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.

Point cost in general is a fallacy.

A 15 point model may indeed be worth 15 points in a certain situation.

That same 15 point model may only be worth 9 points in another, and may be worth 22 points in yet another.

An example would be a model with high defensive capabilities would be worth much more in a scenario where they had to hold objectives than they would be in a scenario where they had to go on the offensive.

Making the offensive units today cost more would simply peel away one layer of min maxing and expose the layer underneath for players to exploit.

The layers I feel are infinite. You would peel them away forever and still get nowhere. Especially in a game like 40k, which has other issues that combine to form the problems we have in the game.

Poor point costing is indeed a problem. We also have the ancient IGOUGO system and the over abstraction of the game removing things like terrain impact and cover.

Martel732 wrote:
I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.

You've never been rushed? Spam has totally been a problem throughout SC's history, which is why things like the Spawning Pool gets increased build time.

Rushes can be countered in deterministic ways, especially via scouting. No gas? Look out! I get no such warning about dark reapers or triple manticore.

 auticus wrote:
Point cost in general is a fallacy.

Which fallacy? I'm not sure that sentence even makes sense.

Martel732 wrote:
I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.

Taking this approach runs into another issue: Regular Dude takes 1 flyrant in his army. At that quantity, the flyrant is not significantly overpowered. Other Dude takes 7 flyrants. At THAT quantity, flyrants are overpowered (for reasons already stated elsewhere, by others). So: To make Other Dude stop spamming flyrants, you propose to price a single one at anti-spam levels, but in the process you screw over Regular Dude, who's now faced with paying the "anti-spam" tax just to get his lone, not-abusive-at-all, flyrant on the table. Games Workshop, for better or worse, appears to be trying to balance the game around Regular Dude. A spam-restriction, if that's what's coming down the pipe, would help with that in ways that simply increasing points until spam is impractical would not.

The lone hive tyrant should cost more than it currently does. T7, 4++ and ability to be reserved, AND ability to move quickly after dropping SHOULD be expensive. Oh, and it's a psyker.

Martel732 wrote:
I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.

To me this seems very obvious to me and I agree with you. The alternative is that it's okay for a unit to be undercosted if you can only take a few of them.

Look at what happens in AI with the red/black game. You can write a skew algorithm, and it can beat just about any target you want. However, last time I read up on it, TAC algorithms (tit-for-tat) were king in broader competitions.

StarCraft had many points at which it was unbalanced.

They then iterated and patched it. They can run games with altered rules much faster, and can distribute updated rules much faster. So the feedback loop is much, much tighter. If they decided the Carrier cost 10 gas too much today, they could get that into lower environments today, promote the patch tomorrow, and everyone could have it in a 24-hour cycle.

GW could do some internal playtesting today.

They could send it off to playtesters, and get preliminary results in a week, more robust results in a month.

They could then merge that into the rules, for publication.

Then, in 3 months (guestimate), people could start picking up the books.

In 1 more month, people could reasonably be expecting people to know of the new book and what it changed

In another couple months, everyone affected could be assumed to be on the new rulesset.

That also assumes serial changes. But with a cycle time of *months*, it's highly unlikely to be serial.

I would bet that StarCraft have had far more revisions - at least 10x public patches with balance changes than GW rules publications/FAQs - than 40k, in the same timeframe.

Without changing the model in which rules are delivered, there's no way GW's feedback loop can be tight enough to get anywhere close to what StarCraft - or even it's less-balanced competitors - can be.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.

To me this seems very obvious to me and I agree with you. The alternative is that it's okay for a unit to be undercosted if you can only take a few of them.

Why not. There're reasons you can only have 1 Warlord and why there's a hard limit on relics, etc..

It's fun and breaks up the monotony to have things that are strictly better than other parts but limited as to not create (too many) balance problems. If everything is always allowed infinitely, there'd still be spam in a mathematically perfectly balanced selection. Just spam that is "balanced" against whatever the other guy is spamming. Great.

Limits on "good" but limited selections and ways to work with them/against them gives texture and tactical depth to a game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.

To me, this seems very obvious to me and I agree with you. The alternative is that it's okay for a unit to be undercosted if you can only take a few of them.

Or that there is not a correct single price for a unit. Units scale differently depending on their builds. Psykers scale worse than none psykers, buff auras scale worse than psykers. Claiming that here is a correct points value for every unit is claiming that all units scale linearly, this clearly isn't the case.

As an example 1 ravager (Dark Eldar) is not worth 140 points, even with a good buff aura, if it is the only vehicle/monster in your army, it's probably worth 100 or so and it ill still blow up before it does anything. 2 Ravagers with a good buff aura are worth somewhere in the 120-130 region, they are still fragile and likely to fail to make their points back before exploding. 2 ravagers in a list with 8 other vehicles are worth 140 (their actual point cost). 3 Ravagers with a buff aura in a list with 8 other vehicles are probably worth the 155 we used to pay for them, they are probably worth 140 without one of either the other vehicles or the buff aura. Is 140 the correct cost for that unit? No idea. Does a correct cost exist? Maybe not. Many other units are similar. Which scenario should things be costed for? If we put upper limits on the number that can be taken and cost for at or near that limit, then things balance better.

CP-based (non-pointed) Relics ruined them.

You can't have the legendary Firesaber as the Powersword-plus-some that it should be, but also have Shard of Anaris being the You Will Die weapon it should be, when they both cost the exact same.

There will not be a perfect price, but i guarantee there IS a price where each unit is neither spammed nor never taken. That's as close as gw can get, i think.

Units get spammed to take advantage of undercostedness. Period. Spamming amplifies the advantage that these undercosted units provide.

Limiting units doesn't solve the undercosted unit issue at all.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.

To me this seems very obvious to me and I agree with you. The alternative is that it's okay for a unit to be undercosted if you can only take a few of them.

I've never seen anybody intentionally miss the point with as much fervor and devotion as you two.

I think your point is invalid. I'm not missing it.

With your proposal, there will be three flyrants, then three of the next most undercosted unit, then three of the next most undercosted unit. Codices without any undercosted units still lose.

Martel732 wrote:
There will not be a perfect price, but i guarantee there IS a price where each unit is neither spammed nor never taken. That's as close as gw can get, i think.

Units get spammed to take advantage of undercostedness. Period. Spamming amplifies the advantage that these undercosted units provide.

Limiting units doesn't solve the undercosted unit issue at all.

What if something is only undercosted if taken in groups of 4 or more (due to none linear scaling) and you cap it at 3?

I don't think that condition exists in general. Limiting it to three just limits the aggregate utility to 3 (fair price - existing unfair price).

Is there really such a disconnect with people that they don't understand why units get spammed?

They get spammed because they are undercosted - if you hate spam - balance units with each other and you wont see it.

Here's an analogy:
A game we're all familiar with where every piece has equal value: Checkers
A game we're all familiar with where there are different pieces with differing values: Chess
The game with different pieces with differing values is much more tactically deep and interesting than the one where all the pieces have the same value.

That said, chess also works as well as it does because it imposes a set roster of pieces on each player, forcing them to make tactical decisions over the course of the game. They can't, for instance, elect to take one less rook and a few less pawns in order to take a second queen.

40K has historically been like chess where players can decide what pieces they're going to opt to play. This hasn't really encouraged tactics on the tabletop so much as it's encouraged optimization of list-building.

Also, 40K has never really been built around the idea that a point spent in one place is always worth a point spent in another place. The different force organization roles have always played a part in what the value of units are likely to be. Heavy Support has always been about laying down damage. Fast Attack has traditionally been about initial board control - moving units to places quickly. Elites are harder to categorize, but generally are units with variant abilities - like Deep Strike or Infiltrate. Troops have largely been less about doing damage than they are about board control - they don't generally get places as quickly as Fast Attack choices, but they do so with more model density per point spent than Fast Attack choices.

This formula worked okay in 3rd and 4th editions. It worked best in 5th edition, which was the edition where Troops had the best board control ability they have ever had. Those were also editions where everyone carried a Troops requirement and where the most unit spam a player could put on the table was generally 3 of any given unit, though there have been some exceptions (4th edition Nidzilla, for instance)

6th edition rescinded the unique board control ability of Troops, which hit them hard, and they haven't really recovered. Obsec doesn't matter so much if ones Troops can simply get blasted off the board by an opponent who decided to invest hard in units that can simply erase them from the board.

One idea would be to return to having only Troops be able to score objectives, with the addition of a generic Stratagem that can allow a non-Troops unit to be scoring for one turn. That would be strong incentive to invest in robust Troops elements while allowing players who want to play other styles of armies to do so without them being an auto-lose because of complete inability to score objectives.

How many points is a Ynnari HQ worth, in a list with no Reapers or Spears? How many points are they worth in a list with Reapers or Spears?

Or, to be extreme to show the point, consider a version of Tacs where their boltguns get +1 S -1AP and +1 RapidFire for each other Tac squad on the board. You clearly believe one such unit would not be worth 13ppm. But if I took 6 of them at 2000pts, would they still not be worth 13ppm?

I'm a marine player. I don't want to invest in troops.

Also, tabling always works. IG would completely dominate in your environment.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.

To me this seems very obvious to me and I agree with you. The alternative is that it's okay for a unit to be undercosted if you can only take a few of them.

I'm totally for points getting most of the work done, but I can recognize somethings might fall into a grey area.

Bharring wrote:
How many points is a Ynnari HQ worth, in a list with no Reapers or Spears? How many points are they worth in a list with Reapers or Spears?

Or, to be extreme to show the point, consider a version of Tacs where their boltguns get +1 S -1AP and +1 RapidFire for each other Tac squad on the board. You clearly believe one such unit would not be worth 13ppm. But if I took 6 of them at 2000pts, would they still not be worth 13ppm?

A lot of playtesting will tell. The point value is average value across a large number of games. There will be anamolous matchups since 40k armies can't be changed on fly like starcraft.

Martel732 wrote:
Rushes can be countered in deterministic ways, especially via scouting. No gas? Look out! I get no such warning about dark reapers or triple manticore.

Sure and there are certain caveats to that. Additionally SC doesn't have heroes. WC3 did and they were restricted.

Force multipliers in SC are upgrades, which come with a heavy resource, building, and time trade off.

If only 40k had temporal costs.

Most of my issues aren't heroes. It's the 4ppm guardsmen. Because they turn off my heroes by existing.

What pointscost could possibly support using just a few of a unit sometimes if it gets better the more of them you take?

Lets do it this way, to remove some biases:
Fire Warriors gain:
Sphere Expansion: For every other friendly Fire Warrior unit on the board, gain +1S/T/A, and +1 shot when firing Rapid Fire

What point cost, approximately, would you point that at so it has it's uses, but isn't OP

Martel732 wrote:
I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.

No it doesn't because cost is not the only balancing factor involved. So you make flyrants, reapers, PBC cost more. Either they cost too much to spam and someone finds the next unbalanced unit to spam (because we are only addressing things one at a time) and this lasts until chapter approved, or They still are undercosted and still get spammed there are just fewer of them. Unfortunately in an "unbound" list building world, if you aren't the best option you may as well be the worst option. Thus until all units are "perfectly balanced" where there is no best option to spam, changing points only changes what gets spammed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The lone hive tyrant should cost more than it currently does. T7, 4++ and ability to be reserved, AND ability to move quickly after dropping SHOULD be expensive. Oh, and it's a psyker.

yes but that cost is likely not the same cost that would prevent them from getting spammed, which is the issue.

Bharring wrote:
What pointscost could possibly support using just a few of a unit sometimes if it gets better the more of them you take?

Lets do it this way, to remove some biases:
Fire Warriors gain:
Sphere Expansion: For every other friendly Fire Warrior unit on the board, gain +1S/T/A, and +1 shot when firing Rapid Fire

What point cost, approximately, would you point that at so it has it's uses, but isn't OP

I wouldn't allow that rule in a game for the exact reason you posted it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.

No it doesn't because cost is not the only balancing factor involved. So you make flyrants, reapers, PBC cost more. Either they cost too much to spam and someone finds the next unbalanced unit to spam (because we are only addressing things one at a time) and this lasts until chapter approved, or They still are undercosted and still get spammed there are just fewer of them. Unfortunately in an "unbound" list building world, if you aren't the best option you may as well be the worst option. Thus until all units are "perfectly balanced" where there is no best option to spam, changing points only changes what gets spammed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The lone hive tyrant should cost more than it currently does. T7, 4++ and ability to be reserved, AND ability to move quickly after dropping SHOULD be expensive. Oh, and it's a psyker.

yes but that cost is likely not the same cost that would prevent them from getting spammed, which is the issue.

I'd start with upping wings by 50 pts. You don't think that's enough?

Sometimes a band aid fix is better than no fix at all. And some units should be restricted to X per army.

Spam tends to increase the effect of underconsting. If a 200 point model should be 220 that's a 20 point difference. If you then take 7 of that the difficit becomes 140. And thus it ramps up.

Note I am still against universal highlander. But I can understand it's appeal especially for "older" factions with more variety of units.

Why settle for a bandaid? Remove the efficiency advantage of the offending unit.

Because you can't agree on a structural fix. I'll repeat a good band aid is better than a bad fix.

Lore tidbit from End times Thanquol: The Slann helped maintain the vortex but they considered it a band aiid they would have to replace with a better solution later. 10 000 years of thinking and they came up with nothing so the only result was the lizardmen did nothing and the vortex worked.