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.

Aaaand we are back where we started...

From my very first post I was clearly at the same page as Breng77 regarding matched/competetive play - that if what you want is ballanced, tournament ready game, then you MUST account for all factors - including terrain setups/deployment zones, win conditions, legal army structure etc... (Just reread my posts to find citations needed). What I do not agree with is that point costs established in such defined constrains apply/improve matches for everyone, regardless of following those limitations or not (and @shuppet, the context of your stance wasn't clear from the start as you only used very broad term "casual level" and it was me who understood this missunderstanding first and pointed it out loud). Moreover, even within such defined boundaries "care free" ballance by point system is literally impossible - you would have to strip pre-game setup, including listbuilding stage, from a huuuuge amount of choice options available now. Even leaving both Eternal War and Maelstrom as parts of Matched Play screw things up so badly, that it is impossible to ballance such system - this is why large TOs come up with their own, more standardized and less random mission sets.

As to why my list of points looks like it does - because I do not waste my time being angry on GW for not being able to achieve an impossible task, nor do I waste my enhusiasm for 40k for waiting for editions to shift the ballance in favour of my chosen faction. The list of tools given above can in fact help OP with his problem of playing an officially underdog army and not having fun with it as it helped me having a blast with 40k for the last couple of years. Some of those tools are in line with what was adopted by large tournaments to deal with tragic 8th ed terrain system, some were employed even earlier, when 40k at "high level" couldn't manage without some form of houseruling or comping. Debating about theoretical ballance and GW indolence or how things should be but aren't doesn't solve anything - 40k was never ever ballanced "care free" enough and it is naive to think that it ever will be. It is a sandbox game with insanely large number of rules interactions - there are more than 450 faction vs faction matchups alone, not counting various "chapter tactics" flavours introduced by 8th ed codices and not dwelling deeper into possible list matchups within those factions and various build strategies available for all factions.

And now, I thank all of you for the discussion, I have spent too much time in this thread already. Cheers!

 SHUPPET wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
@Shuppet It would need to go hand in hand with points balancing. What it does is give GW a place to points balance around. Balancing the game equally for every scenario, every points level, every terrain set up, is impossible regardless of math. The best you could possibly do is create units that are only good in some of those scenarios and not in others. For instance a marine with a lascannon could be quite good on an open table, or one with good firing lines, but on a table with no more than say 12" of LOS on any portion of the table would be horribly over costed.

For example, Malifaux though a wildly different game handles this to an extent by having the company produce a tournament pack and stating that the game is balanced at 50 Points. You can play other levels just fine and rules for them exist, but you understand that doing so might lead to lopsided games. Now they also handle balance to some extent by allowing you to build your list to the mission and match-up but that doesn't really seem feasible for competitive 40k.

I fully agree with you. This debate actually began when I said the points costs for units need to be balanced for high level, to begin with, and this will cause matched play to be balanced all the way down to casual pick up games as a result. And this went hand in hand with the static terrain dispute.

In truth - balanced unit costs would have an even greater benefit for casual play. In matched play people just play the best units - they will even rule out a whole army if it doesn't have enough good units. So mostly it's just good armies fighting good armies. That isn't how casual works. Casual works most the time by 2 people bringing a random list to play against an unknown army - usually being composed of the units they have (not because they are powerful - but because that's what they have built). It's almost impossible to prepare a list for a pickup game and have both armies be evenly matched with this trash balance we have. So the resistance to these kinds of changes...I just have to ponder as to where it comes from.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
@Shuppet It would need to go hand in hand with points balancing. What it does is give GW a place to points balance around. Balancing the game equally for every scenario, every points level, every terrain set up, is impossible regardless of math. The best you could possibly do is create units that are only good in some of those scenarios and not in others. For instance a marine with a lascannon could be quite good on an open table, or one with good firing lines, but on a table with no more than say 12" of LOS on any portion of the table would be horribly over costed.

For example, Malifaux though a wildly different game handles this to an extent by having the company produce a tournament pack and stating that the game is balanced at 50 Points. You can play other levels just fine and rules for them exist, but you understand that doing so might lead to lopsided games. Now they also handle balance to some extent by allowing you to build your list to the mission and match-up but that doesn't really seem feasible for competitive 40k.

I fully agree with you. This debate actually began when I said the points costs for units need to be balanced for high level, to begin with, and this will cause matched play to be balanced all the way down to casual pick up games as a result. And this went hand in hand with the static terrain dispute.

In truth - balanced unit costs would have an even greater benefit for casual play. In matched play people just play the best units - they will even rule out a whole army if it doesn't have enough good units. So mostly it's just good armies fighting good armies. That isn't how casual works. Casual works most the time by 2 people bringing a random list to play against an unknown army - usually being composed of the units they have (not because they are powerful - but because that's what they have built). It's almost impossible to prepare a list for a pickup game and have both armies be evenly matched with this trash balance we have. So the resistance to these kinds of changes...I just have to ponder as to where it comes from.

Very strong points. Competitive play will always have optimised and structured lists generally capable of competing with each other, casual play will have a less cohesive plan behind it and will benefit even more heavily balance wise by random units not being erratically costed.

I've never seen a rational argument against it. I have strong inclinations as to where the mentality comes from, but I think I'll save it for another time.

 Xenomancers wrote:

In truth - balanced unit costs would have an even greater benefit for casual play. In matched play people just play the best units - they will even rule out a whole army if it doesn't have enough good units. So mostly it's just good armies fighting good armies. That isn't how casual works. Casual works most the time by 2 people bringing a random list to play against an unknown army - usually being composed of the units they have (not because they are powerful - but because that's what they have built). It's almost impossible to prepare a list for a pickup game and have both armies be evenly matched with this trash balance we have. So the resistance to these kinds of changes...I just have to ponder as to where it comes from.

Ugh... Look, I'm trying to be respectful as possible here.

There is no such thing as a magical "true point value" number for each unit that GW needs to find to make the game perfectly balanced. It doesn't exist. Why? Because the "true point value" of a unit will fluctuate wildly depending on the terrain, scenario, which other units are being taken alongside of it, and skill of the person using it. Even within the holy "matched" play these things have a wide range of possibilities. Using Breng77's previous example, lets say a space marine devastator with a lascannon on a board with 0 terrain has been "properly" balanced at the magic number of 35 points (just an example). Well, the next game with all other factors being equal, you play on a board so heavily littered with terrain, that no single unit anywhere on the board can draw LOS to any other point outside 12". Is this space marine devastator with a lascannon still appropriately priced at 35 points given that his weapon's range is effectively 12"?

I realize that the above scenario is an extreme example, but this happens to a less noticeable extent in EVERY game you play. In scenarios where the point is to take and hold objectives, tough units with invuln saves + objective secured + many wounds are more valuable then they otherwise would be. In a kill point game units with high offensive output to completely wipe a target are more valuable then they otherwise would be.

Now, if you restrict the possible scenarios, possible terrain configurations, and possible army configurations in matched play, it becomes much easier to narrow down the range of where this magical "true point value" could be for each unit within the confines of these parameters. But its absolutely feths up balance beyond recognition for anyone else not using these very narrow parameters.

The funny thing is I actually happen to agree with you that the game parameters should be narrowed somewhat so balance is easier achieved. I actually think the game should be balanced around matched play rules. But this insistence that balancing the entire game around an extremely narrow set of parameters magically makes the game better for everyone no matter how they play is just wrong.

No what it does is balance the game for all levels of matched play which is really competitive and casual pick up play. This is where I feel like the 3 ways to play is important. If you are playing unbalanced tables or scenarios, points don’t really mean anything, you need to put in the work to make the game fun. I see it as a fairly large issue that everyone tries to use matched play rules for everything, and then complains about balance changes to those rules based on competitive play.

Breng77 wrote:
No what it does is balance the game for all levels of matched play which is really competitive and casual pick up play. This is where I feel like the 3 ways to play is important. If you are playing unbalanced tables or scenarios, points don’t really mean anything, you need to put in the work to make the game fun. I see it as a fairly large issue that everyone tries to use matched play rules for everything, and then complains about balance changes to those rules based on competitive play.

Like I said, even within the confines of what is currently defined as 'matched play' this is a problem.

For example, lets say a tournament is run using randomly determined deployments and scenarios. Unit A is found to be overperforming relative to its points cost in certain scenarios/deployments and as a result has its points costs increased. The reasoning for the points increase was that "it may hurt Unit A in the scenarios/deployments that it wasn't overperforming, but it's a nessecary nerf to increase the overall balance of matched play". This is a perfectly valid balance adjustment in the context of assuming everyone randomly determines deployments and scenarios.

Now lets say there's a guy named Joe who had an army that depended on 3 units of Unit A. Joe plays using matched play rules. However, Joe doesn't EVER play the scenarios/deployments that Unit A overperformed. He only likes playing a few scenarios and only ever does 1 deployment scheme. Joe now just had his entire army undeservedly nerfed because one unit that he happened to be using, also happened to be overperforming in one particular scenario that he NEVER PLAYS. Remember, Joe plays using matched play rules too! As far as I know, nothing in the matched play rules specifically says you have to randomly determine scenarios/deployment.

You have to narrow what 'matched play' means to achieve any semblance of what you think is 'true balance'. On top of that, anyone playing outside of your narrow definition of what 'matched play' is happens to be playing a completely unbalanced game, because "appropriately pointed" in matched play doesn't necessarily mean "appropriately pointed" outside of matched play.