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.

As good idea as a balancing mechanic as this may be, it sounds like a real hassle for a pick-up game.

The tourney player and pick up player concerns are 1000% valid since I feel those are also the bulk of most players.

Tyel wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I'd really suggest looking into Chain of Command like Unit mentioned. The support mechanic there is a great way to balance out otherwise imbalanced (and fixed-composition) platoons, and it really does shift the game away from building an uber killer list.

From very brief reading - I guess Chain of Command works because both players are picking a Platoon, checking the two against each other and rolling up dice to work out support points - and then, armed with that knowledge, selecting support options?

Which I guess does require more knowledge of the game than purely netlisting - but presumably there would still be the issue that such and such a platoon is over/undervalued, as are X and Y as support options?

Or is it balanced on the quasi-Horus Heresy basis, that "guy with rifle" is basically the same regardless of whether they are British, German, Soviet etc? If heavy machine guns, mortars or light tanks are "efficient" that's fine, because everyone can go and grab one?

Chain of Command has had its share of FAQs (two in 7? years) that slightly adjust the platoon costs. But unlike GW, the company behind COC (Too Fat Lardies ) has released the "maths behind the design" and accepted community feedback when pricing platoons. In fact, you could use their maths to build "fantasy platoons" that didn't historically exist, if you really wanted, and it will tell you how to price them.

They've also released their math behind the costs for various Support assets - and again, you could even use their system to "make your own" support asset if you really wanted to.

There are balance issues, but not balance issues in the same way that other games have them, because the core rules are actually in-depth enough to give "wiggle room" to platoons. For example, Panzergrenadiers are infamous for having 3-squad "triangular" platoons (i.e. a normal size) but each squad has 2x belt-fed LMGs instead of the usual 1x LMG (rarely belt fed) team and rifle team that most other nations possess. By comparison, they're rated +3, while the conventional British rifle platoon is rated 0.

In 40kland, that amount of firepower advantage (16-20 dice to 10ish on average) would make going up against the Panzergrenadiers a nightmare, especially if the panzergrenadiers got to defend ( forcing them to maneuver reduces their firepower down to more managable levels).

But instead of just saying "welp, they kill me faster than I kill them, guess I lose", you can do all kinds of shenanigans in the core rules to muscle an advantage. Smoke grenades and smoke rounds facilitate covered movement, so you can maneuver under their guns without immediately getting vaporized. Tactical movement allows your men to advance slowly and carefully but with a higher cover rating. Covering fire can grant an enemy unit -1 to hit.

So, if you have a Soviet squad (10 men with 1x LMG and 7 rifles for 13 dice) against a PzGren squad (10 men but with 2x belt fed MGs and 4 rifles, for 20 dice), it's completely asynchronous in the firepower department. In a sit and shoot firefight, the Soviets are very likely to lose. So they have to mix it up a little. Here's how I would handle it:

1) don't deploy from the JOP right in the line of fire of the PzGrens. Take hard cover and stay out of LOS while you reorganize. They don't like to move and shoot because of their MGs, so they'll likely go on overwatch and wait for you to move. Also, you want to be 18" away or more due to range bands in the core rules for LMGs and rifles (they hit worse at longer ranges).
2) Reorganize your squad by breaking the LMG and a couple riflemen off into an LMG team. (other nations don't have to do this but Soviets had a different tactical doctrine historically)
3) Maneuver your rifle team to throw a couple of smoke grenades (2 is all the squad carries) around their cover. This will likely trigger the PzGren overwatch, but if you stayed in your hard cover you won't lose everyone right away.
4) Move the LMG team into LOS, staying in hard cover (typically this is easy, if you kept it in mind when deploying. Use buildings or walls or multiple layers of soft cover; they stack). If you're very carefully deployed, you can do a 1d6 move and then put covering fire on the enemy.
5) between covering fire and smoke grenades, the PzGrens can't actually shoot at your men effectively until they're within 18".

Now you can shoot at them with nigh impunity, at least until the smoke clears... or, you can use the opportunity you've gained to maneuver against them.

So, what appears to be a balance issue (20 dice vs 13! WTF!) is not really that bad of one, because the core rules mean that there's more to the game than just weight of fire.

Jarms48 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Yeah, a system closer to how Tau/AdMech do it where you get a primary Trait and then a few secondary to choose from seems to work best.

If you haven't seen the new GSC it's actually kind of perfect for Guard. It's a pick 4 system. You get 4 custom doctrine points, with doctrines ranging from 1 - 4 points where you can mix and match until you hit 4.

Quite honestly that's probably how it should be for the most flexibility. After all, the lack of benefit Iron Hands get from their current trait for Infantry lists is pretty silly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Again, chain of command gets around this by giving poor-quality platoons (i.e. the thing you must take mandatorily) a lower rating relative to other platoons. Conversely, higher platoons have a higher rating.

The difference between force ratings factors into how much support you get. So, to translate that into 40k:

All armies must have X% troops. The following ratings apply (for examples):
BAD TROOPS -10
Sororitas, -7
Daemons 0
Space Marines 5
Space Wolves 7

(Don't read into the numbers, I just made them up).

The relationship between those ratings affects how big of a game the player Actually gets to play. So at 2k points, you must bring 500 pts of troops, 25%. But your force rating might be gak (Bad Troops vs Space Marines will be a difference of 15). This gives the Bad Troops player some number of additional points to spend on non-troops, e.g. 150 (if we just multiply by 10) or whatever.

Shouldn't this sort of thing be reflected in 40K with guardsmen costing less than sisters costing less than marines costing less than ...?

I like the idea of power ratings here as a sort of add-on for maybe TOs or local communities as a balancer for their own area "meta" i guess... then again, seems that a general should be able to choose when and with what and how to engage an enemy given a certain situation. So, given a scenario, and terrain, a general should decide to send x or y units. 25% troops requirement by points is not all that much... every faction seems to have troops that are useful for something! Sure, some are better than others but again, don't these generally cost more points even using GW's points ascriptions? What goes unsaid here is that if a general doesn't like his or her chances in a given scenario against a given other force, then the general has the option of either not engaging or bringing another collection of models, errr... another force. No?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Spoiler:

 jeff white wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Malifaux has you assemble your crew after you've drawn you objectives and set up the table etc. Someone mentioned Warcaster lets you bring in units from your collection as the game progresses.

Seems to me that this sort of process would end these sorts of problems, and would improve the game for both casual and for competitive players...
Thoughts?

I feel that this is disconnected from both the tourney scene and the pickup scene. Part of the fun, for me at least, is making a decision on my list without all the information knowing that I have to live with that decision for either the one game (pickup) or a whole tourney. I can try to guess the types of lists that I will meet, the sorts of missions and the types of tables, but ultimately I live with my choice that I made before I knew the game.

Spoiler:

In my Flames of War days I could gamble on expecting to see certain table types (or not see certain types) or try to have a swiss-army-knife. Having to make the decision ahead of time was part of the fun for me, and I think for many others seeing as it is the most common format.

Admittedly, having the set missions takes some of the guess-work out, but you don't necessarily know if you will have all of them or what order they will be in.

Spoiler:

I've seen a Flames of War tourney try to have an element of support platoons that you could use in certain games after seeing the mission/table, but for most of us it didn't enhance our experience and it was not repeated. Make you list, buckle up your chin strap and live with your decision. I've done Escalation formats in 40K tourneys where you start with a 500 point list and add a set amount for each game but your lists are pre-submitted and you have to build on what you have.

There is also the practical aspect for pickup games. I plan and pack up the models that I intend to play with.

Spoiler:

Having said that, I do sometimes bring some spare models/other lists in the car in case my pickup opponent has a mirror force to mine or is perhaps looking for a different kind of game. Not everyone is in that boat.

Additionally, list-tailoring is generally frowned on unless you are playing "Narrative" or a teaching game. This "see the mission/objectives" set up would lend itself to list tailoring.

Spoiler:

So I guess I just don't see the problems that this solves for 40K? Kill Team had something like that with the roster etc. Different game/different gaming context and experience.

But, I am not a game designer, just a player. Like Oddball and his tanks, I don't know what makes them work, I just ride on them.

In order:

Well, I like the idea. I am not really into deck-building.

You could. Depends on how the event were organised...

If you don't want to bring more models, then don't. If you are limited by your collection, communicate with your partner as to how to manage this limitation as you decide on mission and terrain and so on... if your opponent is a fair-minded hobbyist out for a good time, then I cannot imagine a case where this would be a problem using the process set out, above... if your opponent is not, then my suggestion would be to not spend time with that

List-tailoring is generally frowned upon why? because that is what is now the case because people deck build against a "meta" SOP? yeah, screw that with a barbed stick. Homey don't play that way. But again, if this is your jam, jam away...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As good idea as a balancing mechanic as this may be, it sounds like a real hassle for a pick-up game.

Yeah, I don't see why, and really, nobody needs to engage in this way if they would prefer to keep on keeping on. For me, I already have my models in custom built cardboard boxes with dividers and so on because I have had to ship them so many times and even now they are all sitting in shipping boxes waiting to be shipped (in another country, I may add, not even here with me! they are waiting to be shipped wherever we end up...). Others, well, might be inclined to do similarly if this is how they would like to structure their "pick-up games". I mean, cardboard boxes are free, at least the ones that I have used, and the dividers are hot glue and either foam-core or more cardboard. I have my harlequin bikes with all the spindly chains weapons and eldar spears and metal+plastic models more than 20 years old all packed in such a way and have had them shipped around the world without problems... I suppose that I have been generous with the clear coat, but no problems even with paint chipping off of metal when packed in this way. Now, when my brother sent a box of painted stuff all loose in a big box flopping around, sure, I lost a good bit... not recommended.

 jeff white wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Again, chain of command gets around this by giving poor-quality platoons (i.e. the thing you must take mandatorily) a lower rating relative to other platoons. Conversely, higher platoons have a higher rating.

The difference between force ratings factors into how much support you get. So, to translate that into 40k:

All armies must have X% troops. The following ratings apply (for examples):
BAD TROOPS -10
Sororitas, -7
Daemons 0
Space Marines 5
Space Wolves 7

(Don't read into the numbers, I just made them up).

The relationship between those ratings affects how big of a game the player Actually gets to play. So at 2k points, you must bring 500 pts of troops, 25%. But your force rating might be gak (Bad Troops vs Space Marines will be a difference of 15). This gives the Bad Troops player some number of additional points to spend on non-troops, e.g. 150 (if we just multiply by 10) or whatever.

Shouldn't this sort of thing be reflected in 40K with guardsmen costing less than sisters costing less than marines costing less than ...?

I like the idea of power ratings here as a sort of add-on for maybe TOs or local communities as a balancer for their own area "meta" i guess... then again, seems that a general should be able to choose when and with what and how to engage an enemy given a certain situation. So, given a scenario, and terrain, a general should decide to send x or y units. 25% troops requirement by points is not all that much... every faction seems to have troops that are useful for something! Sure, some are better than others but again, don't these generally cost more points even using GW's points ascriptions? What goes unsaid here is that if a general doesn't like his or her chances in a given scenario against a given other force, then the general has the option of either not engaging or bringing another collection of models, errr... another force. No?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Spoiler:

 jeff white wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Malifaux has you assemble your crew after you've drawn you objectives and set up the table etc. Someone mentioned Warcaster lets you bring in units from your collection as the game progresses.

Seems to me that this sort of process would end these sorts of problems, and would improve the game for both casual and for competitive players...
Thoughts?

I feel that this is disconnected from both the tourney scene and the pickup scene. Part of the fun, for me at least, is making a decision on my list without all the information knowing that I have to live with that decision for either the one game (pickup) or a whole tourney. I can try to guess the types of lists that I will meet, the sorts of missions and the types of tables, but ultimately I live with my choice that I made before I knew the game.

Spoiler:

In my Flames of War days I could gamble on expecting to see certain table types (or not see certain types) or try to have a swiss-army-knife. Having to make the decision ahead of time was part of the fun for me, and I think for many others seeing as it is the most common format.

Admittedly, having the set missions takes some of the guess-work out, but you don't necessarily know if you will have all of them or what order they will be in.

Spoiler:

I've seen a Flames of War tourney try to have an element of support platoons that you could use in certain games after seeing the mission/table, but for most of us it didn't enhance our experience and it was not repeated. Make you list, buckle up your chin strap and live with your decision. I've done Escalation formats in 40K tourneys where you start with a 500 point list and add a set amount for each game but your lists are pre-submitted and you have to build on what you have.

There is also the practical aspect for pickup games. I plan and pack up the models that I intend to play with.

Spoiler:

Having said that, I do sometimes bring some spare models/other lists in the car in case my pickup opponent has a mirror force to mine or is perhaps looking for a different kind of game. Not everyone is in that boat.

Additionally, list-tailoring is generally frowned on unless you are playing "Narrative" or a teaching game. This "see the mission/objectives" set up would lend itself to list tailoring.

Spoiler:

So I guess I just don't see the problems that this solves for 40K? Kill Team had something like that with the roster etc. Different game/different gaming context and experience.

But, I am not a game designer, just a player. Like Oddball and his tanks, I don't know what makes them work, I just ride on them.

In order:

Well, I like the idea. I am not really into deck-building.

You could. Depends on how the event were organised...

If you don't want to bring more models, then don't. If you are limited by your collection, communicate with your partner as to how to manage this limitation as you decide on mission and terrain and so on... if your opponent is a fair-minded hobbyist out for a good time, then I cannot imagine a case where this would be a problem using the process set out, above... if your opponent is not, then my suggestion would be to not spend time with that

List-tailoring is generally frowned upon why? because that is what is now the case because people deck build against a "meta" SOP? yeah, screw that with a barbed stick. Homey don't play that way. But again, if this is your jam, jam away...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As good idea as a balancing mechanic as this may be, it sounds like a real hassle for a pick-up game.

Yeah, I don't see why, and really, nobody needs to engage in this way if they would prefer to keep on keeping on. For me, I already have my models in custom built cardboard boxes with dividers and so on because I have had to ship them so many times and even now they are all sitting in shipping boxes waiting to be shipped (in another country, I may add, not even here with me! they are waiting to be shipped wherever we end up...). Others, well, might be inclined to do similarly if this is how they would like to structure their "pick-up games". I mean, cardboard boxes are free, at least the ones that I have used, and the dividers are hot glue and either foam-core or more cardboard. I have my harlequin bikes with all the spindly chains weapons and eldar spears and metal+plastic models more than 20 years old all packed in such a way and have had them shipped around the world without problems... I suppose that I have been generous with the clear coat, but no problems even with paint chipping off of metal when packed in this way. Now, when my brother sent a box of painted stuff all loose in a big box flopping around, sure, I lost a good bit... not recommended.

I've been building armies for 40K since 2nd Ed - it is not deck-building. Its a central aspect to the game. I guess thanks for your permission to keep on keeping on?

I am still not sure what problem you are trying to solve. List-tailoring is when you change your list based on specific information that you gain. Your proposal is list-tailoring. Making guesses about "the meta" is different because it is still a guess and you cannot go back and change your decision when you do get the specific information of your opponent, mission and terrain.

I will list-tailor if my opponent asks me to ahead of time. So if I am playing someone for their first real game of 9th Ed I will ask them for their list and I will bring a "training dummy" for them to go up against. If they are prepping for a tourney and they ask me to bring a specific type of list for them to practice against I will oblige them. In general? Nope. Make your list at home, make a decision and live with it.

I have seen folks use an idea like yours for campaigns with a "supreme commander" who allocated forces for the round. Lots and lots of keen planning that, in common with virtually all such campaigns, fizzles out in execution. It could be a rewarding gaming experience, though, for those who really want it and dedicate the time to follow through.

Re: list tailoring.

I think we're talking about two different aspects of the same thing. For competitive-minded people this is a big no no. You're adjusting your list for competitive advantage based on what you know about your opponent's force. For example, if your list includes a bunch of plasma because you expect to face power armor and you change it all out for flamers when you see your opponent unpacking green tide then that's tailoring in this negative sense. This is the most common definition because online discourse is mostly focused on the competitive scene.

If on the other hand you are super casual and you focus on narrative play you might engage in cooperative list building as part of making the scenario as described by Priestley. In this dynamic, list tailoring is essential to ensure both parties have fun and is not about competition at all.

 Arschbombe wrote:
Re: list tailoring.

I think we're talking about two different aspects of the same thing. For competitive-minded people this is a big no no. You're adjusting your list for competitive advantage based on what you know about your opponent's force. For example, if your list includes a bunch of plasma because you expect to face power armor and you change it all out for flamers when you see your opponent unpacking green tide then that's tailoring in this negative sense. This is the most common definition because online discourse is mostly focused on the competitive scene.

If on the other hand you are super casual and you focus on narrative play you might engage in cooperative list building as part of making the scenario as described by Priestley. In this dynamic, list tailoring is essential to ensure both parties have fun and is not about competition at all.

Further to this, where does "toning down your list", an argument often used by defenders of 40k to excuse bad balance, fall in your definition? Because tailoring your list to go easy on people is still list tailoring, just in the opposite direction. Presumably you'll say "well there's good list tailoring and bad list tailoring", so if both players are presented with the terrain and objectives and get to tailor their lists to the information presented but don't know the opponents list (because they're also writing it at the same time as you) is that bad or good tailoring? They're not tailoring to the opponent but the board, neither player has an advantage over the other and they both have the same information available.

 Sim-Life wrote:


Further to this, where does "toning down your list", an argument often used by defenders of 40k to excuse bad balance, fall in your definition? Because tailoring your list to go easy on people is still list tailoring, just in the opposite direction. Presumably you'll say "well there's good list tailoring and bad list tailoring", so if both players are presented with the terrain and objectives and get to tailor their lists to the information presented but don't know the opponents list (because they're also writing it at the same time as you) is that bad or good tailoring? They're not tailoring to the opponent but the board, neither player has an advantage over the other and they both have the same information available.

I'm not offering value judgements. I was just pointing out different approaches to the list building dynamic of tailoring because one side is saying "how dare you tailor your lists" and the other says "I have to tailor my list in order to ensure my opponent and I can have a fun match." Like everything else it seems you have to make it clear whether you are talking competitive or casual/narrative because the gulf between them is so wide.

As regards tuning a list down to go easy on people, that's something I've not generally done like that. My approach was to have a variety of lists available at different point levels and design concepts so that I could play a casual or competitive "tournament practice" game depending on what my opponent was looking for. If it was a new player then my focus would be on coaching/teaching game concepts/mechanics. So I might select a list that included things they might not have been exposed to yet, not for gotcha purposes, but just so they can learn.

Tyel wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I'd really suggest looking into Chain of Command like Unit mentioned. The support mechanic there is a great way to balance out otherwise imbalanced (and fixed-composition) platoons, and it really does shift the game away from building an uber killer list.

From very brief reading - I guess Chain of Command works because both players are picking a Platoon, checking the two against each other and rolling up dice to work out support points - and then, armed with that knowledge, selecting support options?

Which I guess does require more knowledge of the game than purely netlisting - but presumably there would still be the issue that such and such a platoon is over/undervalued, as are X and Y as support options?

Or is it balanced on the quasi-Horus Heresy basis, that "guy with rifle" is basically the same regardless of whether they are British, German, Soviet etc? If heavy machine guns, mortars or light tanks are "efficient" that's fine, because everyone can go and grab one?

Unit gave a specific worked example, but speaking more generically: Yes, your assessment of how the system works is correct. You show up with your choice of platoon and your opponent shows up with their choice of platoon, and then based on the difference between your platoon ratings, one player gets to pick some support assets (knowing what they're up against). Individual troops are not all the same and there can be some major differences between factions, especially as regarding doctrines/capabilities, so it's not a mirror match system.

To your second sentence, there are two major factors that contribute to balance. The first is that the platoon ratings are easy to tune without knock-on effects. Each platoon has a fixed composition, so if they overperform or underperform the developers can just bump the platoon's rating up or down. There's no min-maxing a platoon or unaccounted synergies; you can't take a half-platoon, load it up with undercosted MG42s, pick the hypothetical Machine Gun Fanatic trait, declare that your force is from the 339th ID (who really loves their machine guns), and now have machine guns that obliterate tanks. You just have a Fallschirmjager (or Panzergrenadier, or Waffen-SS, or...) platoon, and that specific force composition has been extensively playtested to determine how it stacks up.

The second is that for the support assets, they can be very situational and have their utility vary significantly by matchup, but that's fine since you get to pick them in response to the matchup. A Panzerschreck team is pretty useless if your enemy brings no tanks, but they don't need to be costed as if they might only be facing infantry; you only take Panzerschrecks if there's armor on the field. Then if a particular support asset never has a situation that makes it worth the cost, or is so effective that it's a no-brainer, then those costs are easily tweaked.

Under the hood, the platoon rating system is functionally a points system. Instead of -10 and +5, it could be implemented as 240pts for this platoon and 500pts for that platoon, and when they go head to head the underdog gets 260pts of support assets. What makes a points system work well for CoC is the combination of fixed composition for the base platoon, the optional/'list-tailoring' nature of specialists making it possible to balance them around assuming a reasonably optimal matchup, and a general lack of force-multipliers that are unaccounted for in the balance mechanism. The game still has a ton of force-multiplying mechanics, but they're things that arise organically from gameplay (eg you are way more likely to wipe a squad in close assault if you pin it with machine guns first) rather than from force composition synergies allowing units to punch above their weight.

The platoon+supports structure is unique to CoC, but I feel 40K could still take some lessons from how TFL balances their games.

COC seems like a sort of middle ground between fixed net meta deck build lists and the cooperative list tailoring suggested above with my scenario terrain first army selection next proposal just on the inside of that. CoC seems to involve some of both. Should cut down on extra models people might have to bring (one complaint about my proposal) and time to assemble forces on the fly.

I've been building armies for 40K since 2nd Ed - it is not deck-building. Its a central aspect to the game.

Not trying to take the piss here but deck building is a statement indicating that army list creation is a central tenant of the game, and for some people THE central tenant of the game.

This was a good article:
https://www.destructoid.com/so-what-exactly-is-a-deck-building-game-anyway/

Some important take aways:

Deck-building games, on the other hand, make the experience of crafting a deck the explicit focus of playing the game. It is not that players build a deck in order to play the game, it is that they play the game in order to build a deck.

Or wikipedia:

A deck-building game is a card game or board game where construction of a deck is a main element of gameplay.

Of course we replace "deck" with "list" but it means the same thing. In the game design space, the game devs I work with also refer to deck building games when they are talking about board or tabletop games as well to mean we're designing a game where players craft forces, or decks, or whatever combo of pieces that need to work together.

The "deck building" monikor just means that the game's list building element is one of the primary features, and for some people THE main feature of why they play and plays a heavy role in the game's outcome - same as a CCG or deck building card game construction of the deck influences the game so heavily.

As opposed to other wargames or tabletop games where listbuilding is not as heavy or exist at all.

Auticus,

I read the article, but I note that he does not make the leap to calling a tabletop miniatures game a deck building game. While I certainly make a list, it is not like a deck. I am not putting it together and then randomly drawing, nor am I building it with random draws as part of the game. The gameplay mechanics seem quite different? In any case, 40K has, since I started playing in 2nd Ed, had us make our own lists. Its not a new feature. I do agree, though, that making a list is part of the fun of the game. I also believe that there is a gulf between finding a strong list on the net and being able to play it to a win.

Jeff,

Still struggling to see the problem that your solution is trying to solve. Are you just trying to apply the Priestly article? Is it that you want to players to make a narrative game out of it? They can already do so if they want. Players don't need permission to construct a scenario together. Where it falls down in practical terms, though, is having a common vision. Perhaps some game designers are out of step with the gaming populace at large. What works in the hot-house of a design studio with a sense of group-think can fall very flat in the wilds of the real world of FLGS populated by people with agency and different visions of what they want/how they have fun. 40K Matched Play is providing a strong enough framework to allow for gaming without too much negotiation. Heck, if people aren't worried about getting their feelings hurt they can just play without any pre-game negotiation beyond "GT2022 at 2000 points?" Boom. Done.

I think we're splitting hairs over the term "deck building".

"Deck Building" is just an adjective to describe a game that pivots around building a list and that being the main event of the game or one of the main pillars of attraction of the game, then seeing if that list was stronger than your opponent when whatever mechanics play out.

Its an adjective I've come to use since in the game design space, many of us that write games use it to mean that.

It is used to describe card games, board games, and tabletop miniatures games in design specs under "genre tags".

Its not really about the mechanics of drawing random cards or things of that nature. Whether we are right or wrong... /shrug/ - I can communicate intent with the phrase to most people and other game designers and they understand exactly what I'm talking about so thats why I'm comfortable using the term. As a point of interest a strategy mobile game I worked a few years ago had "Deck Building" as the primary audience in the design specs written by the designer that paid us to code it. (it wasn't a card game it was a tower defense game where you tailored an "army" via list building mechanics and combos)

I started 40k in the beginning of 3rd edition right as that edition just dropped, and yes list building was a thing then as well, though I'd argue it wasn't as pivotal as it is today and many of the people 40k attracted back then in the fall of 1998 were also very much interested in a wargame more than the list building aspect.

That certainly started changing soon after. I was fortunate enough (for me) to at least experience that at the tail end.

 auticus wrote:

I've been building armies for 40K since 2nd Ed - it is not deck-building. Its a central aspect to the game.

Not trying to take the piss here but deck building is a statement indicating that army list creation is a central tenant of the game, and for some people THE central tenant of the game.

This was a good article:
https://www.destructoid.com/so-what-exactly-is-a-deck-building-game-anyway/

Some important take aways:

Deck-building games, on the other hand, make the experience of crafting a deck the explicit focus of playing the game. It is not that players build a deck in order to play the game, it is that they play the game in order to build a deck.

Spoiler:

Or wikipedia:

A deck-building game is a card game or board game where construction of a deck is a main element of gameplay.

Of course we replace "deck" with "list" but it means the same thing. In the game design space, the game devs I work with also refer to deck building games when they are talking about board or tabletop games as well to mean we're designing a game where players craft forces, or decks, or whatever combo of pieces that need to work together.

The "deck building" monikor just means that the game's list building element is one of the primary features, and for some people THE main feature of why they play and plays a heavy role in the game's outcome - same as a CCG or deck building card game construction of the deck influences the game so heavily.

As opposed to other wargames or tabletop games where listbuilding is not as heavy or exist at all.

Exalted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Spoiler:

Auticus,

I read the article, but I note that he does not make the leap to calling a tabletop miniatures game a deck building game. While I certainly make a list, it is not like a deck. I am not putting it together and then randomly drawing, nor am I building it with random draws as part of the game. The gameplay mechanics seem quite different? In any case, 40K has, since I started playing in 2nd Ed, had us make our own lists. Its not a new feature. I do agree, though, that making a list is part of the fun of the game. I also believe that there is a gulf between finding a strong list on the net and being able to play it to a win.

Jeff,

Still struggling to see the problem that your solution is trying to solve. Are you just trying to apply the Priestly article? Is it that you want to players to make a narrative game out of it? They can already do so if they want. Players don't need permission to construct a scenario together. Where it falls down in practical terms, though, is having a common vision. Perhaps some game designers are out of step with the gaming populace at large. What works in the hot-house of a design studio with a sense of group-think can fall very flat in the wilds of the real world of FLGS populated by people with agency and different visions of what they want/how they have fun. 40K Matched Play is providing a strong enough framework to allow for gaming without too much negotiation. Heck, if people aren't worried about getting their feelings hurt they can just play without any pre-game negotiation beyond "GT2022 at 2000 points?" Boom. Done.

Thanks for the engagement, T2B, the basic idea was to try to provide a structure that would resolve disputes about points and balance by basically formalizing Rick’s scenario based playstyle, yes. The idea was to provide a structure not only for games, but for expectations as well, and so a sort of standard.

The only standard needed is don't bring a comp list to a casual game without asking first and use a moderate amount of terrain (12 pieces for the new smaller tables) with some LOS blockers in the middle. The problem with the suggestion is you made the claim that it will fix balance when it will not. Instead of getting hyper general armies you'd just get 5 hyper-skew armies that beat anyone that don't have the ability to transport 5 skew armies.

Collectible card games (CCGs) like those above have been around for more than twenty years, with Magic leading the way in 1993. Living card games (LCGs) like Netrunner are distinguished from CCGs by the manner of acquisition of new cards, but both are functionally indistinct in this context: While a major part of the metagame does involve strategically constructing a deck by choosing individual cards, players generally have their decks constructed prior to beginning a proper play session.

If you had to build your list as you played, like with summoning then you could argue 40k is a deck builder. List construction is separate from gameplay so 40k is not a list building game, as the article you're quoting from says MTG isn't. You cannot netlist in Slay the Spire because list building is part of gameplay, 40k is like MTG, not like Slay the Spire. Maybe Crusade is a list building game.

 vict0988 wrote:
The only standard needed is don't bring a comp list to a casual game without asking first and use a moderate amount of terrain (12 pieces for the new smaller tables) with some LOS blockers in the middle. The problem with the suggestion is you made the claim that it will fix balance when it will not. Instead of getting hyper general armies you'd just get 5 hyper-skew armies that beat anyone that don't have the ability to transport 5 skew armies.

Well the first two parts of this is the usual "blame the player" stuff. People shouldn't be expected to have to make up for GWs shortcomings.

The second part about skew lists is just rubbish because as mentioned several games already feature a freestyle sort of list building and skew is rarely a problem. Not to mention that once again the idea is being misunderstood, lists are not written ahead of time or "locked in" in any sense. You can change your list to anything at any point. If someone WERE to bring a skew list it won't make it past the first round because everyone after that can change their list against them to counter the skew. Please do not use this last example as a way to derail the argument by nitpicking it and spouting increasingly specific hypotheticals.

 auticus wrote:
Not trying to take the piss here but deck building is a statement indicating that army list creation is a central tenant of the game, and for some people THE central tenant of the game.

Tenet, man, tenet - a tenant is someone who occupies land or property rented from a landlord, while a tenet is a principle or belief.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The only standard needed is

Spoiler:

don't bring a comp list to a casual game without asking first and use a moderate amount of terrain (12 pieces for the new smaller tables) with some LOS blockers in the middle. The problem with the suggestion is you made the claim that it will fix balance when it will not. Instead of getting hyper general armies you'd just get 5 hyper-skew armies that beat anyone that don't have the ability to transport 5 skew armies.

Well the first two parts of this is the usual "blame the player" stuff. People shouldn't be expected to have to make up for GWs shortcomings.

The second part about skew lists is just rubbish because as mentioned several games already feature a freestyle sort of list building and skew is rarely a problem. Not to mention that once again the idea is being misunderstood, lists are not written ahead of time or "locked in" in any sense. You can change your list to anything at any point. If someone WERE to bring a skew list it won't make it past the first round because everyone after that can change their list against them to counter the skew. Please do not use this last example as a way to derail the argument by nitpicking it and spouting increasingly specific hypotheticals.

1) Along with opponent select mission, establish board setting and terrain. Optional depending on mission would be to place objective markers and so on.
2) Afford each player say 15 minutes to assemble forces and calculate points - should encourage a WYSIWYG model collection with fixed profiles and standard GW points for units to make calculation quick and easy as forces are assembled in full view of terrain and mission objectives.
3) Deploy forces.
4) Optional depending on scenario, place objective markers and so on e.g. if the mission is to recover something but the location of that thing is not known exactly prior to force deployment because someone on the ground must locate it or something like that...
5) Game on, command and deal with the consequences of unit selection, exposing perhaps limitations in model collection (ideally, again, WYSIWYG) thereby motivating new purchases, conversions, etc., in order to build out that collection in preparation for similar scenarios in the future.

Additional comment re tourney play: seems that if people see the mission pack, and with it the table top layouts prior to the tourney, then they may assemble their forces prior to the tourney, submit army lists for inspection by organisers and so on. IFF terrain and missions are variable enough, then there should be no two scenarios that reward the same sorts of forces, e.g. one mission will have much impassable terrain so tanks are less useful, one mission will have dense cover limiting effective range of weaponry thereby rewarding h2h type forces and units with short range weapons with lots of overwatch potential, one mission will have cloud cover and smog and other factors that may inhibit effectiveness of weapons that do not require line of sight, one mission might be mostly bare table thereby rewarding a gun line type force while exposing that army to dangers of infiltrators and charges from the side margins, etc...

 Sim-Life wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The only standard needed is don't bring a comp list to a casual game without asking first and use a moderate amount of terrain (12 pieces for the new smaller tables) with some LOS blockers in the middle. The problem with the suggestion is you made the claim that it will fix balance when it will not. Instead of getting hyper general armies you'd just get 5 hyper-skew armies that beat anyone that don't have the ability to transport 5 skew armies.

Well the first two parts of this is the usual "blame the player" stuff. People shouldn't be expected to have to make up for GWs shortcomings.

The second part about skew lists is just rubbish because as mentioned several games already feature a freestyle sort of list building and skew is rarely a problem. Not to mention that once again the idea is being misunderstood, lists are not written ahead of time or "locked in" in any sense. You can change your list to anything at any point. If someone WERE to bring a skew list it won't make it past the first round because everyone after that can change their list against them to counter the skew. Please do not use this last example as a way to derail the argument by nitpicking it and spouting increasingly specific hypotheticals.

What game has 40k's number of units/cards/anything and no ineffective combination of options? I regularly advocate for making the difference as small as possible, but you'll always have lists that are better or worse at a mission set even if every unit is roughly balanced. Anyone who thinks the idea we're talking about could work are clearly not very tryhard because the system would be broken instantly by anyone trying to game the system vs someone who is not, that's not mentioning the fact that part of the suggestion was that units would be costed according to fluff. Half my faction could be garbage because GW thought the units were unfluffy.

How are you avoiding skew if you have a mission that says "infantry suck" why would I bring infantry in that mission? Why would I bring a Monolith in a "Monoliths suck" mission? Is Chain of Command played in tournaments? I couldn't find any videos of it, how am I supposed to know whether skew is an effective strategy? I can play casual Yugioh and pretend one turn kills isn't a problem, but you'd need to look at tournaments to see how the game is played competitively.

How do you get "then they may assemble their forces prior to the tourney" to mean anything other than having 5 lists prepared ahead of time? Are you seriously suggesting people should create 3 lists on the spot on a day in a tournament using any number of miniatures from their entire collection?

 vict0988 wrote:

1) Along with opponent select mission, establish board setting and terrain. Optional depending on mission would be to place objective markers and so on.
2) Afford each player say 15 minutes to assemble forces and calculate points - should encourage a WYSIWYG model collection with fixed profiles and standard GW points for units to make calculation quick and easy as forces are assembled in full view of terrain and mission objectives.
3) Deploy forces.
4) Optional depending on scenario, place objective markers and so on e.g. if the mission is to recover something but the location of that thing is not known exactly prior to force deployment because someone on the ground must locate it or something like that...
5) Game on, command and deal with the consequences of unit selection, exposing perhaps limitations in model collection (ideally, again, WYSIWYG) thereby motivating new purchases, conversions, etc., in order to build out that collection in preparation for similar scenarios in the future.

Additional comment re tourney play: seems that if people see the mission pack, and with it the table top layouts prior to the tourney, then they may assemble their forces prior to the tourney, submit army lists for inspection by organisers and so on. IFF terrain and missions are variable enough, then there should be no two scenarios that reward the same sorts of forces, e.g. one mission will have much impassable terrain so tanks are less useful, one mission will have dense cover limiting effective range of weaponry thereby rewarding h2h type forces and units with short range weapons with lots of overwatch potential, one mission will have cloud cover and smog and other factors that may inhibit effectiveness of weapons that do not require line of sight, one mission might be mostly bare table thereby rewarding a gun line type force while exposing that army to dangers of infiltrators and charges from the side margins, etc...

 Sim-Life wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The only standard needed is don't bring a comp list to a casual game without asking first and use a moderate amount of terrain (12 pieces for the new smaller tables) with some LOS blockers in the middle. The problem with the suggestion is you made the claim that it will fix balance when it will not. Instead of getting hyper general armies you'd just get 5 hyper-skew armies that beat anyone that don't have the ability to transport 5 skew armies.

Well the first two parts of this is the usual "blame the player" stuff. People shouldn't be expected to have to make up for GWs shortcomings.

The second part about skew lists is just rubbish because as mentioned several games already feature a freestyle sort of list building and skew is rarely a problem. Not to mention that once again the idea is being misunderstood, lists are not written ahead of time or "locked in" in any sense. You can change your list to anything at any point. If someone WERE to bring a skew list it won't make it past the first round because everyone after that can change their list against them to counter the skew. Please do not use this last example as a way to derail the argument by nitpicking it and spouting increasingly specific hypotheticals.

What game has 40k's number of units/cards/anything and no ineffective options? I regularly advocate for making the difference as small as possible, but you'll always have lists that are better or worse at a mission set even if every unit is roughly balanced. Anyone who thinks the idea we're talking about could work are clearly not very tryhard because the system would be broken instantly by anyone trying to game the system vs someone who is not, that's not mentioning the fact that part of the suggestion was that units would be costed according to fluff. Half my faction could be garbage because GW thought the units were unfluffy.

How are you avoiding skew if you have a mission that says "infantry suck" why would I bring infantry in that mission? Why would I bring a Monolith in a "Monoliths suck" mission? Is Chain of Command played in tournaments? I couldn't find any videos of it, how am I supposed to know whether skew is an effective strategy? I can play casual Yugioh and pretend one turn kills isn't a problem, but you'd need to look at tournaments to see how the game is played competitively.

How do you get "then they may assemble their forces prior to the tourney" to mean anything other than having 5 lists prepared ahead of time? Are you seriously suggesting people should create 3 lists on the spot on a day in a tournament using any number of miniatures from their entire collection?

I'm getting sick of explaining to you that YOU WRITE YOUR LIST AT THE TABLE BEFORE THE GAME.

You turn up to the table.
You see the objectives.
You see the terrain set up.
THEN YOU WRITE YOUR LIST TO SUIT THE OBJECTIVES AND TERRAIN.

You're far too hung up on Jeff's initial post and nitpicking minutiae rather than actually UNDERSTANDING THE POINT BEING MADE.

I'm not nitpicking, I'm responding to Jeff's initial suggestion being silly. Whether you build one list before the tournament to accommodate 5 wacky missions, five lists to each accommodate 1 of the 5 wacky missions or you build each list as you get to your game during a tournament, they are all bad/silly. The first is the only thing that you can realistically make happen and it's an option that has been suggested before, which is why I originally criticized it, the other two aren't even possible because you cannot transport 5 armies or your entire collection to a tournament or game night at a GW store.

"...the basic idea was to try to provide a structure that would resolve disputes about points and balance..."

The system does not in any way form or shape do that. The points costs of bad units would never go down because they wouldn't be assigned based on performance in a mission set, but based on fluff.

I don't know what your point is or why pointing out CoC is not a competitive game is nitpicking, you used it as an example of how 40k can adopt this system and Jeff said that this would "resolve disputes about points". I'm assuming we'd avoid Auticus complaining about his Rubrics being bad and Knights being too strong if this worked like you're advertising.

Just give me an example of a game that punishes unit types in individual missions, allows you to build a skew before you play the individual mission to avoid using the punished units, does not see skew in a competitive environment.

 Arschbombe wrote:
Re: list tailoring.

I think we're talking about two different aspects of the same thing. For competitive-minded people this is a big no no. You're adjusting your list for competitive advantage based on what you know about your opponent's force.

I disagree.

I think the term 'list-tailoring' in this case is being used as a blanket to cover things that really are not suitable.

To me, list-tailoring is building a 'gotcha!' list or a list that is effectively a 'silver bullet' to whatever the other guy has. He brings power armour, you load up on plasma. He brings loads of armour, you break out all the anti tank guns. It's about shutting them down completely with a perfect counter.

The 'other' thing you are referring to, I find, is not well described by list tailoring. Its better described by 'list-matching'. Itworks better in collaborative list-buildimg rather than the xonpetitives 'list-buillding-for-advantage'.

S/he wants to bring loads of infantry with long arms (say, like several squads of intercessors or reivers) and a lack of anti-tank, matching that would mean bringing a force that matches that output but also lets theirs can viably 'punch back' at - basically something that mirrors in in theme.

'List-matching' is a skill.

 Sim-Life wrote:


Further to this, where does "toning down your list", an argument often used by defenders of 40k to excuse bad balance, fall in your definition?

Sim, mischaracterising peoples arguments doesn't help. 'Tone down your list' isn't about excusing bad balance and it's intellectually dishonest to claim that that is what people are saying. I've never seen anyone who suggests this also claim that gw's terrible balance is a good thing. If we didn't mind the bad balance would we be doing something to alleviate it in the first place? Come on.

'Tone down your list' is acknowledging the bad balance and trying to actuslly do something about it, or work around it, whilst also trying to allow for more than just the bleeding edge competitive builds see table time. Ita trying to be pragmatic. It's just saying 'there's things we can do at our end that can work' rather than just screaming in the wilderness for gw to do something, when we all know they can't be bothered.

Expecting them to do something about it when we all know they won't whilst being unwilling to do anything yourself is just laziness and selfishness on your part. And it won't accomplish anything.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Because tailoring your list to go easy on people is still list tailoring, just in the opposite direction. Presumably you'll say "well there's good list tailoring and bad list tailoring", so if both players are presented with the terrain and objectives and get to tailor their lists to the information presented but don't know the opponents list (because they're also writing it at the same time as you) is that bad or good tailoring? They're not tailoring to the opponent but the board, neither player has an advantage over the other and they both have the same information available.

See above. List tailoring to drop a 'gotcha!' on someone is something most people can agree is generally poor form. It's in the name. List tailoring. Tailoring against a list. Terrain-tailoring or whatever else might also be objectionable, depending on circumstances. Or not. Personally I find it far more interesting to have two not-ideal forces struggling against each other, against the terrain and the objective. With a certain element out of your control.do the best you can with what you have to hand.

I'm just sort of repeating Vict's post - but the issue surely is that you'd never "write your list at the table" unless the range of scenarios was so peculiar and specific that they couldn't be considered ahead of time.

To my mind the skill would be "okay this favours assault - this is the best assault focused list my faction can run". "This favours a castled up gunline - well this is the best gunline my faction can run" etc. But in a few moments someone online (and experience at other tournaments) would produce netlists for this as the commonality of scenarios became clear.

Its a bit like the idea that say players had to put together 75% of their list, share it with each other, and they could then tailor the last 500 points on the basis of that knowledge. It would undoubtedly add another "skill" to list building - and might reduce the impact of skew (if skew is in fact a problem as against imbalance) - but to a degree its just "knowledge" that you could learn. Again - net lists would immediately emerge. You'd end up with a small pool of 1500 points that are generally considered the best - and discussions of how to tailor to them. So in the context of say the LVO, you'd have seen discussion on how to tailor to and for Custodes, Dark Eldar, Tyranids etc.

Basically both would another dimension - but barring some very contrived and specific scenario rules, its impossible to make an assault marine more attractive than a vanguard vet with a lightning claw and a storm shield. My concern would be people bringing such models to a casual table can still feel bad because they are meaningfully worse than alternatives.

I'd argue 40k does sort of have a system to encourage this sort of thinking in secondary objectives. Selecting the right ones given what information you have is undoubtedly a skill - and a major reason imo why someone can't just copy Seigler's list and suddenly expect to win a major tournament. But there's a question whether the secondary system is "fun" or - like a list of which units are good for their points and which are bad, something you just need to "know" in order to play 40k at a high level.

Edit to add that I second Dead's list-matching is a skill point. Really, this is what it is about just I was trying to use the scenario and the process to bring people together on that.

I explain to students in this way some things in business - you can try to have competition under a cooperative umbrella, or cooperation under a competitive umbrella. In the latter case, you have teams working against each other. On the former, you have sides (might be teams, or individuals) agreeing to compete, in the case of political economies that are based in democracies, for instance, in order to optimise a common good. What one finds is that in every case, there must be an agreement prior to competition, even in war this is the case e.g. Just War Theory. Without this cooperative umbrella, the world becomes a place in which none of us would like to live. Any pretence otherwise is delusion. So absolutely yes, list-tailoring to 'balance' an engagement is a skill, and likely Dead has hit the nail on the head here, because it seems to be the skill that is most deficient in many people, at least from my experience as a teacher and so on...

Vick, not gonna chase your moving goalpost.
Originally, and for me, in a tourney setting it seems fair that everyone see the missions and table terrain set ups to be used at every stage of the tourney, made as the whole room (or multiple rooms) of games plays through a series of missions that represent a sort of narrative. Each scenario in series would move through different types of terrain. This would invariably set the stage for some forces to do better in initial settings as these might have more of certain units available. But in my mind, the idea would be that the TOs would design the scenarios and narrative thematically - so, maybe LVO would be set on a desert planet and move from arid mountains to cityscapes or something like that - and they might even design the series of scenarios to make it more difficult for most popular so-called competitive armies to advance, thereby bottlenecking the best players, or perhaps what we see is that those who are the best players will be able to do better in later stages, if the narrative is really thematic without TOs planning around "meta" bs, or maybe the games are scored independently, with opponents drawn randomly so there is some randomness this way, or maybe it is an invitational, and every player plays every other trough all scenarios, say 4, or something like that... I am not a TO, I am not a competitive minded person or player, so I am frankly not so concerned if people who have a fetish for whatever and however they think that 40k can ever be considered "competitive" in the first place, but for me, these seem like interesting and fun events, and I would be interested in participating. In this original idea, one would sign up, get the mission pack with terrain and so on, assemble one's forces according to a fixed point limit, and send this list to the TOs for inspection prior to the tourney. Alternatively, what seems like an even better idea for most people in this thread, it seems, is that people would assemble forces consisting of a fixed point limit of core that must be fielded every round, and a fixed limit of reserves or sideboard which might be deployed differently in every individual scenario. Now, there are a couple of ways that this might be done. One might wait until one sees the opponent, and his core and sideboard forces, or the TOs might expect for the sideboard units to be assigned prior to the tourney, so when submitting army lists for inspection, one would submit one for each scenario of which most of this would be core list and the rest reserve alternates... or one might imagine a case where a player is able to deploy different forces for each scenario from the same faction book, so in this case submit an army list for inspection for each scenario. Or, it might b done differently than these ways...

My main focus is on casual games, and in this case I think that the original idea is a good one. Show up, decide together on mission and terrain (if you think it is not good for what you have at hand, available, then work with your fellow hobbyist to determine a mission setting that makes more sense for you) and once set up, assemble forces to a point limit in full view of the opposing player. Allow 30 minutes, I dunno, to set things out and review together how things work, then deploy and play as normal... This way, if there is a lot of dense cover and the mission involves retrieving a token from the middle of the table, then one can look at one's collection and select that mix of units that seems to make the most sense.

Alternatively, and maybe better, is that one shows up with a core army (say 1000 points) and then can add another 500 after seeing terrain and mission and so on. This should shorten time for unit selection, and allow for people to say to each other 'hey, i am gonna bring this 1000pts friday and then once we get mission sorted and terrain laid our, i will add my 500 from the rest of my collection' or something like that.

Anyways, the idea is that sure, points will never be perfect because as has been pointed out by others, above, in some situations some units are useless and others are super strong. So, the idea would be for scenarios to play to different strengths, and help to offset net lists and meta builds and so on that lean too heavily on those units and their strengths. Smoky battlefields might limit los to 12inches in one scenario. Loose soil might make heavy units (say, infantry with AS 3+ or better) move half speed in some of the table, or all of it. Some objectives might require a vehicle to move them. Some might require units with high strength, meaning that these units might be tied down to manage an objective for a turn instead of doing something else. Anyways, Unit has a better explanation of how things work in CoC above, and generally the idea is something like this. Again, this is in the spirit of Priestley's focus on "scenarios" and I was just thinking that working scenario constraints into the prep phase, or deck-building or list-making or build part of the game, might help to 'balance' a bit around actual player skill, perhaps expertise with a given collection of models, and so on. For me, well, wayyyy back in the day when I began this hobby, so for GW products was early 90s, 92 or 3 I guess, I used to get stomped by dudes who could estimate indirect fire weapons without measuring, because we did't pre measure back then and frankly I am not a fan of pre measuring (I know, cheater pukes will find a way, anyhow, but again ultimately my solution here is to not spend time wth this people), but anyways i saw that as a skill that i should develop rather than some unfair arbitrary rule problem that rewarded experience and visual acuity. Sure, this is a minor thing, but the point is that understanding which units work better than others in a given scenario under different constraints is part of being a good general, and this is a skill, and might be encouraged with a process such as that which i had originally suggested.

Is it a cure all? sure, no. Is Unit's idea better? Probably... Are there better ideas? I hope so... I am an idiot. But, it is a suggestion and it remains interesting to me, at least in spirit, to enjoin in some process pre game with reduces the deck building emphasis that the hobby seems to currently involve for many people, forcing others to either embrace the deck building ethos or 'find another hobby' is often the retort... which is just bad mojo imho.

 vict0988 wrote:
I'm not nitpicking, I'm responding to Jeff's initial suggestion being silly. Whether you build one list before the tournament to accommodate 5 wacky missions, five lists to each accommodate 1 of the 5 wacky missions or you build each list as you get to your game during a tournament, they are all bad/silly. The first is the only thing that you can realistically make happen and it's an option that has been suggested before, which is why I originally criticized it, the other two aren't even possible because you cannot transport 5 armies or your entire collection to a tournament or game night at a GW store. .

no one says it is allowed to have different armies, but writing/building the list according to the scenario is a key feature for more than one game and the GW games with a fixed list for all games that must be pre-written by registration is something unique

and yes it is a selling point that makes 40k/AoS unique/outstanding among other wargames
but just because it is a feature in those games, does not mean it is impossible to do it differently

for SAGA it works pretty well to just register the faction you play, have the amount of points set by the TO and the list you play is "written" after you know the opponent and the scenario (which just takes minutes anyway and is not something that is impossible without an App like in 40k)

So, I think to answer the argument (as I understand it), an example of listbuilding that doesn't occur before the game:

In CoC there are the following factors that make it so list building in advance is quite difficult:
1) support points are random (determined by any number of d6 rolls and the precise matchup between forces). In one game, you could have 17 support, and in the next game, 2, even against the same opponent in the same scenario. Across all the scenarios and all the opponents, you pretty much can have anything from 1-20 support points, with the possibility for more if your platoon is super awful and you play a super elite one.

2) certain scenarios ban certain supports (preparatory bombardment is often unavailable for example).

3) some support choices are table dependent. Lots of support points available/bringing lots of vehicles? Awesome! If the table is tight though, your opponent could block off vehicle access points with minefields. Better buy the mine-clearing engineers!

4) paying more support points can give you more flexibility. You can buy an Engineer Section for 4 times the cost (usually) of an Engineer team. The team has to be a specific type (mine clearing, demolitions, wire cutting, etc). The Section comes with a junior leader and two teams, and what the roles of the two teams are can be chosen when they are deployed (rather than on your army list).

5) mind games with your opponent. Your opponent is attacking with 17 support. You have 9 to defend with. You could go all in with mines and entrenchments and wire and obstacles, but your opponent might have engineers supported by MGs and tanks, which hard counters such a build. You could suspect he is going tank platoons and try to pre-empt him with anti-tank guns. Or he might just bring a few infantry squads - possibly a whole platoon extra nearly.

Once you have picked your supports, you can't change them. Choose wisely!

Kodos and Unit basically make my entire long winded mess useless. Thanks for the insights! Exalted, each.

Backing up for a moment....

I have a few questions:

How do people actually define "skew." Is it about spamming the most optimal units in the army? Is it just going heavy towards a certain type of unit (eg fast attack or elites). What is it really?

Are highly competitive lists typically also skewed? Would curtailing the ability to skew in certain formats reduce the competitiveness of the list?

More broadly, what makes a list highly competitive? Is it just taking units that perform "the best" relative to the mission objectives and/or from a damage and durability standpoint?

Ultimately - I think we need to discuss the above issues so there can, potentially, be some parameters around what defines an actual competitive and tuned list versus a more casual one. The clear solution to me is defining what makes "casual list" at a technical level versus what's a "no holds bars / anything goes" highly competitive list.

 kodos wrote:

the GW games with a fixed list for all games that must be pre-written by registration is something unique

They're not. I've played exactly 3 games "competitively:" 40k, X-wing and Star Wars Armada. All three worked the same way. You showed up with a list that you would use for the duration of the event. For X-wing and Armada it was fine because the scenario was always the same. The only thing that changed from match to match was what your opponent brought. So for those games your lists were designed around archetypes. In X-wing, for example, there were lists consisting of a few ace pilots (arc dodging), lots of low-skill pilots (swarms) or a few very durable ships (fortresses). What you brought was determined by what you were good with and what you expected to see i.e. the "meta."