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.
2021/01/05 03:04:03
Subject: The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
It really wouldn't take too much to shake up 40k scoring enough that it would be unrealistic to have pre-planned out every scenario, or to shake up list design enough to get people taking more flexible lists that can tackle a wider range of possible objectives, rather than hyper-specialized ones specifically tailored to completing the same secondary objectives in the same way every single game.
What about the list below makes it tailored and not a 'TRUE TAC LIST' like people here seem to want?
Spoiler:
Patrol: deathskulls
HQ
Warboss w power klaw + kustom shoota=83pts
Relic: killa klaw.
Warlord: kunnin but brutal. Upgrade:.
Da biggest boss. -1cp
Big Mek w SAG =120pts
Troops
10x gretchin =50pts
Fast Attack
5x Stormboys including boss nob w 2 choppas =60pts
5x Stormboys including boss nob w 2 choppas =60pts
Dedicated Transport
trukk =65pts
trukk =65pts
trukk =65pts
Vanguard: deathskulls
HQ
Big Mek w SAG=120pts
Big Mek w SAG =120pts
Elites
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 kommandos including boss Nob (1x tankbusta bomb) =45pts
Is anybody honestly going to say that this doesn't seem like a proper fluffy Ork list or is it total powergamer skew because it doesn't run enough Boyz or some gak like that?
I think you're misreading what I wrote. The question isn't whether that list is "proper fluffy" or not, the question is whether the list essentially plays the same game every game. That's the problem with the secondaries. By giving the player complete control over them, it means that secondaries encourage list tailoring and then playing as identical a game as possible every time, instead of encouraging you to take more balanced choices that can confront a wider variety of obstacles, which you would have to do if you didn't know in the list-building stage that you were guaranteed the objectives you want.
I'm sure you can find a rare example or two of a tactically flexible TAC list that does well in 9th. But if so, it's in spite of the secondary system, not because of it. That's the point. The secondary objectives ought to (in my opinion, of course) push you towards taking a balanced, flexible list, not push you towards a list tailored to within an inch of its life to do the same thing every game.
2021/01/05 03:29:53
Subject: The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
catbarf wrote: If your scenario design renders those vehicles (and infantry within them) unable to score, while the light infantry with their pioneers and stosstruppen can forward-deploy onto mission-critical objectives, you just might be able to eke a fun and possibly even balanced game out of light infantry desperately using what little they have to stall the advance of armored forces for as long as possible.
Of course that's a total non-starter if mechanized man can decide that his force's objective is to turn the enemy into red mist. Hence the point of this discussion tangent. Player-chosen objectives afford too much power over scenario conditions that could otherwise better promote balanced lists and more interesting games.
So how does this work in a matched play setting where the players might not have done much if any, pregame planning aside from points level and general strength of lists? Is there some feature where an all infantry list can force a scenario where troops in transports can't score or are you relying on the mechanized player to agree to a scenario that nerfs their list to have a balanced game? How much agreement between players and pregame planning does your system require to balance two lists skewed in opposite directions?
Basically, the idea could be fun, but I'm going to need details on how you'd put it into practice and ensure that it's not a system that can be easily gamed.
Well, if I get in my time machine and pop back to... 4th, if I recall correctly, both Infantry and Conscripts were worth taking. Conscripts were cheaper and came in large units but had no access to heavy weapons and fled easily, while Infantry were more expensive but better combatants taken in smaller units. Conscripts were your 'send in the next wave' meatshield. Infantry were your actual combatants. It was completely viable to build an army out of entirely one or the other.
I'm going to need to see battle reports because I don't recall this being the case. Even if this was the case, were they ever taken in the same list because if we want list building to stop mattering we need every single option on the menu to work equally well with every single other option it could be in a list with.
There is always a points level that will make any choice equally viable to its peers, whether or not GW can find it.
This is 100% false. We've already seen that there is a points cost where simply standing on the board and forcing the enemy to shoot at you becomes not just viable but optimal. Given the low costs of both regular guard infantry and conscripts and the currently limited effectiveness of both conscripts and guardsmen, there isn't room to change costs much for either unit. If you lower the cost of guardsmen by even a point you invalidate conscripts and if you match that by also lowering costs for conscripts you've then invalidated guardsmen as conscripts are now efficient just as bodies on the board. It's difficult to see a world where the two are ever balanced, especially if list building is supposed to not matter, and they're supposed to be fine having distinct roles within a single list.
The scope of 40K's mechanics amount to shooting, punching, and the occasional magic power. Infinity has shooting, punching, functional stealth, functional evasion, hacking, overwatch, and a host of other mechanics for which 40K clumsily doles out invulnerable saves or mortal wounds. Size discrepancy is certainly a problem for 40K's balance but it's not the be-all and end-all of design complexity; if you are trying to make the case that Infinity has a narrower scope and is consequently easier to balance, you are very far off the mark.
A narrower scope combined with a confined scale IS inherently easier to balance, this is so obvious that I'm shocked you'd even make such a statement.
Example:
Game A has a scope such that it doesn't make sense for the smallest and weakest units to be able to harm even the medium units available in list building let alone the largest units present. It also lacks any hard list building rules that require any given list to take weapons capable of harming any given class of unit. Conversely, the list that brings the fewest models to a given game size might only bring 3 models to a standard-sized game while the list that takes the most models is able to bring over 200 models. For lore reasons, it would break immersion and be seen as harmful by a large fraction of Game A's player base to change this balance overly much so this issue of scale has been present in every edition of the game thus far.
Game B has a scope such that it makes sense for anything to hurt anything else. The smallest list takes 4 models, the largest brings 12.
Which game will be easier to balance without removing options at either end of its scale and while keeping each unit distinct and viable even if it shares a list with the next nearest model in terms of cost and battlefield role?
It really wouldn't take too much to shake up 40k scoring enough that it would be unrealistic to have pre-planned out every scenario, or to shake up list design enough to get people taking more flexible lists that can tackle a wider range of possible objectives, rather than hyper-specialized ones specifically tailored to completing the same secondary objectives in the same way every single game.
What about the list below makes it tailored and not a 'TRUE TAC LIST' like people here seem to want?
Spoiler:
Patrol: deathskulls
HQ
Warboss w power klaw + kustom shoota=83pts
Relic: killa klaw.
Warlord: kunnin but brutal. Upgrade:.
Da biggest boss. -1cp
Big Mek w SAG =120pts
Troops
10x gretchin =50pts
Fast Attack
5x Stormboys including boss nob w 2 choppas =60pts
5x Stormboys including boss nob w 2 choppas =60pts
Dedicated Transport
trukk =65pts
trukk =65pts
trukk =65pts
Vanguard: deathskulls
HQ
Big Mek w SAG=120pts
Big Mek w SAG =120pts
Elites
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 kommandos including boss Nob (1x tankbusta bomb) =45pts
Is anybody honestly going to say that this doesn't seem like a proper fluffy Ork list or is it total powergamer skew because it doesn't run enough Boyz or some gak like that?
I think you're misreading what I wrote. The question isn't whether that list is "proper fluffy" or not, the question is whether the list essentially plays the same game every game. That's the problem with the secondaries. By giving the player complete control over them, it means that secondaries encourage list tailoring and then playing as identical a game as possible every time, instead of encouraging you to take more balanced choices that can confront a wider variety of obstacles, which you would have to do if you didn't know in the list-building stage that you were guaranteed the objectives you want.
I'm sure you can find a rare example or two of a tactically flexible TAC list that does well in 9th. But if so, it's in spite of the secondary system, not because of it. That's the point. The secondary objectives ought to (in my opinion, of course) push you towards taking a balanced, flexible list, not push you towards a list tailored to within an inch of its life to do the same thing every game.
If everything is so tailored it should be blinding obvious which secondaries any given list took even without seeing their opponents, so without looking it, up tell me the secondary objectives that Ork list took.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/05 03:32:25
2021/01/05 04:07:48
Subject: The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
If I had to guess, probably engage/scrambers/while we stand as the default, with the usual possibilities for tailoring that comes with the engage/scramblers combo.
But I don't think me being able to spot secondaries or not really illustrates anything. Maybe someone comes up with a really interesting way to play a list that I wouldn't have spotted; that doesn't change the point that they've constructed a list to make that plan work with those secondaries in mind, it just means I wasn't smart enough to immediately spot it.
More broadly, it doesn't refute the point that the secondaries as currently implemented are promoting less flexible, more specialized lists than you'd have in a system where either random chance, the mission, or your opponent had more impact on choosing what your scoring criteria were.
2021/01/05 04:32:40
Subject: The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
yukishiro1 wrote: If I had to guess, probably engage/scrambers/while we stand as the default, with the usual possibilities for tailoring that comes with the engage/scramblers combo.
But I don't think me being able to spot secondaries or not really illustrates anything. Maybe someone comes up with a really interesting way to play a list that I wouldn't have spotted; that doesn't change the point that they've constructed a list to make that plan work with those secondaries in mind, it just means I wasn't smart enough to immediately spot it.
More broadly, it doesn't refute the point that the secondaries as currently implemented are promoting less flexible, more specialized lists than you'd have in a system where either random chance, the mission, or your opponent had more impact on choosing what your scoring criteria were.
Nor does your assertation that these secondaries overly restrict list building and flexibility make it so. If that Ork list had to play a Maelstrom mission from the end of 8th would it be terrible at any of them?
2021/01/05 05:29:06
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
Canadian 5th wrote: So how does this work in a matched play setting where the players might not have done much if any, pregame planning aside from points level and general strength of lists?
If we're talking random mission assignment, the fact that such a scenario could occur ought to deter taking a hyperspecialized list. Top competitive players looking to go 6-0 aren't going to risk drawing a mission that they have no chance to win. My point was simply that even bad matchups can be mitigated by factors other than listbuilding.
I'm completely fine with an army built to have a variety of capabilities having a better chance of succeeding at the mission than one min-maxed into a skew build. That's the good sort of listbuilding, where it's about capability rather than optimizing raw power, and still requires good play on the battlefield to execute.
Canadian 5th wrote: This is 100% false. We've already seen that there is a points cost where simply standing on the board and forcing the enemy to shoot at you becomes not just viable but optimal. Given the low costs of both regular guard infantry and conscripts and the currently limited effectiveness of both conscripts and guardsmen, there isn't room to change costs much for either unit. If you lower the cost of guardsmen by even a point you invalidate conscripts and if you match that by also lowering costs for conscripts you've then invalidated guardsmen as conscripts are now efficient just as bodies on the board. It's difficult to see a world where the two are ever balanced, especially if list building is supposed to not matter, and they're supposed to be fine having distinct roles within a single list.
Then use half points, if whole ones lack the granularity. Or adjust points upwards to provide the same end effect. Use decimals. We're talking hypotheticals here. 'Balance is impossible because I am wedded to the exact current values of all the points costs' is a poor argument.
Also, the premise that Guard players would universally ditch all their Infantry in favor of Conscripts if they were 4pts instead of 5pts is incredibly suspect to begin with. Infantry put out decent firepower with Orders, Conscripts don't. Infantry can take heavy weapons and screen them with ablative wounds, Conscripts can't. Infantry are tenacious under the new morale system, Conscripts sure aren't. If you're only taking Infantry for their ability to meatshield and sit on objectives, you're not using them to their fullest at all.
Also, I'd like to point out that Conscripts were only used in lieu of Guardsmen in early 8th, when they could combo with Commissars to become effectively immune to morale, were even cheaper relative to Guardsmen, and could receive Orders just as well. Without those benefits, they're significantly worse than Guardsmen, and saving a point isn't worth it.
Canadian 5th wrote: A narrower scope combined with a confined scale IS inherently easier to balance, this is so obvious that I'm shocked you'd even make such a statement.
You've completely missed the point.
The premise that Infinity has a narrower scope because it doesn't have as wide a variance in model size is wrong and overly simplistic. The game has a whole host of additional mechanics that 40K doesn't that dramatically widen its design scope. Those mechanics present their own asymmetrical interactions and balance concerns. There is a lot that matters to how difficult a game is to balance, and disparities in statline range are just one of them. It does not have a narrower scope, because there is more to design scope than just size disparity.
Using a more confined scale constrains design scope and makes a game easier to balance.
Using a variety of complex mechanics for interacting with the game space and the other player widens design scope and makes a game harder to balance. The fact that Infinity is as well-balanced as it is is a legitimate achievement in design.
Have you actually played Infinity, or is this whole argument you looking at box art and making up reasons for why Infinity doesn't count as an example of a better-balanced game?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/05 05:31:00
On the subject of this mythical balance, I have a couple of questions.
1) How are current winning lists skewed and is the way they are skewed any worse for balance than your hypothetical be prepared for anything mission structure?
2) How do you intend to make it so that units as diverse as a Vindicare are equally useful to an Invictor Tactical Warsuit which is also equal to a unit of Scouts which are equal to a Runtherd?
3) How do you stop a meta from forming out of the data generated by tournament results? Players will look at what works and what doesn't and even getting to play a random 6 of 36 missions each tournament is only going to slow that down.
4a) If everything is supposed to be viable how do you account for skew lists?
4b)Are they being intentionally punished - which would mean that some styles of play are unbalanced and your system itself is therefore unbalanced - or are they supposed to be exactly equal assuming they get an equal mix of good bad and neutral missions?
4c)To this end does your matchmaker curate both the games and missions to ensure this balance or do you allow it to be random and accept that tournaments will be won by the players who play the most missions that suit them while dodging the ones that don't suit them?
5) How does any of this stop something as obviously good as an Eradicator for being taken as the anti-tank portion of a TAC list?
You've completely missed the point.
The premise that Infinity has a narrower scope because it doesn't have as wide a variance in model size is wrong and overly simplistic. The game has a whole host of additional mechanics that 40K doesn't that dramatically widen its design scope. Those mechanics present their own asymmetrical interactions and balance concerns. There is a lot that matters to how difficult a game is to balance, and disparities in statline range are just one of them. It does not have a narrower scope, because there is more to design scope than just size disparity.
Using a more confined scale constrains design scope and makes a game easier to balance.
Using a variety of complex mechanics for interacting with the game space and the other player widens design scope and makes a game harder to balance. The fact that Infinity is as well-balanced as it is is a legitimate achievement in design.
None of this means that Infinity doesn't have some models/gear options/synergies that are objectively better than the rest or moves, or series of moves, that are objectively better than others in a bunch of broadly similar scenarios. Can a skilled player build a list by randomizing their units and gear and still have a fair match against an equally skilled player who built a list with synergies in mind? If they can't then Infinity doesn't have the same balance you seem to want 40k to have.
[M]aking up reasons for why Infinity doesn't count as an example of a better-balanced game?
Where did I ever say that Infinity isn't a better-balanced game than 40k? In fact, I'm going to ask that you quote me on that one or retract that statement.
2021/01/05 13:55:46
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
None of this means that Infinity doesn't have some models/gear options/synergies that are objectively better than the rest or moves, or series of moves, that are objectively better than others in a bunch of broadly similar scenarios. Can a skilled player build a list by randomizing their units and gear and still have a fair match against an equally skilled player who built a list with synergies in mind? If they can't then Infinity doesn't have the same balance you seem to want 40k to have.
thats the thing, Corvus belli uses mathematical equations to determine the pts cost of their units, so no matter what you pick in your army, as long as you know how to use it (the strength and weaknesses of the unit), you have a decent chance at winning the game.
Obviously if you randomize the list and get only cheerleaders and no specialists you'd get fethed on the mission, but thats the thing, when a human is building a list, there are a couple type of units you usually need, at the very least one specialist and one remote. Then you can add Hackers, Docs, Engineers, Forward deployers, camo users, etc. But thats basic knowledge that CB conveys to the players in the core rules. You SHOULD pick a specialist because theyre the ones that can do the mission, and tabling your opponent isn't a real strategy in infinity, unlike 40k.
Infinity's mission system combined with its reaction based gameplay means that 90%+ of the outcome of the game depends on player skill, not on unit composition.
[M]aking up reasons for why Infinity doesn't count as an example of a better-balanced game?
Where did I ever say that Infinity isn't a better-balanced game than 40k? In fact, I'm going to ask that you quote me on that one or retract that statement.
Then what is your argument? We're on a post saying that 40k's mission doesnt really work properly. We compare it to Infinity's to say that its much better and your answer is that Infinity's is also solveable.
Well yeah, it probably is, but its much harder to solve since there are much more variables in play. And even then, the mission system is objectively better, the fact that it might be solveable changes nothing to that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 13:58:03
2021/01/05 13:59:12
Subject: The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
Like I said above, few are arguing that list building should have zero impact on winning, the argument is more that you should be able to build a list that doesn't put you at an automatic disadvantage due to trap choices.
In your example, depending on the mission I could easily see the win rate swing one way or another - in a heavily cluttered urban area where the big vehicles cannot really put their power to bear the mechanized list could be at a disadvantage for taking hold of objectives and taking out an entrenched force, meanwhile in a low terrain map with little cover, the mech list could just pick off the infantry list at its leisure and stroll up to objectives to hold them.
Ie: people are arguing that terrain, mission objectives, and your strategy vs your opponent's strategy should count for more than list building.
You can already do that. Just don't use the trap options and build optimized lists and play against others doing the same.
Your urban example doesn't work in 9th either, objectives will always create open spaces and it would be incredibly bad form to make a board with streets so narrow vehicles can't use them. Given that vehicle facing no longer matters the vehicles would have an easy time poking some part of their hull around a corner and laying waste to the enemy.
There really shouldn't BE trap options. Some options might be sub-optimal against your opponent's list, or not be the best for specific mission structures, but all units should be baseline viable and fulfill a niche.
My example with the urban warfare wasn't that the vehicles could not move through at all, but that they would be less efficient - maybe moving single file or having to spread out to cover firing arcs due to line of sight blockage and cover for the infantry horde. It could be an interesting setup really - the armored unit is storming the city to occupy it, while the defenders are throwing their last ditch speedbump to slow down/stall the advance. Sure the tanks could theoretically trudge on through, but supply vehicles and logistics units need to be able to safely traverse the city, so they need to route the defenders, or at least push them out of X Y and Z buildings along the main road and occupy those with their own infantry units. Build the mission around the tanks with their limited infantry support trying to flush the opposing infantry company out while the opposing force's goal is to basically hold on till the end of the match and try to split the tanks and encircle them. End of the game depending on the situation on the field and the objectives held, the area is either secured, or the tankers are forced to withdraw as opposing reinforcements have arrived, or they have run too low on munitions to continue the fight, etc.
On the subject of this mythical balance, I have a couple of questions.
1) How are current winning lists skewed and is the way they are skewed any worse for balance than your hypothetical be prepared for anything mission structure?
2) How do you intend to make it so that units as diverse as a Vindicare are equally useful to an Invictor Tactical Warsuit which is also equal to a unit of Scouts which are equal to a Runtherd?
3) How do you stop a meta from forming out of the data generated by tournament results? Players will look at what works and what doesn't and even getting to play a random 6 of 36 missions each tournament is only going to slow that down.
4a) If everything is supposed to be viable how do you account for skew lists?
4b)Are they being intentionally punished - which would mean that some styles of play are unbalanced and your system itself is therefore unbalanced - or are they supposed to be exactly equal assuming they get an equal mix of good bad and neutral missions?
4c)To this end does your matchmaker curate both the games and missions to ensure this balance or do you allow it to be random and accept that tournaments will be won by the players who play the most missions that suit them while dodging the ones that don't suit them?
5) How does any of this stop something as obviously good as an Eradicator for being taken as the anti-tank portion of a TAC list?
I don't have answers for everything here, but think of a tier list of units - D, C, B, A, S. The ideal would be for all units to tend roughly to B tier for their point value. If items end up B- or B+ that is perfectly acceptable, as it is just small imbalances, and the occasional C+ or A- is fine. The problem is when some units are clearly D tier and others are clearly S tier.
So in your example of Vindicare vs Invictor vs Scouts vs Runtherd, the answer is that they SHOULD NOT be equal in all regards - they all SHOULD have niches that they can fill however. A Vindicare Assassin should be balanced around taking out key enemies - either sniping out characters or special/heavy weapons and so on. Meanwhile Scouts are more about board control and Runtherds are buff units that increase the effectiveness of certain units in the army. They shouldn't all excel at the same thing.
For example - lets just say in theory a unit is "S" tier in a certain ability - that should come at costs - both in terms of points and in terms of malluses to other abilities. You can make a unit check off every item on the board and be amazing, but it had better pay out the teeth for it or else it will distort the meta in a big way. However, if a unit say has S tier mid ranged firepower, but its mobility is more of a D (low movement, no deployment options beyond hopping in a transport), and little in terms of "bonus perks" (no orders, or no chapter tactics, or not Core going by newest design scheme), you could get a somewhat interesting unit with the correct support. The unit has to trudge along to get in position, or pay a bit extra for a transport to move it at any speed, and it can be countered by higher mobility to get out of its sweet spot.
As for balancing skew lists and the like, you can do that via missions. If the mission requires X Y and Z, and you only bring units that can do Z, you are at a disadvantage, but can still pull off a win by preventing your foe from pulling off X and Y while holding down Z yourself. On the flip side, the more TAC list that can pull of X, Y, and Z will probably have to give up on Z unless they can outplay the skew list in a big way, but has more opportunities to bring about their own objectives while playing defensively against the skew list's attempts at preventing it.
Perfect balance does not exist, the ideal is instead to make it "balanced enough" so that both parties can have fun. As I said above, the ideal would be to have everything OVERALL balanced around B tier - they excel in their area of expertise but have cons to go with them, or a generalist unit might be B straight across the board, etc. Unit L is great in situation X, but is only average in Y and struggles in Z, but with support from Unit K and M, you can cover all of your bases somewhat effectively, if that makes sense.
2021/01/05 14:42:22
Subject: The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
Lists should matter. In fact, if you read into my LOTR example, the guy is literally saying "Your list is bad, improve your list."
But what he is also saying is "your list is bad because it lacks maneuver and fires on the tabletop" not "your list is bad because it doesn't seem to be engineered to win on points with minimal gameplay". With a side of "LOTR will never be that way as it's deliberately designed to disincentivize over-engineered lists".
the former means you can make a mistake. You can have the most balanced, appropriate list for the mission ever and still lose to being outmaneuvered. The latter means you don't really have to interact with the game at all and you can just score the same way you did in the game before and will in the game after. I mean heck, watch Tabletop Titans. They meme the way the players play the game the same in every single engagement. The Adrian Special is the same collection of secondaries every time, because he just brings his list and executes on it. The skill comes into the fiddly rule interpretations and clever exploitation of the way the rules are written (Things like combo'ing movement, psychic, and a stratagem to get two bike units with a 3++ instead of just 1, clever moves during pile-ins to catch units off-guard and keep other guys in auras, etc).
For your example RE:40k tournaments. The reason players can't netlist their way to victory is because skill matters more and more as lists become more and more symmetrical. In a world where every list is largely identical (in terms of how engineered it is to win pre-game, not in terms of actual content), then player skill starts to matter.
But that is a bad world. You shouldn't want to live in a world that's "Engineer your list or lose, and then if you engineer your list your skill matters". You should want to live in a world where its "L2P or lose" with less impact of list engineering.
Right now, if you bring a bad list, you lose automatically, no matter your skill. Therefore, List Building > Skill in terms of which helps you win the game. I'm advocating a system in which Skill > List Building, where the worst player with the best list EVAR cannot (or will rarely) beat the best player with the worst (but still sensible) list.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/01/05 15:11:29
2021/01/05 15:17:55
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
VladimirHerzog wrote: thats the thing, Corvus belli uses mathematical equations to determine the pts cost of their units, so no matter what you pick in your army, as long as you know how to use it (the strength and weaknesses of the unit), you have a decent chance at winning the game.
Obviously if you randomize the list and get only cheerleaders and no specialists you'd get fethed on the mission, but thats the thing, when a human is building a list, there are a couple type of units you usually need, at the very least one specialist and one remote. Then you can add Hackers, Docs, Engineers, Forward deployers, camo users, etc. But thats basic knowledge that CB conveys to the players in the core rules. You SHOULD pick a specialist because theyre the ones that can do the mission, and tabling your opponent isn't a real strategy in infinity, unlike 40k.
Infinity's mission system combined with its reaction based gameplay means that 90%+ of the outcome of the game depends on player skill, not on unit composition.
This isn't true though. You just pointed out that there are two units, specialists and remotes, that are basically essential to playing the game. If one player had a force with them and one had a force without them would the gap between the two of them be more or less than 10%? How are these essential units any different than the 'must take' units in 40k?
Then what is your argument? We're on a post saying that 40k's mission doesnt really work properly.
Except that nobody has proven that this is actually the case... People claim they want infinitely flexible lists that are designed around doing everything well but fail to point out what they think current lists would actually fail at. I think the argument is that because a couple of books that haven't been updated yet are bad and that one of those bad books is punished due to having pskyers that somehow winning lists can't take psykers but that argument doesn't hold water.
We can see examples of chaos lists that feature psykers taking top places at tournaments. The list below took 2nd at Queensland Masters back in December:
Company Veterans [3pl, 44pts] x2 Astartes Chainsword, x1 Storm Shield
-HQ-
Chief Librarian Mephiston [8pl, 155pts] Psychic Powers: Veil of Time, Null Zone, Psychic Fortress, (WL) WL Trait: Speed of the Primarch
Chapter Master [8pl, 150pts] Astartes Chainsword, Jump Pack, Chapter Command: Chapter Master, -1CP Hero of the Chapter, WL Trait: Rites of War, Relic: Teeth of Terra
So it seems like there's some flexability in list building and that even factions dakka has written off as unplayable can literally win WAAC style tournaments. So what exactly do people want that can't be fixed by updating the few factions that are currently bad?
We compare it to Infinity's to say that its much better and your answer is that Infinity's is also solveable.
Well yeah, it probably is, but its much harder to solve since there are much more variables in play. And even then, the mission system is objectively better, the fact that it might be solveable changes nothing to that.
I've yet to see either the statement that Infinity is more balanced or that Infinity is less solvable proven. I've seen people assert this to be the case, but nobody has provided tournament listings, battle reports, or any other examples that support this point. I think you tried but all you did was prove that list building plays a large role in Infinity because you lose if you don't fill two specific roles.
2021/01/05 15:31:30
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
Only thing results from australian tournaments tought me is that the game has to be play very different from the rest of the world, at least from what we saw winning there in 8th ed. They were the only place in the world where GK were dominating large events for 2 years back to back.
skew against the anti-marine meta... They're not trash tier like a few especially bad off books but even saying that DE have made top placings in 9th. When a book that has the negative perception of the DE codex can take a place at top tables that has to say something about the balance of 9th edition and the level to which player skill matters.
Well that is true, harlis, demons and CWE soups are winning a lot, but it is somehow that marines with their 50% win rates that are the real unbalancers of 9th ed. Still I think there is a difference between something like orks or DE. Which are either forced in to prebuild list or forced to run lists and play the way people do not want to play like tyranids. And something like tau. Tau are just bad, no amount list building , core and tau game play knowladge is going to help a tau player when he faces off a good 9th army, specialy if they go second. under 30% win rates do not pop out of nothing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/05 15:37:14
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2021/01/05 15:40:35
Subject: The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
I feel infinity is more balanced because almost every faction can do anything - and the game is balanced around unit archetypes rather than GW throwing a dart and calling it good.
So a PanO guy with an HMG and a range of rules will be +/- a few points with another faction's guy with an HMG and a similar but different set of rules. They'll only be much cheaper if they are much worse. Unless its in N4, the PanO guy doesn't suddenly get an extra attack and a super special rule on turn 3 because PanO need help.
You don't get say an Eradicator being 40 points, while a two blaster Crisis Suit at 70 for the lols.
Which means the meta is more complicated than "find the undercosted stuff".
The issue with 40k is that you have that phase and then you move on. As a rule, good players don't run bad units. Does that eliminate a lot of units from seeing the table? Yes, but that's a different issue to claiming 40k is boring because the missions are always the same. 9th seemingly has a far larger roster than more recent editions of 40k - probably because the move first advantage and primary objectives skews things more than anything else.
2021/01/05 15:42:39
Subject: The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
The 40k rules team should look at some of the lotr missions. They are very varied in both deployment and primary objectives.
You have some missions you deploy mostly like 40k with 24" between the 2 forces. Others that divide the table in 2 halfs and you get to deploy anywhere inside your own half as long as it is at least 1" away from the enemy. So you could have both armies deploy 1,01" inches away from each other. One mission forces the respective army leaders deploy within 3" of the centre. Then you have missions with "Maelstrom deployment" that randomly gives you any table edge to deploy each warband(your force is made up of 1-5 warbands usually) from. You have might(bit like CP) and some hero abilities that can help in mitigate the random factor but its expensive. But it is worth it if it can prevent one of your smaller warbands randomly deploy between 2 of your enemies warbands and get instantly destroyed.
Then the missions can be everything from holding objectives to flee off the opponents table edge or count the kills your leader makes. Some that involve different special rules, like nightfight or hidden objectives. Usually there is also a few secondaries that are mostly the same for most missions. Hurt/kill the enemy leader and reduce the
Usually different end game triggers too. Some end when one army is below 25%, others if a player manage to complete the primary objective while a few randomly ends on a dice roll of 1 or 2 after each turn as soon as one player drops below 50%.
Some missions favors fewer warbands, and also fewer models, while others make you want as many as possible. Some favor that you have your best fighter as the leader while others dont. In some speed is very important but others it isnt etc. You really want expensive banners in some too even if your army could play without them and some skew armies cant even take them and will lose out on that secondary.
Promotes a TAC approach since a skew list is just unable to score some secondaries and almost have an auto loss in certain missions. A monster list with 1-5 models cant possibly prevent a 50+ model list from winning the escape from the opponents table edge scenario for example. 2 4pts Goblins out of a horde of possibly 80+ just need to survive the trip over the table to win against 700pts Smaug in that scenario. Smaug cant kill more than 2 or 3 a turn if the goblins spread out and the goblins only need 10 turns at most to move that far. Even lists with just 20-30 models should almost be guaranteed to win that mission against any monster/hero skew list.
40k have between the 2 most different missions more similarity to each other than almost any 2 of the Lotr missions. Alternating deployment ~24" away from each other. Focus on holding more objectives while having 1 kill secondary(varies on opponent what you kill), one action(scramble or raise the flags mostly depending on your own list) and then a board control one like Engage on all Fronts. 2 of the secondaries you choose most of the time, sometimes all 33 depending on mission specific one, goes into the same primary focus as the primary objective. Hold table space. The missions and secondaries dont really change much. Even if you deploy in a quarter or on the diagonal or if there are 5 objectives instead of 4 or 6 the plan is 99% the same in all missions. Your win % might differ slightly but not what you try to achieve.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 15:49:46
2021/01/05 15:43:40
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
kurhanik wrote: There really shouldn't BE trap options. Some options might be sub-optimal against your opponent's list, or not be the best for specific mission structures, but all units should be baseline viable and fulfill a niche.
A trap option isn't a unit that's just always bad in any list, it's an option that seems good but that actually isn't.
Take a strong unit like Eradicators, for example, they seem so strong that any weapon they can take must be good but that isn't the case. There exists an optimal loadout for them that maximizes their chances to kill what they expect to face without wasting points, taking any other option is falling into a trap.
A trap option might also be taking a unit that is otherwise strong but that doesn't synergize with your list. An example of this might be taking Ghazghkull in an all vehicle list because you believe that kind of target saturation isn't currently accounted for. This is a trap because it doesn't use the models in a way that works in the current meta and fails to take advantage of the buffs Ghazzy gives to Goff Skarboyz.
You cannot make it so that these types of list building traps are unavoidable without completely removing choice from the game.
My example with the urban warfare wasn't that the vehicles could not move through at all, but that they would be less efficient - maybe moving single file or having to spread out to cover firing arcs due to line of sight blockage and cover for the infantry horde. It could be an interesting setup really - the armored unit is storming the city to occupy it, while the defenders are throwing their last ditch speedbump to slow down/stall the advance. Sure the tanks could theoretically trudge on through, but supply vehicles and logistics units need to be able to safely traverse the city, so they need to route the defenders, or at least push them out of X Y and Z buildings along the main road and occupy those with their own infantry units. Build the mission around the tanks with their limited infantry support trying to flush the opposing infantry company out while the opposing force's goal is to basically hold on till the end of the match and try to split the tanks and encircle them. End of the game depending on the situation on the field and the objectives held, the area is either secured, or the tankers are forced to withdraw as opposing reinforcements have arrived, or they have run too low on munitions to continue the fight, etc.
Try running the setup in 9th and tell me how it works. I'm willing to bet that the vehicle lists takes it at a walk even on a terrain dense board favorable to infantry.
Also, how does your very custom sounding scenario translate to matched play with random opponents? How are these two players supposed to know that exactly this scenario is balanced for their forces? What if it turns out this scenario is actually still unbalanced either being too difficult for the vehicle force or not enough of a handicap to give the all infantry force a fighting chance? What if the mechanized player finds a unit that works especially well in this exact mission and thus can have an armored skew that defeats the mission designed to combat skew?
I don't have answers for everything here, but think of a tier list of units - D, C, B, A, S. The ideal would be for all units to tend roughly to B tier for their point value. If items end up B- or B+ that is perfectly acceptable, as it is just small imbalances, and the occasional C+ or A- is fine. The problem is when some units are clearly D tier and others are clearly S tier.
Define these letter grades. Is a D tier unit a unit that can't ever show up in a top-level competitive list, or one that is just unlikely to do so?
So in your example of Vindicare vs Invictor vs Scouts vs Runtherd, the answer is that they SHOULD NOT be equal in all regards - they all SHOULD have niches that they can fill however. A Vindicare Assassin should be balanced around taking out key enemies - either sniping out characters or special/heavy weapons and so on. Meanwhile Scouts are more about board control and Runtherds are buff units that increase the effectiveness of certain units in the army. They shouldn't all excel at the same thing.
How do you ensure that the areas they excel at are all equal then? If one player's list revolves around Runtherds isn't that always countered by the Vindicare player snipping those important buffing units? What if the Invictor takes the opposite path and kills the grots and leaves the Runtherd with nothing to buff? How do you propose we balance those scenarios?
For example - lets just say in theory a unit is "S" tier in a certain ability - that should come at costs - both in terms of points and in terms of malluses to other abilities. You can make a unit check off every item on the board and be amazing, but it had better pay out the teeth for it or else it will distort the meta in a big way. However, if a unit say has S tier mid ranged firepower, but its mobility is more of a D (low movement, no deployment options beyond hopping in a transport), and little in terms of "bonus perks" (no orders, or no chapter tactics, or not Core going by newest design scheme), you could get a somewhat interesting unit with the correct support. The unit has to trudge along to get in position, or pay a bit extra for a transport to move it at any speed, and it can be countered by higher mobility to get out of its sweet spot.
Show me an example of this unit and I'll show you a unit that is either a meta staple or one which never features in top lists. A unit that is this skewed in killing power is never a balanced unit in 40k.
As for balancing skew lists and the like, you can do that via missions. If the mission requires X Y and Z, and you only bring units that can do Z, you are at a disadvantage, but can still pull off a win by preventing your foe from pulling off X and Y while holding down Z yourself. On the flip side, the more TAC list that can pull of X, Y, and Z will probably have to give up on Z unless they can outplay the skew list in a big way, but has more opportunities to bring about their own objectives while playing defensively against the skew list's attempts at preventing it.
Doesn't aiming to balance skew lists hurt the idea that players should be able to play any list they like, match up against any other list, and play any mission at random and still have a roughly equal chance at either player winning the game? In order for this to work, every single mission needs to be anti-skew and this anti-skew needs to account for every type of skew the meta can come up with. This means, for 40k, you need to balance around hordes, character spam, transport spam, mortal wound spam, deep strike/outflank spam, first turn charges, castles, monstrous creature spam, gant carpet + monstrous creatures, and probably a few other types of lists I've missed. How do you propose that every single mission and table setup work with any of these skews randomly matching against any other skew?
Perfect balance does not exist, the ideal is instead to make it "balanced enough" so that both parties can have fun. As I said above, the ideal would be to have everything OVERALL balanced around B tier - they excel in their area of expertise but have cons to go with them, or a generalist unit might be B straight across the board, etc. Unit L is great in situation X, but is only average in Y and struggles in Z, but with support from Unit K and M, you can cover all of your bases somewhat effectively, if that makes sense.
Define B tier. Define balanced enough. Tell me with a straight face that more players will find this more fun than 9th edition.
Your ideas are so vaguely defined that they're obviously pie in the sky with no idea how you'd actually make them happen in 40k.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Lists should matter. In fact, if you read into my LOTR example, the guy is literally saying "Your list is bad, improve your list."
But what he is also saying is "your list is bad because it lacks maneuver and fires on the tabletop" not "your list is bad because it doesn't seem to be engineered to win on points with minimal gameplay". With a side of "LOTR will never be that way as it's deliberately designed to disincentivize over-engineered lists".
the former means you can make a mistake. You can have the most balanced, appropriate list for the mission ever and still lose to being outmaneuvered. The latter means you don't really have to interact with the game at all and you can just score the same way you did in the game before and will in the game after. I mean heck, watch Tabletop Titans. They meme the way the players play the game the same in every single engagement. The Adrian Special is the same collection of secondaries every time, because he just brings his list and executes on it. The skill comes into the fiddly rule interpretations and clever exploitation of the way the rules are written (Things like combo'ing movement, psychic, and a stratagem to get two bike units with a 3++ instead of just 1, clever moves during pile-ins to catch units off-guard and keep other guys in auras, etc).
For your example RE:40k tournaments. The reason players can't netlist their way to victory is because skill matters more and more as lists become more and more symmetrical. In a world where every list is largely identical (in terms of how engineered it is to win pre-game, not in terms of actual content), then player skill starts to matter.
But that is a bad world. You shouldn't want to live in a world that's "Engineer your list or lose, and then if you engineer your list your skill matters". You should want to live in a world where its "L2P or lose" with less impact of list engineering.
Right now, if you bring a bad list, you lose automatically, no matter your skill. Therefore, List Building > Skill in terms of which helps you win the game. I'm advocating a system in which Skill > List Building, where the worst player with the best list EVAR cannot (or will rarely) beat the best player with the worst (but still sensible) list.
Why don't you consider list building a skill? Also, why is list building good sometimes like in LotR but bad other times like in 40k?
Karol wrote: Only thing results from australian tournaments tought me is that the game has to be play very different from the rest of the world, at least from what we saw winning there in 8th ed. They were the only place in the world where GK were dominating large events for 2 years back to back.
It's almost like what's good and what's bad is completely meta dependant and that you need to adapt to the meta you play in... What a fething shock that is!
Well that is true, harlis, demons and CWE soups are winning a lot, but it is somehow that marines with their 50% win rates that are the real unbalancers of 9th ed. Still I think there is a difference between something like orks or DE. Which are either forced in to prebuild list or forced to run lists and play the way people do not want to play like tyranids. And something like tau. Tau are just bad, no amount list building , core and tau game play knowladge is going to help a tau player when he faces off a good 9th army, specialy if they go second. under 30% win rates do not pop out of nothing.
Tau and non-souped Knights are both in a spot where the design team needs to think long and hard about how these factions are supposed to play 9th edition missions, but they're also the only factions in this position. 1k Suns are likely going to be fine with just a new codex that offers them some unique secondaries and a power bump on some key units, the same goes for Guard, DE, and the other subpar factions.
Tyel wrote: I feel infinity is more balanced because almost every faction can do anything - and the game is balanced around unit archetypes rather than GW throwing a dart and calling it good.
So a PanO guy with an HMG and a range of rules will be +/- a few points with another faction's guy with an HMG and a similar but different set of rules. They'll only be much cheaper if they are much worse. Unless its in N4, the PanO guy doesn't suddenly get an extra attack and a super special rule on turn 3 because PanO need help.
You don't get say an Eradicator being 40 points, while a two blaster Crisis Suit at 70 for the lols.
Which means the meta is more complicated than "find the undercosted stuff".
The issue with 40k is that you have that phase and then you move on. As a rule, good players don't run bad units. Does that eliminate a lot of units from seeing the table? Yes, but that's a different issue to claiming 40k is boring because the missions are always the same. 9th seemingly has a far larger roster than more recent editions of 40k - probably because the move first advantage and primary objectives skews things more than anything else.
Would you feel comfortable playing a game of infinity against a player of equal skill without bringing specialists or remotes to the table? If not, doesn't that make these units more essential than any type of unit in 40k?
Klickor wrote: The 40k rules team should look at some of the lotr missions. They are very varied in both deployment and primary objectives.
You have some missions you deploy mostly like 40k with 24" between the 2 forces. Others that divide the table in 2 halfs and you get to deploy anywhere inside your own half as long as it is at least 1" away from the enemy. So you could have both armies deploy 1,01" inches away from each other. One mission forces the respective army leaders deploy within 3" of the centre. Then you have missions with "Maelstrom deployment" that randomly gives you any table edge to deploy each warband(your force is made up of 1-5 warbands usually) from. You have might(bit like CP) and some hero abilities that can help in mitigate the random factor but its expensive. But it is worth it if it can prevent one of your smaller warbands randomly deploy between 2 of your enemies warbands and get instantly destroyed.
Then the missions can be everything from holding objectives to flee off the opponents table edge or count the kills your leader makes. Some that involve different special rules, like nightfight or hidden objectives. Usually there is also a few secondaries that are mostly the same for most missions. Hurt/kill the enemy leader and reduce the
Usually different end game triggers too. Some end when one army is below 25%, others if a player manage to complete the primary objective while a few randomly ends on a dice roll of 1 or 2 after each turn as soon as one player drops below 50%.
Some missions favors fewer warbands, and also fewer models, while others make you want as many as possible. Some favor that you have your best fighter as the leader while others dont. In some speed is very important but others it isnt etc. You really want expensive banners in some too even if your army could play without them and some skew armies cant even take them and will lose out on that secondary.
Promotes a TAC approach since a skew list is just unable to score some secondaries and almost have an auto loss in certain missions. A monster list with 1-5 models cant possibly prevent a 50+ model list from winning the escape from the opponents table edge scenario for example. 2 4pts Goblins out of a horde of possibly 80+ just need to survive the trip over the table to win against 700pts Smaug in that scenario. Smaug cant kill more than 2 or 3 a turn if the goblins spread out and the goblins only need 10 turns at most to move that far. Even lists with just 20-30 models should almost be guaranteed to win that mission against any monster/hero skew list.
40k have between the 2 most different missions more similarity to each other than almost any 2 of the Lotr missions. Alternating deployment ~24" away from each other. Focus on holding more objectives while having 1 kill secondary(varies on opponent what you kill), one action(scramble or raise the flags mostly depending on your own list) and then a board control one like Engage on all Fronts. 2 of the secondaries you choose most of the time, sometimes all 33 depending on mission specific one, goes into the same primary focus as the primary objective. Hold table space. The missions and secondaries dont really change much. Even if you deploy in a quarter or on the diagonal or if there are 5 objectives instead of 4 or 6 the plan is 99% the same in all missions. Your win % might differ slightly but not what you try to achieve.
This sounds like it just automatically screws you if you happen to roll up the wrong mission.
It sounds like monster lists and horde lists alike are nearly unplayable and that LotR is balanced around a small range of lists that the designers intended the game to be built around. How is this any better than 40k where some lists are also unviable?
-----
Looking at just these responses it doesn't seem like any of you want the same things from a 'fixed' version of 40k.
Everything should have a niche, except for whatever I define as skew, we should have the missions punish those.
Yeah, I want balanced interesting gameplay just like infinity where you have to take these two types of units every game or lose.
Yeah, I think that's cool but what if we just build custom scenarios for every possible combination of lists that could face each other and balance our game that way.
This is why 40k can't ever be balanced, none of the people calling for balance have a clue what that would look like and let alone a plan to actually make it happen. This is all just pie-in-the-sky whining with zero substance to back it up.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2021/01/05 15:59:27
2021/01/05 16:02:26
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
It's almost like what's good and what's bad is completely meta dependant and that you need to adapt to the meta you play in... What a fething shock that is!
Well it is a shock when only on place in the world one person manage to make your army work. And people all around the world who run similar or identical list could not, and at the same time your army isn't dripping in unit options, so it is not like you just didn't check the other things. Also sometimes, like lets say in case of the tau, they are bed everywhere, even in Australia. And it is even more odd when there is an army with just as limited unit option, for which GW could write good rules. So it is clearly not a case of too few unit options translating in to an always bad army.
You cannot make it so that these types of list building traps are unavoidable without completely removing choice from the game.
Having even one pre build army set up that works, beats out spending ton of money on an army you find out does not work in your meta no matter what you do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 16:04:35
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2021/01/05 16:02:28
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
VladimirHerzog wrote: thats the thing, Corvus belli uses mathematical equations to determine the pts cost of their units, so no matter what you pick in your army, as long as you know how to use it (the strength and weaknesses of the unit), you have a decent chance at winning the game.
Obviously if you randomize the list and get only cheerleaders and no specialists you'd get fethed on the mission, but thats the thing, when a human is building a list, there are a couple type of units you usually need, at the very least one specialist and one remote. Then you can add Hackers, Docs, Engineers, Forward deployers, camo users, etc. But thats basic knowledge that CB conveys to the players in the core rules. You SHOULD pick a specialist because theyre the ones that can do the mission, and tabling your opponent isn't a real strategy in infinity, unlike 40k.
Infinity's mission system combined with its reaction based gameplay means that 90%+ of the outcome of the game depends on player skill, not on unit composition.
This isn't true though. You just pointed out that there are two units, specialists and remotes, that are basically essential to playing the game. If one player had a force with them and one had a force without them would the gap between the two of them be more or less than 10%? How are these essential units any different than the 'must take' units in 40k?
no force don't have access to specialists and remote tho. Theyre the same thing as "Infantry, Characters and vehicles/monsters". Every army has them.
These essential units arent a single one, when i say "specialist" it can be a doctor, engineer, forward observers or hackers, of which every army has multiple options.
Its not like saying "I need to pick Eradicators because they can kill more than their value each turn", its more like saying "I need an HQ, of which i have multiple different options i can pick to fit my playstyle".
2021/01/05 16:07:44
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
Why don't you consider list building a skill? Also, why is list building good sometimes like in LotR but bad other times like in 40k?
Listbuilding is a skill the same way using Excel is a skill. It can be done at home, alone, in your pajamas. Why bother playing a wargame, any wargame, if the only skill you want to test is done completely by yourself? You could even write two lists so your first list has an opponent, and then mathhammer them together.
A wargame is a game of maneuver, fires, effects, and battlefield strategy. A miniatures wargame shifts the emphasis from strategy to tactics, since you're dealing with a microcosm of a single engagement. It is played against a thinking, breathing foe, who tries to use those same tools to defeat you. It is not a game of "figure out how to fit all the tools you need into this box" with tools being units that achieve objectives and the box being the points limit.
Listbuilding is good always. It's important. But it should not be more important than skill on the table. Which is what I've been saying the whole time. LOTR achieves this, by making missions that dick with overengineered wombo-combo lists (and, paradoxically, therefore making list building more important because you can very badly dick yourself over if you approach it with a 40k mindset of winning the game without playing when building your list).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 16:08:11
2021/01/05 16:15:24
Subject: The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
Even horde lists have some good heroes and arent totally screwed on the missions. Just maxing the numbers with cheapest heroes + cheapest warriors isnt a good idea though. Like you could take 100+ goblins but even with 60-80 you would still have a huge numbers advantage since at higher points 30-50 models is standard.
The only pure Monster factions are Fangorn(Ents), Misty Mountain(Eagles) and Smaug(which costs 560$ and should be treated the same as a FW Titan). They arent really fun lists since they are very one dimensional but they can all ally with other forces to make them more wellrounded. So you can play with your monsters but if you want to go all in on them you can but then expect to suffer from it. Play a more balanced lists with a few monsters and you wont have any trouble at all. Monsters are great but they need support.
Extreme skew lists being bad is good and not a detriment. You still have some lists like Rohan or Rivendell all cavalry lists. All bow(usually 33% bow limit) Rangers of Ithilien lists and some pure hero lists like the Ringwraiths, Fellowship and Thorin's Company. They aren't as extreme as pure monsters though and are unlike monster lists intended to be viable. They do have some severe drawbacks though and will have an uphill fight in some missions but overall they are competitive. You could easily ally in some other units from other factions if you wanted to shore up some of the weaknesses. There isnt a single army that can't have allies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 16:20:24
2021/01/05 16:16:05
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
VladimirHerzog wrote: no force don't have access to specialists and remote tho. Theyre the same thing as "Infantry, Characters and vehicles/monsters". Every army has them.
These essential units arent a single one, when i say "specialist" it can be a doctor, engineer, forward observers or hackers, of which every army has multiple options.
Its not like saying "I need to pick Eradicators because they can kill more than their value each turn", its more like saying "I need an HQ, of which i have multiple different options i can pick to fit my playstyle".
If 40k list building allowed it I bet you could probably build a list without including anything that counts as a character; in the past, we've seen 40k lists win without infantry; there are many lists that can be rather good in 40k that don't bother with vehicles/monsters.
Does this mean that 40k actually has more list building freedom than Infinity?
It's almost like what's good and what's bad is completely meta dependant and that you need to adapt to the meta you play in... What a fething shock that is!
Well it is a shock when only on place in the world one person manage to make your army work. And people all around the world who run similar or identical list could not, and at the same time your army isn't dripping in unit options, so it is not like you just didn't check the other things. Also sometimes, like lets say in case of the tau, they are bed everywhere, even in Australia. And it is even more odd when there is an army with just as limited unit option, for which GW could write good rules. So it is clearly not a case of too few unit options translating in to an always bad army.
I'd be willing to be that a better player than you would have made your faction work in your meta.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Listbuilding is a skill the same way using Excel is a skill. It can be done at home, alone, in your pajamas. Why bother playing a wargame, any wargame, if the only skill you want to test is done completely by yourself? You could even write two lists so your first list has an opponent, and then mathhammer them together.
Did you just finish saying that, 'skill matters more and more as lists become more and more symmetrical.' So it seems that among players where there is a match in list building skill that playing skill then becomes the tie-breaking factor when looking at their chances of success. This just means that list building is the most basic skill that every 40k player needs to master because it unlocks gameplay in which skill at gameplay becomes meaningful.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/01/05 16:20:55
2021/01/05 16:21:04
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
Canadian 5th wrote: This isn't true though. You just pointed out that there are two units, specialists and remotes, that are basically essential to playing the game. If one player had a force with them and one had a force without them would the gap between the two of them be more or less than 10%? How are these essential units any different than the 'must take' units in 40k?
The difference is that the relationship between specialists and supporting units is one of synergy. Not 'take these together and get +1 on your rolls', but emergent synergy that arises from the core rules of the game. Whereas 'must take' units in 40K tend to consist of ones that are undercosted for their power, or combo through explicitly defined rules interactions.
One game encourages you to bring a variety of units to accomplish the mission. You can determine what to bring just by generally browsing their capabilities and ensuring you bring the capabilities that fit your game plan.
The other game encourages you to bring the most powerful units for their points. You determine what to bring with a calculator, and making sure you avoid the ones that the math says are terrible.
There is a significant difference between these two, and trying to reduce it to 'listbuilding matters in both cases so they're the same' is a total false equivalency. I'm assuming at this point that you don't see the difference because you've never actually played the game; but in that case I question why you feel at all qualified to comment.
Canadian 5th wrote: You cannot make it so that these types of list building traps are unavoidable without completely removing choice from the game.
For someone who keeps demanding hard quantifiable evidence that another game's balance is better, you sure keep throwing out these wild and ridiculous assertions without any sort of evidence.
They certainly didn't teach 'balancing options is impossible, either make stuff deliberately suck as a trap or completely remove all choice' in the classes I took. You have some very weird ideas about game design that don't match up with anything I've read or experienced in-industry.
Klickor wrote: Even horde lists have some good heroes and arent totally screwed on the missions. Just maxing the numbers with cheapest heroes + cheapest warriors isnt a good idea though. Like you could take 100+ goblins but even with 60-80 you would still have a huge numbers advantage since at higher points 30-50 models is standard.
The only pure Monster factions are Fangorn(Ents), Misty Mountain(Eagles) and Smaug(which costs 560$ and should be treated the same as a FW Titan). They arent really fun lists since they are very one dimensional but they can all ally with other forces to make them more wellrounded. So you can play with your monsters but if you want to go all in on them you can but then expect to suffer from it. Play a more balanced lists with a few monsters and you wont have any trouble at all. Monsters are great but they need support.
Extreme skew lists being bad is good and not a detriment. You still have some lists like Rohan or Rivendell all cavalry lists. All bow(usually 33% bow limit) Rangers of Ithilien lists and some pure hero lists like the Ringwraiths, Fellowship and Thorin's Company. They aren't as extreme as pure monsters though and are unlike monster lists intended to be viable. They do have some severe drawbacks though and will have an uphill fight in some missions but overall they are competitive. You could easily ally in some other units from other factions if you wanted to shore up some of the weaknesses. There isnt a single army that can't have allies.
I could make the exact same argument about three 40k factions.
The only bad factions are Tau and Knights (Which cost $$$ and should be treated like Smaug). They arent really fun lists since they are very one-dimensional... Why is this okay in LotR but not okay in 40k?
2021/01/05 16:24:13
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
VladimirHerzog wrote: no force don't have access to specialists and remote tho. Theyre the same thing as "Infantry, Characters and vehicles/monsters". Every army has them.
These essential units arent a single one, when i say "specialist" it can be a doctor, engineer, forward observers or hackers, of which every army has multiple options.
Its not like saying "I need to pick Eradicators because they can kill more than their value each turn", its more like saying "I need an HQ, of which i have multiple different options i can pick to fit my playstyle".
If 40k list building allowed it I bet you could probably build a list without including anything that counts as a character; in the past, we've seen 40k lists win without infantry; there are many lists that can be rather good in 40k that don't bother with vehicles/monsters.
Does this mean that 40k actually has more list building freedom than Infinity?
No, because infinity has no restriction, you can chose to not bring specialists but you'd be penalised on the mission, in 40k, you cannot bring a list with no character.
I honestly don't get why you seem so hellbent on the idea that infinity is inferior to 40k on the listbuilding/mission aspect. It took me a single game of infinity to see many flaws with 40k. That doesn't mean that 40k isnt enjoyable, its just not for the same crowd.
Imo40k works best at a casual level since the game is fairly simple and the strength of your unit do a lot of carrying. If i bring aggressors against a grots army, i should probably win this game most of the time. Infinity doesn't have that, most of the outcome depends on player skill. I've managed to go toe to toe against one of the stronger armies while playing my Pano army built from a starter set.
I could make the exact same argument about three 40k factions.
The only bad factions are Tau and Knights (Which cost $$$ and should be treated like Smaug). They arent really fun lists since they are very one-dimensional... Why is this okay in LotR but not okay in 40k?
Pretty sure Smaug isnt a knight, hes a warlord titan (i don't play LotR).
Tau are one dimensional but still function with mostly the same concepts as other armies (infantry + monsters/vehicles) they're bad now because theyre the army that suffers most from the new missions and are in dire need of a new codex.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/01/05 16:28:23
2021/01/05 16:31:03
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
Unit1126PLL wrote: Listbuilding is a skill the same way using Excel is a skill. It can be done at home, alone, in your pajamas. Why bother playing a wargame, any wargame, if the only skill you want to test is done completely by yourself? You could even write two lists so your first list has an opponent, and then mathhammer them together.
Did you just finish saying that, 'skill matters more and more as lists become more and more symmetrical.' So it seems that among players where there is a match in list building skill that playing skill then becomes the tie-breaking factor when looking at their chances of success. This just means that list building is the most basic skill that every 40k player needs to master because it unlocks gameplay in which skill at gameplay becomes meaningful.
Which means that List Building Skill is more important than Tabletop Tactics Skill. That's what I've been saying this whole time. If you are learning 40k, you should learn to build your list first because that has more impact than actually learning to play the game. This is a bad state of affairs.
Canadian 5th wrote:
Klickor wrote: Even horde lists have some good heroes and arent totally screwed on the missions. Just maxing the numbers with cheapest heroes + cheapest warriors isnt a good idea though. Like you could take 100+ goblins but even with 60-80 you would still have a huge numbers advantage since at higher points 30-50 models is standard.
The only pure Monster factions are Fangorn(Ents), Misty Mountain(Eagles) and Smaug(which costs 560$ and should be treated the same as a FW Titan). They arent really fun lists since they are very one dimensional but they can all ally with other forces to make them more wellrounded. So you can play with your monsters but if you want to go all in on them you can but then expect to suffer from it. Play a more balanced lists with a few monsters and you wont have any trouble at all. Monsters are great but they need support.
Extreme skew lists being bad is good and not a detriment. You still have some lists like Rohan or Rivendell all cavalry lists. All bow(usually 33% bow limit) Rangers of Ithilien lists and some pure hero lists like the Ringwraiths, Fellowship and Thorin's Company. They aren't as extreme as pure monsters though and are unlike monster lists intended to be viable. They do have some severe drawbacks though and will have an uphill fight in some missions but overall they are competitive. You could easily ally in some other units from other factions if you wanted to shore up some of the weaknesses. There isnt a single army that can't have allies.
I could make the exact same argument about three 40k factions.
The only bad factions are Tau and Knights (Which cost $$$ and should be treated like Smaug). They arent really fun lists since they are very one-dimensional... Why is this okay in LotR but not okay in 40k?
It's not okay in LOTR, and the community has banned Smaug in every event I can think of, expressing their displeasure at GW for releasing that model in the state it's in. He is more akin to a Warlord Titan than a Knight. One dimensional lists in LOTR exist, but play against the scenario AND the opponent, while a less one-dimensional list only has to play against the opponent. Skilled players can still win with bad lists against regular players with good lists, though. Which is the point. To repeat myself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/05 16:33:31
2021/01/05 16:37:20
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
catbarf wrote: ITT person who has never played a game feels qualified to tell everyone who has that their perceptions of how it compares to 40Kmust be wrong.
Just give up, dude.
Yeah, seems like a strange hill to die one.
2021/01/05 16:42:05
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
catbarf wrote: The difference is that the relationship between specialists and supporting units is one of synergy. Not 'take these together and get +1 on your rolls', but emergent synergy that arises from the core rules of the game. Whereas 'must take' units in 40K tend to consist of ones that are undercosted for their power, or combo through explicitly defined rules interactions.
How are the rules in 40k not emergent synergy when they are in Infinity? They're both entirely obvious ways to play the game that a skilled player will use to beat less-skilled players. Is the extra layer of obfuscation involved with Infinity something that makes its gameplay better?
One game encourages you to bring a variety of units to accomplish the mission. You can determine what to bring just by generally browsing their capabilities and ensuring you bring the capabilities that fit your game plan.
The other game encourages you to bring the most powerful units for their points. You determine what to bring with a calculator, and making sure you avoid the ones that the math says are terrible.
Which calculator was used to say that SAG Mekz and Trukkz were going to carry an Ork list to a top-two tournament placement? The ones most of Dakka is using seem to claim that these units are bad.
In fact, explain how lists in 40k work at all. If the game is so simple you can always determine the best lists via math how does the meta keep changing between tournaments even when there haven't been major rules changes to shake up which lists 'should' be optimal?
For someone who keeps demanding hard quantifiable evidence that another game's balance is better, you sure keep throwing out these wild and ridiculous assertions without any sort of evidence.
They certainly didn't teach 'balancing options is impossible, either make stuff deliberately suck as a trap or completely remove all choice' in the classes I took. You have some very weird ideas about game design that don't match up with anything I've read or experienced in-industry.
Then they taught you poorly. With the exception of purely narrative-focused games where the goal is to cooperatively create a story, there will always be trap choices in any game the involves logical systems. The goal of game balance can be to minimize the gaps between top choices and bottom choices while obfuscating them behind things like fluff and archetypes. Even this isn't the only way to balance a game though, TCGs such as Magic the Gathering, approach balance in a way that attempts to include cards for a variety of formats within the same packs. This means that while many cards aren't top tier options in any format enough go on to be good in some format to drive sales and promote diversity in lists at organized play events.
Nor did I ever say that you should deliberately make traps. My statement about desiring trap options be left in 40k's rules was an attempt to head off at the pass any ideas about balancing 40k by removing options from the player. My further statements about trap options are addressing the fact that any game which seeks to have list building as a factor by which a player can express their skill must logically include options which, when included in the same list, are less optimal than another set of options which the player could have taken. The degree to which these options are obvious are going to be dependant on the player's list building skill and the meta in which their list is designed to compete.
As a game designer, you must agree with me that a game designed around combining units A and B with a selection of units C, D, and E will inevitably have some combinations which, over a large enough sample, appear to perform better than others. If this is true does that not make underperforming options traps which a less skilled player may fall into?
VladimirHerzog wrote: No, because infinity has no restriction, you can chose to not bring specialists but you'd be penalised on the mission, in 40k, you cannot bring a list with no character.
Technically this is true, though in the past there were lists like Guard Tank platoons that didn't take anything that would typically be thought of as a character. Also, why didn't you address the other units that you can avoid bringing in 40k? Are you dodging that issue?
I honestly don't get why you seem so hellbent on the idea that infinity is inferior to 40k on the listbuilding/mission aspect.
Where did I ever say that? I'm merely pointing out that Infinity has its own restrictions on what is and isn't good and that it doesn't allow for the same kind of flexibility that some people want in 40k list building.
Pretty sure Smaug isnt a knight, hes a warlord titan (i don't play LotR).
Tau are one dimensional but still function with mostly the same concepts as other armies (infantry + monsters/vehicles) they're bad now because theyre the army that suffers most from the new missions and are in dire need of a new codex.
We've been given examples of armies that aren't playable - to a competitive level - in LotR without allies and that game is held up as an example of a game that is better than 40k. Yet, 40k is decried as being terribly balanced if any of its factions are bad without allies... I'm just trying to square this circle.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/05 16:48:36
2021/01/05 16:48:58
Subject: The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
Klickor wrote: Even horde lists have some good heroes and arent totally screwed on the missions. Just maxing the numbers with cheapest heroes + cheapest warriors isnt a good idea though. Like you could take 100+ goblins but even with 60-80 you would still have a huge numbers advantage since at higher points 30-50 models is standard.
The only pure Monster factions are Fangorn(Ents), Misty Mountain(Eagles) and Smaug(which costs 560$ and should be treated the same as a FW Titan). They arent really fun lists since they are very one dimensional but they can all ally with other forces to make them more wellrounded. So you can play with your monsters but if you want to go all in on them you can but then expect to suffer from it. Play a more balanced lists with a few monsters and you wont have any trouble at all. Monsters are great but they need support.
Extreme skew lists being bad is good and not a detriment. You still have some lists like Rohan or Rivendell all cavalry lists. All bow(usually 33% bow limit) Rangers of Ithilien lists and some pure hero lists like the Ringwraiths, Fellowship and Thorin's Company. They aren't as extreme as pure monsters though and are unlike monster lists intended to be viable. They do have some severe drawbacks though and will have an uphill fight in some missions but overall they are competitive. You could easily ally in some other units from other factions if you wanted to shore up some of the weaknesses. There isnt a single army that can't have allies.
I could make the exact same argument about three 40k factions.
The only bad factions are Tau and Knights (Which cost $$$ and should be treated like Smaug). They arent really fun lists since they are very one-dimensional... Why is this okay in LotR but not okay in 40k?
The biggest problem in 40k is that lots of armies arent really balanced upon roles they could perform on the battlefield. Like if they hold up the enemy or if they could perform a certain action other units cant. It is mostly about how killy/durable units are for their point cost or how well they support for their points if they are characters. Get to the objective in 1 or 2 turns, kill as much as possible without dying. 40k lists are mostly balanced just around those few factors. So if a diverse and well rounded list is good or not is mostly just due to the individual units point costs.
In lotr you need more things than just effective units. Cavalry does something infantry cant. Same with monsters. And wizards or warmachines. Shooting is rather weak but you still want some in most lists anyway just to help with countering some units. Different heroes unlock different heroic actions that you might need depending on the rest of the list. Just spamming the most efficient heroes + most efficient statline isnt gonna work.
With marines for example you dont really get anything by having vehicles in your lists. If more than 4 you give up extra secondaries and they dont really do anything that your infantry cant do as well If Eradicators, helblasters and devastators are cheaper why would you take predators or executioners? In lotr you would still want some cavalry even if they were a bit overpriced for their killing ability just to counter charge other cavalry(cavalry negate charge bonuses from other cavalry) or rush to objectives in certain scenarios just so the opponent dont win by running of the board with the artifact before you get there. Same with monsters or wizards. They all do things that arent just based on how efficient they are because the game have many different win conditions and scenarios you need to be prepared for. There is always a good reason to include them but they also cost points so you cant have all of them You would be hard pressed to find points for enough troops, cavalry, combat heroes, versatile heroes, warmachines, monsters, wizards and archers in the same list.
2021/01/05 16:52:11
Subject: Re:The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
Unit1126PLL wrote: Which means that List Building Skill is more important than Tabletop Tactics Skill. That's what I've been saying this whole time. If you are learning 40k, you should learn to build your list first because that has more impact than actually learning to play the game. This is a bad state of affairs.
No, it just means that list building is a gatekeeper skill, one which can be bypassed by looking at tournament results and participating in the community before you spend money on models.
It's not okay in LOTR, and the community has banned Smaug in every event I can think of, expressing their displeasure at GW for releasing that model in the state it's in. He is more akin to a Warlord Titan than a Knight. One dimensional lists in LOTR exist, but play against the scenario AND the opponent, while a less one-dimensional list only has to play against the opponent. Skilled players can still win with bad lists against regular players with good lists, though. Which is the point. To repeat myself.
So LotR has list building traps, requires list building as a skill, and can result in one-sided matches if the wrong armies match up to play the wrong mission... That sounds a lot like 40k to me.
Klickor wrote: The biggest problem in 40k is that lots of armies arent really balanced upon roles they could perform on the battlefield. Like if they hold up the enemy or if they could perform a certain action other units cant. It is mostly about how killy/durable units are for their point cost or how well they support for their points if they are characters.
So if this is true why are units like Kommandos and Trukks being used in winning Ork lists? They don't kill much, aren't especially durable, and provide no support abilities.
In lotr you need more things than just effective units. Cavalry does something infantry cant.
In 40k you need more things than just effective units. Jump pack models do something infantry cant.
Different heroes unlock different heroic actions that you might need depending on the rest of the list.
Different units unlock different stratagems that you might need depending on the rest of the list.
Hmm...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/05 16:56:56
2021/01/05 17:03:04
Subject: The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived
Lotr having some factions that on their own isnt competitive isnt really a problem. Some of them only have 1(Smaug) or 2(Eagles) units and are mostly there for either being allies, scenario play and fun casual games.
The game have 43 factions. Of those about half are full factions that are balanced to stand on their own and can. Half of those that are left are small but can be played as they are and the other half are mostly designed to be used as allies and not on their own. Then you have a whole bunch of Legendary Legions that add extra constraints to list building but give bonuses to make certain forces more viable to stand on their own or to promote certain combined armies that we see in the movies/books.
Unlike 40k no one expects pure Eagles or Ents to be good in tournaments and thus they can design a better game without having to remove the missions pure Ents just cant win. But in 40k Knights for example are expected to stand alone and be playable which makes it a hassle to design. Its an extreme skew list but they are expected to be playable pure so they cant be too hard to kill or a TAC list wont have a chance killing them
and the game cant have advanced scenarios since Knights wont be able to win those that require non knight units. 40k would probably be a better game if GW just said from the start that they dont expect a knight force with more than 50% of their points in knights be viable at all. That would remove a lot of constraints they have on them.
