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.
koooaei wrote: Another problem with mathematically-based point costs is that eventually you end up with a game of potatoes. No matter what you take -everything's gona be equally effective. You could take an army of potatoes and they'd be as good as a space ship cause the game's perfectly balanced.
If you are seeking a balanced game then that's kind of the point. 2000 points is the same as your 2000 points.
I agree, that is the point of balance.
However, due to different weapon options, units would still be different in terms of their efficiency vs different units. For example, a Space Marine with a bolter might be as “balanced” as a Devestator with a lascannon, but the lascannon will do better vs tanks, while the bolter will do better vs chaff. That is then where strategy and the table come into play, as it’d force you to attempt to correctly use the units, or suffer an impact on overall efficiency.
And here is where part of the "omg fix this mess - the game is not balanced!1" is coming from. Tacticals may be well balanced mathematically but if you're only facing tanks, it doesn't seem so to you.
Yup, I really wish matched play had stricter army building rules that forced at least somewhat varied army construction. I'm not sure how exactly that would happen, but allowing people to take basically whatever they want means balanced play can never really happen. I'm not sure we are super far from decent balance in the game if people are taking varied lists. But with spam and skew lists we are anything but balanced.
Kdash wrote: Stop. I think people are trying to dive “too deep” here and making to too complicated.
First off, a lot of people are saying you have to factor in terrain, scenario, mission, deployment, setup etc etc. You don’t need to factor in any of that in order to balance units against each other. Using the previously mentioned Revier Grappling hook as an example – it is an option you can spend points on currently. You spend these points prior to knowing the table setup (in theory) making them a strategic choice. They have nothing to do with the “balance” of the unit in terms of base costing.
Terrain and mission etc are all part of the strategic side of the game, the part completely in the hands of the players. This should not have an impact on the points costs of units. A predator is still a predator regardless of whether it has a clear los across the table or whether there are los blocking items in front of it. It doesn’t affect the “mathematical efficiency” of the unit, but rather the “strategic worth” of the unit in that given situation. It’s offensive and defensive power in the situations where it arises are what should drive balance calculations – not the “oh, for some reason player 1 put his tank behind a wall and now can’t shoot at anything without moving”.
Balance can be driven by setting a benchmark for various sets of things –
1. Basic stat line
2. Weapons
3. Abilities
For example, a Tactical Marine is the basic stat line for every infantry model in the Marine army. Once assigned an “initial” points value you can then move onto the next stage and determine weapon costs based on their stats and abilities etc etc. Obviously a lot of trial and error would need to be used to begin with. But, once you have your basic costing, you can then move onto another variant of Marine, a Terminator, for example. Using the standard Marine base cost, you can then add, or more points based on a perceived cost of additional stats. Maybe +1 wound is 10 points, +1 armour save is 5 points, and gaining an invuln save of x = 20 points. Of course these are just made up numbers right now, but it is the kind of basic logic you’d need to follow. All weapons would be pointed based off their stats alone, ignoring the “platform” they are on, like they are currently (i.e a lascannon has the same price regardless of whether it is a predator, dev unit, dreadnought or flyer using it).
Abilities will be more tricky to nail down. Things like re-roll 1’s is easy enough – it provides a x% increase in a models offensive output. This can then be based off assumptions that it is used in conjunction with 2 5 man units, buffing the effectiveness of 11 models in total. However, abilities like “character”, “fly”, “psyker” etc would all need to be played with to find a starting trial value.
It would be a massive amount of time and effort in order to point the first army, but then you'd have a model to quickly transpose to all the other armies. The issue then becomes tweaking the costs of each value to ensure everything is reasonable (i.e a Guard Infantry model isnt like 15 points).
Sorry this is not true, the value of a lascannon is much higher if it can see every point within 48" than if it has a hard time drawing LOS more than 24" in most places, immobile artillery has a greater value in missions that don't involve claiming objectives or needing to move. Something can be great statwise, if it is bad at winning the game it is a bad unit. You mention abilities, the ability to ignore LOS for shooting has a different value on planet bowling ball than in city fight.
Of course the “in-game” value of a lascannon is more if it can see everything, than if it can’t – but that ISNT a case of weapon and model balance, that is a case of strategy and game setup. You can’t attempt to “price in” a ruin vs a mountain vs nothing.
If a lascannon shoots a target it will do x amount of damage. If a lascannon doesn’t shoot because of a wall, it’s “average” damage per shot output doesn’t change. Saying that you need to “price in” players good, or bad positioning is stupid. That is an aspect of strategy and generalmanship, not model balance.
If a weapon has the “ability” to ignore LoS then obviously you would then point that weapon accordingly for that ability – not change the points of a weapon that cannot ignore LoS…
Winning a game is all about correct placement, correct target prioritisation and correct decision making in relation to the game at hand.
If a unit has a great stat line but works out badly in one given game setup, is it a case that the “unit is bad” or “the unit was USED badly” in the given game?
What if it is more than one game setup? And you keep saying player decision. Unless the player is setting up the terrain, it may not be their decision but instead the terrain that dictates the effectiveness for the weapon, which has nothing to do with generalship or strategy. If you are playing on a table where you can never use the maximum range of the weapon no matter what decision you make that matters, just as a table with more LOS blocking terrain favors units that ignore LOS versus one with little to no LOS blocking terrain. So how should that be costed if we don't know what the terrain will be? Do we cost it assuming it will be able to hide in a good position for its range, or do we assume that it will be a situational ability?
Same with the lascannon, if the table set up or mission dicates that it won't be able to fire at peak efficiency for say 3 turns of the game, why is it still worth the same as it would be in a game where it shoots 5 times?
Your method is the following - cost everything as if we are playing in its optimal condition, then if those conditions are uncommon those units now suck, and those that frequently have optimal conditions are great. Which is what we have right now.
Player decision should be everything.
Terrain does have an impact on a weapons ability to reach its “max game effectiveness”, but, that then comes down to, as a player – “do I chose to take a turn or 2 of less effective firepower in order to survive/get into position, or do I play more aggressively in order to attempt to obtain maximum effectiveness?” That is all about strategy and generalship.
If you go to a tournament (competitive or not) you won’t be setting up the terrain. This means you need to plan accordingly at the point of list building and decide, based on personal preference what to take. Maybe you take a lascannon on a devastator, or maybe you take a multi melta on a landspeeder. That is the point of balance, where each unit has a role and performs on par with the other options and it is the players decision on what to take and how to use it. Just because something might not be 100% effective in every single game, does not suddenly make it’s value less.
If you personally set up the table in advance you can then list tailor to suit that particular table, but then, I’d say that is pretty unfair and unsportsmanlike (unless your opponent has the same opportunity), which then, again, leads to it being a players choice on what to bring, not “well in this situation x does better than y, so therefore y should be less points than x”.
40k is a giant game of rock-paper-sissors. Some table setups favour one type of army, another setup completely nerfs it. This has an impact on each game, of course, but it does NOT have an impact on the balance of a unit. If we play on a heavy terrain table and I just take Basilisks and you only take slow moving long ranged heavy weapons, of course I’ll destroy you. But, if you take loads of deep-striking assault units you’d destroy me. But then, if I take all the infantry spam and heavy weapons I’d then destroy your assault spam. Just because 1 unit or 1 setup counters another unit, it does not mean that all the units are “unbalanced”.
It would be the same price… because at point of list building it DOES HAVE the same worth, regardless of whether it can then only fire 3 times or 5 times….
The “optimal” condition would be the same for every single unit – all shooting and assault is possible. That is the “standard” of balancing things.
If you, as a player then put a unit into a situation that is not optimal, that has nothing to do with how balanced a unit is or not. Sure, it affects the units ability to act at 100%, but it doesn’t make a unit “unbalanced”. If I use a unit of jump pack units and keep hiding behind terrain so you can’t shoot me, that doesn’t suddenly make Assault Marines “OMG SO BROKEN NERF PLEASE”, it just means I’m playing the terrain better than you and you’d need to adapt to it. Likewise, if you setup a non LoS gunline behind terrain, I’d have to find the best way to use my units to counter you.
What we have right now, is rock-paper-scissors, however, what we also have is a large amount of units that are massively out of balance when compared to everything else when everything is in “optimal” conditions.
Mathammer is all about “averages”. Averages are ALWAYS based on optimal conditions. Which is why, right now we are able to identify all the outliers and see people winning tournaments with them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodai wrote: Not while maintaining unit differentiation and customizable armies. You're still going to run into the issue of Player A bringing only light machineguns while Player B brings only mainline tanks, or "All Snipers: The Army" having differing performance on Planet Bowling Ball vs. The Maze of Arbitrarily Tall Hedges.
Totally, but, that isn't an issue of balance, that is an issue of list building.
Now, in a narrative sense, these games can totally happen all the time, but then, as players you would agree the game setup, mission and points. It is also the case of - "well, tanks should always beat infantry with only machine guns anyway".
koooaei wrote: Another problem with mathematically-based point costs is that eventually you end up with a game of potatoes. No matter what you take -everything's gona be equally effective. You could take an army of potatoes and they'd be as good as a space ship cause the game's perfectly balanced.
If you are seeking a balanced game then that's kind of the point. 2000 points is the same as your 2000 points.
I agree, that is the point of balance.
However, due to different weapon options, units would still be different in terms of their efficiency vs different units. For example, a Space Marine with a bolter might be as “balanced” as a Devestator with a lascannon, but the lascannon will do better vs tanks, while the bolter will do better vs chaff. That is then where strategy and the table come into play, as it’d force you to attempt to correctly use the units, or suffer an impact on overall efficiency.
And here is where part of the "omg fix this mess - the game is not balanced!1" is coming from. Tacticals may be well balanced mathematically but if you're only facing tanks, it doesn't seem so to you.
Totally, 100%. Player perception of balance is massively different to actual balance. But you can't have both. And, at that point, you unfortunately need to ask the question of where it is the games fault, or both players fault.
koooaei wrote: Another problem with mathematically-based point costs is that eventually you end up with a game of potatoes. No matter what you take -everything's gona be equally effective. You could take an army of potatoes and they'd be as good as a space ship cause the game's perfectly balanced.
If you are seeking a balanced game then that's kind of the point. 2000 points is the same as your 2000 points.
I agree, that is the point of balance.
However, due to different weapon options, units would still be different in terms of their efficiency vs different units. For example, a Space Marine with a bolter might be as “balanced” as a Devestator with a lascannon, but the lascannon will do better vs tanks, while the bolter will do better vs chaff. That is then where strategy and the table come into play, as it’d force you to attempt to correctly use the units, or suffer an impact on overall efficiency.
And here is where part of the "omg fix this mess - the game is not balanced!1" is coming from. Tacticals may be well balanced mathematically but if you're only facing tanks, it doesn't seem so to you.
Yup, I really wish matched play had stricter army building rules that forced at least somewhat varied army construction. I'm not sure how exactly that would happen, but allowing people to take basically whatever they want means balanced play can never really happen. I'm not sure we are super far from decent balance in the game if people are taking varied lists. But with spam and skew lists we are anything but balanced.
I agree, that I feel that matched play should have stricter list building restrictions, but this does not affect overall balance of the game. If all the units were balanced and had identifiable roles, you should be able to take whatever you want. It then becomes a challenge of “can your opponent build a list to match, or can you play your army in all situations.”
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 13:57:05
@Kdash - Sorry but I still disagree, unit balance does not exist in a vacuum, terrain does matter to how effective certain units are. If every game is city fight a lascannon devastator squad is not worth its points compared to a more mobile options. Thus is not properly balanced. If terrain is typically a more balanced set up then it comes down to generalship but the value of unit abilities absolutely is dependent on what type of game you are playing, and unless you know this ahead of time the game is not balanced, because you cannot reasonably make informed choices about which units will be effective. By your argument range should not be factored into weapon cost because it does not matter how many times you are likely to fire said weapon when thinking about its cost. Which I'm sure you don't agree with. My point is that unless terrain is standardized to some degree it is not possible to accurately value units.
The same is true with list building restrictions. It is not possible for the game to be balanced. You say if units had identifiable roles than you should be able to take whatever you want. This simply isn't true. If I have 3 anti-infantry units and 3 anti-tank units and you bring 10 tanks, the game ceases to be balanced. Only when you can have some expectation of units in a variety of roles can you have balance. Unless missions are designed to punish skew builds in some way, but as long as tabling is a win condition this is unlikely.
For instance a Leman russ could be balanced, but 10 Leman russes is a very different balance consideration as it has the ability to render a good portion of your opponents units sub-optimal. The opposite is also true, if you bring 10 Russes and I bring 50 Lascannons, the game will not be balanced.
The meta may find some semblance of balance in this RPS environment but any individual game has a chance of being poorly balanced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 14:28:19
The value of units changes based on their strategic situation.
The ideal "balance" I think would be 'expensive, elite armies get beaten in headon fights with big, lumbering, slow armies. BUT, being small and elite, should have much better force concentration, and then with good play be able to take advantage of the terrain and setup to put pressure on only a single portion of the larger, slower force at a time, chewing it apart with superior 1v1 engagements over and over again, rather than trying to 1v30 all at once.'
I hope that makes sense.
Anyways, you can see how unit value changes. If you give the large lumbering horde army a bunch of ignores LOS shooting, then you've essentially removed the elite army's ability to use terrain to help with their force concentration and to chew up the enemy force. However, if there is too little terrain, then the elite army could shoot up the ignore LOSers, and since they cost points, the horde army paid an opportunity cost by not bringing tougher vehicles that could have endured the shooting.
Conversely the elite army could also be immobile in many ways (tied to Guilliman for example). This decreases their effectiveness, as the enemy, despite being a larger, slower, harder-to-deploy force, can control the engagement. It is a question of whether or not staying in place (in Guilliman's aura) increases efficiency enough to compensate for the loss of the strategic advantage of force concentration.
Unfortunately for the Space Marines in our example, they lack to the tools to concentrate force easily, so "trading away mobility to be in Guilliman's aura" isn't a meaningful trade because they didn't have that much better mobility to begin with. But I digress.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 14:45:02
The value of units changes based on their strategic situation.
The ideal "balance" I think would be 'expensive, elite armies get beaten in headon fights with big, lumbering, slow armies. BUT, being small and elite, should have much better force concentration, and then with good play be able to take advantage of the terrain and setup to put pressure on only a single portion of the larger, slower force at a time, chewing it apart with superior 1v1 engagements over and over again, rather than trying to 1v30 all at once.'
I hope that makes sense.
Anyways, you can see how unit value changes. If you give the large lumbering horde army a bunch of ignores LOS shooting, then you've essentially removed the elite army's ability to use terrain to help with their force concentration and to chew up the enemy force. However, if there is too little terrain, then the elite army could shoot up the ignore LOSers, and since they cost points, the horde army paid an opportunity cost by not bringing tougher vehicles that could have endured the shooting.
Conversely the elite army could also be immobile in many ways (tied to Guilliman for example). This decreases their effectiveness, as the enemy, despite being a larger, slower, harder-to-deploy force, can control the engagement. It is a question of whether or not staying in place (in Guilliman's aura) increases efficiency enough to compensate for the loss of the strategic advantage of force concentration.
Unfortunately for the Space Marines in our example, they lack to the tools to concentrate force easily, so "trading away mobility to be in Guilliman's aura" isn't a meaningful trade because they didn't have that much better mobility to begin with. But I digress.
That would work if games were always on terrain heavy boards, and there was a distinct difference in mobility between those elite armies. Further the elite armies would need to be considerably stronger on a unit per unit basis and quickly be able to deal with the isolated forces. Asymmetric objectives could also aid in this vision. If my elite army is on an infiltrate and disrupt mission and thus have a different set of objectives this could make for more balanced games. When it largely comes down to just destroy the opponent certain unit roles become under valued.
Yes, that's true. I think the problems with elite armies currently are:
1) Not enough terrain - this is on the players 2) Not enough mobility - kind of. Some Elite armies actually do (e.g. Eldar), but some don't. Generally I put this on GW. It's all on GW if they say somewhere a 6x4 is the only way to play, because table space is the other issue that devalues (or overvalues, depending) mobility. 3) Relative strength: I think this is generally achieved. I think 1 model vs 1 model, a Terminator, Custodes, or Grey Knight is markedly, drastically superior to a Guardsman, Termagaunt, or Ork. 4) Asymmetric objectives would absolutely help, but are very difficult to do in a wargame; if it's just a PUG and not planned ahead, then this could go wrong very quickly, with people gaming the system to get whatever specific set of objectives they wanted. 5) Destroy the opponent is a bad mission type for elites for sure - in general, I don't think the U.S. would send Delta Force out there to destroy a whole Russian Federation tank company in a straight fight, even if their training and equipment cost the same (e.g. "points cost").
That's part of the problem I see, actually. People bring e.g. 10 terminators and a bunch of vanguard vets to fight an Imperial Guard infantry company supported by two tank platoons and some scout recon elements in an open-field battle, and then wonder why they lost...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 15:02:13
Yes, that's true. I think the problems with elite armies currently are:
1) Not enough terrain - this is on the players
2) Not enough mobility - kind of. Some Elite armies actually do (e.g. Eldar), but some don't. Generally I put this on GW. It's all on GW if they say somewhere a 6x4 is the only way to play, because table space is the other issue that devalues (or overvalues, depending) mobility.
3) Relative strength: I think this is generally achieved. I think 1 model vs 1 model, a Terminator, Custodes, or Grey Knight is markedly, drastically superior to a Guardsman, Termagaunt, or Ork.
4) Asymmetric objectives would absolutely help, but are very difficult to do in a wargame; if it's just a PUG and not planned ahead, then this could go wrong very quickly, with people gaming the system to get whatever specific set of objectives they wanted.
5) Destroy the opponent is a bad mission type for elites for sure - in general, I don't think the U.S. would send Delta Force out there to destroy a whole Russian Federation tank company in a straight fight, even if their training and equipment cost the same (e.g. "points cost").
That's part of the problem I see, actually. People bring e.g. 10 terminators and a bunch of vanguard vets to fight an Imperial Guard infantry company supported by two tank platoons and some scout recon elements in an open-field battle, and then wonder why they lost...
Before I started messing with actual rules, my 7th ed games of Eldar vs Tyranids were ballanced exactly in such way - I designed games to be such asymmetric encounters with objectives and terrain supporting/hindering imballances. But this is good solution for close friends/people who have same approach to 40K (and understand the system well enough, as you must manage all aspects of the game: force selection, terrain layout, game lenght, winning conditions, everything) but it's completely unsuited for PUG (unless you happen to stumble upon a like-minded person) or tournament environment...
I’m not arguing that terrain doesn’t play a part in how effective a unit is in a game – I agree with you on that. What I am saying, is that the terrains effects shouldn’t have an impact on cost. If we start going down that route you end up with a dozen different points cost for the same unit, all depending on the specific terrain setup of a given table. Terrain should impact strategy, not define balance. This is simply because every table is different and the level of terrain is different. A common ground has to be found as a starting point. If a devastator unit gets 1 turn of shooting game 1, 3 turns game 2 and 5 turns game 5, how do you define its effectiveness? Base everything off only getting 3 turns a game? Or do you assign different costs for each of the 3 games? Of which, you won’t fully know until after the game. You also have to take into account a unit’s “threat” zone, even if it isn’t firing. In your cities table example, sure, the lascannons might not be able to shoot every turn, but how do you put a cost on their ability to control an entire section of the table, by denying it to your opponent if he wants his tanks to survive? You might not have shot that turn, but, suddenly you’ve made your opponent spend another turn of moving and not shooting in an attempt to survive.
Also, I’ve not said anything about a weapon’s range not being factored into its cost. Range is one of the factors that would be used to determine a weapons cost. Inferno Pistol, Meltagun and Multi-melta are all examples of this, where they have the same damage output, but would be different costs due to range.
Unit balance would start to impact on skew builds though. Currently 3 anti-infantry and 3 anti-tank vs 10 tanks is skewed, I agree, but, is that because anti-tank is too expensive right now, or tanks too cheap? Let’s say you can now suddenly get 1.5 infantry anti-tank units per 1 tank, while still having the same number of units of infantry anti-infantry units due to the points changes. You’d then be looking at 15 anti-tank units to the 10 tanks. There wouldn’t then be a problem in regards to being able to take whatever you want. Unless everyone out there builds TAC lists every single game, you will always, in your view, have an “unbalanced game”, even if, when you look at the bigger picture, the game is balanced. You can’t micro manage every game.
@Unit I know and accept that a unit’s value is different in every single game, and often does fluctuate within the game as well. This is down to matchup though, not overall balance. If I come up against a horde army, but have 70% of my army setup to take out tanks and flyers, 70% of my army will find its value decrease, and the other 30% potentially increase. Likewise, if I come up against a load of tanks with only a small amount of infantry, the 70%’s value increases, up until the point where all the enemy’s tanks have been destroyed. At that point, 70% of my army instantly loses its value. Again, I would argue that this is more to do with list building than trying to balance the game overall. Taking 70% anti-tank SHOULD be able to be countered by hordes of infantry, rather than have the cost of the anti-tank adjusted just because x% of the time they are in a battle where they have nothing “efficient” to shoot at.
Choosing a set playstyle when you build your list is entirely your choice – you should always go into list building with a plan/idea. But, expecting the cost of units to change because of that choice, or because of terrain or because of matchup is just wrong. Everything is risk and reward. It would be like only taking a set list to a local store and then only picking 1 table to play on because it suits you, then only accept games from people who had lists you considered “balanced” for your army.
In my view, this is the arena of Narrative and Open play, not matched play (which should be the driver for balance). Narrative and Open would allow you to “change the rules” as such for those games where you want to field 3k points of infantry vs 2k points of tanks for example as attempts to have -fun- games with super skewed lists. It would be like me deciding Baneblades had to go up in cost so you could no longer get 3 in a 2k list. Now, this would make Unit sad, but would make lots of people in his club happy, but is not the answer to balance.
Balance must be looked at outside of individual games, and instead across the entire picture. If someone wants to skew their list completely to 1 style, then that is fine, but they should also understand the potential issues they will come up against by doing so.
So how is the value being different in every single game allow for mathematical balance?
You say thats "matchup" not "balance" but I would say that "unbalanced matchups" are undesirable, and if they exist, then the system is no different than it is now, because people would still run into unbalanced lists and have no fun.
I'm not really sure how you can divorce "matchup" and "balance" from eachother - could you explain that to me?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 15:39:37
Which I think is one reason they went down the rabbit hole of making terrain relatively useless. It doesn't have a large impact in games, therefore the balancing mechanism that they chose to use wouldn't be as impacted by it.
auticus wrote: Which I think is one reason they went down the rabbit hole of making terrain relatively useless. It doesn't have a large impact in games, therefore the balancing mechanism that they chose to use wouldn't be as impacted by it.
I think the problem though is they didn't touch the biggest terrain issue - LOS blockers. Regardless of the actual "cover" mechanics, requiring LOS for shooting attacks means that a battlefield that looks like a Zone Mortalis board is fundamentally going to hurt high-powered shooting units more than a board that looks like this.
In the former, charging units and shooting units without LOS are going to reign supreme, while regular shooting units like predator annihilators or leman russ tanks are just waiting, unable to shoot, until they're touched in combat and suddenly also unable to shoot.
In the latter, ground-pounding assault units and units that don't require LOS are really bad compared to Predator Annihilators and Leman Russes, because they lack durability and generally firepower compared to the other two - and there will ALWAYS be LOS.
You can totally make a formula to make unit characteristic balanced compared to their durability and ability to do damage. Obviously things like toughness wounds and saves scale differently as they combine together - this is easy to determine in regards to math. Things like mobility and weapon range are harder to balance - That kind of stuff would need to be play tested to determine the value of the mobility.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 16:00:11
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Yes, that's true. I think the problems with elite armies currently are:
1) Not enough terrain - this is on the players
2) Not enough mobility - kind of. Some Elite armies actually do (e.g. Eldar), but some don't. Generally I put this on GW. It's all on GW if they say somewhere a 6x4 is the only way to play, because table space is the other issue that devalues (or overvalues, depending) mobility.
3) Relative strength: I think this is generally achieved. I think 1 model vs 1 model, a Terminator, Custodes, or Grey Knight is markedly, drastically superior to a Guardsman, Termagaunt, or Ork.
4) Asymmetric objectives would absolutely help, but are very difficult to do in a wargame; if it's just a PUG and not planned ahead, then this could go wrong very quickly, with people gaming the system to get whatever specific set of objectives they wanted.
5) Destroy the opponent is a bad mission type for elites for sure - in general, I don't think the U.S. would send Delta Force out there to destroy a whole Russian Federation tank company in a straight fight, even if their training and equipment cost the same (e.g. "points cost").
That's part of the problem I see, actually. People bring e.g. 10 terminators and a bunch of vanguard vets to fight an Imperial Guard infantry company supported by two tank platoons and some scout recon elements in an open-field battle, and then wonder why they lost...
1.) Somewhat on the players, but if GW gave some guidance as to what was expected it would be good. They used to at least have the 25% guideline. But even just some pictures of example tables saying, " this is the kind of terrain we tested the game on" would be nice.
2.) Yup table space is an issue as points costs have gone down, mobility has become less useful.
3.) I think 1 model vs 1 model doesn't work so well, when say a terminator costs as much as 10 guardsman. So a terminator should be able to deal with say 2 or 3 guardsman easily if he gets the drop on them.
4.) Other games manage it. malifaux for instance. If you randomly generate the objectives and have say 4 or 5 to choose from it works ok. If you look at NOVA or ITC secondaries this is a good example of how some of this could be done.
You think terrain is useless? Okay. It has tremendous impact on how the game plays out.
No not really. Not unless you custom build line of sight blocking terrain, to which you risk your community squaking that you are modeling for advantage and that you should only use GW kits for terrain so that they can continue having full line of sight everywhere.
Terrain doesn't do much of anything except serve up as decoration the vast majority of the time.
Its role is largely ornamental with the occasional mechanical benefit.
Mobility is largely a waste these days. You don't need it when you can just alpha puke onto your opponent.
I've played through dozens of games with standard GW terrain as the rule, and line of sight is largely not inhibited anywhere. It doesn't slow you down. It doesn't cause deep strike mishaps anymore. GW kits don't block line of sight without heavy modifications or houserules. It doesn't influence the game largely in any direction and you could get similar results from most of the games I've seen with no terrain at all on a flat table.
If you could give a list of benefits of what terrain offers besides being ornamental, I'd great love to hear what you have to offer, because right now when compared with proper wargames, the terrain in 40k doesn't do much of anything and I think that is very much intentional.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 16:07:54
1) I suppose. The problem is that tournaments will throw all of it out and do their own thing anyways, and casual players don't have access to a deep terrain pool, so they'll see "NEAT!" and do their own thing anyways. Plus, it seems pedantic, but you could have the exact same ruins in the exact same place, but if one has a window it's immediately wayyy different in a very important way.
2) Yes. I think table space is actually the largest problem with 40k right now, but that's my opinion and I don't really have any data to back it up.
3) I think a Terminator can, rather easily, deal with 2 or 3 guardsmen in the current standing. Storm bolter + powerfist basic terminator deep striking will kill 1.19 guardsmen in shooting, and then (if he gets the charge) .83 in combat with his power fist. So that's just over 2 guardsmen right there (with the difference between it being 2 and 3 guardsmen being one 4+ to hit roll on a powerfist strike).
4) Malifaux is infinitely smaller. Part of the issue with 40k is scale - it is actually possible in 40k to (forgive the bad analogy but it's along the lines of the sheer diversity 40k has) end up with Delta Force (500 points of adeptus custodes) fighting an open-field battle against a Typhoon-class submarine (a Marauder Destroyer) in the middle of Tenochtitlan (Feudal Word city set on a lake) in 1503 (arbitrary year, sorry). It's ... a bit hard to just come up with asymmetric objectives.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 16:11:46
Kdash wrote: I’m not arguing that terrain doesn’t play a part in how effective a unit is in a game – I agree with you on that. What I am saying, is that the terrains effects shouldn’t have an impact on cost. If we start going down that route you end up with a dozen different points cost for the same unit, all depending on the specific terrain setup of a given table. Terrain should impact strategy, not define balance. This is simply because every table is different and the level of terrain is different. A common ground has to be found as a starting point. If a devastator unit gets 1 turn of shooting game 1, 3 turns game 2 and 5 turns game 5, how do you define its effectiveness? Base everything off only getting 3 turns a game? Or do you assign different costs for each of the 3 games? Of which, you won’t fully know until after the game. You also have to take into account a unit’s “threat” zone, even if it isn’t firing. In your cities table example, sure, the lascannons might not be able to shoot every turn, but how do you put a cost on their ability to control an entire section of the table, by denying it to your opponent if he wants his tanks to survive? You might not have shot that turn, but, suddenly you’ve made your opponent spend another turn of moving and not shooting in an attempt to survive.
Also, I’ve not said anything about a weapon’s range not being factored into its cost. Range is one of the factors that would be used to determine a weapons cost. Inferno Pistol, Meltagun and Multi-melta are all examples of this, where they have the same damage output, but would be different costs due to range.
Unit balance would start to impact on skew builds though. Currently 3 anti-infantry and 3 anti-tank vs 10 tanks is skewed, I agree, but, is that because anti-tank is too expensive right now, or tanks too cheap? Let’s say you can now suddenly get 1.5 infantry anti-tank units per 1 tank, while still having the same number of units of infantry anti-infantry units due to the points changes. You’d then be looking at 15 anti-tank units to the 10 tanks. There wouldn’t then be a problem in regards to being able to take whatever you want. Unless everyone out there builds TAC lists every single game, you will always, in your view, have an “unbalanced game”, even if, when you look at the bigger picture, the game is balanced. You can’t micro manage every game.
The issue is then tanks are a poor choice if your opponent gets 15 presumably effective anti-tank units to 10 tanks, and get other units, while the tank player only has tanks. Why take tanks in this case. The point of restricting army composition as part of balance is that it to an extent forces TAC lists because that is where the game can be balanced.
On the terrain angle all I'm saying is that GW needs to provide guidelines around what type of terrain was used for testing/balancing units. You cannot design units that are both worth while in dense terrain, and equally worth while in open terrain unless all units function the same way. IF there is no guideline then tournament standards decide what the effective units are by dictating what standard terrain set ups look like. To me this is the difference between matched play and narrative play for balance. GW should do something like, "for a balanced game we suggest that you play 1500 points on a 6 x4 table with ~33% terrain coverage, at least 1/3rd of this terrain should block LOS." Then provide some examples of balanced terrain layouts. This gives players an idea of what type of game was used to balance the units.
To the range question, you said it doesn't matter how many times a weapon shoots during the game. If that is true range is largely irrelevant other than as a defensive measure.
Regarding the initial question: There are just too many non-linear equations in several varialbes to balance it!
Even finding the right cost of a model only by its stats is hard, but maybe possible. But as soon as you consider category (with limits to detachments), special (army) rules or possible synergies with other units, it really gets sophisticated.
The problem is usally that you really have to price the best combination with other army elements in which a unit can appear. (WH40k is not really good in solving this problem...) It's often about saturation of certain elements that grant non-linear increasing strength: while most armies can handle a few tough units and a few horde units, they often fail if some saturation is met. But that's where (local) meta often gets into play. But this requires all armies to have certain tools to deal with stuff... Really not easy.
I've been thinking on this a little bit in terms of the T9A-project (i.e. the most balanced version of fantasy battles)...
Conclusion: It's better to make good guesses and do price adjustments by extensive playtesting... and be restrictive with options!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 16:19:07
Unit1126PLL wrote: 1) I suppose. The problem is that tournaments will throw all of it out and do their own thing anyways, and casual players don't have access to a deep terrain pool, so they'll see "NEAT!" and do their own thing anyways. Plus, it seems pedantic, but you could have the exact same ruins in the exact same place, but if one has a window it's immediately wayyy different in a very important way.
2) Yes. I think table space is actually the largest problem with 40k right now, but that's my opinion and I don't really have any data to back it up.
3) I think a Terminator can, rather easily, deal with 2 or 3 guardsmen in the current standing. Storm bolter + powerfist basic terminator deep striking will kill 1.19 guardsmen in shooting, and then (if he gets the charge) .83 in combat with his power fist. So that's just over 2 guardsmen right there (with the difference between it being 2 and 3 guardsmen being one 4+ to hit roll on a powerfist strike).
4) Malifaux is infinitely smaller. Part of the issue with 40k is scale - it is actually possible in 40k to (forgive the bad analogy but it's along the lines of the sheer diversity 40k has) end up with Delta Force (500 points of adeptus custodes) fighting an open-field battle against a Typhoon-class submarine (a Marauder Destroyer) in the middle of Tenochtitlan (Feudal Word city set on a lake) in 1503 (arbitrary year, sorry). It's ... a bit hard to just come up with asymmetric objectives.
1.) Guidance for balance would still be good, and tournaments (if the game was actually balanced) would be likely to make use of such guidance. Right now because the game is not balanced tournaments do their own thing.
3.) That does not sound all that easy, since he is not very likely to make the charge.
4.) Not really, you just need to provide options at the outset for objectives so players can make a choice about which they think they can achieve. Tournaments are doing this right now.
1) Fair enough, though I still think making hard & fast "rules" for terrain placement will be a bad idea, while making "suggestions" will end up like most of the "suggestions" in the current rule-book i.e. ignored.
3) Depends on if he is a Black Templar or not! There are ways to ensure he gets the charge - Chapter Tactics & Command Re-Rolls come to mind, at least in the case of loyalist terminators - but now we have to expand out to force multiplication and stuff like that. Stuff that has costs (CPs or Points or even Opportunity Costs) - but generally, I do think most elite units can 1v1 or even 1v2 or 1v3 most horde units, model per model.
4) This is true, but still kind of gamey. Like the difference between "First Blood" and "First Strike" at NOVA was no contest at all - "first strike" was always the better choice. It's 'false choice' in many ways. But yes, having this in the game would improve it dramatically I think.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 16:32:24
For my money I think you need hard and fast rules for terrain. Back in the olden days of 40k and whfb we had a terrain chart and you rolled D3 pieces of terrain per table quarter. Thats how everyone did their tables and built armies accordingly.
"Suggestions" are always ignored. People don't want suggestions. They want hard and fast rules.
Without hard and fast rules you get arguments and salty butthurt if mr shooty player plays mr assault player who drops down customized large builddings that block LOS because no one can claim the rules disallow or allow it.
auticus wrote: For my money I think you need hard and fast rules for terrain. Back in the olden days of 40k and whfb we had a terrain chart and you rolled D3 pieces of terrain per table quarter. Thats how everyone did their tables and built armies accordingly.
"Suggestions" are always ignored. People don't want suggestions. They want hard and fast rules.
Without hard and fast rules you get arguments and salty butthurt if mr shooty player plays mr assault player who drops down customized large builddings that block LOS because no one can claim the rules disallow or allow it.
d3 pieces of terrain per table quarter doesn't help anything. I'm fairly sure the "bowling ball planet" table I linked above had like 1-3 terrain pieces per quarter.
I think you'd essentially have to pull a Starcraft (where's martel?) and pre-built boards for other people to play on, and then balance the armies around the selection of available "maps" like Starcraft does (e.g. this "map" is better for Zerg while this other is better for Protoss). But that takes the sheen off of playing such a neato wargame as Warhammer in general, and I am strongly against the idea for perhaps obvious reasons.
Starcraft puts a lot of time into building boards. The dreaded lost temple board was pulled from the rotation and redesigned to not be so imba for terran.
Martel732 wrote: Starcraft puts a lot of time into building boards. The dreaded lost temple board was pulled from the rotation and redesigned to not be so imba for terran.
Yay there he is!
And yeah that's my point. The developers themselves built them, they still sometimes make mistakes, and there's no real "fun" in having a varied board - not so much experimentation or creative use. The chokepoints are always in the same place, the destructible rocks are always in the same place, the watchtowers are always in the same place, etc. etc.
In some tournaments though there are neato words on the maps.
You could balance the game mathematically before special abilities and rules come in, but players wouldn't like it.
And I'm not talking about the "people secretly want to be OP" junk.
I mean writing an army list would be insane. It would be like "ok this guy has 1 attack with w battlefield role, and x strength and y survivability and z movement and I want to give him a power weapon, so it costs (some equation incorporating wxy and z.)"
You could even fit in racial alterations easily by saying "eldar reduce their movement cost multiplier 10%, orks decrease their strength multiplier 10%, marines decrease their multipliers by 2.5% each." Or something of the sort to give each race their niche.
But the entire process would be NASA levels of complicated.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 1) Fair enough, though I still think making hard & fast "rules" for terrain placement will be a bad idea, while making "suggestions" will end up like most of the "suggestions" in the current rule-book i.e. ignored.
3) Depends on if he is a Black Templar or not! There are ways to ensure he gets the charge - Chapter Tactics & Command Re-Rolls come to mind, at least in the case of loyalist terminators - but now we have to expand out to force multiplication and stuff like that. Stuff that has costs (CPs or Points or even Opportunity Costs) - but generally, I do think most elite units can 1v1 or even 1v2 or 1v3 most horde units, model per model.
4) This is true, but still kind of gamey. Like the difference between "First Blood" and "First Strike" at NOVA was no contest at all - "first strike" was always the better choice. It's 'false choice' in many ways. But yes, having this in the game would improve it dramatically I think.
1.) They may be but I get the feeling if they were cased in "hey we playtested and balanced the game assuming there was x amount of terrain, and x amount of LOS blocking terrain etc." people would use it. I remember a lot of use of the 25% guideline back in the day. It would not be perfect because it isn't fixed, but it is better if people use say 33% of the table being terrain 1/3rd of which is LOS blocking if that is what testers used vs 0 LOS blocking, or 33% of all LOS blockers etc. For instance while not terrain Malifaux came out and said 50 points is where we balanced the game. You aren't required to play it, but it is what most people play because that is where the game works best.
3.) Even re-roll charges is only a 50-50, so not really ensure getting the charged. Ravenguard is really the only near guaranteed set up charge (because you can move prior to charging)
4.) Not saying they are all good, but you don't have to take first strike at all, so you might decide to take "kill the most expensive unit" or whatever.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 16:59:21
1) True, there should be /some/ guidelines. That'd help a bit.
2) Okay, Raven Guard then. I still think we're losing the forest for the trees, and that point is that (dice permitting, it being a dice game & all), elite armies can certainly 1v1 horde armies, and in many cases, 1v2 or 1v3 them, or even worse for certain units. The problem is they have to set the conditions for this engagement to occur 1v1 instead of 1v30 (as I mentioned) so they're harder to play on open boards.
4) Right, like I said, something like this would be good for the game - though perhaps GW was trying not to implement it, as it encourages skew even more: "Oh did I bring all tanks? That's okay, I'll choose my own objectives that suit that army just fine."
D3 per table quarter was the 3rd edition standard. I was just giving a reference to a time when there were codified rules for terrain placement and what terrain would be on the table.
I Idon't think *every* game should have a ton of terrain either. I think that each game should be different. Some with none. Some with a lot. Some in the middle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 17:07:08
Unit1126PLL wrote: 1) True, there should be /some/ guidelines. That'd help a bit.
2) Okay, Raven Guard then. I still think we're losing the forest for the trees, and that point is that (dice permitting, it being a dice game & all), elite armies can certainly 1v1 horde armies, and in many cases, 1v2 or 1v3 them, or even worse for certain units. The problem is they have to set the conditions for this engagement to occur 1v1 instead of 1v30 (as I mentioned) so they're harder to play on open boards.
4) Right, like I said, something like this would be good for the game - though perhaps GW was trying not to implement it, as it encourages skew even more: "Oh did I bring all tanks? That's okay, I'll choose my own objectives that suit that army just fine."
4.) True, but the opposite is also true depending on the objectives available to the opponent.
20000+ points