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.

 Blndmage wrote:

Bharring wrote:
It's more fun to see dice. I don't care if it takes longer.

I 100% agree with you.
Take the time and play the game, no need to rush rush rush, actually enjoy the models on the table, watching the story unfold, actually having a story, even if it's a quuickly made up one.

It already takes 4 hours or so to play the game, I’d rather being actually doing something than counting dice.

It’s not as though GW is within 1% accuracy of many models / units. At 1000 points, 10 points represents a 1% margin of error.

I’d prefer if, like WMH, units had two different sizes. This would get away from points per model, allowing a 5/10 tactical squad to cost 60/110 points,

You could charge 50 points for a Guardsman squad, and 42 points for 10 conscripts. Moving away from points per model, towards points per unit would be the most accurate way to price units of models.

and what if we up the point scale of standard battles to 40 000? Moooaar micromanaging in points possible and it comes back in the name of the game

I think another potential solution would be to use more that 1 type of dice. Guardsmen and grots hit on +4 on a d6, but Terminators roll d8's or 10's for their BS score. Easily done by WS(d6), bs (d10), and so on.

So a tactical marine statline could look like
WS(d8) 3+, BS(d8) 3+ s4 t4 w1 a1 Ld7 sv3+.

Could even use this on wound rolls, damage and such to show power difference. Could also make abilities that activate on x+ more valuable on models/units with large dice rolled. Yeah, getting d2 on 6+ with a d6 is no biggy, but imagine that on a unit that rolls d8's or 10's? Possibly less work to overhaul, but easier to tweak a unit here and there by changing dice/success.

Just change everything over to a d10, and add 1 to all current values. Allow 1+ to auto-succeed and 11+ to auto fail.

Orks, with BS 5+ become 6+ on a d10. -3 to hit becomes an 9+. (20% success)

Yes, everything needs to be repointed, but now BS looks like...

6+: Orks
5+: "Shooty Orks", AM, Tau, most Nids
4+: Vet AM, Vet Tau, Special Nids, SM Tacticals
3+: Heroic GEQ, Veteran SM, Snipers
2+: Heroic SM, Special Snipers
1+: Unique Snipers - Only possible to miss due to negative mods (IE: Vindicare Assassin, some Eldar super sniper?)

 greatbigtree wrote:
It’s not as though GW is within 1% accuracy of many models / units. At 1000 points, 10 points represents a 1% margin of error.

I’d prefer if, like WMH, units had two different sizes. This would get away from points per model, allowing a 5/10 tactical squad to cost 60/110 points,

You could charge 50 points for a Guardsman squad, and 42 points for 10 conscripts. Moving away from points per model, towards points per unit would be the most accurate way to price units of models.

Conceptually interesting. It would allow you to use unit sizes to "guess" at the intended use of the unit and adjust points accordingly. 10 man guardian squad? It's probably sitting back and doing very little or planning on buying a serpent to get around the board. 20 man guardian squad? Probably going to be deepstriking via webway making their 12" guns more valuable. Consider pricing accordingly. Power Level arguably kind of tries to do this by assuming you're taking the most expensive version of a unit (rather than the most points efficient version).

StarHunter25 wrote:
I think another potential solution would be to use more that 1 type of dice. Guardsmen and grots hit on +4 on a d6, but Terminators roll d8's or 10's for their BS score. Easily done by WS(d6), bs (d10), and so on.

So a tactical marine statline could look like
WS(d8) 3+, BS(d8) 3+ s4 t4 w1 a1 Ld7 sv3+.

Could even use this on wound rolls, damage and such to show power difference. Could also make abilities that activate on x+ more valuable on models/units with large dice rolled. Yeah, getting d2 on 6+ with a d6 is no biggy, but imagine that on a unit that rolls d8's or 10's? Possibly less work to overhaul, but easier to tweak a unit here and there by changing dice/success.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Just change everything over to a d10, and add 1 to all current values. Allow 1+ to auto-succeed and 11+ to auto fail.

Orks, with BS 5+ become 6+ on a d10. -3 to hit becomes an 9+. (20% success)

Yes, everything needs to be repointed, but now BS looks like...

6+: Orks
5+: "Shooty Orks", AM, Tau, most Nids
4+: Vet AM, Vet Tau, Special Nids, SM Tacticals
3+: Heroic GEQ, Veteran SM, Snipers
2+: Heroic SM, Special Snipers
1+: Unique Snipers - Only possible to miss due to negative mods (IE: Vindicare Assassin, some Eldar super sniper?)

Setting aside the ancient debate of whether or not it's all that difficult to acquire 60+ d10s for your ork units, I'm not entirely sure we actually need this level of granularity in our stats. I'm fine with my ancient eldar samurai hitting on 3's just like scrappy humans because it's a comfortable level of abstraction for the scale of the game. But this is mostly a matter of personal preference.

Point doubling could be a fine solution considering that 40k's number 1 balance hinder (given that the should obviously be actually trying to fix something and be competent) is the sheer amount of weapons and profiles and special rules. A larger scale allows for more variations and more specific point costs, so it could definitly improve a bit how this mess it dealt with.

I disagree with points granularity being the prime balance issue.

The game is based on unit vs unit combat, but in many cases points are based on a by-model basis.

A 5 man Tactical squad does not double in value when it becomes a 10 man squad. Board control options are lost, weapon options are lost. There should be a discount.

When combining 2x AM Infantry Squads, the resulting 20 man unit is MORE valuable than its base cost. (Currently represented by costing CP). As AM tactics tend to rely on attrition, having the extra bodies to protect the weapon upgrades is more valuable than being able to act independently. A single squad with an upgraded Sarge, Special and Heavy team starts losing upgrades after 6 chumps die. A combined squad has 12 chumps to kill before losing upgrades, and the upgrades are the damage dealers, so they remain 90% damage output for twice as long when taking casualties. Also, you improve order efficiency. These combine to be more valuable than the sum of the parts.

A transport’s value is altered depending on the content of the protected unit. A Chimera with an Infantry Squad inside is less valuable than a Chimera transporting a Special Weapon squad with 3x short range specials, that would not otherwise live to attack with said weapons

The guns on a Chimera are theoretically worth fewer points than a stationary unit, as it should be moving to deliver the embarked unit and this less able to fire at full BS.

Heavy weapons in a Devestator unit are more valuable than HW in a Tactical squad, because it is easier to set them in place with concentrated fire power. Like a combined Guard squad, the extra ablative wounds in a 10 man Dev squad are more valuable than two smaller squads. Admittedly, this concept falls apart with Salamanders, where the rerolls per unit tend to encourage MSU regardless.

None of these issues is addressed by increasing granularity. This is a fundamental “how it plays on the table” is more/less valuable than the sum of individual parts issue.

In the same way that WMH is hypothetically balanced around 75 point games, 40k needs a similar balance point. Buffing auras, for example, have a bell-curve of how many units you can buff around them, based on available points to buff, and eventually running out of space to put stuff within the aura range. The more Knights / Ork boys a list has, the more heavily skewed it becomes, and the more difficult a TAC list has at dealing with the “force concentration” effect that such skews create.

These issues can’t be accurately reflected at the per model / per upgrade level. It has to be considered as the unit’s potential to achieve its purpose. At 2000 points, for example, an upgrade needs to make a 1% impact on a game to be worth 20 points. Does a Lascannon, Plasmagun, Meltagun, Missile Launcher have a 1% impact? Probably yes. Does a flamer, grenade launcher, heavy bolter, single mortar, have a 1% impact? No.

So if I believe a unit of Guardsmen, with a Lascannon and a Plasmagun is worth 85 points (maybe a touch more) how do I balance that with a G squad with a Heavy Bolter and Flamer that I think is worth about 60 points? (Maybe a bit less) Does adding a bolter to the Sarge, of either, actually make 1 point of difference to the unit’s output? If a GL is less valuable than a guardsman with a lasgun and a FRFSRF order, should you even charge points for that “upgrade”?

This is why I am less inclined to increase granularity, as to actually decrease granularity and to instead move more towards the PL system.

An AM Infanty Squad costs 3 PL, and may take upgrades from the following list: Mortar, Heavy Bolter, Autocannon, Flamer, Grenade Launcher, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Vox Caster

For + 2 PL, the squad may take weapons from the following list in addition to those above: Missile Launcher, Lascannon, Plasmagun, Meltagun, Plasma Pistol, Power Weapon

For +1 PL, the unit may be combined with up to 1 more infantry squad. (Only pay 1 PL to combine 2 squads).

This would be a more accurate overall comparison of ability, rather than points per upgrade, or model.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I disagree with points granularity being the prime balance issue.

The game is based on unit vs unit combat, but in many cases points are based on a by-model basis.

A 5 man Tactical squad does not double in value when it becomes a 10 man squad. Board control options are lost, weapon options are lost. There should be a discount.

When combining 2x AM Infantry Squads, the resulting 20 man unit is MORE valuable than its base cost. (Currently represented by costing CP). As AM tactics tend to rely on attrition, having the extra bodies to protect the weapon upgrades is more valuable than being able to act independently. A single squad with an upgraded Sarge, Special and Heavy team starts losing upgrades after 6 chumps die. A combined squad has 12 chumps to kill before losing upgrades, and the upgrades are the damage dealers, so they remain 90% damage output for twice as long when taking casualties. Also, you improve order efficiency. These combine to be more valuable than the sum of the parts.

A transport’s value is altered depending on the content of the protected unit. A Chimera with an Infantry Squad inside is less valuable than a Chimera transporting a Special Weapon squad with 3x short range specials, that would not otherwise live to attack with said weapons

The guns on a Chimera are theoretically worth fewer points than a stationary unit, as it should be moving to deliver the embarked unit and this less able to fire at full BS.

Heavy weapons in a Devestator unit are more valuable than HW in a Tactical squad, because it is easier to set them in place with concentrated fire power. Like a combined Guard squad, the extra ablative wounds in a 10 man Dev squad are more valuable than two smaller squads. Admittedly, this concept falls apart with Salamanders, where the rerolls per unit tend to encourage MSU regardless.

None of these issues is addressed by increasing granularity. This is a fundamental “how it plays on the table” is more/less valuable than the sum of individual parts issue.

In the same way that WMH is hypothetically balanced around 75 point games, 40k needs a similar balance point. Buffing auras, for example, have a bell-curve of how many units you can buff around them, based on available points to buff, and eventually running out of space to put stuff within the aura range. The more Knights / Ork boys a list has, the more heavily skewed it becomes, and the more difficult a TAC list has at dealing with the “force concentration” effect that such skews create.

These issues can’t be accurately reflected at the per model / per upgrade level. It has to be considered as the unit’s potential to achieve its purpose. At 2000 points, for example, an upgrade needs to make a 1% impact on a game to be worth 20 points. Does a Lascannon, Plasmagun, Meltagun, Missile Launcher have a 1% impact? Probably yes. Does a flamer, grenade launcher, heavy bolter, single mortar, have a 1% impact? No.

So if I believe a unit of Guardsmen, with a Lascannon and a Plasmagun is worth 85 points (maybe a touch more) how do I balance that with a G squad with a Heavy Bolter and Flamer that I think is worth about 60 points? (Maybe a bit less) Does adding a bolter to the Sarge, of either, actually make 1 point of difference to the unit’s output? If a GL is less valuable than a guardsman with a lasgun and a FRFSRF order, should you even charge points for that “upgrade”?

This is why I am less inclined to increase granularity, as to actually decrease granularity and to instead move more towards the PL system.

An AM Infanty Squad costs 3 PL, and may take upgrades from the following list: Mortar, Heavy Bolter, Autocannon, Flamer, Grenade Launcher, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Vox Caster

For + 2 PL, the squad may take weapons from the following list in addition to those above: Missile Launcher, Lascannon, Plasmagun, Meltagun, Plasma Pistol, Power Weapon

For +1 PL, the unit may be combined with up to 1 more infantry squad. (Only pay 1 PL to combine 2 squads).

This would be a more accurate overall comparison of ability, rather than points per upgrade, or model.

Agreed on the principle that the whole unit matters, however it is atrociously hard to balance the unit cost, especially since the composition is nit binary: for instance you could get 5 as well as 7 marines, not just 5 or ten. To that extend you can only, unless you get all units to a specific, pre set size and equipement, count the individual models and equipments you put in them. What's more, given how many options some units get access to (I'm thinking of 6th chaos space marines for example), foreseeing the effectivness of each combination is pharaonic.

It becomes as well very complicated to balance out characters whose buffs directly depend on how many units they're surrounded by: you assume that it could work plus or less effectively on the tabletop but you can't give any point value to the sum of character+ X units under buff, for lack of knowing who exactly it will be, and said units don't have the points for being able to be buffed included...

On the whole my objection to your point would consist in saying that, again in a game so varied in units, equipments, rules, and highly customisable units, setting an accurate per unit cost is impossible, unless you pre-set squads' manpower and equipment with very limited and binary option. Which could very much work, but at the expanse of "freedom".

But that's just how I see it, you might take it as number #1 bullsht

I would like to see fixed unit sizes. Or, at least fewer chosen unit sizes. No 5-10, instead 5 or 10. Fewer configurations mean fewer balance points.

I would provide fewer options, and instead include by default some options.

Regarding buff auras, I'd mentioned that 40k should have a point level around which the game is actively balanced. For example, at 2000 points, it would be quite reasonable to expect at least 4 units to be buffed. That would help, though it still does shift balance at lower and higher point values.

I don't think it's that hard to balance the value of units when you have few options. So provide few options and more baked in rules.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I would like to see fixed unit sizes. Or, at least fewer chosen unit sizes. No 5-10, instead 5 or 10. Fewer configurations mean fewer balance points.

I would provide fewer options, and instead include by default some options.

Regarding buff auras, I'd mentioned that 40k should have a point level around which the game is actively balanced. For example, at 2000 points, it would be quite reasonable to expect at least 4 units to be buffed. That would help, though it still does shift balance at lower and higher point values.

I don't think it's that hard to balance the value of units when you have few options. So provide few options and more baked in rules.

I see your point, it actually requires a break from the current fashion, but why not. If it can get the game to a decent level of balance.