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.

Interesting point on having so many special rules that neuter basic rules.

Perhaps 40k should just do away with fear, pinning, morale and so on and just make it an ork special rule that whenever a mob wants to do something (or something happens to them) they take a leadership test or bad thing happen. Seems to be a close enough approximation of the current system, but really cuts down on rule book bloat!

 insaniak wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
The thing I don't hear people talking about is the relative cost for units.

Because this thread is discussing complexity, not balance.


But for what it's worth, a mathematical formula for what you want doesn't work. A lascannon is not worth the same amount to an assault marine as it is to a devastator, or a gretchin. The formula required to cover all of the relevant variables would be insane.

I respect that comment, and get the point that a lascannon is worth more to a devastator than an assault marine.

My perspective is the root cause of much of the complexity in the ruleset comes from a need to balance the game. What GW tries to accomplish through mechanics could be more easily accomplished using math. Not saying this would be a perfect system, or that it can entirely replace USRs and things like that, as there are a lot of variables and some imbalances are desirable.

But let's say the cost model is based on an individual part of a unit.

- You have a formula for character traits that takes into account T, S, A, Ld, giving each some weight.

- You have a formula for firepower, which takes into account S, AP, number of shots, distance, etc, and applies some modifier based on class of weapon.

- You have a formula for assault, which also takes into account S and AP, and applies some modifier for things like Power, Force and other special rules. Each SR could have it's own modifier.

- You have a formula for saves, which takes into account Saving Throws, Invulnerable, and a modifier for things like FNP.

- You have a formula for vehicles, which takes into account hull points, distance it can move, and applies a modifier for class of vehicle.

- You have a cost for USRs, which typically act as force multipliers, which is based on some factor like average unit size for the faction or unit. This counts for the fact a squad of Ork boys will not benefit from the USR the same way a squad of Havocs might.

- You have a cost for Psychic Mastery levels, which also act as force multipliers, which is based on a weight related to the types of powers the faction has access to. This counts for the fact Eldar can benefit from psychic powers more than Tyranids.

- You apply the five formulas to units of each faction to arrive at a cost that is balanced across each.

- You work out the cost for USRs and Psychic powers based on the faction, and maybe the units in the faction.

Using the example cited above, while a lascannon might work out to cost 25 points universally, the cost of the model also affects what happens. That Devastator model itself would have a cost that works out to more or less than the Assault Marine, while the cost of the gun would be isolated based on other factors relative to the cost of all weapons.

This would give a pretty interesting projection of the relative power of any individual unit in the game with a small number of variables. It would not be perfect in every use case, but it really don't need to be. 40k mechanics are more like horseshoes, where it's important to be in the range than to achieve some cathedral to perfection, This would simply eliminate the more egregious imbalances that exist, like the ones that lead to the need for more rules or massive changes to the way units perform between new editions.

Anyways, it's a way of getting into the genesis of rules moreso than the individual ones that get added with each new edition.

You can't compute points costs. They have to be determined empirically.

Martel732 wrote:
You can't compute points costs. They have to be determined empirically.

We can somehow calculate the weight of stars, movement of planets, and how many particles of matter inhabit a particular space/time but you're saying that it's mathematically impossible to compute point costs in a game. Yeah, I'm not buying it.

 agnosto wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You can't compute points costs. They have to be determined empirically.

We can somehow calculate the weight of stars, movement of planets, and how many particles of matter inhabit a particular space/time but you're saying that it's mathematically impossible to compute point costs in a game. Yeah, I'm not buying it.

I think a game with as many variables as 40K is NP hard. Also, your math formulas aren't taking combos into account.

I think "on topic" is "do you think 7th edition is too complicated."
Getting into points costs is not on topic unless you like to interpret it as "too complicated to assign points values fairly".

I would agree that for every codex rule that works around a BRB special rule or main rule does add complexity (or "jumbled mess" as pointed out).
I had high hopes that all rules could be contained in the BRB since there were a fair number of them and we could pick and choose for each army unit but that got cast aside rather quickly.

So "too complicated" in regards to being "hard to understand", "no fun" or just "hard to keep track of it all"?
I would say hard to keep track of it all is my biggest challenge.

IG-YG, too much random or bad points values bring different issues to the game.

Martel732 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You can't compute points costs. They have to be determined empirically.

We can somehow calculate the weight of stars, movement of planets, and how many particles of matter inhabit a particular space/time but you're saying that it's mathematically impossible to compute point costs in a game. Yeah, I'm not buying it.

I think a game with as many variables as 40K is NP hard. Also, your math formulas aren't taking combos into account.

40k may be EXPTIME hard, but it's not NP hard. There are a finite number of actions that can be made by any pair of armies, it's the number of turns and lack of predictable placement of pieces that make it hard to observe this phenomenon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXPTIME

Probability alone is not something that takes some actions outside the NP range, which is usually the justification people use when they make this claim. Eventually, with enough trials and the right instrumentation, it would be possible to demonstrate the outcomes of every move in every combination along with the probability some combination will lead to the winning outcome in 5 - 7 turns. No one has the interest in / resources for creating such a demonstration.

Go is now generally considered EXPTIME hard, after having been considered NP Hard for a long time. Google built an AI bot that has been beating Go world masters. What's interesting about the AI is the fact it makes decisions based on the historical knowledge about games it has learned by playing itself. Once a move is made, it knows the outcome of every possible move someone could make in response, and uses that to beat other players. There is some interesting talk about this going on right now.

https://games.slashdot.org/story/17/01/04/2022236/googles-alphago-ai-secretively-won-more-than-50-straight-games-against-worlds-top-go-players?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed

Let's say, theoretically, 40k was an NP Hard game. All this means is that the consequences of some actions cannot be effectively modeled in a predictable fashion. Fine. Take the elements of the game that can be predicted and build a model around them, it will account for 99.99% of the actions any player will ever take. The other 0.01% will never happen, or people not notice when they do. Put some assumptions into the model, such as people are always playing on a 4x6 table, or that people are always playing with a specific mission, and that 0.01% becomes more like 0.001%.

Or we just pay some gamers in free models to play test. It becomes obvious REALLY fast which units are too cheap.

EXPTIME is a little easier when you have a move that is absolute like chess or go.
The random variation built into the 40k game in many elements escalate the complexity to those calculation to the point of being meaningless.
40k is rather rife with random results to a choice.
Moving through cover, assault moves, slow and purposeful... whole bunch of variable moves, never-mind the various blast templates.
There is a reason why you hear about chess or go "masters" and very little to with games that depend on chance heavily.
It IS too complicated to make a library of known opening moves with any certainty since there are so many dependencies for them to pay off.

Deep striking a knight or infiltrating a bishop on a random turn would certainly make chess "interesting" to say the least.
Why does it feel like sacrilege even uttering 40k in the same breath as chess?

<edit> I find 40k is more a lesson on trying to mitigate the random elements so that a more "known" outcome can be achieved.
Preventing units from coming under fire, AP, getting re-rolls, use of templates (flamer type) remove dice rolling at least for some elements.

 Talizvar wrote:
EXPTIME is a little easier when you have a move that is absolute like chess or go.
The random variation built into the 40k game in many elements escalate the complexity to those calculation to the point of being meaningless.
40k is rather rife with random results to a choice.
Moving through cover, assault moves, slow and purposeful... whole bunch of variable moves, never-mind the various blast templates.
There is a reason why you hear about chess or go "masters" and very little to with games that depend on chance heavily.
It IS too complicated to make a library of known opening moves with any certainty since there are so many dependencies for them to pay off.

Deep striking a knight or infiltrating a bishop on a random turn would certainly make chess "interesting" to say the least.
Why does it feel like sacrilege even uttering 40k in the same breath as chess?

<edit> I find 40k is more a lesson on trying to mitigate the random elements so that a more "known" outcome can be achieved.
Preventing units from coming under fire, AP, getting re-rolls, use of templates (flamer type) remove dice rolling at least for some elements.

True, the number of possible moves in Chess is a lot less complex than 40k. But we live in the world of big data.

Google's AI Go bot has beaten 50 Go masters straight in the last 50 games, baseball's PECOTA system picks ERA and OPS with a tiny margin of error, HRC's campaign was simulating the election 400,000 times nightly for 6 months before the election, etc.

I would say there's a lot more chance involved in baseball than in 40k. Are you saying this factor makes it impossible to model?

While I'm not familiar with EXPTIME or the other assessment tools... Movement capability should have a value assigned to it, as a more mobile unit is more able to engage / avoid it's targets.

From there, you have infinite gradients of movement distance and direction. And you have multiple units moving over the course of several turns... so you wind up with infinite probabilities exponentially expanding other infinite possibilities exponentially changing based on exact positioning vs survival vs... etc etc.

Baseball focusses on a small selection of opposed stats. On Base Batter percentage vs Pitcher's ERA, sort of thing. This distances a runner must make are fixed. At any given time, there are always 9 defensive units, while there are 1 to 4 offensive units on the field. You have two units, one with 9 models and one with between 1 and 4 models interacting.

40k is substantially more numerous than that.

Hypothetically, you could break movement down into 10 degree increments, and assume "whole number" movement in inches, leaving a typical infantry unit with 216 possible positions, each movement, altered by terrain potential... assuming no further movement was made, like running. An Eldar Jetbike has a potential 60" of movement, if I recall. Even assuming that there are only 36 directions it could choose from, it would have 2160 positions it could move to, presuming the entire squad maintained formation! Admittedly, the board isn't that big, so many of those positions would be illegal, taking you off the board, but still.

If they started in the centre of the board, they could for example move to any 1" square coordinate. If so, it would have 48 x 72 = 3456 potential movement positions, assuming all members of the squad maintained formation. [In fairness, exclude a handful at the edges as models would fall off the board...] but that over 7 turns is 24 000 potential movements. With 4 such units, you'd have combinations of those 24 000, leading to 331 QUADRILLION movement combinations... for one player with 4 units. No dice rolled. Just horribly, super-sloppy estimated movement combinations, with an infinitely large board allowing for positions outside the 4x6 board... but the point stands. Numbers beyond belief would be generated.

 greatbigtree wrote:
While I'm not familiar with EXPTIME or the other assessment tools... Movement capability should have a value assigned to it, as a more mobile unit is more able to engage / avoid it's targets.

From there, you have infinite gradients of movement distance and direction. And you have multiple units moving over the course of several turns... so you wind up with infinite probabilities exponentially expanding other infinite possibilities exponentially changing based on exact positioning vs survival vs... etc etc.

Baseball focusses on a small selection of opposed stats. On Base Batter percentage vs Pitcher's ERA, sort of thing. This distances a runner must make are fixed. At any given time, there are always 9 defensive units, while there are 1 to 4 offensive units on the field. You have two units, one with 9 models and one with between 1 and 4 models interacting.

40k is substantially more numerous than that.

Hypothetically, you could break movement down into 10 degree increments, and assume "whole number" movement in inches, leaving a typical infantry unit with 216 possible positions, each movement, altered by terrain potential... assuming no further movement was made, like running. An Eldar Jetbike has a potential 60" of movement, if I recall. Even assuming that there are only 36 directions it could choose from, it would have 2160 positions it could move to, presuming the entire squad maintained formation! Admittedly, the board isn't that big, so many of those positions would be illegal, taking you off the board, but still.

If they started in the centre of the board, they could for example move to any 1" square coordinate. If so, it would have 48 x 72 = 3456 potential movement positions, assuming all members of the squad maintained formation. [In fairness, exclude a handful at the edges as models would fall off the board...] but that over 7 turns is 24 000 potential movements. With 4 such units, you'd have combinations of those 24 000, leading to 331 QUADRILLION movement combinations... for one player with 4 units. No dice rolled. Just horribly, super-sloppy estimated movement combinations, with an infinitely large board allowing for positions outside the 4x6 board... but the point stands. Numbers beyond belief would be generated.

Stars move, different stars move at different speeds; planets move, different planets move at different rates and in different orbits, the same for moons. Somehow we're able to calculate those seemingly endless variables.

But really, you need not be that granular in calculating the representative point value of a unit's mobility as it won't be based on how far the model could possibly move but rather how far and in what manner it is capable of moving which, in the current game, is fairly limited.

Evaluating units in a vacuum can be done but it doesn't produce meaningful results. Magic the Gathering has a system like this, and yet they're always releasing errata because broken cards get created because of combos, that are simply not caught in any kind of formulae. For instance, Tolarian Academy was a card wherein a turn 1 kill was possible. No formula caught that, though, because it required multiple cards to execute.

Additionally there are key "non stat" variables which impact every single game and decision. All your calculations would be made without factoring in terrain, for instance. Units that move with ease over difficult terrain have empirically more value in a situation where the entire board is difficult terrain.

The best way to catch imbalances is rigorous playtesting of complex rulesets, and even that isn't perfect. Choice - which is derived from complexity - make the game fun.

Combos are always what kill in 40K, with a few exceptions, like WK and scatbike.

Grav cents are perfectly fair w/o invis and gate.

Most death stars don't function w/o invis.

Hrm, Gravcents are only perfectly fair in a relative sense. Im sure units like Obliterators, Terminators, Paladins, etc would strongly disagree.

Relentless rerolling grav cannons really do bring a somewhat absurd level of firepower and versatility into play.

Lascannons can take them out long before they get within range, though. Without invis, they are rather sitting duckish. Now, if they got storm shields like the space puppies, this changes a lot. Which is why space puppies can run over entire lists without trying hard.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, Gravcents are only perfectly fair in a relative sense. Im sure units like Obliterators, Terminators, Paladins, etc would strongly disagree.

Relentless rerolling grav cannons really do bring a somewhat absurd level of firepower and versatility into play.

Yes and you're also paying 240 points for 3 of them and their range is maxed out at 24".

Im paying about that much for 3 far less capable Obliterators

Okay, well something needs to change there, but I'm just highlighting combos.

 agnosto wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
While I'm not familiar with EXPTIME or the other assessment tools... Movement capability should have a value assigned to it, as a more mobile unit is more able to engage / avoid it's targets.

From there, you have infinite gradients of movement distance and direction. And you have multiple units moving over the course of several turns... so you wind up with infinite probabilities exponentially expanding other infinite possibilities exponentially changing based on exact positioning vs survival vs... etc etc.

Baseball focusses on a small selection of opposed stats. On Base Batter percentage vs Pitcher's ERA, sort of thing. This distances a runner must make are fixed. At any given time, there are always 9 defensive units, while there are 1 to 4 offensive units on the field. You have two units, one with 9 models and one with between 1 and 4 models interacting.

40k is substantially more numerous than that.

Hypothetically, you could break movement down into 10 degree increments, and assume "whole number" movement in inches, leaving a typical infantry unit with 216 possible positions, each movement, altered by terrain potential... assuming no further movement was made, like running. An Eldar Jetbike has a potential 60" of movement, if I recall. Even assuming that there are only 36 directions it could choose from, it would have 2160 positions it could move to, presuming the entire squad maintained formation! Admittedly, the board isn't that big, so many of those positions would be illegal, taking you off the board, but still.

If they started in the centre of the board, they could for example move to any 1" square coordinate. If so, it would have 48 x 72 = 3456 potential movement positions, assuming all members of the squad maintained formation. [In fairness, exclude a handful at the edges as models would fall off the board...] but that over 7 turns is 24 000 potential movements. With 4 such units, you'd have combinations of those 24 000, leading to 331 QUADRILLION movement combinations... for one player with 4 units. No dice rolled. Just horribly, super-sloppy estimated movement combinations, with an infinitely large board allowing for positions outside the 4x6 board... but the point stands. Numbers beyond belief would be generated.

Stars move, different stars move at different speeds; planets move, different planets move at different rates and in different orbits, the same for moons. Somehow we're able to calculate those seemingly endless variables.

But really, you need not be that granular in calculating the representative point value of a unit's mobility as it won't be based on how far the model could possibly move but rather how far and in what manner it is capable of moving which, in the current game, is fairly limited.

Respectfully, what I suggested is breaking the game down into a set of 7 categories to measure relative value of units. The point was this may be superior to the current system, which is Matt-Ward-types making stuff up as they go along with limited playtesting.

It seems like you are suggesting this could never work because it's impossible to model every variable.

Perhaps this attitude towards math is the reason we have rules bloat.

I've been on Proposed Rules, ranting about ways to make "pre-game powers" non-random, as my view is and always will be that sort of thing belongs in army creation.

Do that, and the game moves so much faster as you don't have so much setup to deal with!

 Vaktathi wrote:
Im paying about that much for 3 far less capable Obliterators

Yeah and you also have an invuln save and more weapon choices.

But none of this is related to the original charter of the thread which is complexity, so i'll just concede to you that the game isn't balanced. lol.

For me, I don't view it as complexity as much as over-done. While there is a thoughtful strategy game buried in 40k, a lot of the game feels like you're playing against the game rather than your opponent, as though you were playing Chutes & Ladders but have to roll a die to roll a die to roll a die to see where you land.

I think AOSification would work if it was 10 pages. We would need things on points costs, detachments, FOCs and the like. Warscrolls would have to be bigger as well because of all the upgrades.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Respectfully, what I suggested is breaking the game down into a set of 7 categories to measure relative value of units. The point was this may be superior to the current system, which is Matt-Ward-types making stuff up as they go along with limited playtesting.

It seems like you are suggesting this could never work because it's impossible to model every variable.

Perhaps this attitude towards math is the reason we have rules bloat.

I don't recall "movement" being one of your categories, and my point was that it would be rather difficult to set a relative value for a unit that could move to any point on the board, vs one that can't. Without being able to determine a relative value to that movement [having been on the using and used against side of things] a living Jetbike unit can move to any point on the board. Given that many games require the claiming of objectives, what's the relative value between being able to potentially claim any objective, vs being able to claim an objective within 12" max? I'm saying that's a critical value you are ignoring in your setup.

Thus, it would be impossible to determine a value based on your proposed setup, as it does not factor a critical facet of the game.

Even a Wraith Knight's Initiative 5 is crucial to its value. Particularly when dealing with other SHV or Gargantuans. Not at all factored into your setup.

Your last comment is utterly meaningless. For one thing, I love statistics. I do them for fun. [Yeah, I'm that exciting.] My enjoyment of statistics has nothing to do with rules bloat. I'd humbly suggest you take some time to learn how to craft a reasoned argument. The statement doesn't even have functional sense, much less prove a point.

Measuring the movement of stars and planets is surely possible. They move predictably. No unexpected d6 rolls causing sudden collisions between planets as they pass through difficult terrain. All movements are measurable and predictable. One planet doesn't suddenly accelerate to 1.667 times it's velocity [Sorry Atmosphere, I'll miss you!] because I decide to run in the movement phase and roll a 4. Again, you aren't comparing the same thing. A planet's movement is as predictable as Chess, within less than a percentage point. The movement of units, much less models, is not. You compare Apples to the Warp.

Soooo.... yeah. It could be done, but is SUBSTANTIALLY more complex than mapping star movements. When something is completely unpredicatable, as in the movement capability of the Eldar Jet Bike to move anywhere on the table, you create near-infinite, yet equally possible outcomes. Resulting in useless data, when all possibilities are equal. How does movement impact offensive capability, this turn, and into the future? How valuable is it to be able to move to a perfectly secure location? If your opponent can't "catch" you, you are 100% invulnerable. What's the value of a 1+ rerollable save?

Anyhow, it could be done, but is insanely complex and would require much more time to calculate than to playtest for... a decade? I'm being facetious, but the point is accurate. Heuristically, creating such a program would be impractical.

 Marmatag wrote:
Evaluating units in a vacuum can be done but it doesn't produce meaningful results. Magic the Gathering has a system like this, and yet they're always releasing errata because broken cards get created because of combos, that are simply not caught in any kind of formulae. For instance, Tolarian Academy was a card wherein a turn 1 kill was possible. No formula caught that, though, because it required multiple cards to execute.

Additionally there are key "non stat" variables which impact every single game and decision. All your calculations would be made without factoring in terrain, for instance. Units that move with ease over difficult terrain have empirically more value in a situation where the entire board is difficult terrain.

The best way to catch imbalances is rigorous playtesting of complex rulesets, and even that isn't perfect. Choice - which is derived from complexity - make the game fun.

I don't disagree with you, I just think it's possible to produce a more balanced rules-set and too easy to say, "nah, it's too hard/impossible." Saying something can't be calculated is a cop-out and gives GW a pass for their current lazy method of game development. The fact is that there will inevitably be a Tolarian Academy but where it's a minimum in many games, it's rampant in 40k.

My first question would be, do the rules need to be so complicated? I agree with others who have put forward that if they're spending all of their time making units immune to certain basic rules (i.e. fear), just get rid of that mechanic. If the bulk of the special rules are exemptions from the base rules, there's internal balancing issues that need to be addressed.

 agnosto wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Evaluating units in a vacuum can be done but it doesn't produce meaningful results. Magic the Gathering has a system like this, and yet they're always releasing errata because broken cards get created because of combos, that are simply not caught in any kind of formulae. For instance, Tolarian Academy was a card wherein a turn 1 kill was possible. No formula caught that, though, because it required multiple cards to execute.

Additionally there are key "non stat" variables which impact every single game and decision. All your calculations would be made without factoring in terrain, for instance. Units that move with ease over difficult terrain have empirically more value in a situation where the entire board is difficult terrain.

The best way to catch imbalances is rigorous playtesting of complex rulesets, and even that isn't perfect. Choice - which is derived from complexity - make the game fun.

I don't disagree with you, I just think it's possible to produce a more balanced rules-set and too easy to say, "nah, it's too hard/impossible." Saying something can't be calculated is a cop-out and gives GW a pass for their current lazy method of game development. The fact is that there will inevitably be a Tolarian Academy but where it's a minimum in many games, it's rampant in 40k.

My first question would be, do the rules need to be so complicated? I agree with others who have put forward that if they're spending all of their time making units immune to certain basic rules (i.e. fear), just get rid of that mechanic. If the bulk of the special rules are exemptions from the base rules, there's internal balancing issues that need to be addressed.

So I totally agree that the rules could be simplified, and simplicity would make the game easier to balance. Your example of fear is a perfect one. Additionally, they could get rid of some of the "one off" style rules, for example, Hellfrost.

I'm all for anything that makes the game more balanced.

That said, I don't think mathematical formulas are the best way to achieve this. I used MTG as an example because they do exactly this and there are always game breaking glaring balance issues. Type 2 exists because they gave up attempting to balance type 1 as the card pool got bigger and bigger. Blizzard, the kings of math analysis in video games, ultimately did the same thing with hearthstone, for basically the same reason, because after a point it becomes such an onerous task to have balance when you're looking mostly at math instead of just rigorous playtesting.

I guess my argument would be, the game would be better served if they simplified and streamlined the rulesets, removing certain rules that aren't applicable, merging them, what have you, and they did some serious play testing. Spending a ton of time creating formulas to encapsulate all that is 40k would be a waste.

 Marmatag wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Evaluating units in a vacuum can be done but it doesn't produce meaningful results. Magic the Gathering has a system like this, and yet they're always releasing errata because broken cards get created because of combos, that are simply not caught in any kind of formulae. For instance, Tolarian Academy was a card wherein a turn 1 kill was possible. No formula caught that, though, because it required multiple cards to execute.

Additionally there are key "non stat" variables which impact every single game and decision. All your calculations would be made without factoring in terrain, for instance. Units that move with ease over difficult terrain have empirically more value in a situation where the entire board is difficult terrain.

The best way to catch imbalances is rigorous playtesting of complex rulesets, and even that isn't perfect. Choice - which is derived from complexity - make the game fun.

I don't disagree with you, I just think it's possible to produce a more balanced rules-set and too easy to say, "nah, it's too hard/impossible." Saying something can't be calculated is a cop-out and gives GW a pass for their current lazy method of game development. The fact is that there will inevitably be a Tolarian Academy but where it's a minimum in many games, it's rampant in 40k.

My first question would be, do the rules need to be so complicated? I agree with others who have put forward that if they're spending all of their time making units immune to certain basic rules (i.e. fear), just get rid of that mechanic. If the bulk of the special rules are exemptions from the base rules, there's internal balancing issues that need to be addressed.

So I totally agree that the rules could be simplified, and simplicity would make the game easier to balance. Your example of fear is a perfect one. Additionally, they could get rid of some of the "one off" style rules, for example, Hellfrost.

I'm all for anything that makes the game more balanced.

That said, I don't think mathematical formulas are the best way to achieve this. I used MTG as an example because they do exactly this and there are always game breaking glaring balance issues. Type 2 exists because they gave up attempting to balance type 1 as the card pool got bigger and bigger. Blizzard, the kings of math analysis in video games, ultimately did the same thing with hearthstone, for basically the same reason, because after a point it becomes such an onerous task to have balance when you're looking mostly at math instead of just rigorous playtesting.

I guess my argument would be, the game would be better served if they simplified and streamlined the rulesets, removing certain rules that aren't applicable, merging them, what have you, and they did some serious play testing. Spending a ton of time creating formulas to encapsulate all that is 40k would be a waste.

Well sure, but I think we can agree that the real answer is somewhere in the middle. Math it out as far as you can but then perform extensive playtesting and fine tune. That still won't be a cure all but I guarantee it won't be any more broken than the game currently is.

The issue with having a formula to create 40k point costs is not that it's impossible to do, it's that the time and effort required to make a formula is significantly more than the time required to balance the game through the conventional approach of iterative playtesting. It doesn't matter if you could theoretically dump more than GW's entire annual revenue into funding an advanced AI program to make a 40k equivalent to the chess/go/etc AIs and get a successful result, it's not a practical solution.

To all those postulating creation of formula for 40K point cost and discussing computational difficulty, I have only one simple question:

- how you envision taking ENEMY models into account when calculating point costs? Straightforward example: Poison is worth absolute zero points when facing IG armoured list and Haywire USR is totaly useless against Tyranids.

One would have to assume some sort of "meta enviroment" of matchups probability to balance this, which is totaly unrealistic outside of tournament scene, and even within tournament scene point costs would have to be recalculated after every meta shift...