEVER been the case. Ever.

You may believe that the advantage you gain from minmaxing your point limitation is earned fairly and as such, you deserve the advantage because of your superior logistical skills, but not everybody agrees on that. I actually do and think that army building is part of the challenge of conflict. However, with army lists being shared on the internet, leading to people taking better armies without working for it, or the end result becoming a handful of homogenized super lists, that maybe army points are no longer a reflection of player skill - and indeed, I would say that downloading an army list for the purpose of gaining an (unearned) advantage over your opponents does reflect poorly on a person's nature.

Can you play a balanced game with points? Absolutely. Though I argue that balance isn't something that is objectively balanced, but instead something which simply feels balanced. You have a game where it feels like you have a chance of winning, not a game where you actually do - and I think that a large part of that feel comes from the faith that points create a balanced game. You think the game is balanced and confirmation bias does the rest. In that case, I don't think points are the only (or best) way to get that feeling of balance from a game, and it could be had just as easily by any system which one puts their faith in, so long as it didn't push your faith to its breaking point. After all, 40k apparently has some seriously broken units, but the are limited enough that you blame the units themselves instead of losing faith in point values.

You make a great deal of assumptions in your post. You're looking at points system as if everyone is getting ready for a tournament. Some people use points systems to see if they can get their favorite units in or to give them a ballpark for how large of an army they should work to build.
I've heard it before, "points are only so people can build in the maximum advantage to win. Thus, points are unfair."
No.
When both people are building their army to win it puts them on equal footing. It's no worse than people building sub par lists to be on equal ground. There's no moral superiority with either, just different styles of play.
I'm a "casual narrative" player but I've never had a problem with competitive minded players in games that are balanced. Most if not all the problems you associate with points are unique to GW games. And that's because of the poor execution of points, not the idea of points themselves.

 jonolikespie wrote:

ORicK wrote:
IMO this often shows a lack of social skills.

IMO it often shows that someone has done a crappy job balancing the game, in all the well balanced games I play there is a clear and noticeable lack of unfair match ups except when one player is clearly more skilled than they other.

That there. Right there.
At what point has there been any statement that the game is supposed to be balanced or fair.
I am not arguing that GW have stumbled on some utopian gaming ideal, but the fact that points values or any kind of comp rules would suggest that they didn't do a bad job - it wasn't even a consideration.

A lot of posts seem to stem from a similar assumption - that GW were aiming at re-doing WFB and botched it.
They didn't. They have created (in all likelihood) exactly what they set out to create.
Some get it, some don't. It may turn out to be the Emperor's new clothes. Early indications appear to be that at worst it is selling as well as WFB was.
All they have done is placed the responsibility for enjoyment in the hands of the people playing the game there and then.

In my local club, there's a very clear divide at present. The 'serious' tournament gamers have thus far played (literally) a couple of games of AoS, decided it's not for them at this time, and continue to play 8th. These guys are not TFG by any means, but their enjoyment of the game stems from competitive balance.
My group of friends have taken to AoS. We have played plenty of games, many have been obviously one-sided, but we are enjoying it. We're playing the scenarios over 'pitched battles', no comp, and the only houserule has been using bases instead of models.

Neither of these viewpoints are wrong. But neither are they an objective assessment of AoS.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Thought we covered this already. Points are not a balancing mechanism. Points are about creating efficiency from constraint. The entire point to a point system is to be so efficient in minmaxing the points that you gain a significant advantage in battle. If points were actually a balancing mechanism, they would be representative of a unit's actual worth in the army. Any army of a specific value should be perfectly balanced against any other army of the same value, and that's NEVER been the case. Ever.

That is literally the worst explanation of balance I have ever heard.

It's NOT a definition of balance. I'm simply stating that if points WERE a mechanism for balance, they would be better at doing their job.

A) An army of any value is going to be at a distinct disadvantage if it is built with no anti-tank weaponry if the opposing army if built of entirely tanks. You have to put at least SOME thought into what you bring, at least a little of the responsibility is on the player to not leave a hole like that in their list.

I could argue that the rock-paper-scissors unit dependencies are their own balancing mechanism, separate from and above points. In the way that points do not create balanced games, the RPS dependencies make some up the slack. Even then, I'm not sure that those are the ONLY balancing mechanisms in play.

I guess one could argue that points aren't a balancing mechanism themselves, but when taken with a bunch of other factors, a fair game can be had... most of the time.

B) In well balanced games points ARE representative of the value of a unit in an army. It is a distinctly GW problem were things are overcosted and undercosted, leading to this game of finding the best cost efficiency. Warmachine is not perfect, but they aim for that and are willing to put in work to achieve it. Infinity simply does not have that problem. Nor does any other tabletop non-GW wargame to any serious extent that I am aware of.

So, in a well balanced game, points are representative of a well balanced game? And in an unbalanced games, points are representative of an unbalanced game? So, it's not really points that are creating balance, is it?

You can argue that it is the implementation of the points systems at fault, but the simple fact is, points do not balance a game. They can not. Not in any game with situational value. There are other mechanisms to manage that which are more important than points. The only thing points really do is limit the size of your army and has very little to say on the effectiveness of it. All those other factors define how effective it is, and thus, how fair the fight is.

Arguing points don't work simply shows a complete lack of understanding of non-GW games.

I didn't say points don't work. They do what they do, but they aren't a mechanism of balance, at least to any worthwhile extent. Using wounds in AoS has problems as well, but at the extreme edge cases, is it any worse than than Warmachine's points at their worst?

That's like saying since condoms don't work 100% of the time, it means condoms are useless as contraceptives.

You can argue that it is the implementation of the points systems at fault, but the simple fact is, points do not balance a game. They can not. Not in any game with situational value. There are other mechanisms to manage that which are more important than points. The only thing points really do is limit the size of your army and has very little to say on the effectiveness of it.

That is bull. Points balance a lot. Your not telling me that in a system with points 10 phoenix guard vs 10 dwarf warriors are balanced less then in a system where they are not.
10WK vs 10 IG in w40k , totaly balanced without points.

 Sqorgar wrote:

It's NOT a definition of balance. I'm simply stating that if points WERE a mechanism for balance, they would be better at doing their job.

Points are a tool. Like any tool, it has to be used right. Points, as a system, therefore is fine when it's built right.

So in other words, points are a mechanism for balance and they work when the designers are doing their jobs.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I guess one could argue that points aren't a balancing mechanism themselves, but when taken with a bunch of other factors, a fair game can be had... most of the time.

Pretty much what I've always said, bar the 'most of the time' jibe.

 Sqorgar wrote:

So, in a well balanced game, points are representative of a well balanced game? And in an unbalanced games, points are representative of an unbalanced game? So, it's not really points that are creating balance, is it?

See my first comment, the latter is an example of points implemented poorly. So yes, points do create balance. When you do your bloody job.

 Sqorgar wrote:

You can argue that it is the implementation of the points systems at fault, but the simple fact is, points do not balance a game. They can not. Not in any game with situational value. There are other mechanisms to manage that which are more important than points. The only thing points really do is limit the size of your army and has very little to say on the effectiveness of it. All those other factors define how effective it is, and thus, how fair the fight is.

Points have everything to do with the 'effectiveness' of a list - you know, when things are costed appropriately they give an in game value equivelant to their cost, you know, 'effectiveness'. Regarding the size of your army, it kind of makes sense to have that too...

Points are a tool. They are not the only tool. You don't just build a house with a hammer. They have to be used right, and along with other tools (unit restrictions, scenario design, multiple multiple winning conditions, multiple lists, sideboards Etc), help to build a proper game.

Points are a tool that is used to help both the structure and the balance of a game. So you are correct In a way, but your conclusion veers off a bit towards the end.

 MWHistorian wrote:

You're looking at points system as if everyone is getting ready for a tournament.

Nope. I'm looking at point systems as if everyone was trying to have a fair fight. To most players, equal points is the definition of a fair fight, whether that is true or not, whether it is likely or not.

I've heard it before, "points are only so people can build in the maximum advantage to win. Thus, points are unfair."
No.
When both people are building their army to win it puts them on equal footing. It's no worse than people building sub par lists to be on equal ground. There's no moral superiority with either, just different styles of play.

So, if you have two people, one very competitive and looking to eke out every advantage they can, and a casual player building a fluff army, they can never have a fair game because they start out inherently unequal? So, it is impossible to balance a game for both parties? And yet you resent Age of Sigmar for choosing the wrong party to build the game for?

I don't agree with you at all. I think they can have a fair fight, but it will require compromise from both parties. It may result in neither player having exactly the game they wanted, but they can still have fun. I think the opinion that points represent an impartial, objective measure of game balance is what allows competitive players to not make compromises, and that is why we must treat them as subjective estimates that do not figure in elements of gameplay that are fundamentally important. We need to look at balance, whatever your definition of it may be, as a collection of mechanisms, of which point values are the most obvious, but perhaps not the most important.

Most if not all the problems you associate with points are unique to GW games.

How could that possibly be? I've never played a GW game before Age of Sigmar, and it doesn't have any points! I have no idea how GW games use points.

It is far more accurate to say that the problems I associate with points come from Warmachine, which you absolutely refuse to concede any ground on, so there's not much worth to find in that discussion.

 Sqorgar wrote:

So, if you have two people, one very competitive and looking to eke out every advantage they can, and a casual player building a fluff army, they can never have a fair game because they start out inherently unequal? So, it is impossible to balance a game for both parties?

Some of those fluff armies are pretty brutal to be fair.

All this demonstrates is poor game design to allow exploitation of the system.

 Sqorgar wrote:
So, if you have two people, one very competitive and looking to eke out every advantage they can, and a casual player building a fluff army, they can never have a fair game because they start out inherently unequal? So, it is impossible to balance a game for both parties? And yet you resent Age of Sigmar for choosing the wrong party to build the game for?

They might not be 100% equal but the response from AoS fans is to not play people who's idea of what the game should be differs slightly from your own. In a well balanced game yes the competitive player may have an advantage, but the two can play together and both enjoy it.

Hell, Infinity sectorials, Warmachine themed lists, most other games actually give bonuses to fluffy lists, but that is besides the point.

Simple fact is if you can't build a game for both camps you have no place working in a professional game design role.

Deadnight wrote:

So in other words, points are a mechanism for balance and they work when the designers are doing their jobs.

I don't completely disagree, but you place the blame on the designers. There is absolutely no way that a point system could factor in all the different synergies, advantages, and changing game factors - is that the designer's fault that points have innate flaws? And if so, wouldn't a really good designer, rather than patch those holes with additional systems, look for a different system which was not innately flawed?

Personally, I blame the players. Points, and other balancing systems, work most of the time. But through minmaxing those edge cases, players can exploit loopholes to create completely unfair games in their favor. Those kind of players are not very fun to play against - to the point which the majority of the miniature community is actually afraid of them. When AoS had no points, the main argument was, what if we play against TFG? People are afraid of what that guy will do, and their entire definition of balance and fairness is based on what that jerk will do with a system, not what the most common experience will be.

Points have everything to do with the 'effectiveness' of a list - you know, when things are costed appropriately they give an in game value equivelant to their cost, you know, 'effectiveness'. Regarding the size of your army, it kind of makes sense to have that too...

I'm going to have to use Warmachine examples for this, but...

How do points factor in the usefulness of an ability like pathfinder? In a map with no forests, it is worthless, making whatever cost you select too much. On a table with lots of forests, pathfinder's ability to increase mobility becomes arguably the most important ability on the board. With only one or two forests, creates a tactical advantage for the units (they perform better in these areas) that may be at odds with the tactical needs of the team (what if the opponent doesn't go near the forest at all?) The only way to create a point value for something like pathfinder is to make an estimate, which will absolutely be wrong some of the time. And pathfinder is a relatively minor ability compared to some.

The reason why pathfinder's points are roughly accurate is because of the typical WM player's tendencies to play with minimal, unobstructive terrain. The lack of extreme variety means that the default usage is common enough to be useful. Because the points only work in specific cases, in order to maximize the efficiency of the game, WM players change how they play to suit those cases. Forests are on the table just to give the pathfinders something to do, all other units go around (the forests are never so large that it is easier to go half speed through them than full speed around), toeing the edge at the end of movement to gain the benefits of concealment without hampering movement.

So the points define the game as mostly this way, the players adapt their way of playing to that way, then they say that points are balanced because it works out in their experience. Kind of a self fulfilling prophecy, in my opinion.

Points are a tool. They are not the only tool. You don't just build a house with a hammer. They have to be used right, and along with other tools (unit restrictions, scenario design, multiple multiple winning conditions, multiple lists, sideboards Etc), help to build a proper game.

Points are a tool that is used to help both the structure and the balance of a game. So you are correct In a way, but your conclusion veers off a bit towards the end.

I would be happy if this conversation ended with just the concession that points are but one part of balance that do not act alone. If we could at least agree on that much, I think the discussion of AoS being unbalanced because it does not have points would be over. Instead, we'd have to look for and identify the other balancing mechanism and check those against AoS to see if maybe one of those other mechanisms wasn't compensating. That would be a much more interesting discussion than points = balance, no points = no balance that we've been circling for a while now.

 Sqorgar wrote:
How do points factor in the usefulness of an ability like pathfinder?

Ridiculously easily

There is a recommended amount of terrain to use, and you average the usefulness around that. That is literally the job of a game designer, to work that out. Playtesting helps when thousands of games can be played and you can gauge from people's reactions if it needs to be cheaper or more expensive.

You have this idea that if any two lists at the same points value are not 100% perfectly matched then the whole system is flawed and goes out the window. Every non-GW game on the market proves this wrong.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I don't completely disagree, but you place the blame on the designers.

You usually place the blame of a faulty product to the person who made the product, especially when it is shown in other products that it can be done.

Who are you gonna blame if your food is bad? The person who cooked it. You don't put the blame on the person eating the bad food, claiming that he/she is doing it wrong.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

So in other words, points are a mechanism for balance and they work when the designers are doing their jobs.

I don't completely disagree, but you place the blame on the designers. There is absolutely no way that a point system could factor in all the different synergies, advantages, and changing game factors - is that the designer's fault that points have innate flaws? And if so, wouldn't a really good designer, rather than patch those holes with additional systems, look for a different system which was not innately flawed?

I don't place any 'blame'. I place a 'responsibility' and a 'duty' on game designers to design a robust, healthy, functional and balanced game.

How can't it factor in all those other factors? That's why we having playtesting and a little thing called 'quality control'. Thats it's job - to find the kinks and iron them out.

Is it the designers fault? Absolutely. If you've actually read any of my comments, you will note I mention the 'use of other tools' alongside the use of points. Points aren't the only tool in the box, but are extremely useful when used right.

As to the comment about instead of patching with other systems, use a different system 'that isnt flawed' - two points.
One. Points and other systems work. So why walk away from it?
Two. tell me of this system that 'isnt innately flawed'?

 Sqorgar wrote:

How do points factor in the usefulness of an ability like pathfinder? In a map with no forests, it is worthless, making whatever cost you select too much. On a table with lots of forests, pathfinder's ability to increase mobility becomes arguably the most important ability on the board. With only one or two forests, creates a tactical advantage for the units (they perform better in these areas) that may be at odds with the tactical needs of the team (what if the opponent doesn't go near the forest at all?) The only way to create a point value for something like pathfinder is to make an estimate, which will absolutely be wrong some of the time. And pathfinder is a relatively minor ability compared to some.

The reason why pathfinder's points are roughly accurate is because of the typical WM player's tendencies to play with minimal, unobstructive terrain. The lack of extreme variety means that the default usage is common enough to be useful. Because the points only work in specific cases, in order to maximize the efficiency of the game, WM players change how they play to suit those cases. Forests are on the table just to give the pathfinders something to do, all other units go around (the forests are never so large that it is easier to go half speed through them than full speed around), toeing the edge at the end of movement to gain the benefits of concealment without hampering movement.

How do points factor in the usefulness of pathfinder. Easy. define the requirements per board of what terrain should be there. Make those variables into constants and then you can account for them.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Points are a tool. They are not the only tool. You don't just build a house with a hammer. They have to be used right, and along with other tools (unit restrictions, scenario design, multiple multiple winning conditions, multiple lists, sideboards Etc), help to build a proper game.

Points are a tool that is used to help both the structure and the balance of a game. So you are correct In a way, but your conclusion veers off a bit towards the end.

I would be happy if this conversation ended with just the concession that points are but one part of balance that do not act alone. If we could at least agree on that much, I think the discussion of AoS being unbalanced because it does not have points would be over. Instead, we'd have to look for and identify the other balancing mechanism and check those against AoS to see if maybe one of those other mechanisms wasn't compensating. That would be a much more interesting discussion than points = balance, no points = no balance that we've been circling for a while now.

Is this you not reading what I've written, or commenting to other people. Because I've always said that points are just one facet of the overall 'structure'. To me, taking away points is akin to kicking out some of the biggest load bearing columns and foundations of the structure. Fine, you can adapt and build around it, but you are making an awful lot of hard work for yourself, and in the end, what you end up with, whole different. won't necessarily be superior.

Regarding alternative balancing mechanisms, that's where the issues lie. How do you do it. Again, I turn up with fifty greatswords, he turns up with fifty peasants. We're both here for a 'fun friendly game'. The narrative pushed here is one has to bend and forfeit 'his' game to accomodate the other. Greatsword guy is tfg if he doesn't bend. It boils down to balance via self policing, self restraint, ans balance via community pressure and social exclusion for those who want to do something different that isn't in fitting with what the group considers fair. Bullying, in other words.

The problem with a lack of points in aos can be mitigated, however. In my mind, it boils down to two possible solutions.

One. Eyeballing balance. Fine. But it's quite hard, and very easy to misjudge. Plus, all it takes is a casual at all costs tfg (they exist too) who says 'no' to your shiny toys. you know, because you both have different definitions of what's fair to play against. It requires your opponent to enable you to do what you want, and falls down the second they say 'no'. And again, ultimately this approach is just as 'innately flawed' as any other.
Two. Tailor made scenarios with competing forces pre designed and appropriate for the scenario. For the record, this is how we play flames of war. It's an absolute blast, and really scratches that creative itch, but it absolutely requires like minded people and a lot of pre game discussion and organisation. It is workable at your mates house on a Friday evening or all day gaming where you can game for six hours, but not so possible with random oponents at the store when you have ninety minutes to play...

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
How do points factor in the usefulness of an ability like pathfinder?

Ridiculously easily

There is a recommended amount of terrain to use, and you average the usefulness around that. That is literally the job of a game designer, to work that out. Playtesting helps when thousands of games can be played and you can gauge from people's reactions if it needs to be cheaper or more expensive.

You have this idea that if any two lists at the same points value are not 100% perfectly matched then the whole system is flawed and goes out the window. Every non-GW game on the market proves this wrong.[/qboard

But, is the terrain listed specifically to how many pieces are supposed to block movement as opposed to being hindering? I don't know about wh, but I've seen the look of dismay when my tau playing friend brings out kroot and the table is a cityfight board. An ability is only as good as the table allows it to be. If the only terrain to hide in is in my deployment zone, my striking scorpions are wasting their infiltrate ability, if my opponent doesn't have ap3 or better ranged weapons, my stealth won't come into play. Neither of those things are able to be fixed with points, because if the opposite occurs the unit will be much stronger than the points would suggest.

If the table has the exact same terrain every game to ensure the points were perfect, it would be a board game.

Sqorgar, can I try and sum up what you've been trying to say about points, to see if I understand it? The central idea I'm getting is:

1. points are not primarily a balance mechanism
2. points are primarily a constraint on listbuilding within which players compete to build the most effective list
3. while points can be a rough guide to power level, this function is secondary at best. We can see this with, for instance, the way certain combinations of models synergise without this synergy being reflected in their points costs.

Is that correct?

 heartserenade wrote:

You usually place the blame of a faulty product to the person who made the product, especially when it is shown in other products that it can be done.

Who are you gonna blame if your food is bad? The person who cooked it. You don't put the blame on the person eating the bad food, claiming that he/she is doing it wrong.

I think points work well enough for their intended purpose, if the people playing the game factor that purpose into how they use it. Using your food analogy, it would be like going to a restaurant, ordering a nice dinner, then sticking it in a blender and drinking it through a straw because it was more efficient for digestion - and then complaining that the food didn't taste good. When your only goal is digestion, you tend to make the experience less appetizing for everyone.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:

You usually place the blame of a faulty product to the person who made the product, especially when it is shown in other products that it can be done.

Who are you gonna blame if your food is bad? The person who cooked it. You don't put the blame on the person eating the bad food, claiming that he/she is doing it wrong.

I think points work well enough for their intended purpose, if the people playing the game factor that purpose into how they use it. Using your food analogy, it would be like going to a restaurant, ordering a nice dinner, then sticking it in a blender and drinking it through a straw because it was more efficient for digestion - and then complaining that the food didn't taste good. When your only goal is digestion, you tend to make the experience less appetizing for everyone.

It's late here so please correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong but it sounds like we're back to "Competitive players are having fun wrong".

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Sqorgar, can I try and sum up what you've been trying to say about points, to see if I understand it? The central idea I'm getting is:

1. points are not primarily a balance mechanism
2. points are primarily a constraint on listbuilding within which players compete to build the most effective list
3. while points can be a rough guide to power level, this function is secondary at best. We can see this with, for instance, the way certain combinations of models synergise without this synergy being reflected in their points costs.

Is that correct?

That's a fairly accurate summary of what I've written so far, though I'd go one further and say that points are not, by nature, a balancing mechanism at all, and instead are a scenario generation mechanism. Balance CAN BE the goal of this scenario generator, using points to represent a unit's fighting value, but that it is not necessarily the case.

In Warmachine, for example, warcasters have additional points exclusively for use with warjacks as an incentive to field warjacks. Since every game requires a warcaster, they have zero points. The number of warcasters you can use is instead defined by the total number of points for the army - and even then, as an agreed upon scenario with your opponent. I don't think it is possible for both players to have the same number of points, but a different number of warcasters.

So points can be an incentive or disincentive for certain behaviors completely separate from their representation of a unit's worth to the army. So a better description of points isn't that they create balance, but that they incentivize it. (I'd also add that points tend to incentivize behaviors beyond just army balance, as units not worth their points are not taken or units well worth their cost are taken instead of more varied options).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

It's late here so please correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong but it sounds like we're back to "Competitive players are having fun wrong".

Not at all. If that's how they want to eat their food, and that's how they like it, then that's fine. It's just that they can't then complain that the food that was created for one purpose was not perfectly suited to a different purpose. I'm lactose intolerant, so I have to remove the cheese from my food and it almost certainly results in an inferior tasting product. But I can't complain that pizza tastes bad once you take all the cheese off.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

2. points are primarily a constraint on listbuilding within which players compete to build the most effective list
3. while points can be a rough guide to power level, this function is secondary at best. We can see this with, for instance, the way certain combinations of models synergise without this synergy being reflected in their points costs.

This is basically my position with respect to points. I both love and hate points at the same time for these reasons, because fundamentally, I don't think wargames should be a test of list building skills -- at all.

Of course, one could argue, "but why would a general bring a poorly outfitted army to battle?". I would respond: a general has an idea of what resources their opponent has, and where they are going to do battle. They then formulate what of their own resources they should bring, but not in isolation: they must often consider what resources to allocate to other battles, other theatres, and to hold back for future battles.

Absent the information of who or where, asking a general to bring a crack team for any situation (take all comers, if you will), isn't really a great test of anything, nor is it realistic in any way. From a wargaming perspective, the commander either builds an army that's really good against popular opponents, an army that uses commonly known gimmicks, or some combination thereof. Once in a while, there will be a novel (unusual, unexpected) army, but not often. Even so, that novel army will be formulated with counters to specific, popular threats.

This is why, as a test of battle prowess, I think a battle is best played if the armies are adjusted based on (a) their opponent and (b) the scenario.

On the other hand, our group all likes listbuilding and army building, and building synergies is core to our enjoyment of the game.

So, OUR solution (not to say that anyone else should adopt it) is that we use points as a starting point. Each commander has a extra models not represented in those points. If the battle seems unbalanced -- since we are experienced in 40k and with playing with each other, this is not hard to determine -- the weaker army may add on some extra stuff, sometimes up to 30% more points' worth (or even more, if it's a severely lopsided battle).

I'm not telling people that they're having the "wrong kind of fun" if they think that starting off the battle where one side has an advantage is the way to play -- it's just not the kind of fun that *I* like, which IS a test of skill, but also a relatively equal challenge for both players.

Deadnight wrote:

I don't place any 'blame'. I place a 'responsibility' and a 'duty' on game designers to design a robust, healthy, functional and balanced game.

Designers aren't gods. They can not predict that varied different ways that players will use their product. I'd say that if a best effort was made to play within the system, and it doesn't work, then that's the designer's responsibility. If someone uses loopholes and edge cases, the player is to blame for making the game less fun.

As to the comment about instead of patching with other systems, use a different system 'that isnt flawed' - two points.
One. Points and other systems work. So why walk away from it?

Because it doesn't always work, and what it works for may not always coincide with your goals for a product. The Age of Sigmar designers obvious decided that points were at odds with their vision of the product and decided to allow players to make their own, but not to officially endorse a specific system themselves. Some players cannot fathom how such a decision could be made, but others not only have no problem with it, they LIKE it. So you can't say that the decision was objectively wrong.

Two. tell me of this system that 'isnt innately flawed'?

I think different systems work towards different goals, so it isn't a matter of whether something is flawed, but whether it is the most effective tool for the job. I happen to think that points don't work very well in the manner that I would like to play certain games, that they take more away from the experience than they add, so I am not personally tied to any particular point system that I claim is superior.

I rather liked those fake rules proposed a few weeks ago where, after tallying what was in each other's armies, you could take benefits to make up the difference. So, instead of counting a monster as X points, if you have more monsters than you opponent, they get a small bonus to killing monsters. Again, not a perfect system, but it is compatible with the idea of building your army at the table, which point values are not.

How do points factor in the usefulness of pathfinder. Easy. define the requirements per board of what terrain should be there. Make those variables into constants and then you can account for them.

In Warmachine, where players don't tend to play with a lot of varied terrain, that's probably fine. But how would you do that for Age of Sigmar, which can have Skullkeeps next to Ophidian Gates next to Realm Gates - each one with special rules that benefit some units or destroy others. You can't work around a constant terrain variable, so how much is the ability "flying" worth?

Is this you not reading what I've written, or commenting to other people.

That was more directed to everyone. I'm having this conversation with like five different people simultaneously.

Because I've always said that points are just one facet of the overall 'structure'. To me, taking away points is akin to kicking out some of the biggest load bearing columns and foundations of the structure.

Okay. This is a reasonable comment to make. I disagree that points are load bearing, but I can understand how people can come to rely on them. So you acknowledge that points have flaws, but you don't think these flaws are more troublesome than the effort it would take to learn and implement a new system?

Regarding alternative balancing mechanisms, that's where the issues lie. How do you do it. Again, I turn up with fifty greatswords, he turns up with fifty peasants. We're both here for a 'fun friendly game'. The narrative pushed here is one has to bend and forfeit 'his' game to accomodate the other. Greatsword guy is tfg if he doesn't bend. It boils down to balance via self policing, self restraint, ans balance via community pressure and social exclusion for those who want to do something different that isn't in fitting with what the group considers fair. Bullying, in other words.

I would argue that compromises can be made on both sides, or that the compromises made may not be as complicated as initially thought. For instance, one way to balance 50 greatswords vs 50 peasants is to allow the peasants to have 5 units of 10 peasants, and the greatswords one unit of 50 greatswords. The added maneuverability of multiple units, mixed with more tactical advantages (retreating ends you turn with one unit, plus the unit cohesion rule makes one large unit difficult to maximize, smaller units less likely to be decimated by battle shock), could give the peasants a better chance of taking on the superior units. I have no idea if this would work in practice, but it would be fun, I think, to find out.

One. Eyeballing balance.

Instead of thinking of it like that, think of it like eyeballing fun to play. Given how varied the units are in AoS, it's very likely you'll see a combination of units that could present an interesting challenge or goal. If winning is your only goal, then yes, I think a neutral third party will be required to keep one opponent from exploiting the other. Points are neutral, but not above exploitation.

Two. Tailor made scenarios with competing forces pre designed and appropriate for the scenario.

I don't think you need pre-designed forces. I think that scenarios provide different goals and different avenues for success. For instance, you could have a historic scenario where one team ended up with 45% casualties and the other 75%, with the goal of each player to lose as many or as few units as possible to most closely reach their percentage. Or another scenario could be one where one player is completely outnumbered, but his success is based on how many units survive for five rounds - perhaps he can take tough units or fast units to stay ahead?

Rather than pretending that everything is about coming out ahead in combat and combat alone, scenarios can underscore the idea that bit mosh-pits in the middle of the table aren't the only way for a play to win.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

I don't place any 'blame'. I place a 'responsibility' and a 'duty' on game designers to design a robust, healthy, functional and balanced game.

Designers aren't gods. They can not predict that varied different ways that players will use their product. I'd say that if a best effort was made to play within the system, and it doesn't work, then that's the designer's responsibility. If someone uses loopholes and edge cases, the player is to blame for making the game less fun.

Indeed, thryre not gods. Indeed, they cannot predict how their product will get used. That's why you (a) playtest the hell out of it, utilising said community for feedback and modify as required and (b) maintain the rules set with errata and updates as required.
D
If someone uses loopholes, sure, thryre being a dick. But those loopholes should never have been there in the first place.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

As to the comment about instead of patching with other systems, use a different system 'that isnt flawed' - two points.
One. Points and other systems work. So why walk away from it?

Because it doesn't always work, and what it works for may not always coincide with your goals for a product. The Age of Sigmar designers obvious decided that points were at odds with their vision of the product and decided to allow players to make their own, but not to officially endorse a specific system themselves. Some players cannot fathom how such a decision could be made, but others not only have no problem with it, they LIKE it. So you can't say that the decision was objectively wrong.

Of course a points based ststem was 'at odds' with the designers intent. Arguably, the aos designers wanted a product out the door with a minimum investment of both time and effort too. Designing a points based system requires both time and effort and engagement with the community, none of which gw seems interested in. So we end up with what amounts to Lazy game design backed up with comments about 'giving the game to the community'. Thanks, but I can read between the lines.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Two. tell me of this system that 'isnt innately flawed'?

I think different systems work towards different goals, so it isn't a matter of whether something is flawed, but whether it is the most effective tool for the job. I happen to think that points don't work very well in the manner that I would like to play certain games, that they take more away from the experience than they add, so I am not personally tied to any particular point system that I claim is superior.

I rather liked those fake rules proposed a few weeks ago where, after tallying what was in each other's armies, you could take benefits to make up the difference. So, instead of counting a monster as X points, if you have more monsters than you opponent, they get a small bonus to killing monsters. Again, not a perfect system, but it is compatible with the idea of building your army at the table, which point values are not.

No. answer the question please . You said points were an 'innately flawed' system and designers should walk away for a better one. So tell me of a better one. You can't just say that points are an innately flawed ststem and better ones should be used, but then claim it's irrelevant if those other systems are innately flawed as well, because of 'different goals' and then describe a set of rules you like that is 'not a perfect system' as an answer to my question.That's leaning towards being intellectually dishonest.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
How do points factor in the usefulness of pathfinder. Easy. define the requirements per board of what terrain should be there. Make those variables into constants and then you can account for them.

In Warmachine, where players don't tend to play with a lot of varied terrain, that's probably fine. But how would you do that for Age of Sigmar, which can have Skullkeeps next to Ophidian Gates next to Realm Gates - each one with special rules that benefit some units or destroy others. You can't work around a constant terrain variable, so how much is the ability "flying" worth?

Not having skullkeeps and ophidian fates and realm gates would Be my first choice.

Alternatively If you want a 'fortress assault' scenario, I don't see why this can't be achieved. You can work around a constant terrain variable so long that that variable is defined (ie no longer variable). How much is flying worth? More than pathfinder.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Is this you not reading what I've written, or commenting to other people.

That was more directed to everyone. I'm having this conversation with like five different people simultaneously.

And quoting me, thereby it's implied you are talking to me. If you are talking to everyone, then please address it to 'everyone'. Saying what you said to my quote above it basically implied you'd not read anything I'd said.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Because I've always said that points are just one facet of the overall 'structure'. To me, taking away points is akin to kicking out some of the biggest load bearing columns and foundations of the structure.

Okay. This is a reasonable comment to make. I disagree that points are load bearing, but I can understand how people can come to rely on them. So you acknowledge that points have flaws, but you don't think these flaws are more troublesome than the effort it would take to learn and implement a new system?

-1 for a brazen attempt to twist my words. Where does saying 'points are one facet of the overall structure' imply points have faults?

Points are an extremely useful structural and balancing tool. Thry very much are load bearing. But they function alongside various other systems. And no, I don't think those flaws are troublesome. Like all tools, Thry have to be used right. Your 'new system' is just as open to faults as well. Points isn't the end of the debate. It isn't the entirely of the solution. And yes, like everything, it takes work and effort, but you end up with a functional product.
As to implementing a new ststem, again, please tell me of this system that doesn't use points that isn't, as you put it earlier 'inherently flawed'? Show me utopia.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Regarding alternative balancing mechanisms, that's where the issues lie. How do you do it. Again, I turn up with fifty greatswords, he turns up with fifty peasants. We're both here for a 'fun friendly game'. The narrative pushed here is one has to bend and forfeit 'his' game to accomodate the other. Greatsword guy is tfg if he doesn't bend. It boils down to balance via self policing, self restraint, ans balance via community pressure and social exclusion for those who want to do something different that isn't in fitting with what the group considers fair. Bullying, in other words.

I would argue that compromises can be made on both sides, or that the compromises made may not be as complicated as initially thought. For instance, one way to balance 50 greatswords vs 50 peasants is to allow the peasants to have 5 units of 10 peasants, and the greatswords one unit of 50 greatswords. The added maneuverability of multiple units, mixed with more tactical advantages (retreating ends you turn with one unit, plus the unit cohesion rule makes one large unit difficult to maximize, smaller units less likely to be decimated by battle shock), could give the peasants a better chance of taking on the superior units. I have no idea if this would work in practice, but it would be fun, I think, to find out.

So you don't know if your solution would work in practice. Thanks. Come back and tell me if if does.

 Sqorgar wrote:

One. Eyeballing balance.

Instead of thinking of it like that, think of it like eyeballing fun to play. Given how varied the units are in AoS, it's very likely you'll see a combination of units that could present an interesting challenge or goal. If winning is your only goal, then yes, I think a neutral third party will be required to keep one opponent from exploiting the other. Points are neutral, but not above exploitation.

So eyeballing balance, plus neutral third party/gm. We do this in our group actually. Again, it can work which is why I brought it up as a solution. But it falls back on the argument where it requires a lot of work. In this case, a third player.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Two. Tailor made scenarios with competing forces pre designed and appropriate for the scenario.

I don't think you need pre-designed forces. I think that scenarios provide different goals and different avenues for success. For instance, you could have a historic scenario where one team ended up with 45% casualties and the other 75%, with the goal of each player to lose as many or as few units as possible to most closely reach their percentage. Or another scenario could be one where one player is completely outnumbered, but his success is based on how many units survive for five rounds - perhaps he can take tough units or fast units to stay ahead?.

I apologise. By pre designed lists, I mean lists appropriate and themed/ specific to the scenario being played, rather than 'blind' lists or 'bring whatever you want, because it's in the codex'. Various winning conditions can also be applied.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Rather than pretending that everything is about coming out ahead in combat and combat alone, scenarios can underscore the idea that bit mosh-pits in the middle of the table aren't the only way for a play to win.

Indeed. They can gunline from their deployment zone like sixth ed tau, not move and roll dice for six turns!

Deadnight wrote:

If someone uses loopholes, sure, thryre being a dick. But those loopholes should never have been there in the first place.

If I may intersect just for a second, even if what I say isn't exactly what you're arguing about. Predicting and finding loopholes is not that trivial. Users of all kind are a very clever bunch. I'm just wondering if at some point the designers of AoS scrapped the idea of trying to be exact in their layout of the rules in favour of making them digestible to a common non-wargamer person. You know, except you go to ugly lengths in being very exact when writing your rules (and I can show you how exact such rules can be by posting a short ASL paragraph) you may never be certain about fool proofing 100% your system so you might instead try and make it accessible. Carry on

 CoreCommander wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

If someone uses loopholes, sure, thryre being a dick. But those loopholes should never have been there in the first place.

If I may intersect just for a second, even if what I say isn't exactly what you're arguing about. Predicting and finding loopholes is not that trivial. Users of all kind are a very clever bunch. I'm just wondering if at some point the designers of AoS scrapped the idea of trying to be exact in their layout of the rules in favour of making them digestible to a common non-wargamer person.

Which is the pr version of basically investing minimal time and effort into a rule set for maximum return.

In other words 'let's not bother, let the sheep scream and moan and try and figure something out'.

Probably not to be fair, but it's worth thinking cynically for a second.

Well, my point was more about the design team coming to terms with the fact that writing extremely fool proof rules is either not that necessary or not worth it. I have no doubts, though, that there was a directive from above concerning the length of the rules and making them more accessible to a wider audience for maximum profit . I don't hold it against them though - maximizing profit is what every company tries to do. Imagine having only heard of GW and knowing that they make miniatures. You open your morning column and read the following "GW, a company known for its games that required from the gamer to read 100+ pages of rules just released their newest game having succeeded in putting down the rules on just four sheets of paper!". It's a terrific advertisement on its own.

I feel the better system is the one where we get to lay a game without me eating into my prep time for DND to build my army list.

I feel the better system is the one my wife enjoys playing enough to get multiple games in a month.

I feel the better system is the one where my friend and I can just bring a box of minis to a table and expect to play an even game without worrying about hard counter lists. Especially when we don't have to discuss it ahead of time.

I much prefer age of sigmar to any other fantasy wargame.

 CoreCommander wrote:
Well, my point was more about the design team coming in terms with the fact that writing extremely fool proof rules is either not that necessary or not worth it. I have no doubts, though, that there was a directive from above concerning the length of the rules and making them more accessible to a wider audience for maximum profit. Imagine having only heard of GW and knowing that they make miniatures. You open your morning column and read the following "GW, a company known for its games that required from the gamer to read 100+ pages of rules just released their newest game having succeeded in putting down the rules in just four sheets of paper". It's a terrific advertisement on its own.

I don't see it as 'terrific' though, to be fair. The cynic in me asks 'well, what have they cut out?' Is cutting out 96% of the rules a good thing? Shrug.

And don't worry - I do get it. I do see sense in having a very basic four page set of rules and I get what kind of games they're trying to push and the players they're trying to push it on- a very large part of non wargamers and people for whom a very basic and simpler/straightforward set of mechanics is preferable. For me, I prefer complex games with a lot of moving parts and interesting things going on. I can also see them trying to push away a certain section of the playerbase, rather than attempting to accomodate them. I don't necessarily see this as a good idea. (my biggest issue is the rules set is kinda boring and uninteresting. I'd have much preferred it to have been based on the lotr engine with some kind of reaction mechanism).

Playing those types of games myself (with flames of war btw), I'll even applaud them to an extent, because I see value in a game ecology and a gaming attitude that isn't 'decide on x points, roll scenario and go!' and helps foster a player attitude that is more proactive in creating and adapting their games to suit themselves as well as doing new things and playing, designing and talking about new and interesting scenario types (I'd just prefer if the game mechanics themselves were more bloody interesting!). If anything, I see it as a criticism of the playerbase that they essentially need to be told by, and given permission by gw to do this, before they'll go off and do these things. Then again, I am highly critical of gamers as a whole, so that's probably just me.

The thing is, this isn't new, or revolutionary gaming (historical gamers have always done these kinds of things), and for all the value in playing this way, it has a host of problems and issues and isn't always a 'go to' kind of option when it comes to 'what kind of game will we play tonight brain?'

In a similar way, it's taking players used to a certain 'type' of game into the wilderness, and its expecting them to find their own way, rather than giving them a compass at the very least, or at best proper gear. There are limited 'guides' in how to play differently- you know, with gw not communicating and all. They're expecting te players to somehow just 'get it' and change Their entire culture, and way of gaming with no help or direction. Of course people are peeved. Some direction would be nice, methinks. I've been lucky - those guys I played fow with are historical gamers that have been hiding in basements since the 70s. Great guys and they opened me up to new games, and new ways of playing and I'm wuite thankful for the experience. I can appreciate the merits of the type of game aos tries to be. Sadly, not every former player has had this 'apprenticeship' and consequently, (and arguably rightly so) doesn't see any value in it, or what can be achieved with it.

Deadnight wrote:

Indeed, thryre not gods. Indeed, they cannot predict how their product will get used. That's why you (a) playtest the hell out of it, utilising said community for feedback and modify as required and (b) maintain the rules set with errata and updates as required.

I'm against the use of errata, as I feel like it favors the more hardcore players. It kind of sucks when you get a game for the first time and there's already 10 pages of errata for it that you don't know about, because you are new and aren't as familiar with the communities or even know to look at the website for updated rules. I've been playing Warmachine for months and if they had not released new errata, I wouldn't have known there was old errata I wasn't using! I think the idea of a living rulebook is not something you can update equally across all players, of all involvement in the game.

(I hate how Warmachine's errata is. Rather than releasing a "rules pack" or something, it uses a patching format where you get stuff like, "Page 94, replace the second line with '...'", which makes it so you can't get a clear picture as to what was changed in context without cross referencing a dozen pages. Something like the Netrunner errata is even worse, since it is almost 20 pages long, with dozens and dozens of cards affected in relatively minor ways)

I don't have a better solution, but I just think that errata is not the best way to balance an imperfect game. Ideally, you wouldn't release an imperfect game, but that's just not realistic. But that's neither here nor there. This is only relevant in that I think balancing a game after the fact is far more problematic than it may initially seem.

Of course a points based ststem was 'at odds' with the designers intent. Arguably, the aos designers wanted a product out the door with a minimum investment of both time and effort too. Designing a points based system requires both time and effort and engagement with the community, none of which gw seems interested in. So we end up with what amounts to Lazy game design backed up with comments about 'giving the game to the community'. Thanks, but I can read between the lines.

I honestly don't think it was laziness, but instead an effort to put no constraints on how you play at all. There's no limits on what you can bring or how much. Want to bring 30 units of 100 models each? Go for it. I think it shows a lot of faith in the players to be able to do that. Frankly, it is was laziness, they would've put some sort of half assed limitation in the game, like bring X warscrolls or something. Since they didn't, I have to assume that no constraint was a deliberate, ideological choice.

No. answer the question please . You said points were an 'innately flawed' system and designers should walk away for a better one. So tell me of a better one. You can't just say that points are an innately flawed ststem and better ones should be used, but then claim it's irrelevant if those other systems are innately flawed as well, because of 'different goals'. That's being intellectually dishonest.

I have half the mind to not answer this question. You seem so sure you've got me in an unwinnable situation that it would drive you nuts if I never answered it.

I'll answer it though, but probably not to your satisfaction. I doubt anything I say could convince you one way or another, so I'll simply present how I see the situation, as it applies to my personal interests.

I don't think you can balance something like Age of Sigmar because it is infinitely expandable. The only way to truly balance a game for fairness is if you have a limited, known number of units up front, in predictable situations. For instance, you can only balance warscrolls if each warscroll was designed to be equivalent in power. They are not. You can not balance against wounds, as wounds are not equally easy to achieve between units. You can't balance against models, keywords, or whatever. Not completely.

So you have an open system that is always changing in which none of the individual components are comparable. How do you balance apples vs oranges? You can't, because there is no basis for how many apples an orange is worth. And what happens when you start getting pears and pineapples? You can compare them based on things like weight or cost or calories, but there's just no accounting for taste, which is the important thing. You may be able to have 5 pineapple slices for the cost of 1 apple slice, but that doesn't mean you want the pineapple slices more. So, in this case, points would be detrimental because they they can not accurately compare one fruit with another.

Age of Sigmar is the same way. It can not be balanced without constantly updating the balancing rules. A unit which is somewhat worthless now could become much more useful later with a new release. Or, battalion warscrolls, for example, improve collections of various units, meaning that there could be battalions that significantly change the effectiveness of the units within it. And GW is releasing new rules like CRAZY. We're talking multiple warscrolls for a piece of scenery! New scenarios and battalions in every book. Multiple versions of multiple units every week. How do you create points for something like that?

So if you have a game in which any attempts to balance it would end up hampering its viability in the long run (without releasing errata or updating warscrolls), the only way you can balance the game is one battle at a time. In this battle, on this table, with these units, against this opponent - this is a fair fight. AoS is a game of pieces - not just units, but terrain, factions, battalions, realm rules - that the designers want you to mix and match in every way to create the game you want to play. And there is no way to put a point value on that without constraining one's creativity in some way. If a player prefers apples, why incentivize him to eat pineapples?

So, for what AoS wants to do, points aren't just imperfect, they are detrimental. And the best alternative - the one with no innate flaws as a system - is to have no constraints at all. To let it be situational and up to the players. I'm sure you'll argue that the players are then the problem, but they are not a systematic flaw. There is no system. It's entirely situational. Even the rules are situational. If you find yourself in a good situation, it will be amazing. I think what most of the AoS deniers argue is that you won't be in a good situation or can't guarantee being in a good situation, but I think they come from an ideological place rather than a practical one. Maybe AoS can't guarantee a good opponent, but maybe it is really good in pointing out that bad ones before you play? (and for some players, that's even better)

So you don't know if your solution would work in practice. Thanks. Come back and tell me if if does.

I said I don't know if it would work, but it would be fun to find out. As in, I don't know how fair the fight would ultimately be, but I think it would be a fun and interesting fight regardless.

I can't help but think that we want different things from our games. You want to, if not win, at least know how to win, as it defines how you think and act. I don't care about winning and want to be presented with a series of interesting decisions that I can experiment with in order to watch the mechanisms of gameplay interact. I would not play a game that I knew how to win, but presented the same scenario and choices every game.

To me, a game like Warmachine is only fun if people use vastly different units each game - I, myself, own five different armies. The people I play against will use the exact same army and units every battle, trying to maximize their effectiveness in different situations - to which, I alone am responsible for providing. I'm happy to do it, but the game will get very old, very quickly for me if it is strictly about competing through familiarity.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Indeed, thryre not gods. Indeed, they cannot predict how their product will get used. That's why you (a) playtest the hell out of it, utilising said community for feedback and modify as required and (b) maintain the rules set with errata and updates as required.

I'm against the use of errata, as I feel like it favors the more hardcore players. It kind of sucks when you get a game for the first time and there's already 10 pages of errata for it that you don't know about, because you are new and aren't as familiar with the communities or even know to look at the website for updated rules. I've been playing Warmachine for months and if they had not released new errata, I wouldn't have known there was old errata I wasn't using! I think the idea of a living rulebook is not something you can update equally across all players, of all involvement in the game.
(I hate how Warmachine's errata is. Rather than releasing a "rules pack" or something, it uses a patching format where you get stuff like, "Page 94, replace the second line with '...'", which makes it so you can't get a clear picture as to what was changed in context without cross referencing a dozen pages. Something like the Netrunner errata is even worse, since it is almost 20 pages long, with dozens and dozens of cards affected in relatively minor ways)
I don't have a better solution, but I just think that errata is not the best way to balance an imperfect game. Ideally, you wouldn't release an imperfect game, but that's just not realistic. But that's neither here nor there. This is only relevant in that I think balancing a game after the fact is far more problematic than it may initially seem.

You not liking a solution doesn't invalidate it's effectiveness. Don't be so quick to dismiss.
Your personal preferences aside, which is what it amounts to essentially, errata are a very viable solution to update issues and to help maintain a balanced game. Patches have been a thing for a long time now.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I honestly don't think it was laziness, but instead an effort to put no constraints on how you play at all. There's no limits on what you can bring or how much. Want to bring 30 units of 100 models each? Go for it. I think it shows a lot of faith in the players to be able to do that. Frankly, it is was laziness, they would've put some sort of half assed limitation in the game, like bring X warscrolls or something. Since they didn't, I have to assume that no constraint was a deliberate, ideological choice.

Oh don't worry - I see that side of the argument as well. It's one of the things I like about what aos tries to do.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I have half the mind to not answer this question. You seem so sure you've got me in an unwinnable situation that it would drive you nuts if I never answered it.

Not really. You don't know me bud. I don't generally appreciate folks assuming they know what I'm thinking. This is arguing on the Internet. You not answering won't drive me 'nuts', as you claim so please, dont try and be smug. I asked that question out of genuine interest. You did seem to dodge the question, and twisted my words elsewhere in how you dismiss points as 'innately flawed' but welcome systems that are just as flawed . I genuinely appreciate the answer.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I'll answer it though, but probably not to your satisfaction. I doubt anything I say could convince you one way or another, so I'll simply present how I see the situation, as it applies to my personal interests.

I don't think you can balance something like Age of Sigmar because it is infinitely expandable. The only way to truly balance a game for fairness is if you have a limited, known number of units up front, in predictable situations. For instance, you can only balance warscrolls if each warscroll was designed to be equivalent in power. They are not. You can not balance against wounds, as wounds are not equally easy to achieve between units. You can't balance against models, keywords, or whatever. Not completely.

So you have an open system that is always changing in which none of the individual components are comparable. How do you balance apples vs oranges? You can't, because there is no basis for how many apples an orange is worth. And what happens when you start getting pears and pineapples? You can compare them based on things like weight or cost or calories, but there's just no accounting for taste, which is the important thing. You may be able to have 5 pineapple slices for the cost of 1 apple slice, but that doesn't mean you want the pineapple slices more. So, in this case, points would be detrimental because they they can not accurately compare one fruit with another.

Age of Sigmar is the same way. It can not be balanced without constantly updating the balancing rules. A unit which is somewhat worthless now could become much more useful later with a new release. Or, battalion warscrolls, for example, improve collections of various units, meaning that there could be battalions that significantly change the effectiveness of the units within it. And GW is releasing new rules like CRAZY. We're talking multiple warscrolls for a piece of scenery! New scenarios and battalions in every book. Multiple versions of multiple units every week. How do you create points for something like that?

So if you have a game in which any attempts to balance it would end up hampering its viability in the long run (without releasing errata or updating warscrolls), the only way you can balance the game is one battle at a time. In this battle, on this table, with these units, against this opponent - this is a fair fight. AoS is a game of pieces - not just units, but terrain, factions, battalions, realm rules - that the designers want you to mix and match in every way to create the game you want to play. And there is no way to put a point value on that without constraining one's creativity in some way. If a player prefers apples, why incentivize him to eat pineapples?

So, for what AoS wants to do, points aren't just imperfect, they are detrimental. And the best alternative - the one with no innate flaws as a system - is to have no constraints at all. To let it be situational and up to the players. I'm sure you'll argue that the players are then the problem, but they are not a systematic flaw. There is no system. It's entirely situational. Even the rules are situational. If you find yourself in a good situation, it will be amazing. I think what most of the AoS deniers argue is that you won't be in a good situation or can't guarantee being in a good situation, but I think they come from an ideological place rather than a practical one. Maybe AoS can't guarantee a good opponent, but maybe it is really good in pointing out that bad ones before you play? (and for some players, that's even better)

So basically, the tl:dr is it's too big to balance. Personal taste. New stuff could shake things up. it's better to eyeball it for every game in order to achieve fun. And errata are bad because of personal preference. Ok, got it. And thank you.

Bear in mind, all games are infinitely expandable, new stuff does shake things up but can be costed right as well. And for what it's worth, errata are a solution.

So genuine question, (and bear in mind, I play this way with fow) how do you mix and match for a 'fair game' in aos? Surely, eyeballing it is as prone to error as the 'innately flawed' points system? Or for you, is the creativity this approach allows worth the error rate?

 Sqorgar wrote:

So you have an open system that is always changing in which none of the individual components are comparable. How do you balance apples vs oranges? You can't, because there is no basis for how many apples an orange is worth. And what happens when you start getting pears and pineapples? You can compare them based on things like weight or cost or calories, but there's just no accounting for taste, which is the important thing. You may be able to have 5 pineapple slices for the cost of 1 apple slice, but that doesn't mean you want the pineapple slices more. So, in this case, points would be detrimental because they they can not accurately compare one fruit with another..

To be fair, we are not talking about different fruits. We are talking about game elements sharing the same system. And you can design a universal currency and a system to value and weight them all.

 Sqorgar wrote:

So, for what AoS wants to do, points aren't just imperfect, they are detrimental. And the best alternative - the one with no innate flaws as a system - is to have no constraints at all. To let it be situational and up to the players. I'm sure you'll argue that the players are then the problem, but they are not a systematic flaw. There is no system. It's entirely situational. Even the rules are situational. If you find yourself in a good situation, it will be amazing. I think what most of the AoS deniers argue is that you won't be in a good situation or can't guarantee being in a good situation, but I think they come from an ideological place rather than a practical one. Maybe AoS can't guarantee a good opponent, but maybe it is really good in pointing out that bad ones before you play? (and for some players, that's even better)

Actually, you are partially incorrect. Since The players define and essentially are 'the system' in aos, then thry can be a systematic flaw. All you need is for someone to say 'no' or make a bad judgement call and you end up with a rubbish game. I do see value in it, but it also has potential to be 'innately flawed' to me.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I can't help but think that we want different things from our games. You want to, if not win, at least know how to win, as it defines how you think and act. I don't care about winning and want to be presented with a series of interesting decisions that I can experiment with in order to watch the mechanisms of gameplay interact. I would not play a game that I knew how to win, but presented the same scenario and choices every game.

This is the second time you try to assume how I think. Please don't. You don't know me. And for what it's worth, I don't see it as a zero/sumvor mutually exclusive. those two things you describe, I actually want both, in equal measure. Regarding wanting to know how to win 'defines how I think' is quite presumptuous of you. You don't know me.

 Sqorgar wrote:

To me, a game like Warmachine is only fun if people use vastly different units each game - I, myself, own five different armies. The people I play against will use the exact same army and units every battle, trying to maximize their effectiveness in different situations - to which, I alone am responsible for providing. I'm happy to do it, but the game will get very old, very quickly for me if it is strictly about competing through familiarity.

Sounds like your WMH group is very uncreative and unimaginative. It's a shame really - best thing about the game, IMO is trying out new stuff. Right there in page5.

For what it's worth, I appreciate your answers. Many thanks.