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.

ccs wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Kind of think 40k at least does work off "middle school math" - which is why people can see a codex and almost instantly go "this is too good", or "this will be bad" by just doing a 1:1 comparison with 40k as it is.

I continue to think this idea that a lascannon is worth X in this meta and Y in that meta misses the wood for the trees.

In 40k imbalance is usually more obvious. Lets say faction A can get a unit with 4 lascannons for 150 points. And now a new codex comes out for faction B. They have a unit with effectively 4 lascannons...and its just 100 points. Whether lascannons are good or bad doesn't matter - faction B's unit is just going to be better than the unit in faction A. If faction A brings 2 of its 150 point units, faction B can bring 3 of its similar units (or 2 and something else). And unsurprisingly 3 will tend to beat 2 barring an unusual outcome in the dice.

Really? You really think if right now you handed a BS3 marine squad (A) 4 Lacannons @150pts & a Bs5 Ork squad (B) 4 Lascannons @100 pts that the Ork version would be better? And all we're doing is discussing the LCs, not # of models in squad, their saves, LD etc.

I think he was talking performance calculus using middle school math.

If "unit X" is a fire support unit from Faction A, and provides good fire support for 150 points, and "unit z" is a fire support unit from Faction B and provides good fire support for 100 pts, then Faction B's unit z is better than Faction A's unit X.

Unit X is overcosted, because it does the same thing as Unit Z for a higher price. Therefore, unit X will never get taken, and Faction A will rely on unit Y, which is 100 points for good melee. Because bringing actively overpriced units is bad.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I think he was talking performance calculus using middle school math.

If "unit X" is a fire support unit from Faction A, and provides good fire support for 150 points, and "unit z" is a fire support unit from Faction B and provides good fire support for 100 pts, then Faction B's unit z is better than Faction A's unit X.

Unit X is overcosted, because it does the same thing as Unit Z for a higher price. Therefore, unit X will never get taken, and Faction A will rely on unit Y, which is 100 points for good melee. Because bringing actively overpriced units is bad.

Yeah.
I mean in this case, lets say the Marines get 4 BS3+ Lascannons for 150 points. The Orks get 4 BS5+ Lascannons for 100 points.
With very simplistic expected outcomes, the Marines expect to get 2.66 lascannon hits for 150 points. The Orks expect to get 1.33 hits for 100 points. At 150 points that's 2 hits. 2.66 is better than 2.
You could also move up to more complicated probabilistic outcomes - and what you'd find is that due to that BS5+ the Orks have a much higher chance of completely failing with their 4 lascannons - i.e. doing zero damage -- which is also an issue when you want to plan out a game.
You do have to factor in other stats - defences, movement, synergistic buffs etc but the package is still there. When we see 70% win rates (or 30% win rates) we are not looking at subtle imbalances. For the same points you are getting more power. That may be better weapons or defensive stats or movement/objective manipulation (which has become more of a thing in 9th).

nou wrote:
The only problem with your approach is… it doesn’t work. Like - at all.

Sure it does, but only if the designer wants it to.

First, we have to set aside situational modifiers because that's where tactics come in. A unit worth 1/3 the points of its opponent can (and should) be able to defeat it if it has a significant advantage in position. That's the whole point of playing the game.

What points do is establish a baseline of relative capabilities that can be quantified to generate some sort of balance.

That being said, a game designer who decides to spam the system with special rules (especially ones that have an if/then element to them) is making their job unnecessarily difficult. Indeed, the more you cram into the profile, description, chrome, etc., the less normal tactics matter and what you're left with is the Special Rules Derby.

I mean, this is where we get situations where certain army lists simply can't be beaten. GW is famous for this. That's not the fault of their points, it's a fundamental design flaw.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

nou wrote:
The only problem with your approach is… it doesn’t work. Like - at all.

Sure it does, but only if the designer wants it to.

First, we have to set aside situational modifiers because that's where tactics come in. A unit worth 1/3 the points of its opponent can (and should) be able to defeat it if it has a significant advantage in position. That's the whole point of playing the game.

What points do is establish a baseline of relative capabilities that can be quantified to generate some sort of balance.

That being said, a game designer who decides to spam the system with special rules (especially ones that have an if/then element to them) is making their job unnecessarily difficult. Indeed, the more you cram into the profile, description, chrome, etc., the less normal tactics matter and what you're left with is the Special Rules Derby.

I mean, this is where we get situations where certain army lists simply can't be beaten. GW is famous for this. That's not the fault of their points, it's a fundamental design flaw.

You don't even try to understand, what I'm writing about, do you? The table above has no special rules, it is raw math based on 8 independent parameters, four for defense and four for offense. Barebones of a wargame system and you still can't balance it with points, not even to a "good enough" level, not via algorithms, not via "simulated battles", not via tournament data. Points will always be off in one context or another. This is why best balanced wargames employ non-point based mechanisms - their designers simply "know their gak".

All I ever read on this forum from pro-points crowd is "it can work, designers just have to try harder", even though every game designer will tell you otherwise, because fundamental wargames math just doesn't work that way... It reminds me of all those perpetuum mobile enthusiasts, that claim their designs would work if they just manage to get rid of that pesky friction...

nou wrote:
Barebones of a wargame system and you still can't balance it with points, not even to a "good enough" level, not via algorithms, not via "simulated battles", not via tournament data. Points will always be off in one context or another. This is why best balanced wargames employ non-point based mechanisms - their designers simply "know their gak".

Infinity uses a points system and accomplishes pretty good balance.

It may not be 'best balanced', but it doesn't need to be. And the alternative constraints needed to create that 'best balance' may not be desirable mechanics for a given game.

nou wrote:
even though every game designer will tell you otherwise

I've heard successful designers emphasize that points are a shaping mechanism and are not a sole source of balance, just one tool among many.

I've never heard them say that points systems are irredeemably worthless and the only way to design a decent game is not to use them at all.

 catbarf wrote:

nou wrote:
Barebones of a wargame system and you still can't balance it with points, not even to a "good enough" level, not via algorithms, not via "simulated battles", not via tournament data. Points will always be off in one context or another. This is why best balanced wargames employ non-point based mechanisms - their designers simply "know their gak".

Infinity uses a points system and accomplishes pretty good balance.

It may not be 'best balanced', but it doesn't need to be. And the alternative constraints needed to create that 'best balance' may not be desirable mechanics for a given game.

nou wrote:
even though every game designer will tell you otherwise

I've heard successful designers emphasize that points are a shaping mechanism and are not a sole source of balance, just one tool among many.

I've never heard them say that points systems are irredeemably worthless and the only way to design a decent game is not to use them at all.

They are worthless as a balance mechanism, convenient as a shaping tool and good as game size tool. That’s about it. But the most important reason to include them is because playerbase expect them to be there and go bonkers if you remove them.

nou wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

nou wrote:
Barebones of a wargame system and you still can't balance it with points, not even to a "good enough" level, not via algorithms, not via "simulated battles", not via tournament data. Points will always be off in one context or another. This is why best balanced wargames employ non-point based mechanisms - their designers simply "know their gak".

Infinity uses a points system and accomplishes pretty good balance.

It may not be 'best balanced', but it doesn't need to be. And the alternative constraints needed to create that 'best balance' may not be desirable mechanics for a given game.

nou wrote:
even though every game designer will tell you otherwise

I've heard successful designers emphasize that points are a shaping mechanism and are not a sole source of balance, just one tool among many.

I've never heard them say that points systems are irredeemably worthless and the only way to design a decent game is not to use them at all.

They are worthless as a balance mechanism, convenient as a shaping tool and good as game size tool. That’s about it. But the most important reason to include them is because playerbase expect them to be there and go bonkers if you remove them.

Source: Dude, trust me

nou wrote:
All I ever read on this forum from pro-points crowd is "it can work, designers just have to try harder", even though every game designer will tell you otherwise, because fundamental wargames math just doesn't work that way... It reminds me of all those perpetuum mobile enthusiasts, that claim their designs would work if they just manage to get rid of that pesky friction...

This game designer uses points, and they work. Deal with it.

What you are saying is you came up with a system that defies a numerical representation of relative combat value. That's quite remarkable. How do you balance it, then? Algebra?

nou wrote:

All I ever read on this forum from pro-points crowd is "it can work, designers just have to try harder", even though every game designer will tell you otherwise, because fundamental wargames math just doesn't work that way...

We know it can work because we've seen it work. And by "work" we mean "good enough for the job at hand". And in most cases there are other systems that work in conjunction with points to help achieve that "close enough" balance.

But you need to really define your balance objectives here. "Perfect balance" as far as I'm concerned, is not "any army should be an even match with any other army of equal points value on any table". If you're chasing that, you're chasing the wrong thing, and probably going to harm the design ecosystem more than help it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
If it were as difficult as you proclaim it to be, other games would be just as bad about it. Why is 40k always the one where it's a common occurrence compared to other games making a mistake here and there?

Size of community plays a big part. Gw has a player base size yhat is orders of magnitude greater than others - and vastly greater online traffic. Heck it wouldn't surprise me if gw had more retail staff than some games have players.

If those other games were played/exploited/scrutinised by a community the size of the one that plays 40k to the extent that it plays/exploits and scrutinises 40k, and put it all online, you'd see very little difference in the tone or direction of the arguments (designers are useless, X is broken, y is underpowered etc etc) and even then, go to the discussion spaces of those games. Grass ain't greener.

'Here and there' is cute, but its not the reality. Ive played plenty warganes and pretty much all of them had issues, whether x-wing, wmh, infinity, fow etc. 5 minutes googling will.point to problem.builds, crutches and go-to approaches and unplayable factions.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Sure it does, but only if the designer wants it to.

.

'Context' wants a word with you.

Seemingly no designer wants their games to actually work based on what you say. This is a 'no true scotsman' scenario and a colossal disservice to games designers everywhere. Points are a.roufh accounting system with serious limitations and very limited load-bearing abilities and that's about it.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

This game designer uses points, and they work. Deal with it.

Half right. The game uses points. But while they 'function' and allowing games to be used (or rather, manipulated and exploited) they don't actually 'work' as imagined/conceived here - as testified by an Internets worth of 'proposed rules etc' and 40 years of the community complaining about it . Nou is corrext, it's not that they 'work', it's that their use is 'expected', regardless of their inherent limitations and problems. Its a game shaping mechanism, not an 'accurate value' provider.

Insectum7 wrote:
We know it can work because we've seen it work. And by "work" we mean "good enough for the job at hand". And in most cases there are other systems that work in conjunction with points to help achieve that "close enough" balance.

But you need to really define your balance objectives here. "Perfect balance" as far as I'm concerned, is not "any army should be an even match with any other army of equal points value on any table". If you're chasing that, you're chasing the wrong thing, and probably going to harm the design ecosystem more than help it.

Have we? Have we really 'seen it work'?
I guarantee you weve seen it 'used', but we've all also seen it fall short far more often than we've seen it work, especially at higher levels and at the system level.

But please, can you define 'good enough' from.your pov because that term always seems to be a moving goalpost. As you say, perfect balance doesn't exist exist, bit anytime I dig down into 'good enough' there is so little daylight between that and the 'perfect balsnce' that can't exist, it becomes an exercise in semantics.

'Good enough' implies 'an accepted level of problematic elements and mismatchrs', so please, how much of the game is allowed to be unplayable to be 'good enough'. How much of the potential lists are allowed to be 'mismatches'? How much of the game can be accepted to be 'above' the power curve and dominate the rest of the game at the expense of the rest. How 'big' a game are we talking in terms of # of factions and # of unique units/roster choices. Etc. Not a gotcha. Just trying to nail down a very nebulous idea.

You're right though - points on their own are pointless. The 'other systems' carry more weight. When I played wmh for example, it wasn't some brilliantly conceived ratio of value-numbers, it was 'dual lists, multiple win conditions, and massive damage output as opposed to.survivability (ie you could kill the damn thing) that made it a more 'empowering' game. Even then, whilst 'better', wmh has an awful.lot of broken elements.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Spinning off from the Points Value thread, there's people saying that points don't function as a balancing mechanism.

This thread is to give space for alternatives-if not points, then how are you going to balance differing factions and armies?

You could do detachments like kill team. There are several detachments to choose from. You get your choise of x number of detachments.

nou wrote:


They [points] are worthless as a balance mechanism

This is just patently absurd and wrong. Even a moment's thought makes it obvious that doing something like halving the cost of every unit in a given Codex would instantly upset the balance of the game. An extreme example, but no less so than your statement.

Points are certainly not the only balancing mechanism you can use, and in many cases they are not the optimal lever to pull to achieve balance. To say they are worthless for balance just makes it hard to take anything else you say seriously. Yes, I know you'll tell us all about your games designer credentials and go on and on about how us amateurs have no idea what we're talking about, but that doesn't change the reality that your statement is obviously false. Other games achieve better balance than GW manages, and they use points as one part of that balance process. At various points in the past we've seen GW games being more balanced than they are now - again, using points as part of that.

I think GW do struggle with the non-points parts of their balance, though. 40k in particular has been gradually losing a lot of the other mechanisms that can help balance a game. The terrain rules are very loose, especially as far as defining what sort and quantity of terrain should be used. Army selection has gradually become less and less restricted, to the point that 10th looks very much like a free-for-all at this point (might not be the case once we know more about the system). We've seen a lot of cases where rules need to be tweaked because points can't properly deal with situations like entire armies having "fight on death" abilities, for example. Secondary missions provide other ways to achieve, or skew, balance and GW have been pretty bad at dealing with those over the course of 9th, IMO.

Deadnight wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
We know it can work because we've seen it work. And by "work" we mean "good enough for the job at hand". And in most cases there are other systems that work in conjunction with points to help achieve that "close enough" balance.

But you need to really define your balance objectives here. "Perfect balance" as far as I'm concerned, is not "any army should be an even match with any other army of equal points value on any table". If you're chasing that, you're chasing the wrong thing, and probably going to harm the design ecosystem more than help it.

Have we? Have we really 'seen it work'?
I guarantee you weve seen it 'used', but we've all also seen it fall short far more often than we've seen it work, especially at higher levels and at the system level.

But please, can you define 'good enough' from.your pov because that term always seems to be a moving goalpost. As you say, perfect balance doesn't exist exist, bit anytime I dig down into 'good enough' there is so little daylight between that and the 'perfect balsnce' that can't exist, it becomes an exercise in semantics.

'Good enough' implies 'an accepted level of problematic elements and mismatchrs', so please, how much of the game is allowed to be unplayable to be 'good enough'. How much of the potential lists are allowed to be 'mismatches'? How much of the game can be accepted to be 'above' the power curve and dominate the rest of the game at the expense of the rest. How 'big' a game are we talking in terms of # of factions and # of unique units/roster choices. Etc. Not a gotcha. Just trying to nail down a very nebulous idea.

You're right though - points on their own are pointless. The 'other systems' carry more weight. When I played wmh for example, it wasn't some brilliantly conceived ratio of value-numbers, it was 'dual lists, multiple win conditions, and massive damage output as opposed to.survivability (ie you could kill the damn thing) that made it a more 'empowering' game. Even then, whilst 'better', wmh has an awful.lot of broken elements.

If you want a wide variation in unit capabilities, plus a large amount of freedom in how armies are composed, you will always encounter the potential for skew and mismatch between armies on the table. On top of that, if you want the wargame to be worth a damn, terrain needs to be an essential aspect of gameplay and maneuver, which translates to units gaining or loosing value depending on the table setup. This is why it can't be "perfectly balanced".

But all of these things, unit diversity, freedom of force creation, and impact of terrain, are positive features of the game that I would be very careful about messing with. Points works great as a "rough estimate of value" within the framework of understading that "value" is very far from absolute. "It is a bit of an art", as Andy Chambers said.

And yes, we've seen the game achieve healthy balance from time to time. The levers exist to make it happen, but GW also has a vested interest in churn.

Deadnight wrote:
'Good enough' implies 'an accepted level of problematic elements and mismatchrs', so please, how much of the game is allowed to be unplayable to be 'good enough'. How much of the potential lists are allowed to be 'mismatches'? How much of the game can be accepted to be 'above' the power curve and dominate the rest of the game at the expense of the rest. How 'big' a game are we talking in terms of # of factions and # of unique units/roster choices. Etc. Not a gotcha. Just trying to nail down a very nebulous idea.

To my mind at least the idea of a balanced game is one where a top player can select any faction, put together a vaguely coherent list, and expect to get to the top level of a tournament, in accordance with their skill.

So at the first level, this means every codex having a "good stuff list" that is in the current standard. Rather than say 2-3 factions overwhelmingly dominating tournament placings and having huge win%. Based on the tournament wins we've seen - 9th isn't actually too far off this at the moment. Clearly some factions are favoured, but there isn't one that's obviously crushing the meta underfoot with say a 70% win rate and winning half the tournaments. We have however seen such before and we probably will again. A new codex will come out with units that are just far too cheap in points for the power they bring to the table.

The second level would be expanding this so factions have multiple competitive builds. This is a bit canned strategy and so may produce hostility. But lets say for example your faction's "good stuff" is your close combat units, with your close combat subfaction, along with your close-combat support characters. Its a shame that your shooting subfaction, with shooting units, and your shooting-support characters isn't "in the standard". In most circumstances I think this could be fixed with points - although changing rules can work too. Meta can play into this - but usually its just that the package as a whole is relatively overcosted and so inefficient versus other stuff in the game.

If however someone takes close combat units, with the shooting subfaction, with characters who buff tanks (when you don't have any), its not surprising they are at a bit of a disadvantage. Their army doesn't synergise - it wasn't obviously ever meant to synergise. The fact it will tend to do worse than one that does isn't a balance concern. In the same way that if you bring an army that's 100% paper, its not imbalance if you run into a list which is 100% scissors. The preferred level of power gap in both situations can be debated. If the level of power in subfactions is massive then synergising that will have a much bigger impact than if its a much more marginal boost.

I'm afraid I can't see how "points are pointless" - because points are what determine what you have on the table. If you think a faction is "too good" have the player running it build a list, and then leave a unit or two at home - effectively simulating a points increase. It will now perform worse. The remaining units are the same - but as a package you now have less offensive power, its more fragile and it has less board control/scope for claiming objectives. Or you can do it the other way and have a faction that's "too bad" bring along another unit or two. They'll get the reverse - more damage output, less fragile and more board control.

Deadnight wrote:
Have we? Have we really 'seen it work'?

Again, Infinity exists and is doing quite well with a points-based system.

And yeah, I agree with Tyel. 'Good enough' is where two competent players can put together coherent (ie synergistic) lists and each have a decent shot at winning. If your choice of faction puts you on uneven footing from the start, or if your unit choices are based more on picking good units and avoiding bad ones rather than on complementing roles, you aren't there.

Since I don’t like going in circles and the level of misconceptions in this thread is through the roof, one last post from me on „why there are points in wargames”. This time from the bottom up.

So, you want to design a wargame. You start by deciding, that you want it scalable for easy entry and gradual purchases, so you’ll make it playable at four size levels. Bam! Right here, right now you have introduced a point system into your game. Feth… It is obviously a terrible point system with the granularity of just 4pts, but nevertheless it is there, so you may as well use it for something*. But you have to divide those points into bite sized chunks if you want to include any meaningful listbuilding, otherwise there is hardly any choice for the player at this stage. But you can’t use fractions, because little Timmy’s head would explode if he sees a comma anywhere, so you have to use natural numbers to not limit you playerbase. So you go up. When it comes to natural divisors, base12 is your friend. But wait, you can’t use it straight, your community will freak out if they see a letter in a number. So you write your game sizes as 12, 24, 36 and 48 pts. Neat. If your game is a small one-off with well established scale, you can call it a day. But you want to be rich and famous, so you decide to futureproof it for all those expansions, seasons, and whatnot. So you increase the granularity of your point structure/size system twofold. Good, you can now ditch remanants of base12 entirely, round your game sizes to 25, 50, 75 and 100 and players will never even know what just happened. You can now proceed to choose and implement a balancing mechanism into your game - a sideboard/cross-tailoring/dynamic summoning/strict FOC/mandatory-non-combat-abilities-that-act-as-FOC-but-players-don’t-realise-that etc and then finally start working on base parameters, resolution mechanics, unit paradigms, factions, fluff etc… Now, does this game have a point system? Yes. Is it used for balance? Not at all. Does the playerbase think it does? Of course, it is there, point values differ, so it must contribute to balance in substantial way. Does the playerbase then demand increasing granularity to 40,000pts so it can „increase balance” enough, that TheMostImportantProblem of 1pts bolter upgrade can be „solved” once and for all? Yes again. Why? Because players know gak about game design.

*there is a way to avoid increasing the granularity of this 4pts system any further and avoid the problem of community obsessing over point balance in your game entirely. You just have to plant trees - use strict FOC. Either design it for the smallest game size and use multiples for larger games, or design one for each size. But this approach has a serious drawback - you have just deliberately hindered your sales by excluding all obsessive listbuilders from your playerbase by removing the „listbuilding sudoku” in-beetween games part of the hobby. You have also limited the space for post game social activity of complaining about point balance and denied yourself an income from chasing the rabbit. So you go back a step and go the point structure route, you want to be rich and famous after all. You may as well go „all in”, increase your granularity and release quarterly „balance updates” that merely shift your stock demand around.

Contrary to popular belief, game designers know perfectly well, what they try to achieve - a cow they can then milk endlessly.

That’s all folks. Have a nice time chasing rabbits.

Deadnight wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
If it were as difficult as you proclaim it to be, other games would be just as bad about it. Why is 40k always the one where it's a common occurrence compared to other games making a mistake here and there?

Size of community plays a big part. Gw has a player base size yhat is orders of magnitude greater than others - and vastly greater online traffic. Heck it wouldn't surprise me if gw had more retail staff than some games have players.

If those other games were played/exploited/scrutinised by a community the size of the one that plays 40k to the extent that it plays/exploits and scrutinises 40k, and put it all online, you'd see very little difference in the tone or direction of the arguments (designers are useless, X is broken, y is underpowered etc etc) and even then, go to the discussion spaces of those games. Grass ain't greener.

'Here and there' is cute, but its not the reality. Ive played plenty warganes and pretty much all of them had issues, whether x-wing, wmh, infinity, fow etc. 5 minutes googling will.point to problem.builds, crutches and go-to approaches and unplayable factions.

Source: Trust me, bro

Grass is absolutely greener. If 40k were being released today without its IP backing, it would 100% be laughed at. No other game is bad about this, as much as you want to proclaim "no it totally is".

Insectum7 wrote:
If you want a wide variation in unit capabilities, plus a large amount of freedom in how armies are composed, you will always encounter the potential for skew and mismatch between armies on the table. On top of that, if you want the wargame to be worth a damn, terrain needs to be an essential aspect of gameplay and maneuver, which translates to units gaining or loosing value depending on the table setup. This is why it can't be "perfectly balanced".

But all of these things, unit diversity, freedom of force creation, and impact of terrain, are positive features of the game that I would be very careful about messing with. Points works great as a "rough estimate of value" within the framework of understading that "value" is very far from absolute. "It is a bit of an art", as Andy Chambers said.

And yes, we've seen the game achieve healthy balance from time to time. The levers exist to make it happen, but GW also has a vested interest in churn.

The only thing I disagree with is saying the game has achieved a healthy balance from time to time. I've played since third. That was never the case. There have always been broken.codices, underpowered codices, go-to builds etc. Everything else is stuff I'd agree with, no question. If I was a cheeky git and you said that to ne in the gdmimg club, I'd buy you a beer and say no <expletive> sherlock and we'd both laugh and enjoy our beers.

And you didn't answer my question. :p

so please, how much of the game is allowed to be unplayable to be 'good enough'. How much of the potential lists are allowed to be 'mismatched'? How much of the game can be accepted to be 'above' the power curve and dominate the rest of the game at the expense of the rest. How 'big' a game are we talking in terms of # of factions and # of unique units/roster choices. Etc. Not a gotcha. Just trying to nail down a very nebulous idea.

Tyel wrote:

To my mind at least the idea of a balanced game is one where a top player can select any faction, put together a vaguely coherent list, and expect to get to the top level of a tournament, in accordance with their skill.

So at the first level, this means every codex having a "good stuff list" that is in the current standard. Rather than say 2-3 factions overwhelmingly dominating tournament placings and having huge win%. Based on the tournament wins we've seen - 9th isn't actually too far off this at the moment. Clearly some factions are favoured, but there isn't one that's obviously crushing the meta underfoot with say a 70% win rate and winning half the tournaments. We have however seen such before and we probably will again. A new codex will come out with units that are just far too cheap in points for the power they bring to the table.

The second level would be expanding this so factions have multiple competitive builds. This is a bit canned strategy and so may produce hostility. But lets say for example your faction's "good stuff" is your close combat units, with your close combat subfaction, along with your close-combat support characters. Its a shame that your shooting subfaction, with shooting units, and your shooting-support characters isn't "in the standard". In most circumstances I think this could be fixed with points - although changing rules can work too. Meta can play into this - but usually its just that the package as a whole is relatively overcosted and so inefficient versus other stuff in the game.

If however someone takes close combat units, with the shooting subfaction, with characters who buff tanks (when you don't have any), its not surprising they are at a bit of a disadvantage. Their army doesn't synergise - it wasn't obviously ever meant to synergise. The fact it will tend to do worse than one that does isn't a balance concern. In the same way that if you bring an army that's 100% paper, its not imbalance if you run into a list which is 100% scissors. The preferred level of power gap in both situations can be debated. If the level of power in subfactions is massive then synergising that will have a much bigger impact than if its a much more marginal boost.

And respectfully, you didn't answer beyond vague notions of 'some good stuff' and 'something something take the the optimum builds in your codex, ignore the rear or its your fault'. Which is just plugging the status quo of gw list-creation for the last 20 years. please, how much of the game is allowed to be unplayable to be 'good enough'. How much of the potential lists are allowed to be 'mismatched'? How much of the game can be accepted to be 'above' the power curve and dominate the rest of the game at the expense of the rest. How much of the game can be 'left behind' for your tournament winning list? How 'big' a game are we talking in terms of # of factions and # of unique units/roster choices. Etc. Not a gotcha. Just trying to nail down a very nebulous iidea.
Also, there is morecto the gaming ecosystem than tournaments.

Tyel wrote:

I'm afraid I can't see how "points are pointless" - because points are what determine what you have on the table. If you think a faction is "too good" have the player running it build a list, and then leave a unit or two at home - effectively simulating a points increase. It will now perform worse. The remaining units are the same - but as a package you now have less offensive power, its more fragile and it has less board control/scope for claiming objectives. Or you can do it the other way and have a faction that's "too bad" bring along another unit or two. They'll get the reverse - more damage output, less fragile and more board control.

'Pointless' might be the wrong word (i prefer limited value), but the certainty in them is. people believe in points like people believe in the divine. When it comes to points I'm an atheist. :p

Firstly, points aren't the only approach that determines what you have on the board. More recent games are stepping away from this notion - gw's kill-team doesn't have points-based games/factions. Neither does privateer press' warcaster NM. games like chain of Command likewise are designed differently as well.

Secondly youve just answered it and demonstrated the limitation of points. The whole point of points is they are a singular/universal in-game currency thst is supposed to capture the 'value' of a thing. And as you just demonstrate, 1500pts is not equal.to 1500pts if one has to take more than 1500pts and the other has to take less than that to be 'equal'. Thing is, it's not absolute. Context matters. Something worth 1500 in one context might be worth a thousand in another and two thousand in another.simultaneously for all units in a game. Ergo the fundamental promise of 'points' that they are supposed to denote 'accurate value' is flawed snd they are a contributory factor to the imbalance in a system. Its not a case of finding a perfect ratio. Its a fundamentally unsollvable equation until they can self-mutate to account for context. Which they dont. Folks above talk about 'good enough' being 'every faction has a viable tournament build' whilst ignoring how much of the game is left behind. That's not 'good enough' for me.

catbarf wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Have we? Have we really 'seen it work'?

Again, Infinity exists and is doing quite well with a points-based system.

And yeah, I agree with Tyel. 'Good enough' is where two competent players can put together coherent (ie synergistic) lists and each have a decent shot at winning. If your choice of faction puts you on uneven footing from the start, or if your unit choices are based more on picking good units and avoiding bad ones rather than on complementing roles, you aren't there.

So if a game has two dominant builds, by your definition its 'good enough'? Or would you think more than 'two builds'. Which goes back to my question of how much of the game is allowed to be above the curve at thr expense of the rest.

I dont disagree on infinity - its a retty good game (great models), but there have been various times in the past where there were issues (not clued up on n4). I recall 'specialists' being overly valuable and link-teams/sectoral forces being a lower tier. Also note - more limited scale and scope which helps enormously. As a humorous adide, I've seen more than one player call infinity an 'unplayable mess', which I found hysterical at the time (it's perfectly playable!)

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Source: Trust me, bro

Grass is absolutely greener. If 40k were being released today without its IP backing, it would 100% be laughed at. No other game is bad about this, as much as you want to proclaim "no it totally is".

Aka played them for nigh on twenty years. So there's that. ^shrug^. Remember years of 'cryx and legion ruin the game. Epic haley is broken' in wmh for example. Whole game was solved down to a handful of go to builds.

So go and play those games then 'bro'. Hope you enjoy them too. Theres plrnty good ones. Just font bevsurprised when you are exposed to the same amount of problems.

And learn some reading comprehension. You have none.

The idea that points don't work is demonstrably false, both within 40k and other games.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The idea that points don't work is demonstrably false, both within 40k and other games.

If i may, if points work, the countless examples of problematic units are what, then?

If they 'work', in your words what are they meant to 'do'?

When you say the notion that they don't work is 'demonstrably false', how do you quantify that?

No gotchas, I promise. I want to understand your perspective and where you are coming from.

Deadnight wrote:
So if a game has two dominant builds, by your definition its 'good enough'? Or would you think more than 'two builds'. Which goes back to my question of how much of the game is allowed to be above the curve at thr expense of the rest.

I dont disagree on infinity - its a retty good game (great models), but there have been various times in the past where there were issues (not clued up on n4). I recall 'specialists' being overly valuable and link-teams/sectoral forces being a lower tier. Also note - more limited scale and scope which helps enormously. As a humorous adide, I've seen more than one player call infinity an 'unplayable mess', which I found hysterical at the time (it's perfectly playable!)

If a game has only two viable builds, I'd file that squarely under 'your unit choices are based more on picking good units and avoiding bad ones', to the degree that there is a single viable combination for each of two factions and that's it.

Yes, Infinity has had balance issues before. But that's only a condemnation of points if you're expecting 'perfect balance', something I only ever see brought up as a straw man. I don't expect points systems to be flawless, and I don't expect them to always work on release without tweaking, forever optimal no matter what gameplay changes or new units the designers introduce. There will be problems, there will be imbalances, but if you can tweak points to make the game more balanced than it was previously, then the points system is serving a valuable purpose.

Do you need a 40K-style points system to produce a balanced game? Of course not. But you need some form of constraint, and limited resources- points by any other name- are a pretty common one. They might be as abstract as a 2000pt limit, as generic as model count, or as specific and obfuscated as limited FOC slots, but functionally if you have a choice between multiple units and constraints that force you to only choose a subset, that's a points system.

Nou's pretty much just moving goalposts at this point and mistaking 'points are primarily a structuring mechanism' for 'points are worthless as a balance mechanism', which does not track with what I've seen from people who do this for a living.

 catbarf wrote:


If a game has only two viable builds, I'd file that squarely under 'your unit choices are based more on picking good units and avoiding bad ones', to the degree that there is a single viable combination for each of two factions and that's it.

For what it's worth I think we are pretty aligned on things - there's a lot of common ground.

 catbarf wrote:


Yes, Infinity has had balance issues before. But that's only a condemnation of points if you're expecting 'perfect balance', something I only ever see brought up as a straw man. I don't expect points systems to be flawless, and I don't expect them to always work on release without tweaking, forever optimal no matter what gameplay changes or new units the designers introduce. There will be problems, there will be imbalances, but if you can tweak points to make the game more balanced than it was previously, then the points system is serving a valuable purpose.
.

I don't see it as a condemnation of points only in terms of 'perfect balsnce', I see it as an acknowledgement of the limitations of the points as a mechanism for balance, especially a the main 'load bearing pillar' of a game.

Points are useful but to me they're the least useful lever to pull and really only to fine tune other things. When I played wmh, it wasn't 'points' that made the game more balanced, it was other structural tools. In my experience tweaking a value will always have a knock-on effect so I'm wary of it as thr go-to solution that so many clsim.it to be.

 catbarf wrote:

Do you need a 40K-style points system to produce a balanced game? Of course not. But you need some form of constraint, and limited resources- points by any other name- are a pretty common one. They might be as abstract as a 2000pt limit, as generic as model count, or as specific and obfuscated as limited FOC slots, but functionally if you have a choice between multiple units and constraints that force you to only choose a subset, that's a points system.
.

Hehe not to nitpick but i think that's a bit cheeky to call game structural tools as 'points by another name'. Its poor use of language. Things like foc and unit caps are not 'points'. Theyre different things. I find building terminology like 'load bearing' lends itself to far better andr more apt descriptive here. It just feels like calling every tool 'points but another name' is like calling every meet 'beef' because you can eat it and claiming the win.

That said, agreed that structural constraints in game-design/building are very useful. Foc, unit limitations, secondary costs *like infinity's swc', character limits (in wmh) across multiple lists etc.

 catbarf wrote:

Nou's pretty much just moving goalposts at this point and mistaking 'points are primarily a structuring mechanism' for 'points are worthless as a balance mechanism', which does not track with what I've seen from people who do this for a living.

I have a lot of time for nou. He has some very good ideas and a good handle on game design. I think his biggest issue is English isn't his first language combined with overly technical terminology. He's not wrong in what he says though

Let us take why points are for balancing games from the top. You want to create a game with four different game sizes to make the game accessible. You want people to select which of their miniatures they bring to battles. You know that people will gravitate towards the options that win more battles, which means taking the best possible pistol on every guy. You don't want people to be punished for building their miniatures wrong so you need some way to reward players for not picking the pistol with the best rules. Points costs for units and options is the easiest way to achieve this. It's that simple, this is why designers add points costs to their games. When games don't do this like AoS they become a mess. Now you can listen to the person who advocates for AoS1 method of game design and babbles about base 12 for no reason or the one with a modicum of sense and experience playtesting 40k fandexes. You cannot milk AoS1 endlessly, because rules can only get so ridiculous and people won't enjoy a broken game, once you have 12 pts worth of the most points-efficient thing in the game you're done, but in a imperfectly balanced game people have a reason to expand their collection to counter a shifting local meta and to surprise their opponents with new lists. You're not going to surprise 12 Wraithknights with 12 Wraithlords, you're going to get stomped by 12 Wraithknights with 12 Wraithlords. Anyone who has any experience testing a game knows that people are going to obsess over balance, only someone living in a fantasy world where we all use base 12 would believe you can avoid competitive human nature for everyone playing a game.

@Deadnight Not believing in points is like not believing in math. Very rarely will additional units provide zero or negative value, pawns in Chess have negative value at the highest levels of play I think, but in a game where you can move all your pieces before your opponent gets to move any of theirs your "pawns" won't block your other pieces much. At the very least you should be able to realise that a queen is more valuable than a rook or a bishop and if the price of a "queen" becomes too high and the player has to downgrade to a "rook" their list will become less powerful and less powerful lists will win less. List A and list B having respective values of 1400 and 1600 despite both being 1500 points is not an inherent limitation of points, it's just a temporary flaw in the numbers. Just like one relic being worth 40 pts while another is worth 10 pts but both taking up a single relic slot is not an inherent flaw in the relic system, but rather a temporary flaw in the balance of the rules for the two relics. If every faction has a 45-55% WR then that's good enough. If a faction has a 70% win rate into a given match-up that's a problem. If any option is an auto-include or a never include then that's a problem, with auto-includes being the bigger problem. Anti-tank lists winning against tank lists is a goal, not a failure. The game should encourage varied lists and thereby reduce the number of games which are too much like rock-paper-scissors ending before deployment to less than 10% of games, games where one list is favoured in a 2-1 ratio or less are perfectly fine.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The idea that points don't work is demonstrably false, both within 40k and other games.

I think points work in general. If you were to strip away the mission set in 40K right now and do just slap fights the disparities would be a lot more apparent and the unit selection wildly different. So in that sense the points and the missions work together to achieve a sort of rough balance. Terrain placement and rules are in there somewhere, too.

Look at all the free upgrades that didn't have an outsized impact.

Points are not the sole mechanism for balance, even in 40k.

But they are the finest (in terms of granularity, not quality).

For example, the Rule of 3 (2 for planes) is a balancing and structure mechanism that isn't points related. But the only way to adjust a unit in such a system is let it be 4 (3 for planes) or 2 (1 for planes).

If a unit is 10% better than it ought to be, removing the ability to take an entire other unit is a bit big. So there has to be a finer, more sensitive way to make adjustments.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Look at all the free upgrades that didn't have an outsized impact.

Upgrades shouldn't be free either. Anything that makes you better should have an associated cost.

But I doubt 10th will have many upgrade points, as "Simpler, not simple!" will be GW's new excuse to abdicate their responsibilities in game design. Just having set points per unit is "simpler", after all, than all that messing about with paying points for upgrades.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Look at all the free upgrades that didn't have an outsized impact.

Upgrades shouldn't be free either. Anything that makes you better should have an associated cost.

I don't disagree in general, but the choices may be slightly illusory depending on other aspects of the game.

 vict0988 wrote:


@Deadnight Not believing in points is like not believing in math.
.

I believe in math just fine. I just do not believe that a single value in terms in 'game currency' can accurately account for its 'real worth', especially since 'context' has such a massive impact on this. And using this as a building block just means your are building in a massive amount of imbalance into the very foundations of your game.

 vict0988 wrote:


List A and list B having respective values of 1400 and 1600 despite both being 1500 points is not an inherent limitation of points, it's just a temporary flaw in the numbers.
.

Its the exact same thing mate. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Althat 'temporary flaw' is multiplied axross every combination of units and list variation in the game ergo its a a systemic limitation.

You're treating points like a zealot regards the divine.

Deadnight wrote:
Points are useful but to me they're the least useful lever to pull and really only to fine tune other things. When I played wmh, it wasn't 'points' that made the game more balanced, it was other structural tools. In my experience tweaking a value will always have a knock-on effect so I'm wary of it as thr go-to solution that so many clsim.it to be.

Again, I don't really see people claim that points are the go-to solution for balance. People might disagree over the ideal form of other restrictions- eg FOC vs Detachments vs Ro3- but I don't see many people argue that they're unnecessary and points alone are sufficient. It's more that points are the balancing lever most suited to individual adjustment and with the fewest knock-on implications. If you have structural issues you need structural solutions, but if you have individual issues you need individual solutions, and points tweaks are an ideal light-touch lever for that.

Put another way, would a game like 40K be more balanced if it were just points, or if it were just FOC slots? I'm inclined to think the former, not because it's a fantastic balancing mechanism in and of itself, but because the act of assigning comparative value provides the most fundamental structure of the various structuring mechanisms in play. The points values form the core of balance, and then other structuring mechanisms are layered on top. Granted you could take 40K's historically poor balance as an indictment of this approach, but lots of other wargames make it work.

Deadnight wrote:
Hehe not to nitpick but i think that's a bit cheeky to call game structural tools as 'points by another name'. Its poor use of language. Things like foc and unit caps are not 'points'. Theyre different things. I find building terminology like 'load bearing' lends itself to far better andr more apt descriptive here. It just feels like calling every tool 'points but another name' is like calling every meet 'beef' because you can eat it and claiming the win.

Yeah, I'm being reductionist. But I'm doing that to argue against nou's assertion that points aren't used for balance at all and that other structuring mechanisms are- it's a false dichotomy between various systems that all amount to resource management. There's no fundamental difference that makes one type of limiting structure useful for balance and another type of limiting structure completely worthless for balance, they're just different tools with different functions.

So sure, I totally agree that 'well the FOC is technically a points system so you actually like points, take that!' is semantics for the sake of semantics, and I wasn't going for a gotcha with that. It's more that arguing that points are worthless for balance but other limited-resource structuring elements are useful is really just special pleading. Nou's basically taking the well-accepted principle that points are not a be-all and end-all balance mechanism and twisting it into an extreme and not particularly widespread interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should also point out that the observation that points cannot accurately assess 'absolute value' in all situations is not a points-specific issue, it's a problem for any balancing mechanism that involves resource (point, slot, command point, whatever) limitations set in a vacuum. The increasingly common way to work around it is to allow those decisions to be made with some information known about context. It's subtly changing the use of points, because it's an explicit invitation to optimize your force to get the most value for a given resource limit.

Taking Chain of Command as an example, your platoon choice determines how many support assets you'll have available- functionally an abstracted points system. But you don't choose those assets until you know your opponent and the scenario, giving you the opportunity to pick the ones best-suited to the mission. The costs of those support assets can thus be set based on the assumption that they will be used under optimal conditions, and that is much more conducive to balancing than trying to work out what an anti-tank gun is worth if the enemy doesn't have any tanks.

 catbarf wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should also point out that the observation that points cannot accurately assess 'absolute value' in all situations is not a points-specific issue, it's a problem for any balancing mechanism that involves resource (point, slot, command point, whatever) limitations set in a vacuum. The increasingly common way to work around it is to allow those decisions to be made with some information known about context. It's subtly changing the use of points, because it's an explicit invitation to optimize your force to get the most value for a given resource limit.

Taking Chain of Command as an example, your platoon choice determines how many support assets you'll have available- functionally an abstracted points system. But you don't choose those assets until you know your opponent and the scenario, giving you the opportunity to pick the ones best-suited to the mission. The costs of those support assets can thus be set based on the assumption that they will be used under optimal conditions, and that is much more conducive to balancing than trying to work out what an anti-tank gun is worth if the enemy doesn't have any tanks.

I think at this point you're just typing our my thoughts in different words. I can't disagree with you here. Fwiw I've actually pointed out games like chain of command and wnm that 'build' their games differently - I'm.quite familiar with them. It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if this is a thing we are going to see more and more of within ttgs and if 'points' will be an archaic approach in ten years time.