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.

 catbarf wrote:
I would say that that's a sign that those armies ought to have more varied options and capabilities if they're to be their own standalone armies, rather than an argument against sideboard mechanics.

At the same time, even if your 2000pt army is just a 1500pt army with more repetition, the ability to choose exactly which 1500pts of it you field would still allow more flexibility. Nurgle Daemons might not have a lot of options, but at least if you know the mission will require you to be fast, you can take more Plague Drones and fewer Beasts of Nurgle.

Oh i totally agree i'd rather just get more units in these armies for sure.

But i honestly think sideboarding is the "nuke button" solution. There just HAS to be a way to design the missions in a way that spamming one specific unit isnt gonna let you win.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think a sideboard mechanic would be cool-but some armies would need adjustments for sure.

Marines, Tau, IG, all those can probably get by on equipment swaps.
But other forces, like Necrons, Daemons (especially if mono-god), and such cannot vary nearly as hard.

That's why I figure if 40K ever adopts a sideboard mechanic, it'll just be about bringing a list and then choosing a subset from it for the battle.

Swapping out wargear options is too granular (most players don't have spares for each squad) and would affect armies totally differently. But you could see that the mission requires defending an objective, and so elect to leave your Wraiths and max out on Immortals instead.

sideboard as a concept only really works on a few armies.

How would a sideboard work for Harlequins/Custodes/Demons/etc. These armies have such anemic options that you're pretty much always bringing most options anyway

Harlequins can go anti-monster in one sideboard and anti-vehicle in another (assuming you get to choose army X with sideboard A or army X with sideboard B which would require +500 or +1000 pts to bring along to game night/tournament day but still possible at 2000 pts and lots of people don't want 2000 pts anyway. The stats on the anti-monsters pistols are just pitiful at the moment.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I would say that that's a sign that those armies ought to have more varied options and capabilities if they're to be their own standalone armies, rather than an argument against sideboard mechanics.

At the same time, even if your 2000pt army is just a 1500pt army with more repetition, the ability to choose exactly which 1500pts of it you field would still allow more flexibility. Nurgle Daemons might not have a lot of options, but at least if you know the mission will require you to be fast, you can take more Plague Drones and fewer Beasts of Nurgle.

Oh i totally agree i'd rather just get more units in these armies for sure.

But i honestly think sideboarding is the "nuke button" solution. There just HAS to be a way to design the missions in a way that spamming one specific unit isnt gonna let you win.

Nova-style mission packs already achieved, which is why tournament lists used today aren't all just one thing. Having Ro3 helps as well.

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Changing things requires balancing" is the incredibly astute assertion you're making here. To which I'll respond with "Duh."

Except that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you refuse to speak about what changes could be made to combat other kinds of skew besides vehicles/monstrous creatures and how these changes can be applied to armies that don't have generalists as their basic troop choices. It's reasonable to ask how you would approach these issues across the entire game when your only examples thus far have been krak grenades being used to give extra punch against armor.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I would say that that's a sign that those armies ought to have more varied options and capabilities if they're to be their own standalone armies, rather than an argument against sideboard mechanics.

At the same time, even if your 2000pt army is just a 1500pt army with more repetition, the ability to choose exactly which 1500pts of it you field would still allow more flexibility. Nurgle Daemons might not have a lot of options, but at least if you know the mission will require you to be fast, you can take more Plague Drones and fewer Beasts of Nurgle.

Oh i totally agree i'd rather just get more units in these armies for sure.

But i honestly think sideboarding is the "nuke button" solution. There just HAS to be a way to design the missions in a way that spamming one specific unit isnt gonna let you win.

We're already there. Full-on skew lists haven't dominated since Knights + Guard was a thing in 8th, the issue is casual players don't like being told, "This game you're going to have to hunker down, movement block, and probably not remove many enemy models." when their non-TAC list runs into skew at their LGS. No level of balance will fix that without completely homogenizing the game in a way that I'd suspect an even greater number of players would take issue with.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

We're already there. Full-on skew lists haven't dominated since Knights + Guard was a thing in 8th, the issue is casual players don't like being told, "This game you're going to have to hunker down, movement block, and probably not remove many enemy models." when their non-TAC list runs into skew at their LGS. No level of balance will fix that without completely homogenizing the game in a way that I'd suspect an even greater number of players would take issue with.

true, thanks for pointing out how the base argument is basically non existent. Never gonna fix people complaining

 Canadian 5th wrote:

We're already there. Full-on skew lists haven't dominated since Knights + Guard was a thing in 8th, the issue is casual players don't like being told, "This game you're going to have to hunker down, movement block, and probably not remove many enemy models." when their non-TAC list runs into skew at their LGS. No level of balance will fix that without completely homogenizing the game in a way that I'd suspect an even greater number of players would take issue with.

That is true if you look at the armies from who is best at the moment perspective. If you go inside the codex, a ton of books have one skew build and that is it. GK for 2 editions are spaming NDKs and interceptors, and if either or both are bad, then GK are really bad, and not secret outside of a meta list emarges to replace them.

Right now if someone has a IG list, and the opponent plays one of the non pre DW nerf DA or IH marine armies, then the marine player is not going to win. Period it doesn't even matter what the marine player is doing, because in order to not have a high IG players win the IG players has to both play bad and have a bad list at the same time. In the past there were armies, like ad mecha, where the actual mechanics of running the game were so hard for normal players, that there was an actual skew between the same lists being played by a very good player and a regular player. But those are far less common. What is the more common expiriance in w40k, is that person A has a top army and person B has not, and person B will lose those proverbial 9 out of 10 games, which in reality often means that they will not win any games, if they build their army the wrong way.

If GW doesn't deliver your faction or codex a well build and powerful 2000pts, but instead releases a "cool" codex of random stuff things do not go well.

Spamming one unit is (usually) not a skew list. If at least a third of your list has a significantly different profile you're not playing skew. Since Interceptors and NDKs are very different there is no issue with those being popular assuming they're not OP. The problem with GK balance would be any unviable units, like Devastators or whatever they're called, I don't think they've been good since 6th.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Changing things requires balancing" is the incredibly astute assertion you're making here. To which I'll respond with "Duh."

Except that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you refuse to speak about what changes could be made to combat other kinds of skew besides vehicles/monstrous creatures and how these changes can be applied to armies that don't have generalists as their basic troop choices. It's reasonable to ask how you would approach these issues across the entire game when your only examples thus far have been krak grenades being used to give extra punch against armor.

I don't speak to it because it's beside the main point. The main point is that rewarding play mechanics can be introduced into the game that reduce the potential for skew. But hey, if you're willing to concede that point then maybe I'll post some other ideas. But if your goal is to simply be nitpicky in order to sidestep the primary point then I won't bother posting, because it would simply be a waste of time.

But also, Krak grenades in CC wasn't my only example, so there's already another idea if you look for it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

We're already there. Full-on skew lists haven't dominated since Knights + Guard was a thing in 8th, the issue is casual players don't like being told, "This game you're going to have to hunker down, movement block, and probably not remove many enemy models." when their non-TAC list runs into skew at their LGS. No level of balance will fix that without completely homogenizing the game in a way that I'd suspect an even greater number of players would take issue with.

true, thanks for pointing out how the base argument is basically non existent. Never gonna fix people complaining

Mmm, no. That's a misunderstanding of the concept.

The idea here isn't driven by win rates, so skew lists not "dominating" doesn't play in to it. As noted, one can simply play to the mission and grab objectives while the forces themselves might be unable to defeat the skew-list in battle. The point is that being unable to hurt your opponents units is unfun. The most notorious example might be Knights after their introduction in 6th and 7th, where there were just whole categories of units that couldn't engage with them in any meaningful way. Even through 8th and 9th, the ability of most Infantry troops with to deal with Knights is pretty low, and just spending a game just trying to hold bodies on objectives without being able to counter an opposing army can be a pretty lousy experience. The idea is to provide more options for counterplay against skew that actually feel good.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The point is that being unable to hurt your opponents units is unfun.

losing models is unfun
getting overwatched by tau is unfun
getting one's overwatch denied is unfun
getting mortal'd is unfun
getting charged turn 1 is unfun
playing against tough enemies is unfun
playing against glass cannon is unfun
...


if we start making these sorts of changes, because some people might find them unfun, the game is gonna implode. Skew isnt a problem and hasnt been for a while.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The point is that being unable to hurt your opponents units is unfun.

losing models is unfun
getting overwatched by tau is unfun
getting one's overwatch denied is unfun
getting mortal'd is unfun
getting charged turn 1 is unfun
playing against tough enemies is unfun
playing against glass cannon is unfun
...


if we start making these sorts of changes, because some people might find them unfun, the game is gonna implode. Skew isnt a problem and hasnt been for a while.

Uhh, was that a serious post?

Can some "unfun" be mitigated in ways that don't harm the overall experience of the game? The answer is "yes" for literally anyone who's ever made a rules suggestion or called out a issue they see with GWs game design. You're basically arguing that no changes can be made to the game.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Uhh, was that a serious post?

Can some "unfun" be mitigated in ways that don't harm the overall experience of the game? The answer is "yes" for literally anyone who's ever made a rules suggestion or called out a issue they see with GWs game design. You're basically arguing that no changes can be made to the game.

no i'm saying that as it stands, skew isnt a problem so why do we feel the need to change something to "fix" it existing. These lists already lose more than they win, these lists have weaknesses and counters.

There are much changes that are much more pressing than fighting the "skew" boogieman

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Uhh, was that a serious post?

Can some "unfun" be mitigated in ways that don't harm the overall experience of the game? The answer is "yes" for literally anyone who's ever made a rules suggestion or called out a issue they see with GWs game design. You're basically arguing that no changes can be made to the game.

no i'm saying that as it stands, skew isnt a problem so why do we feel the need to change something to "fix" it existing. These lists already lose more than they win, these lists have weaknesses and counters.

There are much changes that are much more pressing than fighting the "skew" boogieman

Because more than one potential issue can be addressed at any given time. And sometimes addressing what looks to be a "side" issue can actually help solve larger issues. . . like this whole "gameplay answers to skew" tangent actually sprung from a topic about points or solutions to the lack thereof. Is it related? Yes it is, although you might not think so on the surface.

How much skew is it in a 500 point game to bring a Knight? I think we only just recently had a thread about this. Is there a way to make a Knight in a 500 point game less of a skew issue? Well maybe there is! Does that help solve a larger problem? It could!

 Insectum7 wrote:
The idea here isn't driven by win rates, so skew lists not "dominating" doesn't play in to it. As noted, one can simply play to the mission and grab objectives while the forces themselves might be unable to defeat the skew-list in battle. The point is that being unable to hurt your opponents units is unfun. The most notorious example might be Knights after their introduction in 6th and 7th, where there were just whole categories of units that couldn't engage with them in any meaningful way. Even through 8th and 9th, the ability of most Infantry troops with to deal with Knights is pretty low, and just spending a game just trying to hold bodies on objectives without being able to counter an opposing army can be a pretty lousy experience. The idea is to provide more options for counterplay against skew that actually feel good.

Why should one player who brought a legal list be punished because another player brought a list that lacks the tools to deal with an entire category of targets? The answer is to build lists that have some answers to any problem and to play to your outs in matchups where you don't have enough answers to the number of targets the enemy bought.

Beyond that, what about the skew player's fun? Presumably, they bring their skew list that doesn't win many games because they like the idea of their very tough force feeling appropriately tough in a game where, at least for the past two editions, that has been hard to achieve. Your changes take away that player's fun and hand it to a player that both doesn't want to change their list, doesn't care that skew isn't good, and doesn't care that they can still win against skew. Why is this category of player worth pleasing over other kinds of player?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Is there a way to make a Knight in a 500 point game less of a skew issue? Well maybe there is! Does that help solve a larger problem? It could!

Then do the work and get back to us. Until you prove that your hypothesis is valid I'll keep having the same issues with it.

Show us how you can build options that are mechanically balanced, flavorful, and effective against not just armor skew but every kind of skew in the game and I'll be impressed. Until then, you're just blowing wind in a completely worthless fashion because you won't take steps to actually see your desire realized.

TLDR; Put up or shut up.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Oh i totally agree i'd rather just get more units in these armies for sure.

But i honestly think sideboarding is the "nuke button" solution. There just HAS to be a way to design the missions in a way that spamming one specific unit isnt gonna let you win.

Why? What if the factions indentity is linked to "spaming" one type of unit. A DeatWing force, a harlequin army etc why should people wanting to play those established and existing armies be punished for not wanting to play a highlander format. Which isn't any more balanced what we have now. Because one army will have 3 units doing kind of the same thing efficiently , in a highlander format, and another one will not.

And to all people thinking a sideboard is a good idea. Well imagine you are a teen trying to get 2000pts and then you are told you need between 300 to 1000pts of extra models, just to play the core game, because you have to sideboard your army, based on the opponents you will find at the store and what list they play on a given day.

W40k is already starting to become a 30+ hobby club , it doesn't require even more barriers to the entry of the game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The idea here isn't driven by win rates, so skew lists not "dominating" doesn't play in to it. As noted, one can simply play to the mission and grab objectives while the forces themselves might be unable to defeat the skew-list in battle. The point is that being unable to hurt your opponents units is unfun. The most notorious example might be Knights after their introduction in 6th and 7th, where there were just whole categories of units that couldn't engage with them in any meaningful way. Even through 8th and 9th, the ability of most Infantry troops with to deal with Knights is pretty low, and just spending a game just trying to hold bodies on objectives without being able to counter an opposing army can be a pretty lousy experience. The idea is to provide more options for counterplay against skew that actually feel good.

Why should one player who brought a legal list be punished because another player brought a list that lacks the tools to deal with an entire category of targets? The answer is to build lists that have some answers to any problem . . .

Exactly! So provide more answers to the common skew problems. . . by providing alternative methods of engaging.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Beyond that, what about the skew player's fun? Presumably, they bring their skew list that doesn't win many games because they like the idea of their very tough force feeling appropriately tough in a game where, at least for the past two editions, that has been hard to achieve. Your changes take away that player's fun and hand it to a player that both doesn't want to change their list, doesn't care that skew isn't good, and doesn't care that they can still win against skew. Why is this category of player worth pleasing over other kinds of player?

It's a concern. . . but is it really fun to have an opponent hide from you the entire game before rushing forward to an objective to take the win in the end? Or do you want a situation that promotes more interaction? I think the latter.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Is there a way to make a Knight in a 500 point game less of a skew issue? Well maybe there is! Does that help solve a larger problem? It could!

Then do the work and get back to us. Until you prove that your hypothesis is valid I'll keep having the same issues with it.

Show us how you can build options that are mechanically balanced, flavorful, and effective against not just armor skew but every kind of skew in the game and I'll be impressed. Until then, you're just blowing wind in a completely worthless fashion because you won't take steps to actually see your desire realized.

TLDR; Put up or shut up.

Show me that you're reading comprehension is capable and I might. Go back and find the non-CC Grenade solution I've already posted. But since you've left a trail of disingenuous argument in the thread I'm not particularly inclined, and I think the more reasonable readers can see the merit in the idea for themselves.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Exactly! So provide more answers to the common skew problems. . . by providing alternative methods of engaging.

Or just build a decent list... I don't complain when I lose a commander game because I index more into my own combo than I did counterspells, so don't complain when the list you build without x capability can't do x.

It's a concern. . . but is it really fun to have an opponent hide from you the entire game before rushing forward to an objective to take the win in the end? Or do you want a situation that promotes more interaction? I think the latter.

Given the current rules that's not what happens because you score each turn. You're always having to push up and control space as it is.

Show me that you're reading comprehension is capable and I might. Go back and find the non-CC Grenade solution I've already posted. But since you've left a trail of disingenuous argument in the thread I'm not particularly inclined, and I think the more reasonable readers can see the merit in the idea for themselves.

One extra solution means nothing, you'd need to show your work for most factions/faction groups and against more than one kind of skew for it to show anything at all. Look at what I did when I made a suggestion for changing 40k scoring, I went and wrote out a simple version of the rules I'm proposing along with some thoughts on how it might be modified for even greater variety. Now you try making some actual rules to go with your suggestion.

"Or just build a decent list" It ought to be self evident that if more units have more solutions to deal with more problems, that there could be a greater array of viable lists, and that on-table decisions would matter more.


I'll take the request for mechanics as your admission that the right design can work, and leave it at that.

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Or just build a decent list" It ought to be self evident that if more units have more solutions to deal with more problems, that there could be a greater array of viable lists, and that on-table decisions would matter more.


I'll take the request for mechanics as your admission that the right design can work, and leave it at that.

Except that you seem to want every list to have tools for anti-armor and anti-horde work by default. That either removes choices in list building because you don't need specialized tools to deal with those forces and thus only take the most points efficient generalist forces possible or does nothing because they aren't effective enough and only serve as a trap for new players to fall into by promising that their forces can deal with anything. Even worse different armies might fall on different sides of this line making people feel even worse about their army choice or breaking a top dog even further away from the pack.

EDIT: Also, my issue isn't with the idea that we should have greater agency past the list-building stage it's with the idea that your method actually works in a way that does the job without creating worse issues down stream.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Or just build a decent list" It ought to be self evident that if more units have more solutions to deal with more problems, that there could be a greater array of viable lists, and that on-table decisions would matter more.


I'll take the request for mechanics as your admission that the right design can work, and leave it at that.

Except that you seem to want every list to have tools for anti-armor and anti-horde work by default.

Where did I say "every"?

When I say "more" do you just hear "every"?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Or just build a decent list" It ought to be self evident that if more units have more solutions to deal with more problems, that there could be a greater array of viable lists, and that on-table decisions would matter more.


I'll take the request for mechanics as your admission that the right design can work, and leave it at that.

Except that you seem to want every list to have tools for anti-armor and anti-horde work by default. That either removes choices in list building because you don't need specialized tools to deal with those forces and thus only take the most points efficient generalist forces possible or does nothing because they aren't effective enough and only serve as a trap for new players to fall into by promising that their forces can deal with anything. Even worse different armies might fall on different sides of this line making people feel even worse about their army choice or breaking a top dog even further away from the pack.

EDIT: Also, my issue isn't with the idea that we should have greater agency past the list-building stage it's with the idea that your method actually works in a way that does the job without creating worse issues down stream.

Giving less-specialized units (or units that specialize in something else) tools to nick around with their non-ideal targets is not going to lead to a game ruled by generalists. That’s pure straw man.

Per the norm, this entire issue boils down to 40k having almost no interaction between forces other than to kill. Introducing any number of mechanics, such as suppression / pinning / forced movement / even target prioritization could go a long way towards solving this issues as well as many others. But that would require a game team that could design its way out of a wet paper bag, so we’re unlikely to ever see it.

Until then, giving weak weapons a fractional chance to chip the paint on larger models is an acceptable trade off.

Only if someone plays horde or has ultra efficient army units given by GW. If you play an elite army it is not the case. And the less optimised the elite army is the less fun it is to play.

Imperial knights are a good exmple of how fun it is when every good army can kill a big knight easily, and GW writes your codex with use of big knights in mind.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Where did I say "every"?

When I say "more" do you just hear "every"?

Well if you give basic Space Marine units frag and krak grenades that should mean that every army gets similar options on their basic troops. If every armies troops have options against every type of skew then very close to every list will have these options.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Giving less-specialized units (or units that specialize in something else) tools to nick around with their non-ideal targets is not going to lead to a game ruled by generalists.

Every unit can already wound every other unit on 6s so we'd need something more than that and at that point, given how even the meltagun has been nerfed for 10th edition, that basically means giving every basic unit proper anti-tank options.

]quote]Per the norm, this entire issue boils down to 40k having almost no interaction between forces other than to kill. Introducing any number of mechanics, such as suppression / pinning / forced movement / even target prioritization could go a long way towards solving this issues as well as many others. But that would require a game team that could design its way out of a wet paper bag, so we’re unlikely to ever see it.

Karol wrote:
Imperial knights are a good exmple of how fun it is when every good army can kill a big knight easily, and GW writes your codex with use of big knights in mind.

And this is where I come back to the idea of pushing the game design beyond its limits.

Maybe, just maybe, GW didn't need to try to cram macro-level warmachines and airpower into a what started out as a platoon-scale game of infantry battles with a handful of vehicles thrown in for support.

This is like doing a game of the D-Day landing in Squad Leader with rules for not just for naval support fire, but for having actual battleships enter the map area.

Core game design decisions matter.

Commisar ain't wrong. Knights as a singular army is pretty bad to design around

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Commisar ain't wrong. Knights as a singular army is pretty bad to design around

But it's also very 40K even if it's bad for a game overall.

The concept of small engagements feels pretty rare. Usually it's this wider conflict and we would be zoomed in on it.

You could even make narrative rules for Titans that just walk through and accidentally or purposefully stomp your gak.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Commisar ain't wrong. Knights as a singular army is pretty bad to design around

But it's also very 40K even if it's bad for a game overall.

The concept of small engagements feels pretty rare. Usually it's this wider conflict and we would be zoomed in on it.

You could even make narrative rules for Titans that just walk through and accidentally or purposefully stomp your gak.

GW doesn't seem willing to follow through with that 'a small part of a larger battle' concept, though. You'd think that when your general discovers that his personal retinue is facing a cluster of Knights, they might requisition some additional anti-armor support. Or maybe a tactical lance strike. Or replacements for units that have been destroyed. All things that could be leveraged in rules to offset bad matchups.

The structure of only having available what you brought with you is very 'skirmish' in its design, as is the Crusade system where that fixed list is actually your whole army, not a subset of a larger force. There's some massive incongruity between that vision of what the battle represents and the mechanical implementation.

They did a light version of that with strats to represent some flexibility. Most marine armies had a form of orbital strike, however weak it was.

It would be cool if they made crusade more accessible under this system and threw in a sideboard system ( not for competitive though ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They did a light version of that with strats to represent some flexibility. Most marine armies had a form of orbital strike, however weak it was.

Only through a Chapter Master (though you really weren't limited on how of those you could take).

It had good stats, but you needed to be on a bike or a Centurion squad if you wanted to use it on the move.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The concept of small engagements feels pretty rare. Usually it's this wider conflict and we would be zoomed in on it.

While there is often a larger engagement, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the vicinity of the table. The game was founded on the "Battle at the Farm", where the wider war shapes the situation of the battle, but the main theatre itself is far, far away. The situation is often a spur of the moment incident that's forced into being.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Where did I say "every"?
When I say "more" do you just hear "every"?

Well if you give basic Space Marine units frag and krak grenades that should mean that every army gets similar options on their basic troops. If every armies troops have options against every type of skew then very close to every list will have these options.

This is a great example of the lack of reading comprehension I was alluding to. More=/= every.

But also the idea that this somehow removes choices in list building is quite the leap. You should bottle and sell the lubrication you use for your slippery slope. You could make bank!

There is a balance concept from another game I have seen that was interesting,

the game is WW2 air combat, there are no point values, and indeed no limits on how many aircraft you may bring

the balance mechanic is that your victory conditions are determined by the size of your force.

e.g. for the RAF player in the Battle Of Britain scenario their victory level is set by the size of their force - IIRC its something like you need to shoot down one enemy aircraft for every two aircraft you bring.

the balance mechanic is simple, if you bring too many your opponent may not have brought enough for you to be able to be victorious - even a clean sweep of the enemy is not enough.

IIRC the Luftwaffe have a similar condition but also have bombers, they need to get a number of bombers through related to the number of escorts they bring

that game has some balance mechanics built in, in that scenario for example what the RAF can bring is limited.

the goal is essentially "bring what you feel you need to win, but don't bring too much more than that", while having the chance to bring a smaller force and make your opponents job harder

another game, Battle Rider I think, provides for you to have a fixed force pool, then both sides draw a mission (and keep it secret), the mission says how much of your force you can bring, but it also provides three levels of victory.

the first is if your force is less than half the size of the enemy force, the third is is your force is more than twice the size of the enemy, the second is between these to

the trick is you don't know the enemy mission, you also don't know exactly how many points they have brought.

its perfectly possible for both sides to "win"

e.g. a scouting mission allows a smaller force, if significantly outnumbered your win condition is "observe the enemy for two turns then leave with at least half your force operational"

 catbarf wrote:
GW doesn't seem willing to follow through with that 'a small part of a larger battle' concept, though. You'd think that when your general discovers that his personal retinue is facing a cluster of Knights, they might requisition some additional anti-armor support. Or maybe a tactical lance strike. Or replacements for units that have been destroyed. All things that could be leveraged in rules to offset bad matchups.

The structure of only having available what you brought with you is very 'skirmish' in its design, as is the Crusade system where that fixed list is actually your whole army, not a subset of a larger force. There's some massive incongruity between that vision of what the battle represents and the mechanical implementation.

The original sense of 40k was a key focal point in a larger battle, i.e. Pegasus Bridge on D-Day. Small units of troops whose success or failure are at the hinge point of history.

One of the weird aspects of 40k is that it has no inherent narrative structure. Dabbling in other systems, there was always a sense that the battle's factions were fixed, so the notion of just a platoon of dudes who has no idea who in the universe is over the next hills is just strange. That being said, when factions were few, it was possible to have an "all-comers" list against who you were fighting, and lots of people in my area did that.

No one thought it was cheaty or min-maxing, it just made for better game play because both sides had more focused lists.

Ideally, you could come up with a point system that was simple enough to do this on the fly, but there again GW wants to count each an every individual model's point cost, making list-building into its own skill. That's not the fault of the points, though.