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.

jjb070707 wrote:


I don't think that's quite fair to discount his analogy. In a competitive setting your list may be I'll equipped to counter that skew, but the next guy will demolish mutalisks leading to a tendency of balanced lists taking the overall victory. Skew is a healthy part of competitive strategy, helping to prevent invincible lists from emerging for very long. That being said, unwinnable match ups like imperial character shenanigans should be scarce, but making those lists illegal would give the lists they counter an unfair advantage in terms of match up percentage.

No, that player won't ditch mutalisks when they don't work one game. Higher level games will still see them as their opener and a good opponent is fast enough to scout and react to it. It's all about inflicting economic damage and slowing them down while you build up.

If you were to consider the entire tournament of 40k as the scope of one match of a RTS, this notion of adaptability is roughly equivalent to designing a list that has the ability to compete with all manner of specific strategies one expects to encounter. Just the possibility of an all character, all flyer, all tank list prevents that game from becoming a pure excercise in probability in which the overtuned codex always wins. We see this in practice with these "spoiler" lists being allowed in a tournament preventing things like an obviously overtuned guard codex taking victory in every tournament. Right now, a lot of things are "competitive " but all are capable of losing games to relatively common armies, which are considered mid tier at best. Proposed changes such as forcing huge numbers of troops punish these skew/spoiler lists and would inevitably reduce diversity in the top tier

You believe that points don't equal balance because of the situational nature of things. That is a good point - but it doesn't mean we can't strive to have a more even playing field. We can use math to balance units profiles in optimum situations. That might mean some units don't perform to expectation or some units are just flat out better most of the time but that is going to come down to how you play the unit. It should never be like it is now in a balanced game where - I spam this unit = I win. Clearly something is off if that is going on.

Something has been off with 40k since 40k was a thing though. To get closer to balance, it will take much more than simple point switches. Those dont' ever balance the game.

They just expose other imbalances or make other things imbalanced.

To get to a more balanced 40k you definitely need some math involved in a set formula, but you also need an array of scenarios that are all different so that you can't just spam one thing that always does well... and making the game more reactive by setting the IGOUGO system on fire is a must.

It might be interesting to see something like Infinity's SWC points in addition to regular 40k points.

Not sure how you'd wind up doing that though.

Does anyone have good clear rules for sideboards in 40k?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Does anyone have good clear rules for sideboards in 40k?

Honestly, I think sideboards are easy but people overreact. Just say "Before every game you can swap out units up to 25% (or whatever) of the game's maximum points allotment. This cannot take the list above the game's maximum points allotment."

So if you have a 2k game, you can swap out 500 points of units. It doesn't matter with what or how or why - you could trade 500 points for 300, or 300 points for 500, if you only had 1800 points in the original list (still assuming a 2k max).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Does anyone have good clear rules for sideboards in 40k?

Honestly, I think sideboards are easy but people overreact. Just say "Before every game you can swap out units up to 25% (or whatever) of the game's maximum points allotment. This cannot take the list above the game's maximum points allotment."

So if you have a 2k game, you can swap out 500 points of units. It doesn't matter with what or how or why - you could trade 500 points for 300, or 300 points for 500, if you only had 1800 points in the original list (still assuming a 2k max).

But can't you abuse detachments? Take all cheap stuff, get the CP, and switch out for harder units.

I think in 8th for side boards you would need to do something like
3 detachments max
one of these can be a side board detachment, this detachment can be no more than x points (could be 500, could be 200, you pick). Create 2 detachments of equal points


After viewing your opponents list and sideboard you may choose which sideboard detachment to include in your army.

The issue with a straight points swap is that your opponent needs to ensure that your list is still legal after the swap, it is just really open to mistakes, not to mention added time to the match for list building.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Does anyone have good clear rules for sideboards in 40k?

Honestly, I think sideboards are easy but people overreact. Just say "Before every game you can swap out units up to 25% (or whatever) of the game's maximum points allotment. This cannot take the list above the game's maximum points allotment."

So if you have a 2k game, you can swap out 500 points of units. It doesn't matter with what or how or why - you could trade 500 points for 300, or 300 points for 500, if you only had 1800 points in the original list (still assuming a 2k max).

But can't you abuse detachments? Take all cheap stuff, get the CP, and switch out for harder units.

Presumably, your army would still have to be legal. So you wouldn't be able to take out "part" of a brigade and put in a Vanguard, or something.

To abuse the detachment system, you'd essentially have to entirely build your army around having 500 point high-CP detachments swapping for 500-point low CP detachments, reducing the 1500 rest of your points to only 2 detachments, etc...

I don't know. I think trying to feth with the detachment system just makes it more complicated - just say your army must still be legal afterwards and be done with it.

Plus, you could just say "CPs are determined after you have decided whether or not you are incorporating a sideboard for this game"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with a straight points swap is that your opponent needs to ensure that your list is still legal after the swap, it is just really open to mistakes, not to mention added time to the match for list building.

People make mistakes without sideboards. The boat has sailed on whether or not we do anything about listbuilding mistakes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Does anyone have good clear rules for sideboards in 40k?

Power Points are kind of sideboard as they allow to switch upgrades as you need them

Breng77 wrote:
I think in 8th for side boards you would need to do something like
3 detachments max
one of these can be a side board detachment, this detachment can be no more than x points (could be 500, could be 200, you pick). Create 2 detachments of equal points


After viewing your opponents list and sideboard you may choose which sideboard detachment to include in your army.

The issue with a straight points swap is that your opponent needs to ensure that your list is still legal after the swap, it is just really open to mistakes, not to mention added time to the match for list building.

Yeah, I would do it like that. an X point detachment that can be switched for a seperate detachment.

Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.

Breng77 wrote:
I think in 8th for side boards you would need to do something like
3 detachments max
one of these can be a side board detachment, this detachment can be no more than x points (could be 500, could be 200, you pick). Create 2 detachments of equal points


After viewing your opponents list and sideboard you may choose which sideboard detachment to include in your army.

The issue with a straight points swap is that your opponent needs to ensure that your list is still legal after the swap, it is just really open to mistakes, not to mention added time to the match for list building.

Closer, but I think it should be 500 or so points max otherwise you'd see people switch out a whole brigade.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with a straight points swap is that your opponent needs to ensure that your list is still legal after the swap, it is just really open to mistakes, not to mention added time to the match for list building.

People make mistakes without sideboards. The boat has sailed on whether or not we do anything about listbuilding mistakes.

"feth it, lets give people more chances of making mistakes" is not the answer to the current list mistakes being made.

 Ordana wrote:
"feth it, lets give people more chances of making mistakes" is not the answer to the current list mistakes being made.

I suppose the better answer is to ignore it, as I've been hearing in those threads.

It's been made clear to me that listbuilding mistakes aren't considered a problem at the highest levels, at least until recently when internet pressure on TOs grew.

I happen to like the 2 list idea. It's not a whole lot harder to validate 2 lists as opposed to 1. As a side benefit if 1 of the lists isn't valid the player can still participate with the other list.

 Ordana wrote:


Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.

But how does that work systematically?

Does each player see their opponents lists and then choose secretly? What are the odds they pick the list you didn't want them to pick?

 auticus wrote:

Drager wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Point cost in general is a fallacy.

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

A fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief.

No, a fallacy is an error made in logical argumentation. No True Scotsman, Moving the Goalposts, internal logical contradictions, violations of the laws of logic, these are fallacies. What you are referring to is not a fallacy, it's an argument for a position you hold that someone else's position is not in conformation with reality.

Please don't use terms you don't understand.

KinGensai wrote:

 auticus wrote:

Drager wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Point cost in general is a fallacy.

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

A fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief.

No, a fallacy is an error made in logical argumentation. No True Scotsman, Moving the Goalposts, internal logical contradictions, violations of the laws of logic, these are fallacies. What you are referring to is not a fallacy, it's an argument for a position you hold that someone else's position is not in conformation with reality.

Please don't use terms you don't understand.

This is actually a really rude post.

First of all, a fallacy is absolutely a mistaken belief. That's literally word-for-word the first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary.

The definition you propose is a "logical fallacy" - a subtype of fallacy used when discussion the structure and composition of logical arguments.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.

But how does that work systematically?

Does each player see their opponents lists and then choose secretly? What are the odds they pick the list you didn't want them to pick?

Yes which is essentially how any sideboard will work in a minis game because games are too long to do so after playing a game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.

But how does that work systematically?

Does each player see their opponents lists and then choose secretly? What are the odds they pick the list you didn't want them to pick?

You can see all of your opponents lists before the game. Both secretly pick one of their lists to play. Yes it would become a mind game if both sides have a counter to what the other side can bring.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.

But how does that work systematically?

Does each player see their opponents lists and then choose secretly? What are the odds they pick the list you didn't want them to pick?

WM/H's 2 list format has you see your opponent's two lists and choose a list of your own blind. 3 list format is also the same deal. There's also Specialists that can be subbed in for other units/jacks/beasts if you are following a specific condition (using the warcasters/warlocks in the current ADR).

This system has a problem of List Chicken. 40k isn't quite as prone to that because 40k isn't as extremely punishing toward bad match-ups, but it's still a problem when one player takes two entirely different list archetypes and forces the opponent to gamble on which threat vector they are going to have to cover. For example, say your opponent has a list with infantry spam and the other has armor spam. A TAC list is going to suffer into either of those match-ups, but if you designed your two lists to skew as well, then whatever skew you choose might be at a complete disadvantage against one list and be at complete advantage versus another list. It's a big clusterfeth, especially if your faction depends heavily on one type of strategy to succeed (Tau, for example) because an opponent may have an anti-melee and anti-shooting tailored list and have a very easy pick vs you.

It's called "List Chicken". Sometimes you're the bug and sometimes you're the windshield.

KinGensai wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.

But how does that work systematically?

Does each player see their opponents lists and then choose secretly? What are the odds they pick the list you didn't want them to pick?

WM/H's 2 list format has you see your opponent's two lists and choose a list of your own blind. 3 list format is also the same deal. There's also Specialists that can be subbed in for other units/jacks/beasts if you are following a specific condition (using the warcasters/warlocks in the current ADR).

This system has a problem of List Chicken. 40k isn't quite as prone to that because 40k isn't as extremely punishing toward bad match-ups, but it's still a problem when one player takes two entirely different list archetypes and forces the opponent to gamble on which threat vector they are going to have to cover. For example, say your opponent has a list with infantry spam and the other has armor spam. A TAC list is going to suffer into either of those match-ups, but if you designed your two lists to skew as well, then whatever skew you choose might be at a complete disadvantage against one list and be at complete advantage versus another list. It's a big clusterfeth, especially if your faction depends heavily on one type of strategy to succeed (Tau, for example) because an opponent may have an anti-melee and anti-shooting tailored list and have a very easy pick vs you.

It is no worse then taking an AT list to a 1 list tournament and praying you don't meet Horde or visa versa. Or playing a TAC list and running into extremes.
A multiple list format is, imo, at worst just as bad as a 1 list format.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is actually a really rude post.

First of all, a fallacy is absolutely a mistaken belief. That's literally word-for-word the first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary.

The definition you propose is a "logical fallacy" - a subtype of fallacy used when discussion the structure and composition of logical arguments.

A mistaken belief is a misconception. From what I have learned in philosophy, the term fallacy is always used to describe errors in logic that deconstruct the argument, and from what I have read and in common discourse I have never heard the term fallacy used specifically because the word misconception exists to describe that condition with precision. These two states of error are very distinct because one is a structural error and another is simply an error in fact recollection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

KinGensai wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


Or the Warmachine way where you have 2 (or more) entirely separate lists and pick one each round.

But how does that work systematically?

Does each player see their opponents lists and then choose secretly? What are the odds they pick the list you didn't want them to pick?

WM/H's 2 list format has you see your opponent's two lists and choose a list of your own blind. 3 list format is also the same deal. There's also Specialists that can be subbed in for other units/jacks/beasts if you are following a specific condition (using the warcasters/warlocks in the current ADR).

This system has a problem of List Chicken. 40k isn't quite as prone to that because 40k isn't as extremely punishing toward bad match-ups, but it's still a problem when one player takes two entirely different list archetypes and forces the opponent to gamble on which threat vector they are going to have to cover. For example, say your opponent has a list with infantry spam and the other has armor spam. A TAC list is going to suffer into either of those match-ups, but if you designed your two lists to skew as well, then whatever skew you choose might be at a complete disadvantage against one list and be at complete advantage versus another list. It's a big clusterfeth, especially if your faction depends heavily on one type of strategy to succeed (Tau, for example) because an opponent may have an anti-melee and anti-shooting tailored list and have a very easy pick vs you.

It is no worse then taking an AT list to a 1 list tournament and praying you don't meet Horde or visa versa. Or playing a TAC list and running into extremes.
A multiple list format is, imo, at worst just as bad as a 1 list format.

I concede that point, it is certainly a problem either way. The advantage of a 1 list format is that players are truly gambling all in when they take a specific skew. 2 list formats spread out the risk across each opponent, but it's still a troublesome phenomenon.

So you're saying if Scotsman - the real one, not some sockpuppet someone puts together - doesn't post here, the thread is a fallacy?

Thanks guys - that helped.

If you realy want to make a two list system the rewards tac lists best way I would see to do it would be
Players have a master 2k list
From that 2k list they must write 2, 1.5k lists
You get to see your opponents 2k list and then pick one of your 1.5k lists.

 kodos wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Does anyone have good clear rules for sideboards in 40k?

Power Points are kind of sideboard as they allow to switch upgrades as you need them

Its a bit of pain already to carry just the basic army tbh esepcially if you haev to also bring all the terrain and books.

KinGensai wrote:

 auticus wrote:

Drager wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Point cost in general is a fallacy.

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

A fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief.

No, a fallacy is an error made in logical argumentation. No True Scotsman, Moving the Goalposts, internal logical contradictions, violations of the laws of logic, these are fallacies. What you are referring to is not a fallacy, it's an argument for a position you hold that someone else's position is not in conformation with reality.

Please don't use terms you don't understand.

Well mister friend, looks like you need to take a trip to the english dictionary. I've been using the term for a very long time, in all kinds of contexts from twelve years of college paper writing all the way to technical white papers thanks much.

noun, plural fallacies.
1.
a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.:
That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.
2.
a misleading or unsound argument.
3.
deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.
4.
Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
5.
Obsolete. deception.

Of if you prefer Webster:
a : a false or mistaken idea popular fallacies
prone to perpetrate the fallacy of equating threat with capability —C. S. Gray
b : erroneous character : erroneousness The fallacy of their ideas about medicine soon became apparent.
2 a : deceptive appearance : deception
b obsolete : guile, trickery
3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

If you want to combat the word "fallacy" and what it means, go take that up with the publishers of the dictionary.

A logical fallacy as you are describing from philosophy classes is a type of fallacy also defined in the dictionary under fallacy.

You realize that number 4 and number 3, respectively, corresponds to what KinGensai said, right? You're both right.