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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The conversation of “Hey, can I follow the rules as written, or do I need to nerf myself beyond what’s already there?” Shouldn’t need to be had.

Points ain’t perfect-but they’re better than PL.

Nope. It usually goes something like this:

Player 1: Wow, you brought a lot of armour- I'm not sure I've got enough anti-tank to give you an interesting game.

Player 2: Yeah, if I had the rest of my collection here, I'd probably swap a unit or two.

Player 1: I brought a few extra heavy weapons- mind if I substitute them into a few of my TAC squads to give me a fighting chance?

... And then, you have to have discussions about points if that's what you're using- IE whether or not you're going to make the guy adjust his entire army in order to accommodate the extra cost of the heavy weapons. If you happen to be playing PL, you can skip that part of the conversation because swapping the gear doesn't change costs.

Andykp wrote:

I am perfectly happy with balancing the game myself, have been since day one (1989 for me). You don’t see people complaining about the system used in AOS which is basically power levels, fixed points for units regardless or equipment and options. I know that there aren’t the same amount of unit choices in sigmar but it seems to work fine.

I think PL works great if you are prepared to play in a casual way, which isn’t for everyone so points and power levels seems to be needed. Ideally in my head they should have a separate tournament version of 40k that’s is balanced and all the dull stuff competitive types like but completely apart form the narrative game.

AOS's balancing system doesn't have the caveat that you have to be 'reasonable' and come to a gentleman's agreement over whether your wargear choices match the fluff, so... Not really the same at all. It's designed around sidegrades and baking one-off capabilities like command models into the overall cost; not giving you options that can triple your offensive power for free and then expecting you to be 'reasonable' about it.

Most of my gaming is casual and I have no real interest in competitive play, but a robust balancing mechanism makes it easier to set up engaging, fair games, especially when two players may not see eye-to-eye on what a casual list or fair matchup looks like.

I don't have to do a pre-game negotiation to play Chain of Command, I just play it.

PenitentJake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The conversation of “Hey, can I follow the rules as written, or do I need to nerf myself beyond what’s already there?” Shouldn’t need to be had.

Points ain’t perfect-but they’re better than PL.

Nope. It usually goes something like this:

Player 1: Wow, you brought a lot of armour- I'm not sure I've got enough anti-tank to give you an interesting game.

Player 2: Yeah, if I had the rest of my collection here, I'd probably swap a unit or two.

Player 1: I brought a few extra heavy weapons- mind if I substitute them into a few of my TAC squads to give me a fighting chance?

... And then, you have to have discussions about points if that's what you're using- IE whether or not you're going to make the guy adjust his entire army in order to accommodate the extra cost of the heavy weapons. If you happen to be playing PL, you can skip that part of the conversation because swapping the gear doesn't change costs.

No, you don't. You're applying the same handicap either way. The net effect on the army is the same. Not needing to change anything else when using PL because the cost is "the same" and needing to when using points because the cost is "different" is entirely in your mind.

PL doesn't stop the overall value of the army from changing, it just provides a convenient way to ignore it. If you need that, it's perfectly fine. But many people who use points don't mind playing with a "handicap" either, if it would lead to a better, more enjoyable game.

PenitentJake wrote:


Player 1: Wow, you brought a lot of armour- I'm not sure I've got enough anti-tank to give you an interesting game.

Player 2: Yeah, if I had the rest of my collection here, I'd probably swap a unit or two.

Player 1: I brought a few extra heavy weapons- mind if I substitute them into a few of my TAC squads to give me a fighting chance?

... And then, you have to have discussions about points if that's what you're using- IE whether or not you're going to make the guy adjust his entire army in order to accommodate the extra cost of the heavy weapons. If you happen to be playing PL, you can skip that part of the conversation because swapping the gear doesn't change costs.

In the example you've made I see no meaningful difference between PL and points, it's just quicker in the PL case. In both cases one player tailors his list vs the opponent but still plays with the same points/PL budget. It's like you're assuming that switching loadouts in a PL list is legal while doing it in a points one isn't and requires permission.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No, you don't. You're applying the same handicap either way. The net effect on the army is the same. Not needing to change anything else when using PL because the cost is "the same" and needing to when using points because the cost is "different" is entirely in your mind.

PL doesn't stop the overall value of the army from changing, it just provides a convenient way to ignore it. If you need that, it's perfectly fine. But many people who use points don't mind playing with a "handicap" either, if it would lead to a better, more enjoyable game.

You are using "value" in the sense of "abiities of the army in question" - and in that sense, you are correct; it doesn't change whether you're using points or PL.

But the word "value" is used by many to mean "what the army costs" in points or PL. And in this context (which is the way I was using the word in my post) the value of the army doesn't change due to equipment swaps alone using PL but it does if you're using points.

If a player says: "Sure, dropping a meltagun into each tac squad will make the game more fun for both of us, so go ahead- just make sure you remove the equivalent points value from somewhere else in the army because that's what the rules say," how is that in my head? The rules DO say that, and it is my opponent's right to insist that I do that.

If we are playing PL, the opponent CANNOT ask you to do this, because the meltaguns in question do not have a PL cost.

And that's not an opinion, it's a fact. Denying it is silly: weapons have point values but not PL values.

 Blackie wrote:


In the example you've made I see no meaningful difference between PL and points, it's just quicker in the PL case. In both cases one player tailors his list vs the opponent but still plays with the same points/PL budget. It's like you're assuming that switching loadouts in a PL list is legal while doing it in a points one isn't and requires permission.

My response to Gadzilla probably clarifies this and could serve as a response to this statement too, but just to be sure, I thought I'd respond to you as well.

Again, if I'm swapping out five lasguns or bolters to swap in five meltaguns, because of the "Mustering in Army" rules in the relevant mission pack, I probably still need permission to do this anyway; even if you want to argue that I don't need permission, it's still polite to do so. But in a Point game, when the player agrees, they can make me go through the additional step of subtracting the points value of five meltaguns from somewhere else in my list because those are the rules of the game.

If we are playing PL, the opponent CANNOT make me go through the additional step as above, because meltaguns have no PL value. Even if he wants to ask me to pay for them, and even if I would agree to do so, neither of us is going to be able to follow through with it, because there is no rules that exists which would even allow us to do it.

Again, it's a fact not an opinion, and denying it is silly.

Now, here's the caveat: I think that BOTH of these posts were written with the idea that I am saying PL is better because the rules function this way. It's the only reason I can think of why you would respond to my post the way you did; we can all clearly open the book and read the points value beside the meltagun entry, and we can all just as clearly see that there isn't a PL value there. I'm not saying this makes PL better, so there's no need to say "Well there's really no actual difference..." because you don't need to prove that PL isn't better than points because I never actually said it was.

So let's be clear: according to observable and objective reality, there is a points cost but not a PL cost for most equipment as written, and this fact does objectively make it easier to swap load out in a PL game than points game when one or both of the players prefer to keep as many of their rule interpretations RAW as possible.

Not sure if "more easily facilitates deliberate list tailoring" is a point in PL's favor though, as list tailoring is generally not a good thing.

PenitentJake wrote:


Again, it's a fact not an opinion, and denying it is silly.

The fact is that switching loadout just before playing is quicker with PL. Like you said, it just saves an additional step.

But if you bring a list, you have to specify loadouts for your units. It's not like in a PL game people are allowed to bring extra models or extra bitz so that they can tailor the opponent's list. You still have to ask permission and to discuss that, because in the list you provided you already chose all the wargear for your units. It simpy takes less time to make the corrections if the opponent agrees to such changes.

When using points there are several units that have free upgrades or loadouts that cost the same, but to make those free corrections players still need to ask the opponent, since the list they provided would be altered .

Just to clarify, to me pre-game discussions and possible changes to the lists in order to try to have a more balanced game are standard procedure. And I have nothing against using PL.

Just because you have the same PL or pts does not mean your armies are equally matched. That's why we have the pre-game discussion, if we agree that having a close game is more important than playing by the rules why do you keep insisting we must have the same number of pts?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not sure if "more easily facilitates deliberate list tailoring" is a point in PL's favor though, as list tailoring is generally not a good thing.

Dig a step deeper, why is list tailoring generally bad? It's because you're fething someone over to have "fun" at their expense. What PenitentJake describes is the opposite of that, adjusting lists so that both players can have fun together.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No, you don't. You're applying the same handicap either way. The net effect on the army is the same. Not needing to change anything else when using PL because the cost is "the same" and needing to when using points because the cost is "different" is entirely in your mind.

PL doesn't stop the overall value of the army from changing, it just provides a convenient way to ignore it. If you need that, it's perfectly fine. But many people who use points don't mind playing with a "handicap" either, if it would lead to a better, more enjoyable game.

You are using "value" in the sense of "abiities of the army in question" - and in that sense, you are correct; it doesn't change whether you're using points or PL.

But the word "value" is used by many to mean "what the army costs" in points or PL. And in this context (which is the way I was using the word in my post) the value of the army doesn't change due to equipment swaps alone using PL but it does if you're using points.

If a player says: "Sure, dropping a meltagun into each tac squad will make the game more fun for both of us, so go ahead- just make sure you remove the equivalent points value from somewhere else in the army because that's what the rules say," how is that in my head? The rules DO say that, and it is my opponent's right to insist that I do that.

If we are playing PL, the opponent CANNOT ask you to do this, because the meltaguns in question do not have a PL cost.

And that's not an opinion, it's a fact. Denying it is silly: weapons have point values but not PL values.

Please, note the parts of both my and your statements that I have highlighted. If you're opponent does as you have described, are they really allowing you a "handicap"? No, they are not, because they are hung up on the idea of "making the numbers match". They could allow you to do the exact same thing, without forcing you to remove anything from your army, just the same when using points as PL. Again, it's in your head, or in your example, your opponents. PL just gets around this mental block of "needing the numbers to match". The same thing is still happening.

I'm not arguing whether points or PL are superior/inferior to each other, either. I'm just explaining that the same thing can be done with points as PL, as long as you and your opponent can get past "making the numbers match" exactly, every time.

 Blackie wrote:

Spoiler:

The fact is that switching loadout just before playing is quicker with PL. Like you said, it just saves an additional step.

But if you bring a list, you have to specify loadouts for your units. It's not like in a PL game people are allowed to bring extra models or extra bitz so that they can tailor the opponent's list. You still have to ask permission and to discuss that, because in the list you provided you already chose all the wargear for your units. It simpy takes less time to make the corrections if the opponent agrees to such changes.

When using points there are several units that have free upgrades or loadouts that cost the same, but to make those free corrections players still need to ask the opponent, since the list they provided would be altered .

Just to clarify, to me pre-game discussions and possible changes to the lists in order to try to have a more balanced game are standard procedure. And I have nothing against using PL.

Yep- I agree entirely. I also see now why you responded- you're correct- in my original post it wasn't clear that I was aware of this point; thanks for clarifying.

 vict0988 wrote:
Just because you have the same PL or pts does not mean your armies are equally matched. That's why we have the pre-game discussion, if we agree that having a close game is more important than playing by the rules why do you keep insisting we must have the same number of pts?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not sure if "more easily facilitates deliberate list tailoring" is a point in PL's favor though, as list tailoring is generally not a good thing.

Dig a step deeper, why is list tailoring generally bad? It's because you're fething someone over to have "fun" at their expense. What PenitentJake describes is the opposite of that, adjusting lists so that both players can have fun together.

How much antitank is enough, though. If I bring 10 Russes, are you justified in replacing portions of your list with 18 eradicators? 10? 6? 3?

List tailoring and self-balancing by the players is a very dangerous knife edge. Instead, GW should make their game roughly balanced on its own merits.

All I would say is that the pre-game conversation is well and good, but unless you have a deep, deep understanding of the game I would recommend against someone changing their list to be more effective against someone else's.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Please, note the parts of both my and your statements that I have highlighted. If you're opponent does as you have described, are they really allowing you a "handicap"? No, they are not, because they are hung up on the idea of "making the numbers match". They could allow you to do the exact same thing, without forcing you to remove anything from your army, just the same when using points as PL. Again, it's in your head, or in your example, your opponents. PL just gets around this mental block of "needing the numbers to match". The same thing is still happening.

I'm not arguing whether points or PL are superior/inferior to each other, either. I'm just explaining that the same thing can be done with points as PL, as long as you and your opponent can get past "making the numbers match" exactly, every time.

If you take it to its logical extreme, just make every army worth 1 Army Point and play a 1AP game. Voila, a system where you can do all the rearranging of forces and wargear you want without affecting the AP total of your force.

You can swap out wargear whether you're using a system that accounts for it (points) or not (PL); the only difference is that one is telling you that you haven't changed the overall value of your force, despite the entire purpose of adding or removing wargear being to change the overall value of the force. I think if you can recognize that 'just because you have the same PL or pts does not mean your armies are equally matched' as vict0988 puts it, then you can recognize that appropriately balancing two forces might involve one ending up with a higher points total than the other.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How much antitank is enough, though. If I bring 10 Russes, are you justified in replacing portions of your list with 18 eradicators? 10? 6? 3?

'Nah dude you don't need any extra anti-tank, these armies are already fair. This is 9th Ed and lasguns can wound Titans, your TAC list will be fine.'
(one curbstomp later)
'Yeah I guess you just didn't play well / rolled badly / took bad units.'

It's a good thing we all have the same understanding of the game and what is needed to appropriately balance two arbitrary forces, right? As DakkaDakka shows us, the community is generally of one mind when it comes to power imbalances.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dig a step deeper, why is list tailoring generally bad?

First, because it removes the compromises associated with building a list in the first place.

Second, because not all armies (or all units, for that matter) have the same ability to tailor - especially if you're sticking exclusively to modifying the loadouts of existing units. Hence, you'll very quickly end up with a situation wherein one player gets to tailor significant portions of his list, while the other simply doesn't have that option because of the inherent limitations of his faction/army.

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
We've been almost exclusively been playing with PL since about a year.

It has two big weaknesses, one is not allowing single models to be added to units, the other is overcharging for army-based upgrades like pathogens or kustom jobs that are 10 points but then become 1 PL.

The changes to how wargear is upgraded has no impact on balance. In almost all cases there is an obvious best choice when playing with points, the obvious best choice for playing with PL is just a different gun.

The theory is nice and all, but in reality fiddling with 1-10 points differences for upgrades is just a waste of time when the result still doesn't make those options balanced against each other.

For me the first one is a strength of PL as well. Depends on perspective. From a collecting point of view it’s nicer to build units in multiples of what comes in the box, no more fiddling about trying to find two ore boyz to make a unit of 12 and things. Doesn’t sound much, but a huge part of the hobby for me is building and paint thematic armies and you find you very quickly get used to just taking units groups of 10 or 5. (I am not saying I like the “units can only have what comes in the box” rule, I do not)

I understand that point of view, and it's probably why GW implemented it that way. The issue is that it simply doesn't work that way for many units though - there are a bunch of units that come with 3 models in the box and you often want to run them in 5s, but PL forces you to run a sixth one you don't want. Boyz have 12 models in the box, but you can't just add 2 to fill out your trukk, you need to pay for 20. And then there are chaos cult marines which used to be run in magic numbers, but you suddenly have to bring 5 or 10, even if the plague marine box contains exactly 7 models.
For those units, PL is essentially doing the exact opposite of what you want.

As for the second point, I think that was introduced because before then you often played a pl or two down if you didn’t get your army to add up to exactly the right amount. Not all armies have 1 or 2 PL cost things to fill out the difference. This allowed you to level up the occasional unit to fill in those gaps you would have left empty anyway. Is it an elegant solution, not really, but you may be paying over the odds but you got nothing for that PL before this, so it’s a kind of win??

It's still a net loss compared to points because it means that you will have exactly one of those upgrades in your army and you are usually overpaying for them. Adding a custom job to a squig buggy, a SJD and a snazzwagon für 45 points is a good way to sink points, paying 4 PL for those three jobs is not.

Yep there are some units where it doesn’t work out so well, plague marines had hose 3 crazily expensive guys who you buy to bulk a unit up to 10 with which was bonkers and then there’s meganobz where if you build the big mek you are stuck with two useless models until you buy another box. But for the most part it works out well enough.

For upgrades, as power levels are meant to be used in games where you aren’t looking to min/max everything that loss of value is less relevant, simply because in that kind of game it matters less. Which is why I like that they have points as a choice as well for those that does matter too. Power levels is an imperfect system, but it’s supposed to be, it’s sacrificed granularity for simplicity. For me the simplicity is more valuable than the complexity of points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:

I am perfectly happy with balancing the game myself, have been since day one (1989 for me). You don’t see people complaining about the system used in AOS which is basically power levels, fixed points for units regardless or equipment and options. I know that there aren’t the same amount of unit choices in sigmar but it seems to work fine.

I think PL works great if you are prepared to play in a casual way, which isn’t for everyone so points and power levels seems to be needed. Ideally in my head they should have a separate tournament version of 40k that’s is balanced and all the dull stuff competitive types like but completely apart form the narrative game.

AOS's balancing system doesn't have the caveat that you have to be 'reasonable' and come to a gentleman's agreement over whether your wargear choices match the fluff, so... Not really the same at all. It's designed around sidegrades and baking one-off capabilities like command models into the overall cost; not giving you options that can triple your offensive power for free and then expecting you to be 'reasonable' about it.

Most of my gaming is casual and I have no real interest in competitive play, but a robust balancing mechanism makes it easier to set up engaging, fair games, especially when two players may not see eye-to-eye on what a casual list or fair matchup looks like.

I don't have to do a pre-game negotiation to play Chain of Command, I just play it.

I wouldn’t say I ever have a “pre-game” negotiation, I always have a discussion about what the narrative is and why these two armies are fighting. I normally have a conversation with my mate while we design our armies, and it often is about what we are taking in those armies. Neither of us try and shaft the other, it’s all part of the social experience for us.

My advice to anyone who can’t understand why anyone would want to play with power levels is, they probably aren’t for you, stick to points. That’s not an insult, it’s just that you clearly want something from the game that they cannot or do not provide. I imagine if you mostly play games against strangers then casual or not power levels might not be best.

 catbarf wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Please, note the parts of both my and your statements that I have highlighted. If you're opponent does as you have described, are they really allowing you a "handicap"? No, they are not, because they are hung up on the idea of "making the numbers match". They could allow you to do the exact same thing, without forcing you to remove anything from your army, just the same when using points as PL. Again, it's in your head, or in your example, your opponents. PL just gets around this mental block of "needing the numbers to match". The same thing is still happening.

I'm not arguing whether points or PL are superior/inferior to each other, either. I'm just explaining that the same thing can be done with points as PL, as long as you and your opponent can get past "making the numbers match" exactly, every time.

If you take it to its logical extreme, just make every army worth 1 Army Point and play a 1AP game. Voila, a system where you can do all the rearranging of forces and wargear you want without affecting the AP total of your force.

You can swap out wargear whether you're using a system that accounts for it (points) or not (PL); the only difference is that one is telling you that you haven't changed the overall value of your force, despite the entire purpose of adding or removing wargear being to change the overall value of the force. I think if you can recognize that 'just because you have the same PL or pts does not mean your armies are equally matched' as vict0988 puts it, then you can recognize that appropriately balancing two forces might involve one ending up with a higher points total than the other.

As usual, you make the point that I was attempting to make much better than I could. Thanks Catbarf.

PenitentJake wrote:

Nope. It usually goes something like this:

Player 1: Wow, you brought a lot of armour- I'm not sure I've got enough anti-tank to give you an interesting game.

Player 2: Yeah, if I had the rest of my collection here, I'd probably swap a unit or two.

Player 1: I brought a few extra heavy weapons- mind if I substitute them into a few of my TAC squads to give me a fighting chance?

... And then, you have to have discussions about points if that's what you're using- IE whether or not you're going to make the guy adjust his entire army in order to accommodate the extra cost of the heavy weapons. If you happen to be playing PL, you can skip that part of the conversation because swapping the gear doesn't change costs.

Lolno. It goes more like

Player 1: I want to get a game, but that new Tyranid codex that just came out is really overpowered. I don't think it''ll be fun.

Player 2: You're just biased against Tyranids. Next week when the results come in from tournaments Tyranids aren't going to win any major ones. They're pillow fisted in melee, they can't kill things. GW won't write a good Tyranid codex.

Player 1: You've got a whole lot of Tyranid warriors, those things are incredibly undercosted. Let me guess, you're running Leviathan and everything is double boneswords/deathspitter?

Player 2: You're just mad I finally have a good codex. It's my time! We've been bad for so long and you won't get a game with me?

Player 1: Nah, I'm good. Have a good night.

Paraphrasing an actual conversation that went down at my LGS. Your conversation above is entirely farcical, and doesn't apply to 40k - if someone showed up with a Crusher Stampede Tyranid list (previous to the most recent codex), and his opponent was playing Guard, the solution isn't to "take more heavy weapons" - it's to play a different codex. Furthermore, in the actual situation I described above, the codex had only just come out - why should the players have the responsibility of rebalancing the game within a few days of a codex release to get a balanced game or else be blamed? You need to put the fault on the right entity, GW.

Andykp wrote:
... I seem to enjoy 40k more than others who want to win and demand balance be built in.

I'm a narrative gamer and I want balance to be built in. We shouldn't have to do the work of the game designers for them.

The notion that narrative gaming doesn't care about balance has to die.

but the narritive guys just always play the same people at home and already take hours to set up the setting for the game
just spending some minutes more to balance things is not a problem

so narritive does not need balance built in because it is easy to adjust it

/s


and this is the strange thing about blaming the players
it is too complicated and too expensive for GW to have build in balance and make the game work
but at the same time it is so easy that any narritive player can solve it within minutes with minor house rules

 kodos wrote:
but the narritive guys just always play the same people at home and already take hours to set up the setting for the game
just spending some minutes more to balance things is not a problem

so narritive does not need balance built in because it is easy to adjust it

/s


and this is the strange thing about blaming the players
it is too complicated and too expensive for GW to have build in balance and make the game work
but at the same time it is so easy that any narritive player can solve it within minutes with minor house rules

Of course it's easier for narrative focused groups to fix. They know what will work in their group. And those solutions don't need to be the same as what works for another group.

A lot of groups that use and enjoy PL use it sort of like a side board, swapping out elements for others to get the best of the game itself.
I think if 40k was to embrace this aspect it would probably be quite good for the game as a whole.
There is a bunch of upgrades that could just be part of a units rules as default, and you can have weapons with more specific designs that players can utilise when needs arise.

With some army’s they could also give units special deployment.
Demons buy a lesser demon unit, elite demon unit. Swap as desired.
Tyranids can deploy ether or for there swarm units.
Elder aspects.
If the design team was dedicated to the design and could stick with it though an edition, even if it wasn’t perfect I think PL would be a awesome change to embrace in 40k.

It would have to come with a design change to 40k but I think they already gone there with all but names of things.
And I think it would be better than shifting so many rules to choices like we have now during the game..

 vict0988 wrote:

Dig a step deeper, why is list tailoring generally bad? It's because you're fething someone over to have "fun" at their expense. What PenitentJake describes is the opposite of that, adjusting lists so that both players can have fun together.

Failure of language really.

'List tailoring' is basicallly list-crafting to ensure your list is a silver bullet to theirs aka its trying to 'gotcha!' them.

Whilr PJ talks about 'list tailoring', he's wrong, but for entirely the right reasons. I've always felt the term 'list matching' is a better term to use for this kind of thing ie making sure your list is capable of taking theirs on whilst also being equally vulnerable to what they can put out.

On the whole 5-minute chat being unworkable with your peers because everyone wants something different, there is always the approach we learned when we were 3 where we take turns. approach 'ok Bob, let's play this game your way this week, and the next game we play I get to craft it?' Always happy here for a bit of variety and if accomodatimg Bob every now and then keeps him on side, a bit of common decency to return the goodwill makes for a far stronger community in the long run. And if he turns our to be a selfish prick unwilling to.accomodate back, well I've learned something else about who not to play.

Also of note we typically either also have an umpire to craft the scenario and we randomly roll to see who plays which side.

List tailoring is just as bad/good as skewing. If it's possible to spam tanks, bikes or countless cheap dudes it should also be possible to adjust lists to counter those archetypes without getting any blame.

That's why I don't think it's realistic to expect a game in which it doesn't matter what people bring and have a balanced game anyway. Trying to nullify a large chunk of the opponent's list by surprising him with an extreme force has always been a feature. And something most players love, especially when it comes to blind games against random players.

The goal is to give all the factions plenty of tools to deal with any possible archetypes, that makes a balanced game.

I kind of think the conversation is about having a good game.

Because you can say "what if I bring 10 tanks, are you going to spam eradicators, MM attack bikes, are you, huh, are you?" And sure, you'll probably bump into that guy.

But in my experience its more like "hey, this is literally the only 2k points I own, and I don't have very much anti-tank at all. If you bring 10 Leman Russ I'm just going to have to sit on objectives all game while trying to scratch the paint work".

Now you could in turn respond with "well, sucks to be you, hahaha" - but that's kind of lame. Sure, if you go "but I only own 10 Leman Russ and that's it" then there's no solution. But if you can do something else, there is.

ccs wrote:


Of course it's easier for narrative focused groups to fix. They know what will work in their group. And those solutions don't need to be the same as what works for another group.

I think the idea that they're fixing a damn thing is a fantasy.

ccs wrote:
Of course it's easier for narrative focused groups to fix. They know what will work in their group. And those solutions don't need to be the same as what works for another group.

it is not as you just need 1 that brings in the idea of "official rules" and everything is gone (as because GW said the game is balanced good enough for narritive)
at that point it is easier to add tournament restrictions for list-building to a narritive group than doing something on your own to fix the game

 kodos wrote:
but the narritive guys just always play the same people at home and already take hours to set up the setting for the game
just spending some minutes more to balance things is not a problem

so narritive does not need balance built in because it is easy to adjust it

/s


and this is the strange thing about blaming the players
it is too complicated and too expensive for GW to have build in balance and make the game work
but at the same time it is so easy that any narritive player can solve it within minutes with minor house rules

For any given game, narrative players only have to balance two particular lists, consisting of a handful of entries each, in a specific context of a known scenario and terrain layout.

On the other hand, GW is expected to balance thousands of entries for dozens of factions in the context of any blind draw of any two lists, any mission and a whole scope of terrain layouts, from planet bowling ball to a cluttered maze of a multilevel hive or dense jungle.

I see a tiny bit of difference in difficulty here

 kodos wrote:

ccs wrote:
Of course it's easier for narrative focused groups to fix. They know what will work in their group. And those solutions don't need to be the same as what works for another group.

it is not as you just need 1 that brings in the idea of "official rules" and everything is gone (as because GW said the game is balanced good enough for narritive)
at that point it is easier to add tournament restrictions for list-building to a narritive group than doing something on your own to fix the game

Fixing the rules also isn't easy at all since multiple people (even if they all are narrative players) want different things.

One example from our playing group is that some players feel like crusade is too prohibitive for non-infantry armies and want to implement a rule that obSec units can perform actions no matter their type, while obSec units with the correct type perform actions faster (next command phase => end of turn, end of turn => end of shooting). Other people feel it's perfectly fine for knights, bikers or tanks to not be able to perform actions, full stop.

Since their is no clear consent on this, the rule simply stays at it is.

Another issue is the amount of effort - for example the FW book is a complete clusterfeth right now, with almost every unit missing essential types or army-wide rules. However, writing extensive errata for the whole thing and then referring to that errata in addition to all the other stuff isn't really something people are willing to do.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
... I seem to enjoy 40k more than others who want to win and demand balance be built in.

I'm a narrative gamer and I want balance to be built in. We shouldn't have to do the work of the game designers for them.

The notion that narrative gaming doesn't care about balance has to die.

That’s fine for you, for me I am fine with it as is. I also prefer that the costs don’t change all the time. So I don’t need to worry about having the most up to date points and things.

But let me stress. These things are what I want for the game, not what I think everyone should want. I am a narrative gamer but understand some of them may prefer more balance, like yourself. But we shouldn’t all have to want the same thing. No ideas have to “die”.

This quest for balance has only damaged the game in my opinion. It applies restrictions and leads to developer removing character full rules. I prefer not to go that way. But again, this is only my opinion.

Tyel wrote:
I kind of think the conversation is about having a good game.

Because you can say "what if I bring 10 tanks, are you going to spam eradicators, MM attack bikes, are you, huh, are you?" And sure, you'll probably bump into that guy.

But in my experience its more like "hey, this is literally the only 2k points I own, and I don't have very much anti-tank at all. If you bring 10 Leman Russ I'm just going to have to sit on objectives all game while trying to scratch the paint work".

Now you could in turn respond with "well, sucks to be you, hahaha" - but that's kind of lame. Sure, if you go "but I only own 10 Leman Russ and that's it" then there's no solution. But if you can do something else, there is.

Under 7th ed rules we have commonly adjusted for a similar problem in case of flyers. The toolbox here was giving a player without anti-aircraft a couple instances of Skyfire or setting up some objectives as granting Skyfire. It was enough. In some cases we did the same for armour with Haywire, but usually it was not necessary, as you can limit the impact of armour in soooo many interesting ways using terrain or mission, that Haywire always seemed like the most lazy an uninspiring solution.

nou wrote:
For any given game, narrative players only have to balance two particular lists, consisting of a handful of entries each, in a specific context of a known scenario and terrain layout.

On the other hand, GW is expected to balance thousands of entries for dozens of factions in the context of any blind draw of any two lists, any mission and a whole scope of terrain layouts, from planet bowling ball to a cluttered maze of a multilevel hive or dense jungle.

I see a tiny bit of difference in difficulty here

True, it's even easier with crusade, as the campaign master knows exactly what people can field and what they can't.

When you know the strength of players, their faction and have a rough idea of what they can bring, dropping in some vortex missile silos, fortifications, surprise reinforcements or even just an asymmetrical terrain setup are great ways to balance the scales.

You can even do it mid-game. Guard player is getting stomped? Hail the emperor, his angels of death have arrived! Enjoy these two free drop pods with tactical marines in them.