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.

I think people are absolutely missing the point of the character creation rules, and why they're listed as Open Play only.

If you attend a tournament, do you think any TO is going to take the time to verify your bespoke made-up gak? No.

If you're playing locally and your opponent is fine with it - play with your made up characters, we do it locally (gasp, designing our own stuff!) and it works fine. In this instance, convert your PL to points by PL=20pts. and carry on. Ask your opponent "hey man, I made this character using Chapter Approved, mind if I run him?" and then just play the fething game.

What is this attitude of "oh man, GW didn't say I could explicitly do something when I'm playing my own game...it is forbidden!". This kind of thing is exhausting to read over and over again.

It's the same thing as playing an old edition: there's enough stuff to decide in a game that you don't need another barrier to play. People were resistant to FW for years despite clarifications about how legal they were.

Poor support just doesn't make it worth the effort.

 Elbows wrote:
I think people are absolutely missing the point of the character creation rules, and why they're listed as Open Play only.

If you attend a tournament, do you think any TO is going to take the time to verify your bespoke made-up gak? No.

If you're playing locally and your opponent is fine with it - play with your made up characters, we do it locally (gasp, designing our own stuff!) and it works fine. In this instance, convert your PL to points by PL=20pts. and carry on. Ask your opponent "hey man, I made this character using Chapter Approved, mind if I run him?" and then just play the fething game.

What is this attitude of "oh man, GW didn't say I could explicitly do something when I'm playing my own game...it is forbidden!". This kind of thing is exhausting to read over and over again.

You may consider it exhausting, but that attitude is widespread for good reason. We rely on GW to be the neutral institution that provides us with fair and unbiased rules so we, the players, have a common ground to play the game. We even pay them to do it.

It's practical because many of us only play pick-up games and need to be able to prepare as much in advance as possible so as not to waste precious gaming time with negotiations. That's the number one reason Age of Sigmar initially failed. Too many people didn't even bother to give the game a try and instead pointed their fingers at GW and laughed. As far as GW is concerned, Age of Sigmar's release version is the ultimate expression of that problem. People desire a solid framework for their games, and the one it provided was considered inadequate. Laughably so, just to say that again.

GW's loose way with rules doesn't help things either. If a large company with the resources GW has at its disposal can't write balanced rules, do you think many people will trust some guy beefing up their character to do a good job of it? Within the confines of such a flawed ruleset? Or outside of it by introducing that may not be in the ruleset for a reason?

You don't easily get over that kind of distrust in a game that teaches people games can go sour for any number of reasons already. In my experience most people are happy to stick with the rules we have than introduce more elements that might break what already struggles to be an enjoyable game.

Please also consider that this can be a means of preserving a community. If you stick with the rules as they are and let GW take all the blame for breaking the game, you at least avoid bad feelings among the players because they can agree that they are innocent of ruining other people's enjoyment. That's why common ground is important. Nobody needs to feel cheated by other players if everyone plays by the same rules.

Thus if you subscribe to this kind of thinking but also like fun, character design rules limited to open play because GW didn't even try to come up with points for matched play is seen as a waste of time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Um... character Creation rules (or LR , or Looted wagons) would become beyond broken in certain players hands. Perhaps THAT is why they've been left out of matched play.

Then that proves the system is bad if it can be broken that easily, and therefore it needs to be redone.

Remember how a poster here made a "Create Your Vehicle" system, and it was quickly broken by creating a NEGATIVE point value unit? Their response was "Well nobody is gonna do that".

It's a bad excuse and means the system needs to be redone.

Except any design X with point formula will be broken by definition the moment it is born. Either everything results in too expensive(even if it's identical with already existing model...) or it will result in underpriced stuff.

Problem with all the "design X" for points is that they depend on being based on formula. Add +1 S, pay Y. That's broken by definition. It will never work. Anybody doing that is simply flat out bad at designing game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:
GW's loose way with rules doesn't help things either. If a large company with the resources GW has at its disposal can't write balanced rules, do you think many people will trust some guy beefing up their character to do a good job of it? Within the confines of such a flawed ruleset? Or outside of it by introducing that may not be in the ruleset for a reason?

You are working on assumption GW is even trying to create even semi-balanced rules. That's false base assumption.

tneva82 wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
GW's loose way with rules doesn't help things either. If a large company with the resources GW has at its disposal can't write balanced rules, do you think many people will trust some guy beefing up their character to do a good job of it? Within the confines of such a flawed ruleset? Or outside of it by introducing that may not be in the ruleset for a reason?

You are working on assumption GW is even trying to create even semi-balanced rules. That's false base assumption.

The only assumption here is that you are assuming what I am assuming.

I'm describing an ideal that people long for, not the reality of GW.

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Um... character Creation rules (or LR , or Looted wagons) would become beyond broken in certain players hands. Perhaps THAT is why they've been left out of matched play.

Then that proves the system is bad if it can be broken that easily, and therefore it needs to be redone.

Remember how a poster here made a "Create Your Vehicle" system, and it was quickly broken by creating a NEGATIVE point value unit? Their response was "Well nobody is gonna do that".

It's a bad excuse and means the system needs to be redone.

Except any design X with point formula will be broken by definition the moment it is born. Either everything results in too expensive(even if it's identical with already existing model...) or it will result in underpriced stuff.

Problem with all the "design X" for points is that they depend on being based on formula. Add +1 S, pay Y. That's broken by definition. It will never work. Anybody doing that is simply flat out bad at designing game.

You've said this before, and never actually explained why it's broken. You said +S, pay Y is broken by definition, and yet haven't said why that's broken. And yet again you ignore the simple principle in that a formula can produce an initial result which can then be manually adjusted.

Peregrine wrote:
In any case, because this is clearly going to become a "complain about Peregrine" thread, I'll leave it at this:

1) There is no excuse for not including matched play rules (and conventional points) for the new character creation system. It's lazy design, and it amazes me that people are happy with paying for half-finished content and even trying to spin GW's laziness as some kind of virtue. And if the character creation rules are so badly designed and balanced that they don't belong in matched play, well, why is that considered acceptable in a product you have to pay for?

just a thought on this, not saying anyone is wrong or right but maybe GW doesn't want to give a way to point a custom character because it would give to much insight on the rules design process ?

 Bonkz wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
In any case, because this is clearly going to become a "complain about Peregrine" thread, I'll leave it at this:

1) There is no excuse for not including matched play rules (and conventional points) for the new character creation system. It's lazy design, and it amazes me that people are happy with paying for half-finished content and even trying to spin GW's laziness as some kind of virtue. And if the character creation rules are so badly designed and balanced that they don't belong in matched play, well, why is that considered acceptable in a product you have to pay for?

just a thought on this, not saying anyone is wrong or right but maybe GW doesn't want to give a way to point a custom character because it would give to much insight on the rules design process ?

No, I can say with pretty much 100% certainty that the reason they didn't is because they'd rather keep it to the narrative gaming scene where all the "custom" characters aren't just "captain smash-man, with the same relic, same warlord trait, and same custom traits that every other custom captain has".

You don't need to feel that "casual/narrative" play is morally superior to see that systems designed for allowing your character to play like "your guy" tend to completely fail at that purpose when someone interested in maximising in-game power creates cookie cutter builds.

See the old classic "munchkin" stereotype from RPGs, where the powergamer of the group would always take massive narrative penalties to pump extra points into his combat abilities, and every character they ever play is a scarred deaf mute midget with scitzophrenia who can bench press an elephant and run 60MPH.

nekooni wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:
The irony is demanding he explain his definition of CAAC and WAAC when i see the term WAAC tossed around these boards for years in a very liberal manner.

The board tells you what the acronym WAAC means, it doesn't explain CAAC - it's not bias, it's just an acronym not commonly used and not automatically translated by dakkadakka.

Once again my only "beef" with CA is that the mandatory point updates should also be available as a free download. They're nothing more than errata. I don't use my CA2017 for points anyway, I use it mainly for the missions (which I think are great) nowadays, so it doesn't affect me (especially since I'm using BS anyway), but I think the right move would be to have CA stand on it's content, not just on the mandatory point changes, as it's selling point.

i never claimed Bias.. i claimed the irony of people demanding "his" definition of "WAAC"

 zedsdead wrote:
i never claimed Bias.. i claimed the irony of people demanding "his" definition of "WAAC"

It is really difficult to discuss things if everyone is not using the same definitions of terms.

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Um... character Creation rules (or LR , or Looted wagons) would become beyond broken in certain players hands. Perhaps THAT is why they've been left out of matched play.

Then that proves the system is bad if it can be broken that easily, and therefore it needs to be redone.

Remember how a poster here made a "Create Your Vehicle" system, and it was quickly broken by creating a NEGATIVE point value unit? Their response was "Well nobody is gonna do that".

It's a bad excuse and means the system needs to be redone.

Except any design X with point formula will be broken by definition the moment it is born. Either everything results in too expensive(even if it's identical with already existing model...) or it will result in underpriced stuff.

Problem with all the "design X" for points is that they depend on being based on formula. Add +1 S, pay Y. That's broken by definition. It will never work. Anybody doing that is simply flat out bad at designing game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:
GW's loose way with rules doesn't help things either. If a large company with the resources GW has at its disposal can't write balanced rules, do you think many people will trust some guy beefing up their character to do a good job of it? Within the confines of such a flawed ruleset? Or outside of it by introducing that may not be in the ruleset for a reason?

You are working on assumption GW is even trying to create even semi-balanced rules. That's false base assumption.

Even IF every system can be broken, you can still get close. That's a bad excuse on your end to simply not try.

Khahandran wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Um... character Creation rules (or LR , or Looted wagons) would become beyond broken in certain players hands. Perhaps THAT is why they've been left out of matched play.

Then that proves the system is bad if it can be broken that easily, and therefore it needs to be redone.

Remember how a poster here made a "Create Your Vehicle" system, and it was quickly broken by creating a NEGATIVE point value unit? Their response was "Well nobody is gonna do that".

It's a bad excuse and means the system needs to be redone.

Except any design X with point formula will be broken by definition the moment it is born. Either everything results in too expensive(even if it's identical with already existing model...) or it will result in underpriced stuff.

Problem with all the "design X" for points is that they depend on being based on formula. Add +1 S, pay Y. That's broken by definition. It will never work. Anybody doing that is simply flat out bad at designing game.

You've said this before, and never actually explained why it's broken. You said +S, pay Y is broken by definition, and yet haven't said why that's broken. And yet again you ignore the simple principle in that a formula can produce an initial result which can then be manually adjusted.

A formula like that is not good even as a starting value.
You are only considering the effects of order zero (the stats). A formula to get decent initial values needs to at least include all effects up to the second order (the stats, the wargear, the interaction between the stats, the interaction between the stats and the wargear, the interaction between the wargear and wargear, the effects of the other models on that model, the effects of the interaction between the stats of other models on this model... you get it). The effor to create that formula is beyond the scale of this problem, and even if you make it, to validate it you need a data sample so huge compared to the amount of data samples collectable in a year, that humanity will be long gone before the formula is usable.

When designers say that point costs are given "by feeling", that's the right approach to it. The algorithms of a skilled human mind are the only ones available to solve this problem and give an initial value, from there you proceed with trial and error.

A formula thorough enough to cover all contingencies would look like multi-variable calculus.

 aka_mythos wrote:
A formula thorough enough to cover all contingencies would look like multi-variable calculus.

Sure, and it ain't even that hard to integrate matrices like that;

the guys who do Inquisimunda over on the Yaktribe did it for N17,
it's not really rocketscience

Spoletta wrote:

Khahandran wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Um... character Creation rules (or LR , or Looted wagons) would become beyond broken in certain players hands. Perhaps THAT is why they've been left out of matched play.

Then that proves the system is bad if it can be broken that easily, and therefore it needs to be redone.

Remember how a poster here made a "Create Your Vehicle" system, and it was quickly broken by creating a NEGATIVE point value unit? Their response was "Well nobody is gonna do that".

It's a bad excuse and means the system needs to be redone.

Except any design X with point formula will be broken by definition the moment it is born. Either everything results in too expensive(even if it's identical with already existing model...) or it will result in underpriced stuff.

Problem with all the "design X" for points is that they depend on being based on formula. Add +1 S, pay Y. That's broken by definition. It will never work. Anybody doing that is simply flat out bad at designing game.

You've said this before, and never actually explained why it's broken. You said +S, pay Y is broken by definition, and yet haven't said why that's broken. And yet again you ignore the simple principle in that a formula can produce an initial result which can then be manually adjusted.

A formula like that is not good even as a starting value.
You are only considering the effects of order zero (the stats). A formula to get decent initial values needs to at least include all effects up to the second order (the stats, the wargear, the interaction between the stats, the interaction between the stats and the wargear, the interaction between the wargear and wargear, the effects of the other models on that model, the effects of the interaction between the stats of other models on this model... you get it). The effor to create that formula is beyond the scale of this problem, and even if you make it, to validate it you need a data sample so huge compared to the amount of data samples collectable in a year, that humanity will be long gone before the formula is usable.

When designers say that point costs are given "by feeling", that's the right approach to it. The algorithms of a skilled human mind are the only ones available to solve this problem and give an initial value, from there you proceed with trial and error.

I have to completely disagree. You don't start from a position of feel. By design, formulas do not display bias. They are purely objective where as humans are flawed and show bias. Formulas form a perfectly valid baseline. You then consider interactions by feel and vary points from there.

A lot of the interactions you just listed make no sense. The aura of a SM Captain is priced on the Captain itself and the strength of the aura. You then don't price a model affected by that aura based on that aura, as you cannot guarantee that aura will be available. The statline of said Captain has no impact on the models around it either, so there's no interactions there to take into account. Wargear is priced on the wargear, and not on the model (but is based on the interaction with that model). Wargear isn't affected by other wargear. That one marine has a bolter doesn't impact on another having a lascannon. Validation of the formula isn't as big as you seem to think. There are formulas that complex around, but you don't NEED one that complex to do this.

 archont wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
A formula thorough enough to cover all contingencies would look like multi-variable calculus.

Sure, and it ain't even that hard to integrate matrices like that;

the guys who do Inquisimunda over on the Yaktribe did it for N17,
it's not really rocketscience

No- it's worse! It's statistics

 Blackie wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Did they fix the Baal Predator vs. AssCan-Razorback points? I always found it hilarious that the Baal Predator had to pay points to lose transport capacity.

Ass can razorbacks have been fixed a year ago with CA17. They were OP, now they're ok. I still bring all the 3 I own in pretty much every game I play with SW.

Lol. That’s fixed? Razorbacks got nerfed and they’re still far superior to Baal predators or lascannons predators point for point.

Re: CA rumours, was it confirmed on the new intercessor datasheet if every chapter gets power fist sergeants?

Bremon wrote:

Re: CA rumours, was it confirmed on the new intercessor datasheet if every chapter gets power fist sergeants?

Yes. And you don't even need to ditch the rifle to get it. I already built two.

 Crimson wrote:

Bremon wrote:

Re: CA rumours, was it confirmed on the new intercessor datasheet if every chapter gets power fist sergeants?

Yes. And you don't even need to ditch the rifle to get it. I already built two.

Oh rad. Do Deathwatch get the same treatment or nah?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bremon wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Did they fix the Baal Predator vs. AssCan-Razorback points? I always found it hilarious that the Baal Predator had to pay points to lose transport capacity.

Ass can razorbacks have been fixed a year ago with CA17. They were OP, now they're ok. I still bring all the 3 I own in pretty much every game I play with SW.

Lol. That’s fixed? Razorbacks got nerfed and they’re still far superior to Baal predators or lascannons predators point for point.

Re: CA rumours, was it confirmed on the new intercessor datasheet if every chapter gets power fist sergeants?

Had you just considered maybe that the Predator is bad?

Wow Slayer; really groundbreaking train of thought. The point is they “fixed” something that wasn’t that broken while leaving something crippled for no real reason.

 Crimson wrote:

Bremon wrote:

Re: CA rumours, was it confirmed on the new intercessor datasheet if every chapter gets power fist sergeants?

Yes. And you don't even need to ditch the rifle to get it. I already built two.

Thanks very much. +1 to wound on those fists will be quite nice.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Um... character Creation rules (or LR , or Looted wagons) would become beyond broken in certain players hands. Perhaps THAT is why they've been left out of matched play.

Then that proves the system is bad if it can be broken that easily, and therefore it needs to be redone.

Remember how a poster here made a "Create Your Vehicle" system, and it was quickly broken by creating a NEGATIVE point value unit? Their response was "Well nobody is gonna do that".

It's a bad excuse and means the system needs to be redone.

I made that system, and then changed it when that was pointed out.

My "nobody would do that" was to the thought of someone making that unit and using a bag of frozen peas to represent the model.

Khahandran wrote:
The aura of a SM Captain is priced on the Captain itself and the strength of the aura.

Ok, and how you do that?

To give you two examples from Codex: SM, let's take Salamanders. They like weapons making Captain useless (massed flamers) and have innate re-roll making his aura less valuable. If anything, Lieutenant is far more useful for them. Then let's take Raven Guard and their 'let's camp 13+ inches away and gunline with massed sniper rifles and heavy weapons' thing that works well with dude dropped right in the middle of it and buffing easy 700+ points of units. Which one should be used as a baseline for pricing the aura?

 Irbis wrote:

Khahandran wrote:
The aura of a SM Captain is priced on the Captain itself and the strength of the aura.

Ok, and how you do that?

To give you two examples from Codex: SM, let's take Salamanders. They like weapons making Captain useless (massed flamers) and have innate re-roll making his aura less valuable. If anything, Lieutenant is far more useful for them. Then let's take Raven Guard and their 'let's camp 13+ inches away and gunline with massed sniper rifles and heavy weapons' thing that works well with dude dropped right in the middle of it and buffing easy 700+ points of units. Which one should be used as a baseline for pricing the aura?

GW prices things like auras and such with little to no consideration to chapter tactics. They look at the base units and maybe sometimes make sure that tactics, stratagems, and other abilities don't accidentally break the game (but this happens anyway).

If they did consider the chapter tactics, then everything would have a different price based on what chapter tactic you pick. The fact of the matter is, GW thinks that all chapter tactics are equally valuable, despite your army build or whatever else.

Obviously that's not the case, but if they didn't think that way, then they wouldn't have them all cost the same (ie: nothing).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Bremon wrote:

Re: CA rumours, was it confirmed on the new intercessor datasheet if every chapter gets power fist sergeants?

Yes. And you don't even need to ditch the rifle to get it. I already built two.

Oh rad. Do Deathwatch get the same treatment or nah?

They do!

 Irbis wrote:

Khahandran wrote:
The aura of a SM Captain is priced on the Captain itself and the strength of the aura.

Ok, and how you do that?

To give you two examples from Codex: SM, let's take Salamanders. They like weapons making Captain useless (massed flamers) and have innate re-roll making his aura less valuable. If anything, Lieutenant is far more useful for them. Then let's take Raven Guard and their 'let's camp 13+ inches away and gunline with massed sniper rifles and heavy weapons' thing that works well with dude dropped right in the middle of it and buffing easy 700+ points of units. Which one should be used as a baseline for pricing the aura?

And the Salamanders Chapter Tactic is terrible. It really should've been something akin to the AdMech Lucius trait.

Khahandran wrote:
You've said this before, and never actually explained why it's broken. You said +S, pay Y is broken by definition, and yet haven't said why that's broken. And yet again you ignore the simple principle in that a formula can produce an initial result which can then be manually adjusted.

Because it doesn't factor in COMPLETE package. How much value +1M is? It depends on everything else on the unit. THEN it depends on what opposing armies have. THEN it depends on missions. THEN it depends on terrain. There's no way you can even write down that in paper. The value of M, S, A, etc are not fixed. They are fluid depending on everything. You would need system that for example drops value of model the more and more h2h based unit with no guns. But then if it's long range gun low M is of lesser concern. And simultaneously ensure you can't game this by dropping useless stats(S1 for model that's long range gun platform) and get hefty point drops.

Oh and manually adjusted...ROFLMAO! Imagine chapter approved rules for "Matched play unit creator! Create your own units for matched play!" which then ends up "adjust manually as needed".

Yeah that's much different to simply agreeing with your opponents. ROFLMAO. It would be NO DIFFERENT TO NOW. The character creation rules wouldn't be any more usable in tournaments if it requires manual adjustement. If requires then it's no more usable outside either. Either way it's up to players to sort it out thus making it out of matched play.

ROFLMAO. What a suggestion. Manual adjustement for formula when point of formula would be to get theoretically balanced unit so that players could actually use it without talking to opponent. ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLAMO.

Certain posters: “I want balanced tournament play!”
Also certain posters: “It’s unacceptable that I can’t make up my own super combo character rules!”

I’m being a little reductive there but it does amaze me some folk want perfect balance *and* a million special rules and options. The two are often the opposites of each other. It’s not impossible to be relatively balanced with options, but ‘build your own’ is inherently going to create unintended interactions and broken combos, hence it’s easier to exclude from Matched Play altogether.

A points system can be created and useful when you account for the fact that the more points you spend on a unit the larger the target on it's back.

If it's fast, killy, and tough, there shouldn't be a lot of other stuff backing it up. If the ga.e is based around a decent amount of terrain, then range is a tactical advantage, not a statistical one.

Back to the topic at hand, I can't wait to see what they have for building your own characters! I already spend 2 command points upping my troupe master warlord and gave him a relic. Let me REALLY make him something special!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Certain posters: “I want balanced tournament play!”
Also certain posters: “It’s unacceptable that I can’t make up my own super combo character rules!”

I’m being a little reductive there but it does amaze me some folk want perfect balance *and* a million special rules and options. The two are often the opposites of each other. It’s not impossible to be relatively balanced with options, but ‘build your own’ is inherently going to create unintended interactions and broken combos, hence it’s easier to exclude from Matched Play altogether.

Welcome to the balance argument ad infinitum. Basically everyone wants everything their own way and as such, it's impossible to keep everyone happy. You've only really got one option, two separate rulesets. One for competitive play which removes 95% of options and essentially creates mirror matches, but you get as much balance as is feasible. And a second set more akin to the current rules, which gives you lots of options and flavour, but at the sacrifice of balance.

Bremon wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Did they fix the Baal Predator vs. AssCan-Razorback points? I always found it hilarious that the Baal Predator had to pay points to lose transport capacity.

Ass can razorbacks have been fixed a year ago with CA17. They were OP, now they're ok. I still bring all the 3 I own in pretty much every game I play with SW.

Lol. That’s fixed? Razorbacks got nerfed and they’re still far superior to Baal predators or lascannons predators point for point.

Yes, even with the price hike I always bring them with my SW. Tipycally without re-rolls in the shooting phase. They never seemed to be trash.

Before CA17 they were undercosted, now they're more balanced. Still very good though.