Switch Theme:

Would you be willing to play a game of 40k with no points or power level?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




nou wrote:[game design 101 lecture]
What point systems are and try to accomplish is to project a multi-dimensional space of game system mechanics onto a linear dimension of "effectiveness value". With just two dimensions, offence and defence, this projection isn't lossless and is just a crippled derivative. In 40k you have movement, durability, shooting offence, melee offence, leadership, things like buff auras/powers which aren't even quantifiable as a separate dimensions, many parameters rely heavily on opposing force/terrain/scenario and their value can only be established once the whole game has been roughly set up and only then can be iteratively refined to a desired tolerance of ballance.

When players do not have enough insight or experience they have to rely on crippled measures as the only ones available to them. But as points are not a fundament of a system (you do not roll against point value ever) they not only CAN be dismissed as a usefull measure, but HAVE to be dismissed if you want to write ballanced asymmetrical scenario without using "hacks" like rematch, sudden death objectives etc. You HAVE to ballance list and environment on functional level - looking directly at mobility, durability, offence, synnergies, cross counters etc... The whole picture. Funnily enough, this is exactly what tournament players do when arguing about necessary point cost changes (the context of relative efficiency in a terrain/mission pack contexts) but in modern, not prebuilt but open lists formats or in pickup-with-limited-discussion game culture this is trully the only measure available, no matter how flawed. But with custom scenarios in cooperative preparation context you can go sooooooo much further and weight parameters of the game directly, without point system as a middle-man entirely or utilising other ballancing factors on top of point system (many of them are directly or indirectly correcting the flawed nature of point values in the specific context of a given scenario).
[/game design 101 lecture]

But all of this comes with practical experience and cannot be done with just dozen of games through couple of changing editions under one's belt. Not in a game with more than 400 hundreds of unique faction vs faction matchups, dozen BRB scenarios and literally infinite possible terrain setups. I can work this way only because I play in limited context of just small fraction of factions, can tailor terrain against lists or lists against terrain, utilise a number of self-ballancing scenario mechanisms. Even in such subset of 40k system static point values of units cannot be established well enough to be treated as foundation for ballance - they swing both ways so much, that the only thing point limit on it's own is good for is a guideline for necessary table size. In many scenarios some units are underperforming so much, that when projected onto linear point system they should be assigned negative point value as they are effectively a liability (an example - a fragile melee unit without means of delivery is just target practice for long range shooting in most cases and isn't even a target priority question - it dies when there is ammo available to spare on them; or a scatter-only shooting against small and dispersed elite force...).

All of the above is pretty much basics of ballancing complex sanbox games... Peregrine, the reason why no-point games aren't working for you is you and your religious-like belief in point systems and lack of knowldge and skill (including social skills) to approach them.


That post did the wargaming version of making me hard! I don't have enough exalts for you Nou. Brilliant

BlaxicanX wrote:
Now that I do not agree with. Two armies specifically balanced against each by the players and within the context of the scenario can be more balanced than points. The composition of your opponents army can make your units more or less valuable. The scenario can make your units more or less valuable.
Collaborative list building is absolutely capable of being more balanced than points. How exactly do you tailor two lists against one another when you have zero idea what the relative value of each unit is?
You think that a Space Marine is worth 4 guardsmen because you have years of SM being 13 points and guardsman being 3 (or 4, whatever) informing that decision. If there are no points costs and I assert that a Space Marine is worth 10 guardsman and therefore you should only have one marine in your list for every 10 of my guardsman, how do you argue otherwise?


You are looking at it the wrong way. To answer your question, I think a Space Marine is worth X guardsmen because I can math, and I can extrapolate a units effectiveness on the table top, based on 15 years of playing wargames.

Tailoring two lists against each other is more straightforward than you think. In my group, we’ve done exactly that for Flames of War and various historicals/sci-fi games for over 4 years now. If you are anyway half-decent at a game, you can probably ‘read’ a units stats (stat card, unit profile or whatever) and get a feel for what they can do, and how ‘good’ they are. Pretty basic ‘back of a hankerchief’ math can also inform in terms of their survivability and kill-ratios against each other. Understanding of the game rules informs how all of these things interact. From that point, it’s pretty straight forward to get a feel for how much one is worth relative to another in this scenario. I don’t think you’ll disagree with me when I say the longer and harder you prep for tourney play for example, the better you will be at tournaments – it’s just as fair to say that the longer you play this other way, the more you refine your ability to be able to ‘eyeball’ the balance.

Beyond that, you ask ‘how do you argue otherwise’. I’ll ask ‘why’ would I argue otherwise. I play with a good group of friends. we’re there to enjoy each other’s company as much as anything else. If the scenario itself sounds interesting, we play it. In my group, we are happy to run a game, play it out and enjoy the spectacle. Worst case scenario - If you’re unsure, put your Marine against 10 guardsmen, and when it’s clear within a turn or two that this is a bad match, you can reset and change, or add in reinforcements (and if you are all about the narrative, make this part of the evolving narrative and have the reinforcements arrive via a drop pod assault or something) if you’re happy to keep it going. Or else, maybe it’s the theme of the mission to have a severely outnumbered Marine force that has been run to ground and is making a last stand. When it comes to narrative wargames, what you need to remember is ithey don’t necessarily have to be perfectly balanced, so long as the scenarios themselves are interesting to play out and immerse yourself in.

Essentially, If you are a good enough player that you can ‘read’ a codex well enough that you can break it (or select the optimum units), you can apply the same skills to ‘match’ X against Y.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/18 11:17:50


 
   
Made in gb
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker





UK

Well, this thread is effectively ruined.

pronouns: she/her
We're going to need more skulls - My blogspot
Quanar wrote:you were able to fit regular guardsmen in drop pods before the FAQ and they'd just come out as a sort of soup..
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Scott-S6 wrote:
Comparing a specific army against a specific army within a known scenario allows for better balancing than anything that's possible with points.


And is also impossible to do in a game like 40k. The only thing that is practical is "well, this is a 150 point tank, but we're playing this scenario that favors tanks so let's call it 200", or the informal half-remembered version of it. There is no way that any sane person is going to sit down and do enough math and simulation to create a balanced game without using points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote:
If you are anyway half-decent at a game, you can probably ‘read’ a units stats (stat card, unit profile or whatever) and get a feel for what they can do, and how ‘good’ they are. Pretty basic ‘back of a hankerchief’ math can also inform in terms of their survivability and kill-ratios against each other. Understanding of the game rules informs how all of these things interact. From that point, it’s pretty straight forward to get a feel for how much one is worth relative to another in this scenario.


IOW, doing exactly what a game designer does when they create a point system. Except for some reason instead of just writing down the point cost you want to pretend that you're doing something entirely different. Why not just use the existing point system instead of going through all of this denial?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/18 11:27:36


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

Now I'm just going to ignore the rather personal discussions on here and just chip in my own thoughts. I've only skimmed the last few pages as I'm at work however.

Peregrine, I completly, 100%, agree with you. Points are a necessity to a more balanced game. Not a perfect, balanced game with no quarms that is enjoyed by all, but a damn sight better than just "use whatever the hell you want but it's ok, this is casual and you should be having fun".

I honestly don't see what is being achieved by "take whatever". By this logic I could run my whole collection, including 2x Baneblades, 3x Knights, a Valdor, Warhound and a Reaver, against, say 3000 points, but it's ok because I'm certainly going to have fun, and it's casual!

You can have narrative campaigns, horde mode, last stand scenario, breakout mission, whatever, go for it! I love those missions where it's more than "kill each other and hold objectives, but you have to have some sort of points system to balance out, even if the points are skewed to an extent such as Planetstrike (attacker has more points but defender gets many fortification).
   
Made in gb
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker





UK

A question for Walkyrie, Peregrine et. al:
Is your insistence on each player having equal opportunity to win based on the idea that 40k is game? A mechanism for two people to compete against each other to determine a winner?

pronouns: she/her
We're going to need more skulls - My blogspot
Quanar wrote:you were able to fit regular guardsmen in drop pods before the FAQ and they'd just come out as a sort of soup..
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 corpuschain wrote:
A question for Walkyrie, Peregrine et. al:
Is your insistence on each player having equal opportunity to win based on the idea that 40k is game? A mechanism for two people to compete against each other to determine a winner?


GW sure seems to think so:

Collect incredible armies of miniatures representing armies from the distant future, then recreate the brutal clash of 41st Millennium warfare in tabletop games of strategy and luck for two or more players.

Or:

Social, strategic and nail-bitingly dramatic, Warhammer 40,000 is a game of dark futuristic warfare that sees carnage erupt upon a spectacular scale.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/18 12:29:17


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker





UK

 Peregrine wrote:
 corpuschain wrote:
A question for Walkyrie, Peregrine et. al:
Is your insistence on each player having equal opportunity to win based on the idea that 40k is game? A mechanism for two people to compete against each other to determine a winner?


GW sure seems to think so:

Collect incredible armies of miniatures representing armies from the distant future, then recreate the brutal clash of 41st Millennium warfare in tabletop games of strategy and luck for two or more players.

Or:

Social, strategic and nail-bitingly dramatic, Warhammer 40,000 is a game of dark futuristic warfare that sees carnage erupt upon a spectacular scale.


I want to know what you think!

pronouns: she/her
We're going to need more skulls - My blogspot
Quanar wrote:you were able to fit regular guardsmen in drop pods before the FAQ and they'd just come out as a sort of soup..
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 corpuschain wrote:
I want to know what you think!


I agree with GW that the sky is blue, 1+1=2, and 40k is a game. I'm not sure how you can possibly suggest otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the idea of both players having an equal chance of winning is based on fun, not some absurd dictionary argument over the definition of "game". Both players should have a close to equal chance of winning because nobody enjoys getting wiped off the table in a hopeless massacre where they never feel like they have any chance of accomplishing anything but removing casualties. Nobody enjoys having their proudly built and painted and fluffed army lose every battle they participate in, being nothing but cannon fodder to be mowed down by superior enemies. Even in a last stand scenario it's only fun if there's uncertainty about whether or not the outnumbered force can hold on long enough to be considered successful in their last stand. Nobody enjoys a "last stand" where the defending side never faces any real threat and holds their position effortlessly, or where they're gunned down on the first turn before anything interesting can happen.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/18 12:36:17


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker





UK

 Peregrine wrote:
 corpuschain wrote:
I want to know what you think!


I agree with GW that the sky is blue, 1+1=2, and 40k is a game. I'm not sure how you can possibly suggest otherwise.


Well I think 40k is a vast hobby, encompassing collecting and painting miniatures, a story told across numerous books, video games and novels, and a tabletop game. Within that, there is scope for anyone to do anything they want to express their love of the hobby. That includes acting out battles with interesting selections of miniatures with no regard for points.

I asked this question because the responses of many in this thread seem to hint that these people see 40k as a game for people to comepte against each other, with no option for it to be anything else. I doubt you actually think that people can't enjoy the hobby in any other way, but your discussions here belie that.

I also don't think anyone here wants to prohibit people from acting out battles with interesting selections of miniatures with no regard for points, but the response to much of what I and some others have posted seems to be a blind repetition of 'BUT IT'S NOT BALANCED!', which led me to ask the question. If you can't see that some people do not care one iota about whether the two 'sides' are equal, then that suggests that you have never considered 40k to be anything other than a competitive game (and I mean competitive in the sense of two people competing against each other, whether they are playing 'casually' or not).

I'm not saying all this to try and convince anyone to stop playing with points. It's your hobby. But I think it's a shame that you don't see what a vast and interesting hobby this can be.

pronouns: she/her
We're going to need more skulls - My blogspot
Quanar wrote:you were able to fit regular guardsmen in drop pods before the FAQ and they'd just come out as a sort of soup..
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






I'm sorry, but this has now reached the point of absurdity. You are now sincerely trying to argue that a game of 40k without points is somehow no longer a game, it's some weird cooperative theater performance that just happens to involve rolling dice and following game rules and all the things you normally associate with a game. Just, no. I can't see any point in discussing this subject with you if you're going to be that far detached from reality.

And yes, of course you can enjoy the 40k hobby without playing a game. But building and painting models or reading novels or whatever has nothing to do with playing a no-points game of 40k.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/18 12:44:23


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker





UK

 Peregrine wrote:
You are now sincerely trying to argue that a game of 40k without points is somehow no longer a game, it's some weird cooperative theater performance that just happens to involve rolling dice and following game rules and all the things you normally associate with a game.


Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying! Well, not that playing without points is always that, but that it can be, and that can be great fun. If you think that's weird, then I guess that's why you so far have failed to understand what I'm getting at, which is fine, because you have your way of playing the game and I have mine! But it's far from absurd.

pronouns: she/her
We're going to need more skulls - My blogspot
Quanar wrote:you were able to fit regular guardsmen in drop pods before the FAQ and they'd just come out as a sort of soup..
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 corpuschain wrote:
If you can't see that some people do not care one iota about whether the two 'sides' are equal


Sigh. You can't even represent my argument correctly. A game with asymmetrical points, such as an attacker/defender scenario of 1500 points vs. 2000 points, has unequal sides but still uses the point system to produce a known inequality matched to the scenario rules and maximize the chances of both sides having an equal chance of winning. Insisting that "points" and "both sides have equal points" are the same is a straw man argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 corpuschain wrote:
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying! Well, not that playing without points is always that, but that it can be, and that can be great fun. If you think that's weird, then I guess that's why you so far have failed to understand what I'm getting at, which is fine, because you have your way of playing the game and I have mine! But it's far from absurd.


And yet in this weird "not a game" activity you still get out your game rulebooks, move models and roll dice according to the game rules, define the abilities and stats of your models based on the game rules in your codex, etc. The idea that you are somehow not playing a game is utter lunacy. If you genuinely don't want to play a game then why are you using the game rules? Just set up a cool diorama on the table and move your models around while making gun noises, and then afterwards tell a story about how awesome it was.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/18 12:49:46


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






 Peregrine wrote:

And yet in this weird "not a game" activity you still get out your game rulebooks, move models and roll dice according to the game rules, define the abilities and stats of your models based on the game rules in your codex, etc. The idea that you are somehow not playing a game is utter lunacy. If you genuinely don't want to play a game then why are you using the game rules? Just set up a cool diorama on the table and move your models around while making gun noises, and then afterwards tell a story about how awesome it was.

This is getting into another category of play. There are people who use the 40K ruleset as a framework to just push models around and roll dice. Don't really get it myself but there are plenty of them.
   
Made in gb
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker





UK

 Peregrine wrote:
The idea that you are somehow not playing a game is utter lunacy.


Okay, just to be clear, I'm not claiming that the method I describe is not a game. I am suggesting that your idea of the definition of a game is narrower than mine. Yours is about competing - mine is about playing, like when you're a child and you play with toys in an imaginative way. When I play 40k, I pretend to be a Chaos Lord intent on conquering the galaxy. I am not corpuschain, trying to outwit my friend.

That said, I'm not particularly interested in trying to define what a game is. That way madness lies. I just wanted to initially ask you what you thought 40k was to try and understand your point of view from a different angle. I think I understand now.

 Peregrine wrote:
The idea that you are somehow not playing a game is utter lunacy. If you genuinely don't want to play a game then why are you using the game rules?


To help us determine an outcome with some semblance of randomness.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
This is getting into another category of play. There are people who use the 40K ruleset as a framework to just push models around and roll dice. Don't really get it myself but there are plenty of them.


Yes.

EDIT: sorry, trouble with BB Code

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/05/18 12:57:26


pronouns: she/her
We're going to need more skulls - My blogspot
Quanar wrote:you were able to fit regular guardsmen in drop pods before the FAQ and they'd just come out as a sort of soup..
 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





My question would be if you claim starting with points and adjusting them is a better solution than just crafting armies for a scenario using experience, how do you know what adjustments to make? And how is that inherently anymore balanced than two people going over units, talking out the scenario and agreeing that both armies look fair. I at least am not looking at no points as “players show up with whatever they want with no cross input.” Just like a points game if they feel the other force looks unenjoyable to play against, either work together to find a happy medium, or walk away. Why bother with trying to make up points for units in a different scenario instead of just talking it out? It is not any more effective to say this tank is 150, but the scenario, terrain etc makes it 200 with no actual basis behind it, and looking at an opposing army with 20 such tanks and deciding that it looks like too much maybe drop 5. Same with one side having more points, your decision here is ultimately arbitrary and guarantees nothing. Using points does not automatically make things better. It makes them easier in some instances (and honestly harder in others, as people often use points as a stick to beat opponents with, “my army is legal and the same points as yours, why are you rejecting the game, you’re being a jerk.”)
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 corpuschain wrote:
I am suggesting that your idea of the definition of a game is narrower than mine.


Uh, no, it isn't. You're assuming a lot, and it's completely wrong. I recognize the existence of games that are more about creating a story than hardcore competition, and point systems (along with balance in general) makes those games better. D&D, for example, is exactly that kind of game. And guess what, it's a much better game when all of the characters are balanced relative to each other and relative to the enemies they fight.

To help us determine an outcome with some semblance of randomness.


You don't need the 40k rules for that. If you aren't going to play a game just roll off with D6s and the person with the higher roll gets the write the script for your theater performance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
My question would be if you claim starting with points and adjusting them is a better solution than just crafting armies for a scenario using experience, how do you know what adjustments to make?


Based on experience. If you have enough experience to craft a scenario without points then you have enough to do it by adjusting the point system, and will almost certainly do a better job when you have the point system as a roughly accurate starting point.

And how is that inherently anymore balanced than two people going over units, talking out the scenario and agreeing that both armies look fair.


Because doing that accurately in the absence of points is incredibly hard and requires levels of math and simulation that are far beyond what any reasonable person will invest in a single game. It only works at all because people are familiar with the point system and know roughly how much each unit costs even if they don't get out the codex and add up the exact numbers. And that's still using the point system, even if you're using it poorly. If you assume that people are acting with total ignorance of the point system you will rarely see a balanced game.

It is not any more effective to say this tank is 150, but the scenario, terrain etc makes it 200 with no actual basis behind it, and looking at an opposing army with 20 such tanks and deciding that it looks like too much maybe drop 5.


Yes, of course it's more effective. The point system gives you a rough estimate that you can refine for the specific scenario. It may not be accurate, but it at least gets you close. Looking at an army with 20 tanks tells you nothing, because a 20-tank army could be anywhere from pathetically weak and low in point total (a force of IG Centaurs and Trojans) to game-breaking absurdity (a force of 20 Baneblades and Shadowswords). And when you look at that scary parking lot of tanks you have no idea if they should drop 5 or 10 or even 15. You can only make any kind of guess if you remember that tanks are ~150 points and your infantry squads are ~100 points, so they should have about 10 tanks to your 15 infantry squads.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/18 13:05:51


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:

Also, the idea of both players having an equal chance of winning is based on fun, not some absurd dictionary argument over the definition of "game". Both players should have a close to equal chance of winning because nobody enjoys getting wiped off the table in a hopeless massacre where they never feel like they have any chance of accomplishing anything but removing casualties.


You sure about that? Hope not, because you're wrong. Also, the second part of your statement is your own strawman. Nobody's talking about scenarios that are literally just "remove models, accomplish nothing". Throughout this whole discussion you've dismissed what other people find to be fun and insisted on your own definition as presented above. As an example, probably the most fun game of Necromunda I ever played was a scenario where I had pretty much zero chance of actually winning. I did get to scythe down dozens upon dozens of Plague Zombies and exact a heavy toll on my opponent's gang before the trade caravan was overrun though.

I've played games which were akin to a special forces raid on a vehicle depot, trying to get in and out with an outnumbered force and disable as many enemy assets as possible. It all went wrong when I got greedy and tried to assassinate the unit's commander without securing my exit route first. That was fun, even after I screwed it all up and was left with no chance of "winning" the scenario.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nobody enjoys having their proudly built and painted and fluffed army lose every battle they participate in, being nothing but cannon fodder to be mowed down by superior enemies. Even in a last stand scenario it's only fun if there's uncertainty about whether or not the outnumbered force can hold on long enough to be considered successful in their last stand. Nobody enjoys a "last stand" where the defending side never faces any real threat and holds their position effortlessly, or where they're gunned down on the first turn before anything interesting can happen.


Another strawman. We're not talking about losing every battle or only ever playing games where we have insurmountable numerical superiority. We're talking about sometimes, every now and then, playing a scenario-based game where points are disregarded and armies put together almost in a cooperative way to allow an interesting, engrossing gaming experience to happen. What I find really weird about this whole discussion is that we've had multiple people describe multiple ways in which no-points games could work, while also assuring you that yes, these games can actually be fun for them, and you still maintain your stance that they're wrong. Fun is subjective, people are telling you they had fun...therefore they had fun. You may be unable to understand how that can be the case but you're not even trying to figure that out at this point, just continuing to ignore them because it somehow upsets your world view or something.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Slipspace wrote:
Nobody's talking about scenarios that are literally just "remove models, accomplish nothing".


Yes you are, because that's what happens when you play a "everyone throw all your models on the table and play" game. Abandoning balance mechanics makes it much more likely that you have that kind of game. The fact that you deny the consequences of your "no points" approach does not make them any less real.

As an example, probably the most fun game of Necromunda I ever played was a scenario where I had pretty much zero chance of actually winning. I did get to scythe down dozens upon dozens of Plague Zombies and exact a heavy toll on my opponent's gang before the trade caravan was overrun though.


But that's not the same. You lost the battle, but you did a lot of damage before you lost (something very relevant in Necromunda, with persistent characters between games) and felt like you accomplished something. That's not at all comparable to a game where your opponent deploys a gunline, rolls dice on turn 1, and informs you that all of your units are dead before they ever get to act. There wasn't the same helpless feeling of knowing that nothing you do can possibly succeed because the scenario was impossibly biased against you from the beginning.

I've played games which were akin to a special forces raid on a vehicle depot, trying to get in and out with an outnumbered force and disable as many enemy assets as possible. It all went wrong when I got greedy and tried to assassinate the unit's commander without securing my exit route first. That was fun, even after I screwed it all up and was left with no chance of "winning" the scenario.


This is also not comparable. It wasn't hopeless because of the scenario or forces, it was hopeless because you had a chance of winning, made the wrong decision, and got into trouble. If you had succeeded in your assassination you (presumably) would have won. The moment of drama was still there, even if it was relatively early in the game at the assassination rather than in the final turn.

Fun is subjective, people are telling you they had fun...therefore they had fun.


People can have fun playing bad games. That doesn't mean that the game is good, or that they wouldn't have had more fun playing with better rules. And I suspect that much of the "fun" involved is people desperately convincing themselves that they had fun in order to reinforce their identity as "casual" players who use the "casual" rules of rejecting the point system. That or they're taking "beer and pretzels" too literally and getting so drunk that they can't even understand what's going on and don't care about the game anymore.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/05/18 13:23:27


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker





UK

 Peregrine wrote:

People can have fun playing bad games. That doesn't mean that the game is good, or that they wouldn't have had more fun playing with better rules. And I suspect that much of the "fun" involved is people desperately convincing themselves that they had fun in order to reinforce their identity as "casual" players who use the "casual" rules of rejecting the point system. That or they're taking "beer and pretzels" too literally and getting so drunk that they can't even understand what's going on and don't care about the game anymore.


Okay, I'm done now. I thought maybe we could have a sensible discussion, but that doesn't appear possible!*

Thanks for trying, Slipspace

*and I'm a bit upset about all this, because I thought this would be a nice thread about different ways of playing games, as a break from the usual discussions about balancing units and strategy and so on.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/18 13:40:50


pronouns: she/her
We're going to need more skulls - My blogspot
Quanar wrote:you were able to fit regular guardsmen in drop pods before the FAQ and they'd just come out as a sort of soup..
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Nobody's talking about scenarios that are literally just "remove models, accomplish nothing".


I've played games which were akin to a special forces raid on a vehicle depot, trying to get in and out with an outnumbered force and disable as many enemy assets as possible. It all went wrong when I got greedy and tried to assassinate the unit's commander without securing my exit route first. That was fun, even after I screwed it all up and was left with no chance of "winning" the scenario.


This is also not comparable. It wasn't hopeless because of the scenario or forces, it was hopeless because you had a chance of winning, made the wrong decision, and got into trouble. If you had succeeded in your assassination you (presumably) would have won. The moment of drama was still there, even if it was relatively early in the game at the assassination rather than in the final turn.


Wait, so we played a game put together without points and the result was determined by tactical decisions made during the game, resulting in an engrossing experience for both players and you still maintain that no-point games aren't fun?

 Peregrine wrote:
Slipspace wrote:

Fun is subjective, people are telling you they had fun...therefore they had fun.


People can have fun playing bad games. That doesn't mean that the game is good, or that they wouldn't have had more fun playing with better rules. And I suspect that much of the "fun" involved is people desperately convincing themselves that they had fun in order to reinforce their identity as "casual" players who use the "casual" rules of rejecting the point system. That or they're taking "beer and pretzels" too literally and getting so drunk that they can't even understand what's going on and don't care about the game anymore.


You suspect wrong (again). This may come as a shock to you but I couldn't care less whether other people view me as casual or not. It looks to me like you're the only one here concerned with that. At any rate, I'm with Corpuschain here and I'm out. You either lack the understanding to make this a meaningful argument or you're going out of your way to argue in bad faith and I have no idea which. Either way, it's a pointless debate.
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Peregrine wrote:
 corpuschain wrote:
I am suggesting that your idea of the definition of a game is narrower than mine.


Uh, no, it isn't. You're assuming a lot, and it's completely wrong. I recognize the existence of games that are more about creating a story than hardcore competition, and point systems (along with balance in general) makes those games better. D&D, for example, is exactly that kind of game. And guess what, it's a much better game when all of the characters are balanced relative to each other and relative to the enemies they fight.

To help us determine an outcome with some semblance of randomness.


You don't need the 40k rules for that. If you aren't going to play a game just roll off with D6s and the person with the higher roll gets the write the script for your theater performance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
My question would be if you claim starting with points and adjusting them is a better solution than just crafting armies for a scenario using experience, how do you know what adjustments to make?


Based on experience. If you have enough experience to craft a scenario without points then you have enough to do it by adjusting the point system, and will almost certainly do a better job when you have the point system as a roughly accurate starting point.

And how is that inherently anymore balanced than two people going over units, talking out the scenario and agreeing that both armies look fair.


Because doing that accurately in the absence of points is incredibly hard and requires levels of math and simulation that are far beyond what any reasonable person will invest in a single game. It only works at all because people are familiar with the point system and know roughly how much each unit costs even if they don't get out the codex and add up the exact numbers. And that's still using the point system, even if you're using it poorly. If you assume that people are acting with total ignorance of the point system you will rarely see a balanced game.

It is not any more effective to say this tank is 150, but the scenario, terrain etc makes it 200 with no actual basis behind it, and looking at an opposing army with 20 such tanks and deciding that it looks like too much maybe drop 5.


Yes, of course it's more effective. The point system gives you a rough estimate that you can refine for the specific scenario. It may not be accurate, but it at least gets you close. Looking at an army with 20 tanks tells you nothing, because a 20-tank army could be anywhere from pathetically weak and low in point total (a force of IG Centaurs and Trojans) to game-breaking absurdity (a force of 20 Baneblades and Shadowswords). And when you look at that scary parking lot of tanks you have no idea if they should drop 5 or 10 or even 15. You can only make any kind of guess if you remember that tanks are ~150 points and your infantry squads are ~100 points, so they should have about 10 tanks to your 15 infantry squads.


So you literally think it is not possible to determine rough unit strength by looking at its statline? IMO that gives a better rough idea of its capability in any given situation that it’s points costs do. I mean look at a Shadow sword and an Ork Stompa, the shadow sword is about half the points of a Stompa and probably nearly twice as effective on the table. If you removed points entirely and asked people to look just at the stats almost anyone would say the shadow sword is better. So if I look at the 15 tanks and they are all shadow swords I might argue we need even less, if they are rhinos I might not care at all. I think in many scenarios points give you really no idea about unit power or matchup balance. You are thinking too hard. It isn’t a giant math problem it is having a feel for how durably/killy things are and bashing out what seems like a fun, fair game. Might you miss the mark sure, but you are nearly as likely to do so using points. If this were not the case we wouldn’t have auto-include/never include units. Short of entirely rewriting the points system for your desired game you won’t see balance.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Well, I never thought I would see the day someone said "I am having fun." and someone else outright told them they weren't.

As soon as an argument gets to the point where one side (peregrine) has to tell the otherside how they feel on a subjective topic for their argument to still function, that's the point I know when they have lost.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Right Behind You

At this point I'd like to take a moment and point out the "Ignore" button on the bottom right hand side of each participant's post. Use it well
   
Made in us
Nurgle Chosen Marine on a Palanquin






 Peregrine wrote:

People can have fun playing bad games. That doesn't mean that the game is good, or that they wouldn't have had more fun playing with better rules. And I suspect that much of the "fun" involved is people desperately convincing themselves that they had fun in order to reinforce their identity as "casual" players who use the "casual" rules of rejecting the point system. That or they're taking "beer and pretzels" too literally and getting so drunk that they can't even understand what's going on and don't care about the game anymore.


Holy cow, I think I've heard that exact same quote from someone locally, if you were a massive eldar lover I would swear I know you in person.

I'll make sure to post pics, so you can see how drunk we are.

SPOILER: We will only be drunk on fun and and friendship.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/18 15:05:50


   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





@ Scott-S6, Breng77, Kharneth and Slipspace: thank you for your time and effort, it was nice and refreshing to see some sane and knowledgeable people taking part in this discussion. After this last post I'm out too.

@ Deadnight: that was probably the sweetest and at the same time most awkward compliment I ever received for my wargaming related posts. Thank you and you're welcome

and now, for the last time, @Peregrine:

 Peregrine wrote:


People can have fun playing bad games. That doesn't mean that the game is good, or that they wouldn't have had more fun playing with better rules. And I suspect that much of the "fun" involved is people desperately convincing themselves that they had fun in order to reinforce their identity as "casual" players who use the "casual" rules of rejecting the point system. That or they're taking "beer and pretzels" too literally and getting so drunk that they can't even understand what's going on and don't care about the game anymore.


Really, you just should have conceded a page or two ago instead of becoming ridiculous and embarass yourself. Especially when some people here where arguing with you about how to INCREASE ballance of the match and overcome the inherent limitations of static and linear point systems, not get rid of ballance or even lessen it's impact on the gaming experience. And next time try to read my posts bit more carefully and try to understand them, as I have adressed the question why "every major miniatures game uses a point system. 40k does, AoS does, WM/H does, Infinity does, all of FFG's games do" in the very [game desing 101 lecture] post you were replying to. I leave it as a homework to you to find this answer in that post.

   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

Deadnight wrote:

You are looking at it the wrong way. To answer your question, I think a Space Marine is worth X guardsmen because I can math, and I can extrapolate a units effectiveness on the table top, based on 15 years of playing wargames.
Ah, so you are actually using points, it's just a points system of your own design rather GWs.

As for the rest of your post, "dude I just wouldn't play with anyone who doesn't explicitly align with my views lol" is not a particularly compelling sell for points-free 40k.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/18 20:11:50


 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





To be fair that same point is often true in points 40k.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: