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.

 ScarletRose wrote:
So... write bad rules and then when people complain tell them they're "too obsessed with trying to have perfect balance".

Geez, I wish I could turn in a load of gak at work and then tell my boss to not get "obsessed" about it being perfect.

Go play something else then, bye bye!

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:
So... write bad rules and then when people complain tell them they're "too obsessed with trying to have perfect balance".

Geez, I wish I could turn in a load of gak at work and then tell my boss to not get "obsessed" about it being perfect.

Go play something else then, bye bye!

I presume his point is that his boss would kindly ask him/her to go to work somewhere else.

Besides, I think of all this IGOUGO debate, there is one important thing that I think it's understated: IGOUGO can be a satisfactory system, I don't think it should be assumed as inherently bad.
But I ask - what's GW's implementation? Terrible, terrible terrible.
They keep doing the same mistake - the power and scale and scope are all over the place and you end up with either useless units or units so efficient that an optimized list wipes the floor with the enemy.
8th edition would have been (and perhaps still has a chance to be) the moment in which a nice reset would keep this factor in check....

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:
So... write bad rules and then when people complain tell them they're "too obsessed with trying to have perfect balance".

Geez, I wish I could turn in a load of gak at work and then tell my boss to not get "obsessed" about it being perfect.

Go play something else then, bye bye!

Ah the mating call of the GW white knight....

"Nobody besmirches m'lady!"

People are allowed to have criticisms of things. This is a discussion forum and people will have dissenting opinions. If you cannot handle this then there are more than likely plenty of Facebook groups out there that will make your neck sore from agreeing with them all the time.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.

That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.

Then why does it work in LOTR? Genuine question- not played that game in a long while.

I'd say the lower average lethality of each individual model on the table. Most models have a strength characteristic which is lower than the average defence characteristic.

So your average soldier is not that efficient at killing their equivalent from an opposing force, unless they are equipped with a weapon which provides bonuses to the wound roll such as two handed weapons. This is especially true for ranged attacks, where the majority are S3 or S2 and so will typically need 5s or 6s to wound their targets.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.

That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.

Then why does it work in LOTR? Genuine question- not played that game in a long while.

I'd say the lower average lethality of each individual model on the table. Most models have a strength characteristic which is lower than the average defence characteristic.

So your average soldier is not that efficient at killing their equivalent from an opposing force, unless they are equipped with a weapon which provides bonuses to the wound roll such as two handed weapons. This is especially true for ranged attacks, where the majority are S3 or S2 and so will typically need 5s or 6s to wound their targets.

I did never play lotr, so not sure but in a modern + setting in which lethality is often key and los is implemented i feel like it is a bad concept to use for the groundwork of the rules.
Ofcourse a melee orientated system would probably work very well with it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.

That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.

Then why does it work in LOTR? Genuine question- not played that game in a long while.

I'd say the lower average lethality of each individual model on the table. Most models have a strength characteristic which is lower than the average defence characteristic.

So your average soldier is not that efficient at killing their equivalent from an opposing force, unless they are equipped with a weapon which provides bonuses to the wound roll such as two handed weapons. This is especially true for ranged attacks, where the majority are S3 or S2 and so will typically need 5s or 6s to wound their targets.

This is simply wrong or only true for shooting. Yes, most of the time average soldiers need 5/6 to wound, but a wound is also a kill, there are no saving throws. The whole game is about 1v1 fights, if a soldier wasn't able to kill others that wouldn't work. In fact the individual model is killier in lotr, even if it is a goblin archer with a dagger. Nothing is as weak as A Tau in CC or as useless in shooting as an ork boy.

I think we can all agree, at least in part that 40k needs some work with interactivity to make it flow better and be less dated.

I would also say, even loving shooting armies, I kind of really like terrain heavy boards and wish terrain was a bit more exciting than it currently is. I like the tactical options of terrain movement and target priority with sending in troops to flush out or draw out enemies into the fire.

While set piece dismantling of an army is fine, it doesn't lead to very memorable battles and only the one doing the dismantling will generally have fun with it. I'd rather feel like the game is up in the air and currently it doesn't usually feel like that. I think we could put a little more nuance on the bones of the rules and maybe figure out the better turn set ups and it might go a long way to making the game more enjoyable but still keep it approachable to most.

I think GW sticks with IGOUGO more for spectacle’s sake than anything else. GW has an aversion to counters or other non-playing pieces cluttering the battlefield, counter to the likes of FFG with their “tokens galore” games (X-Wing, Legion And Runewars, for example).

I think it *should* be a system they propose in Chapter Approved. If it proves unpopular, they can drop it. If the community embraces it, they can expand and/or incorporate it further into the game.

Things is they may hate to have counters on the board but the current game system has many things to keep track of now on the board. All the wounds on infantry and vehicles and monsters. Buffs and de buffs from psychic powers, strats used that alter a units base stats. So you have all of the things to keep track of, just you don't have the tokens for them which in its way is kind of worse.

Though I'd rather not get the amount of tokens that say x wing has, that's too much.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:
So... write bad rules and then when people complain tell them they're "too obsessed with trying to have perfect balance".

Geez, I wish I could turn in a load of gak at work and then tell my boss to not get "obsessed" about it being perfect.

Go play something else then, bye bye!

Ah the mating call of the GW white knight....

"Nobody besmirches m'lady!"

People are allowed to have criticisms of things. This is a discussion forum and people will have dissenting opinions. If you cannot handle this then there are more than likely plenty of Facebook groups out there that will make your neck sore from agreeing with them all the time.

Ah the shrill screech of the internet clown....

"Hyuk hyuk hyuk"

People are allowed to have criticisms? Of course, but if you think its that crap then play something else, youre a fool otherwise.
Im all for the narrative side of gaming myself, the rules help to add combatative stucture. Im no GW white Knight, I used to work there and have plenty of criticisms, but then that wouldn't fit your broad brushstroke fallacious yarn eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.

That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.

Then why does it work in LOTR? Genuine question- not played that game in a long while.

I'd say the lower average lethality of each individual model on the table. Most models have a strength characteristic which is lower than the average defence characteristic.

So your average soldier is not that efficient at killing their equivalent from an opposing force, unless they are equipped with a weapon which provides bonuses to the wound roll such as two handed weapons. This is especially true for ranged attacks, where the majority are S3 or S2 and so will typically need 5s or 6s to wound their targets.

Thats true, most times with basic guys youd need a 5+ to kill, double handed weapons made it easier, BUT theres no separate save roll, a models defense is essentially toughness and armour rolled into one stat. LOTR, mechanically, was one of GWs best game systems. The new 40k uses some of the War of the Ring concepts (WOTR was essentially LOTR Apocalypse scale with models on unit trays). I havent played this ed 40k but do play KT every so often. The alternating actions are pretty nice, it definitely works well at that scale although some rules could do with a bit of tweaking

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I think of all this IGOUGO debate, there is one important thing that I think it's understated: IGOUGO can be a satisfactory system, I don't think it should be assumed as inherently bad.
But I ask - what's GW's implementation? Terrible, terrible terrible.

This is fair. Taking a page out of Apoc and not removing casualties until the end of the round would be vastly better than what we have now once you worked out how to handle follow-up movement.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
They keep doing the same mistake - the power and scale and scope are all over the place and you end up with either useless units or units so efficient that an optimized list wipes the floor with the enemy.
8th edition would have been (and perhaps still has a chance to be) the moment in which a nice reset would keep this factor in check....

Was this supposed to be part of the same paragraph? It doesn't support your point about IGOUGO systems at all, it's just a complaint about balance.

The Newman wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I think of all this IGOUGO debate, there is one important thing that I think it's understated: IGOUGO can be a satisfactory system, I don't think it should be assumed as inherently bad.
But I ask - what's GW's implementation? Terrible, terrible terrible.

This is fair. Taking a page out of Apoc and not removing casualties until the end of the round would be vastly better than what we have now once you worked out how to handle follow-up movement.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who likes that rule.

I suspect the 4-5 phases/turn assumption where you design models expecting they're going to need to do things 4-5 times on their own turn and then 2-3 times on your opponent's turn on top of that (move, cast, shoot, charge, fight, deny, overwatch, fight) is a bigger problem than discrete turns for the people who don't want to sit for 20-30min waiting for their turn to do things.

When you activate a unit in Bolt Action/Antares it gets to run, charge/fight, or move/shoot. It can only react during your opponent's turn by forfeiting it's chance to activate. X-Wing has two phases, the move phase and the attack phase. Warmachine has full discrete turns (I activate all my models->you activate all your models) but when you're activating a model it gets to, guess what, move and attack.

As I remember, LOTR also had a limit on the amount of your force that could be armed with ranged weapons?

Warmachine is another IGOUGO system, it has problems of its own, but i never felt like first turn was critical because of the *range* the game played at. The longest range guns in the game topped out at 20" and the majority were closer to 12".

40k sufferes from the turn system because you have a very real capability to wipe out a significant portion of the enemy army before it gets to do anything.

Trasvi wrote:
40k sufferes from the turn system because you have a very real capability to wipe out a significant portion of the enemy army before it gets to do anything.

I agree 100%. As much as I don't mind the turn system (though it lacks reaction options for the most part) I have definitely found the range issue to be frustrating to be on the other end of with my Sisters army. Nothing like a gunline to flatten your short ranged army in a couple turns.

That's why I say terrain isn't the fix. We need something baked into the rules one way or another that solves this problem.

Trasvi wrote:
As I remember, LOTR also had a limit on the amount of your force that could be armed with ranged weapons?

It did. Some armies could circumvent it (rangers for sure, probably wood elves and some others?) but most were limited to only having 1/3rd of the models in your army equipped with bows.

Trasvi wrote:
As I remember, LOTR also had a limit on the amount of your force that could be armed with ranged weapons?

Warmachine is another IGOUGO system, it has problems of its own, but i never felt like first turn was critical because of the *range* the game played at. The longest range guns in the game topped out at 20" and the majority were closer to 12".

40k sufferes from the turn system because you have a very real capability to wipe out a significant portion of the enemy army before it gets to do anything.

Exactly. If the offense/defense balance wasn't so skewed towards things being too killy and too long-ranged first-turn advantage wouldn't be as much of an issue, and if the turn didn't have so many steps it wouldn't take so long and getting bored waiting for your turn to come around wouldn't be as much of an issue.

Discrete turns (IGOUGO) is only problematic in combination with other issues with the game. People like picking it out as 'the thing that'd fix 40k' but that's because it's a one-sentence fix that doesn't take as much work as actually overhauling the game until it works better.

Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".

AA has other issues.

If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.

It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".

And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
AA has other issues.

If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.

It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.

You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?

Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
AA has other issues.

If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.

It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.

You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?

Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!

That's not what is being said at all.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".

And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.

Yet there's more than one book in the Top 10, so points costs are certainly *better than random values*.

Shifting to a massive ruleschange that revalues everything without considering points costs means that value will change entirely independent of their points cost. Sure, some overcosted units should get better, and some undercosted units should get worse. But since it's random, those OP units are just as likely to get stronger as they are to get weaker.

The only bias towards balanced points-to-value relations the result would have is the current points-to-value relations. So the result should be expected to be closer to random points-to-value ratios than we currently have.

And the more random the points-to-value ratios are, the less balanced it is. It only takes one unit with an overly good ratio to destroy the meta (meaning most Top 10 lists are centered on that one unit).

So that concern is *very real* Don't mistake "Balance isn't good enough for me" with "Balance is so terrible, random is just as good".

It's like saying "$100 isn't worth anything. Might as well just throw it on Roulette." Sure, you could wind up with a lot of money that way, but it's not likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
AA has other issues.

If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.

It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.

You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?

No, I mean units balanced around acting in tandem aren't necessarily balanced for systems in which they cannot.

Which isn't to say they *cannot be* balanced that way.
Or to say a game working that way wouldn't be better.
It's *only* to say the balance is *different*.

Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!

See how much more civil this conversation could have gone if you had just left it with your question? That question is a legitimate one, where you lacked understanding and asked for clarity. That's a good thing.

But then you had to get off on being superior, because *obviously* this is just a case of anyone who disagreeing with you not knowing what they're talking about.

Once again, you look at my post, read what you want it to say, then respond to that strawman.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
AA has other issues.

If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.

It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.

You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?

Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!

That's not what is being said at all.

But what is being said is still not an actual issue. So your opponent can move the unit you moved to threaten away. So? You have now forced that unit to move, it has sacrificed its previous position on the board.

We don't consider the fact that moving a queen in chess into a position where it can threaten an opposing piece is useless because the opponent can move the threatened piece. The point is to force your opponent to spend their turns/activations doing that instead of being able to enact their own plan.

Let's look at possibly the most clear case of a unit meant to work in tandem with others, Tau pathfinders, and see how AA can create much more interesting choices for both players:

Let's say a tau player lights up an enemy unit in LOS of several hard hitting units with markerlights. Does the opponent use their activation to try and hide that unit? What if getting that unit out of LOS of the threatening units would take multiple activations? What about trying to kill the threatening units? Do they have enough firepower to do that? Could they force these threatening units to have to move and forfeit attacking the marked unit by moving a different unit into a position where if they do attack that marked unit, they will be left open for attack?

For the tau player, maybe they actually want to attack a different unit but couldn't mark that unit (not visible or out of range of the pathfinders). By marking a different unit, the opponent needs to consider whether they will attack the marked unit and whether they want to use activations to counter that. So the Tau player can bluff that they are going to target unit A, forcing the opponent to move it into a less useful position in order to "save" it, and then attack unit B as they always intended to.

The opponent having to make choices to react to your actions, and you having to plan for those reactions in your strategy, is not a bad thing. It is what is very much missing from 40K as it introduces many more meaningful choices throughout the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".

And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.

Hyperbole noted since you're claiming no point cost is "accurate", but my point was that it changes how valuable different parts of the stats are depending on how the game functions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Bharring: well said!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
AA has other issues.

If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.

It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.

You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?

Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!

That's not what is being said at all.

But what is being said is still not an actual issue. So your opponent can move the unit you moved to threaten away. So? You have now forced that unit to move, it has sacrificed its previous position on the board.

We don't consider the fact that moving a queen in chess into a position where it can threaten an opposing piece is useless because the opponent can move the threatened piece. The point is to force your opponent to spend their turns/activations doing that instead of being able to enact their own plan.

Let's say a tau player lights up an enemy unit in LOS of several hard hitting units with markerlights. Does the opponent use their activation to try and hide that unit? What if getting that unit out of LOS of the threatening units would take multiple activations? What about trying to kill the threatening units? Do they have enough firepower to do that? Could they force these threatening units to have to move and forfeit attacking the marked unit by moving a different unit into a position where if they do attack that marked unit, they will be left open for attack?

The opponent having to make choices to react to your actions, and you having to plan for those reactions in your strategy, is not a bad thing. It is what is very much missing from 40K as it introduces many more meaningful choices throughout the game.

I certainly agree the game could work great balanced like that.

The concern is that the current points don't play that way.

Consider a unit like Dire Avengers. They lose in a direct firefight with most other units. They're currently pointed (fairly, IMO) in such a way where they can't trade. They need to move in with other assets (possibly more DAs) to focus down a single unit then move on. If they take a rebuttle - or even an alpha in RF range - they're going to lose badly.

To use them, you keep them out of the fight until you have multiple units that descend on a single target on the same turn. With IGOUGO (and CWE shenanigans), this can work great - certainly worth their points.

Now do it with AA. The first unit engages. Then it eats the retaliation in the face. Then the next unit engages. They can't pull off ambushes/explosive commitals. They'd certainly still have value in AA, but not the value they have with IGOUGO.

So whatever their appropriate points in IGOUGO, they're probably worth less in AA.

The point is that their appropriate points value is *different*, not that either system is better.

The Newman wrote:


Was this supposed to be part of the same paragraph? It doesn't support your point about IGOUGO systems at all, it's just a complaint about balance.

What makes IGOUGO less palatable for many 40k players is among other things the first turn troubles, lethality and such.
These in their turn are athe result of a specific GW policy of just writing rules that one-up each other, like higher lethality and FnP or rerollable saves or whatnot, depending on the edition.
I probably should have elaborated more... but I assumed that it was implicit from the context and previous posts ITT. I fail to see how one cannot consider them connected, frankly.

Bharring wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
AA has other issues.

If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.

It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.

You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?

Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!

That's not what is being said at all.

But what is being said is still not an actual issue. So your opponent can move the unit you moved to threaten away. So? You have now forced that unit to move, it has sacrificed its previous position on the board.

We don't consider the fact that moving a queen in chess into a position where it can threaten an opposing piece is useless because the opponent can move the threatened piece. The point is to force your opponent to spend their turns/activations doing that instead of being able to enact their own plan.

Let's say a tau player lights up an enemy unit in LOS of several hard hitting units with markerlights. Does the opponent use their activation to try and hide that unit? What if getting that unit out of LOS of the threatening units would take multiple activations? What about trying to kill the threatening units? Do they have enough firepower to do that? Could they force these threatening units to have to move and forfeit attacking the marked unit by moving a different unit into a position where if they do attack that marked unit, they will be left open for attack?

The opponent having to make choices to react to your actions, and you having to plan for those reactions in your strategy, is not a bad thing. It is what is very much missing from 40K as it introduces many more meaningful choices throughout the game.

I certainly agree the game could work great balanced like that.

The concern is that the current points don't play that way.

Consider a unit like Dire Avengers. They lose in a direct firefight with most other units. They're currently pointed (fairly, IMO) in such a way where they can't trade. They need to move in with other assets (possibly more DAs) to focus down a single unit then move on. If they take a rebuttle - or even an alpha in RF range - they're going to lose badly.

To use them, you keep them out of the fight until you have multiple units that descend on a single target on the same turn. With IGOUGO (and CWE shenanigans), this can work great - certainly worth their points.

Now do it with AA. The first unit engages. Then it eats the retaliation in the face. Then the next unit engages. They can't pull off ambushes/explosive commitals. They'd certainly still have value in AA, but not the value they have with IGOUGO.

So whatever their appropriate points in IGOUGO, they're probably worth less in AA.

The point is that their appropriate points value is *different*, not that either system is better.

Do you even read what you post?
"Dire Avengers are well costed, they just aren't good is all". Did you perhaps think that Dire Avengers are not actually costed well?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
AA has other issues.

If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.

It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.

You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?

Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!

That's not what is being said at all.

No, it is. Look at the reply again.
His problem evolves into exactly that. First it's two units, then it's three, then it's five. Believe it or not, in the IGOUGO system, EVERYONE is doing that to kill the opponent's army. His complaint is actually the core problem of the system itself!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".

And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.

Hyperbole noted since you're claiming no point cost is "accurate", but my point was that it changes how valuable different parts of the stats are depending on how the game functions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Bharring: well said!

You're the one that said point costs need to change. I'm saying that this is a non-complaint, since a lot of point costs need to change now. That is NOT hyperbole that's straight fact.

Personally I feel the issue with Dire Avengers, and other melee focused units, is that they tend to overcost the melee ability. This was an issue when Sweeping Advance was a.thing, amd it's still an issue when units can just break off from from combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're the one that said point costs need to change. I'm saying that this is a non-complaint, since a lot of point costs need to change now. That is NOT hyperbole that's straight fact.

I said they would need to be reworked for a new system, to which you said no point values were "accurate" which I feel is hyperbole.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".

And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.

Yet there's more than one book in the Top 10, so points costs are certainly *better than random values*.

Shifting to a massive ruleschange that revalues everything without considering points costs means that value will change entirely independent of their points cost. Sure, some overcosted units should get better, and some undercosted units should get worse. But since it's random, those OP units are just as likely to get stronger as they are to get weaker.

The only bias towards balanced points-to-value relations the result would have is the current points-to-value relations. So the result should be expected to be closer to random points-to-value ratios than we currently have.

And the more random the points-to-value ratios are, the less balanced it is. It only takes one unit with an overly good ratio to destroy the meta (meaning most Top 10 lists are centered on that one unit).

So that concern is *very real* Don't mistake "Balance isn't good enough for me" with "Balance is so terrible, random is just as good".

It's like saying "$100 isn't worth anything. Might as well just throw it on Roulette." Sure, you could wind up with a lot of money that way, but it's not likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
AA has other issues.

If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.

It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.

You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?

No, I mean units balanced around acting in tandem aren't necessarily balanced for systems in which they cannot.

Which isn't to say they *cannot be* balanced that way.
Or to say a game working that way wouldn't be better.
It's *only* to say the balance is *different*.

Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!

See how much more civil this conversation could have gone if you had just left it with your question? That question is a legitimate one, where you lacked understanding and asked for clarity. That's a good thing.

But then you had to get off on being superior, because *obviously* this is just a case of anyone who disagreeing with you not knowing what they're talking about.

Once again, you look at my post, read what you want it to say, then respond to that strawman.

1. Yeah go ahead and count which units show up for that Top 10 again. The post is so naive it hurts.
2. Then position your "tandem" units better. As is, there's literally no consequence.
3. I'm not straw manning. Your "wah my tandem" evolves exactly into the problem with IGOUGO. You just want to kill everything quickly enough with no consequences at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Personally I feel the issue with Dire Avengers, and other melee focused units, is that they tend to overcost the melee ability. This was an issue when Sweeping Advance was a.thing, amd it's still an issue when units can just break off from from combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're the one that said point costs need to change. I'm saying that this is a non-complaint, since a lot of point costs need to change now. That is NOT hyperbole that's straight fact.

I said they would need to be reworked for a new system, to which you said no point values were "accurate" which I feel is hyperbole.

...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?

An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.

And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.