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.
But all of the jumping from one faction to another without changing paint scheme is lame. It's fine and really easy to make a "factory" paint scheme that isn't one. But running the obviously Blood Angels as Ultras/IH/whatever just seems disingenuous.
I have no problem playing against them, it just makes it look weird.
Mezmorki wrote: "Balance" is, ideally, that 2,000 points of whatever versus 2,000 points of whatever else has the same 50/50 chance to win.
The problem, is that that will only really work if armies are much more analogous to one another and things that lead to hard counters and the like are stripped out of the game.
This deposes list building as a central tenet of the game which is where a lot of anger and hollering come in when its suggested.
List building requires strong choices and weak choices for it to be prominent and hold weight in the game. The more balanced the game, the less impactful list building can be, since if I can just whip up 2000 points of the models I like, and you whip up 2000 points of models carefully selected for how busted they are, and yet still we have a close game - that endears to those that want gameplay and balance to matter more, and absolutely repels those that want listbuilding to matter more.
List building uses points as structure to build within, but not as an actual balance metric. The community for a long time now has strongly leaned on list building as what they want to matter more.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/15 23:43:47
Mezmorki wrote: "Balance" is, ideally, that 2,000 points of whatever versus 2,000 points of whatever else has the same 50/50 chance to win.
The problem, is that that will only really work if armies are much more analogous to one another and things that lead to hard counters and the like are stripped out of the game.
This deposes list building as a central tenet of the game which is where a lot of anger and hollering come in when its suggested.
List building requires strong choices and weak choices for it to be prominent and hold weight in the game. The more balanced the game, the less impactful list building can be, since if I can just whip up 2000 points of the models I like, and you whip up 2000 points of models carefully selected for how busted they are, and yet still we have a close game - that endears to those that want gameplay and balance to matter more, and absolutely repels those that want listbuilding to matter more.
List building uses points as structure to build within, but not as an actual balance metric. The community for a long time now has strongly leaned on list building as what they want to matter more.
That's really incorrect.
Marine Whirlwinds shouldn't be bad at killing their main target just because Marines aren't known for artillery. List building matters to when you want to pay for that type of artillery for that type of target.
Thats not really what I was talking about at all. Marine Whirlwinds being good or bad isn't the point of anything I was talking about.
List Building as a "skill" is about identifying whats good and optimal. If whirlwinds were optimal you'd take them. If they were not optimal, you wouldn't take them. It doesn't matter what Marines are known for. If they are known for optimal whirlwinds, then they are known for whirlwinds lol.
You can't have list building be a "skill" if I can pull 2000 points off my shelf and you pull 2000 points and we have a good game even though you've tuned the list and I haven't.
Whirlwinds or whatever have nothing to do with that sentiment.
Mezmorki wrote: "Balance" is, ideally, that 2,000 points of whatever versus 2,000 points of whatever else has the same 50/50 chance to win.
The problem, is that that will only really work if armies are much more analogous to one another and things that lead to hard counters and the like are stripped out of the game.
Right - that's a very broad statement given the freedom of list building in 40K.
Mezmorki wrote: "Balance" is, ideally, that 2,000 points of whatever versus 2,000 points of whatever else has the same 50/50 chance to win.
The problem, is that that will only really work if armies are much more analogous to one another and things that lead to hard counters and the like are stripped out of the game.
What about the other 3 levels of play? 500, 1,000, or even 3,000?
They're valid levels of play that deserve the same support as 2k games.
Regarding color schemes, I do think it should matter if you use one of the GW stock subfactions. If you don't like it, then make your own color scheme with very fuzzy, undefined lore and then you can use it as you wish. But the stock subfactions have written lore and unique rules that is related specifically to their appearance.
It's no different than a WW2 gamer showing up and constantly asking to use their French partisans with stolen guns as Germans because they prefer how they look but also want to use Panzers.
At that point just play an alternate history game or Weird WW2...
I recently watched a Youtube video talking about balance in 40k, and without checking single wargear option on every unit, 40k came to over 4,000 moving parts while MtG sat at half that.
And mind, this is with reduced moving parts as has been pointed out. So to get 40k "balanced" at every level of the game what are willing to give up to get there? Because honestly when we're looking at a game whose moving parts are at least double the next most popular game's (again, not accounting for every possible wargear permutation and the like), how can balance ever realistically be reached? Even MtG struggles with it at times and they are known for a more robust playtesting and design pipeline than GW's and rotate stuff more frequently out of the game to keep unwanted interactions down in order to create better balance.
Honestly, I don't think there is a good or right answer for this, partly because any answer means telling people they need to give up something and that never goes over well.
Personally I enjoy 40k as a sandbox than a tournament game, but I know that not everyone sees it that way. I used to be more concerned about trying to win tournaments but as I've gotten older the social and hobby aspects around the game has become more important than who makes the best "pew pew" noises when they shoot their models.
Basically I freely admit I don't represent the whole community, nor would I want to try to. What I wanted to address was more the reality of saying the game should be more "balanced" because between the number of moving parts and what each person individually thinks of as balance I don't think you'd get the same answer twice on what "balance" should look like exactly.
Or I've painted my stuff yellow & blue and am playing IYANDEN....
let people paint their armies whatever color they want, feth that "color scheme = rules" mentality.
You realize I was responding to you & others bitching about justifying spammy/skew lists right?
GW has already justified spamming Wraith Guard. They called it Iyandan & gave me rules at the time for swapping WG into the troop slots.
Sticking them in Serpents is just effective delivery...
Why'd I paint them in the company colors? Because I happen to like the yellow & blue scheme, not because I care what GW thinks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeff white wrote: Paint colours should I think influence rules. Personally Ihave stressed about colours because of background, … I don’t mind someone experimenting with rules as in, hey, today I wanna play my blue marines as salamanders to experiment with the new rules. But, do it more than once or twice without moving on either repainting or collecting salamanders and imho coolness points are lost, patience is lost, and frankly I lose interest in being a part of whatever this dude thinks he is doing with the game and hobby.
anyways, just mo, but yeah, modeling choices including paint schemes have implications and consequences.
You'd be less stressed if you just pretended to be looking at a B&W movie in the making. Then you could "see" the models in any colors you'd prefer vs what's actually on the table.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/16 05:20:42
This deposes list building as a central tenet of the game which is where a lot of anger and hollering come in when its suggested.
List building requires strong choices and weak choices for it to be prominent and hold weight in the game. The more balanced the game, the less impactful list building can be, since if I can just whip up 2000 points of the models I like, and you whip up 2000 points of models carefully selected for how busted they are, and yet still we have a close game - that endears to those that want gameplay and balance to matter more, and absolutely repels those that want listbuilding to matter more.
List building uses points as structure to build within, but not as an actual balance metric. The community for a long time now has strongly leaned on list building as what they want to matter more.
Pardon, but that's very, very wrong.
Specifically, this:
List building requires strong choices and weak choices for it to be prominent and hold weight in the game. The more balanced the game, the less impactful list building can be.
Let's imagine a game where every single unit in every single codex was tournament viable and had a place on the board. Nothing is overpowered. Nothing is underpowered.
You'd *still* need to be good at list building if you want to win tournaments. However, unlike today's tournament environment, there would be little benefit in copy/pasting a tournament list off the internet, because even though every unit is viable, that doesn't mean that they all have shared utility.
You still need to determine how you're going to run your army and build a list to cover all your weaknesses. You have to balance your list between anti-tank/monster, anti-heavy-infantry, anti-horde, and specialist damage like snipers. You want to include psychic defense without wasting points. You want to make sure you're not presenting any obvious weaknesses - if you bring only one tank and a bunch of infantry, that one tank will be easily singled out and be a waste of points, after all.
You need to plan out mobility - Your melee units might be balanced and effective, but if you can't get them where they need to be they won't be much good.
How many points will you put into buff units? You want some as a force multiplier, but you can't buy too many or you'll not have enough forces to multiply.
Do you know your local meta? Does that influence your choices at all?
Every unit being viable and balanced does not mean that list building becomes unimportant. Especially since, if you don't have extremely overpowered units, the 'right' choice can be more difficult to make - if there's not one clear unit that's just better at clearing out infantry than everything else, what do you take for anti infantry?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: I recently watched a Youtube video talking about balance in 40k, and without checking single wargear option on every unit, 40k came to over 4,000 moving parts while MtG sat at half that.
Could you link that video or tell me what channel it was on? It sounds interesting and I'm curious how they define 'moving parts'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/16 05:37:09
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Honestly, I don't think there is a good or right answer for this, partly because any answer means telling people they need to give up something and that never goes over well...
I think this design mentality is almost the entire problem. GW assumes that if they ever nerf anything or take anything away the playerbase will riot, so they add, and add, and add, and buff, and buff, and buff, until the game collapses under its own weight and they burn it down and start over (or at least that's the 7th->8th transition, and I wouldn't be surprised at this point if the 9th->10th transition was a similar board-flip).
If GW were serious about balancing the game they'd a) reduce the amount of buff-stacking possible instead of increasing it, b) do small incremental updates to a lot of things more frequently and iterate within one edition rather than dumping a massive update to each army individually and then not touching them again (unless the tournament people complain enough that they get a token points update) until three to five years and a redone core rulebook have passed, c) start doing more resculpts and reworks of old stuff instead of adding more armies and more units constantly, and d) work out a consistent theory for how the basic math of the game should work and then have the discipline to stick to it, instead of making rules that ignore other rules and new rules that ignore those and more rules that ignore the third layer of rules in an attempt to distract from the fact that they broke the basic math on the statlines.
GW could absolutely balance the game. Minis companies with vastly more complicated systems than GW's ever attempted (PP, CB) do a much better job of it than GW ever has. But to understand why they don't you have to understand that their business model rests on underlying assumptions that preclude any attempt to balance the game from working even slightly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/16 05:41:58
AnomanderRake wrote: b) do small incremental updates to a lot of things more frequently and iterate within one edition rather than dumping a massive update to each army individually and then not touching them again (unless the tournament people complain enough that they get a token points update) until three to five years and a redone core rulebook have passed.
This here is an issue of money and greed, I think. Games Workshop can't do small, iterative rules updates, because you can't charge people money for a small, iterative rules update. They like being able to effectively 'tax' players by charging for codices every 3-4 years, and you can't rake in that cash if you're not releasing full codices.
AnomanderRake wrote: b) do small incremental updates to a lot of things more frequently and iterate within one edition rather than dumping a massive update to each army individually and then not touching them again (unless the tournament people complain enough that they get a token points update) until three to five years and a redone core rulebook have passed.
This here is an issue of money and greed, I think. Games Workshop can't do small, iterative rules updates, because you can't charge people money for a small, iterative rules update. They like being able to effectively 'tax' players by charging for codices every 3-4 years, and you can't rake in that cash if you're not releasing full codices.
Exactly. The business model relies on things that make it impossible for them to improve the game.
ClockworkZion wrote: So to get 40k "balanced" at every level of the game what are willing to give up to get there?
Nothing has to be given up. What was given up to balance AdMech Vanguard? They got a bit more expensive and their Stratagems got nerfed. Who is giving anything up here? No Stratagems were removed from the game, Vanguard did not lose any options.
Even MtG struggles with it at times and they are known for a more robust playtesting and design pipeline than GW's and rotate stuff more frequently out of the game to keep unwanted interactions down in order to create better balance.
They struggle with it because it is in their short-term financial interest to release OP chase cards that people will open up a hundred packs to get a copy of. Someone rung the alarm bell about every single OP card released in the past 5 years in MtG and somebody signed off on it being as intended. Going for balance is easier than going for "just broken enough that it will be super expensive and sell packs but not broken enough we have to ban it".
ClockworkZion wrote: I recently watched a Youtube video talking about balance in 40k, and without checking single wargear option on every unit, 40k came to over 4,000 moving parts while MtG sat at half that.
Could you link that video or tell me what channel it was on? It sounds interesting and I'm curious how they define 'moving parts'.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Honestly, I don't think there is a good or right answer for this, partly because any answer means telling people they need to give up something and that never goes over well...
I think this design mentality is almost the entire problem. GW assumes that if they ever nerf anything or take anything away the playerbase will riot, so they add, and add, and add, and buff, and buff, and buff, until the game collapses under its own weight and they burn it down and start over (or at least that's the 7th->8th transition, and I wouldn't be surprised at this point if the 9th->10th transition was a similar board-flip).
If GW were serious about balancing the game they'd a) reduce the amount of buff-stacking possible instead of increasing it, b) do small incremental updates to a lot of things more frequently and iterate within one edition rather than dumping a massive update to each army individually and then not touching them again (unless the tournament people complain enough that they get a token points update) until three to five years and a redone core rulebook have passed, c) start doing more resculpts and reworks of old stuff instead of adding more armies and more units constantly, and d) work out a consistent theory for how the basic math of the game should work and then have the discipline to stick to it, instead of making rules that ignore other rules and new rules that ignore those and more rules that ignore the third layer of rules in an attempt to distract from the fact that they broke the basic math on the statlines.
GW could absolutely balance the game. Minis companies with vastly more complicated systems than GW's ever attempted (PP, CB) do a much better job of it than GW ever has. But to understand why they don't you have to understand that their business model rests on underlying assumptions that preclude any attempt to balance the game from working even slightly.
I don't think GW is against balance, but I do think they want a certain level of granularity in how far into the weeds one can get. They've been walking a lot of stuff back in the buff department but they regularly show they seem to want a certain amount of options in the game to reward people for combining things in a lore friendly manner, or perhaps just because they think it creates an interesting visual on the table.
I mean if we wanted to reduce some of this stuff the community doesn't have to play at 2k. I mean CP is the same at 1,500 or 1,750 (which used to be the old standards for game size) but I have gotten push back online and in person about playing smaller points levels because at the end of the day people don't want to play with less of their toys, even if it might lead to better games.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/16 08:45:41
I would bet the farm that given my experience with the community and the much better balance the AOS community point systems were before AOS had "official points" that given 40k in the same state as today, the community could come up with a better balanced game.
Not perfect. Definitively with its own flaws, but miles better than what it is today.
Mainly because the community doesn't profit from the horrible balance but GW definitely does.
All this talk about GW is doing fine because the game is so huge so its impossible is IMO not justifiable or excusable for the state the game has been in for quite some time. I can guarantee you if the community stopped buying models and rulebooks until GW DID balance the game, you'd have some of the finest rules known to mankind release shortly after.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/16 15:12:12
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I don't think GW is against balance, but I do think they want a certain level of granularity in how far into the weeds one can get. They've been walking a lot of stuff back in the buff department but they regularly show they seem to want a certain amount of options in the game to reward people for combining things in a lore friendly manner, or perhaps just because they think it creates an interesting visual on the table...
You're missing the point. GW isn't against balance, GWdoesn't care. They've constructed a business model for themselves that makes balancing the game impossible because they prioritize selling hardback books over making the game work, and trying to improve the game would require they rework their whole release structure, so they're not going to do it.
auticus wrote: I would bet the farm that given my experience with the community and the much better balance the AOS community point systems were before AOS had "official points" that given 40k in the same state as today, the community could come up with a better balanced game.
Not perfect. Definitively with its own flaws, but miles better than what it is today.
Mainly because the community doesn't profit from the horrible balance but GW definitely does.
All this talk about GW is doing fine because the game is so huge so its impossible is IMO not justifiable or excusable for the state the game has been in for quite some time. I can guarantee you if the community stopped buying models and rulebooks until GW DID balance the game, you'd have some of the finest rules known to mankind release shortly after.
Are we reading the same threads when balance is discussed, because I rarely see concensus reached on anything people feel should be changed.
Honestly I think people overestimate the amount of experiance the 40kdev team has (Cruddace is the only dev we know from the old days still on it), the size of it to crank out all the factions and sub-factions to a high level of balance while maintaining a release cycle that doesn't force any army to wait possible decades between releases.
I won't claim GW is perfect (still stand by that points need to be free for example) but they have improved, but the game has also added a lot more variables in and that creates more possibilities for things to cause issues when people who aren't looking at it with an understanding of what the devs where thinking when they wrote the rules get a hold of them.
tl;dr: game design is harder than most of the community thinks it is, and GW is working with limits in both time and manpower (neither of which you can just expand on infinitely to fix the problem because both can create their own issues). I do want better (like cleaner and more standardized rules effect language) but I don't want to pretend that GW can just magically pump out the quality people want without sacrificing something else.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I don't think GW is against balance, but I do think they want a certain level of granularity in how far into the weeds one can get. They've been walking a lot of stuff back in the buff department but they regularly show they seem to want a certain amount of options in the game to reward people for combining things in a lore friendly manner, or perhaps just because they think it creates an interesting visual on the table...
You're missing the point. GW isn't against balance, GWdoesn't care. They've constructed a business model for themselves that makes balancing the game impossible because they prioritize selling hardback books over making the game work, and trying to improve the game would require they rework their whole release structure, so they're not going to do it.
I think your ascribing malice where you shouldn't but I'm not going to try and argue this because it's all conjecture on what you think the devs do and do not care about in the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/16 16:51:39
tl;dr: game design is harder than most of the community thinks it is, and GW is working with limits in both time and manpower (neither of which you can just expand on infinitely to fix the problem because both can create their own issues). I do want better (like cleaner and more standardized rules effect language) but I don't want to pretend that GW can just magically pump out the quality people want without sacrificing something else.
I'm in the game design space for a living so I definitely agree that its a lot harder than most think it is. However I also can read any given 40k codex and in 5 minutes spot the obvious fouls, which to me is awful.
Are we reading the same threads when balance is discussed, because I rarely see concensus reached on anything people feel should be changed.
Thats agreed, but when I say community can come up with a better balanced system thats not saying a giant community committee. I'm saying a few people from the community dedicated to balancing the game could come up with a better system than what is currently fed us. Hell cut out 40k official points like they did with AOS and watch a dozen or more 40k fan systems pop up and you'll have a few in there that are pretty damn good because there are a lot of talented people on here and out in the community that when motivated by balance can produce some good stuff if given the chance.
In the AOS pre-points days there were roughly a dozen community point systems, and four or so of those were very popular and used in a lot of places and those four or so were not perfect but did a damn sight better than any of the official point systems that came out (where we know as a fact that the first GHB 2016 artificially undercost monsters to entice people to buy and field more as a stated black and white design goal on the forum of the site that generated the basis for that point system).
Honestly I think people overestimate the amount of experiance the 40kdev team has
Also agreed. From what I recall, most of the dev team were very young lads, some still in their late teens. One of the AOSdevs came from this forum and he was like 19 or 20 or so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/16 17:47:11
I think both the AOS and the 40kdev teams have skills in game design, the issue is i strongly am convinced that they are operating inside of a bubble.
Those skills they have are not being utilized because they are designing the game under a false sense of how most people play the game.
That said, i also think that the 40k team as a collective. are generally bad at making 40k in the current edition. I think a lot of the 'fixes' GW put into 40k, was like going in with a wrecking ball to do open heart surgery, it was very clumsy, very half cocked, and very fire from the hip and see what happens, and rather then just admit, they screwed up a system, they end up getting ham strung and are forced to carry forward a blatantly broken game mechanic rather then doing what actually needs to be done, and out right remove it from the game and or revert it.
Case and point, the AP system of 8th and 9th, is the cause for the majority of the games issues right now. The rending system worked well in AOS mostly because units were exchanging attacks at the same time, mostly in melee. However the system does not work in the game where you can easily apply that AP from across the table. Rather then doing hte smart game design thing and go, "Hey this is bad we are going to remove it" they have opted for band aid solutions that have only caused more and more problem.
That is an example of blatantly bad game design, and what i mean when i say collectively GW is bad at writing rules. individually there are some skilled people, but as a group overall not great.
If you look at GW's applied games design philosophy, mitigating player skill differentials is baked into the mechanics and distribution of effects on statistical extremities. This is deliberate because if you don't make it possible for newbies to win against veterans, you'll wind up with an incestuous dead game like Warmachine Hordes.
Tyran wrote: Personally I fail to see how the previous AP system that made AP4 nearly worthless and AP2 extremely powerful was in any way better.
Because a weapon that was designed to deal with MEQ at AP3 was pointed specifically to be able to deal with sv 3 models and nothing else.
Now, you have weapons that are being pointed out at AP -2 but that - ap is applied not just to MEQ models, but now effects everything, which is why it led to the addtional wounds, which made things to strong so we got multi wounds, then invulns, then only wound on 4+ now just out right ignoring invulns. Pretty soon we are going to see more ignore AP values of -1 and -2. Its just a matter of time.
The old AP system had its problems sure, but it was not causing issues like the current rending system is.
Good game desginers would see this and go, "He this was a bad idea, we went from a system that had some problems to system that is causing way more problems we should roll back"
Granted i full understand that GW probably cant just flip a switch and do this because it would require pretty much a reprint of all the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bloviator wrote: If you look at GW's applied games design philosophy, mitigating player skill differentials is baked into the mechanics and distribution of effects on statistical extremities. This is deliberate because if you don't make it possible for newbies to win against veterans, you'll wind up with an incestuous dead game like Warmachine Hordes.
While i agree with you, 100%, i will say that that in 8th and 9th we have WAY less of that in the game now then we ever did in past editions.
WIth the loss of things like, deep strike scattering.
Scatter blasts
Hull point system that could results in various vehicle effects
Less random objectives
Less random power
Less do or die mechanics like tank shock or death and glory.
Current 40k has far less random things/acts you can preform that off set skill.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/16 18:27:07
tl;dr: game design is harder than most of the community thinks it is, and GW is working with limits in both time and manpower (neither of which you can just expand on infinitely to fix the problem because both can create their own issues). I do want better (like cleaner and more standardized rules effect language) but I don't want to pretend that GW can just magically pump out the quality people want without sacrificing something else.
I'm in the game design space for a living so I definitely agree that its a lot harder than most think it is. However I also can read any given 40k codex and in 5 minutes spot the obvious fouls, which to me is awful.
Are we reading the same threads when balance is discussed, because I rarely see concensus reached on anything people feel should be changed.
Thats agreed, but when I say community can come up with a better balanced system thats not saying a giant community committee. I'm saying a few people from the community dedicated to balancing the game could come up with a better system than what is currently fed us. Hell cut out 40k official points like they did with AOS and watch a dozen or more 40k fan systems pop up and you'll have a few in there that are pretty damn good because there are a lot of talented people on here and out in the community that when motivated by balance can produce some good stuff if given the chance.
In the AOS pre-points days there were roughly a dozen community point systems, and four or so of those were very popular and used in a lot of places and those four or so were not perfect but did a damn sight better than any of the official point systems that came out (where we know as a fact that the first GHB 2016 artificially undercost monsters to entice people to buy and field more as a stated black and white design goal on the forum of the site that generated the basis for that point system).
Honestly I think people overestimate the amount of experiance the 40kdev team has
Also agreed. From what I recall, most of the dev team were very young lads, some still in their late teens. One of the AOSdevs came from this forum and he was like 19 or 20 or so.
In terms of design complexity, I agree with this entirely.
One of the reasons that I'm CONSTANTLY harping on game size and ways to play is that almost all of the people talking about "how to balance better" are absolutely not thinking about this. They want to improve points-based competitive game play at the 2k level, and every single decision they would make would be through that lens.
And I think Auticus is right- I know that we have Dakkanaughts that could better balance the 2k, point-based competitive game. I just think they'd destroy everything else by doing it. At the very least, I don't think they'd care if they destroyed everything else when they did it.
And don't get me wrong- some of the suggestions I've seen would actually be good for all sizes and ways to play. But many proposed changes would not suit all the varieties of game, and some would outright destroy other varieties of game.
Well whats interesting about that is, it kinda loops back around to what is 40k and what should it be?
Because balancing for 40k through the lens of "40k is a competitive table top game" is no where near balancing for "40k should be a table top wargame to reenact dramatic battles of the 41st millennia"
For a competitive standpoint something like death or glory might not be a good thing, but for a dramatic standpoint death or glory would be amazing.
What happens on dakka is you have a lot of people throwing out balance ideas that for one type of game makes total sense, but from the other perspective of what they think the game should be, would be a horrible mess.
60PL 
12PL 
