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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Eilif wrote:


I do think that there is always going to be some difference in opinion between those who are fine with simplicity in their army lists and those who want RPG style flavor.

This guy gets it.

I'm not so sure. That might be a tremendous overgeneralization.

There is a vast gulf between 2nd ed or RT era design, and just how simplified OPR is. Arguably 3rd-era 40k is right in the middle between the two, where army lists are still simple, but there's still a ton of flavor to go around, because interesting tactival interactions still are made possible with increased resolution in the core rules. I'd even say that era offered detail if you wanted it, but you could also get by without it.

I wasn't agreeing with any edition/system comparison. I'm agreeing with Eilif's point that some people are always going to prefer games that favour tactical/positional/wargame playstyles where balance is considered absolutely critical and other people who prefer large rambling sandboxes full of roleplay style opportunities, and are prepared to accept that some of these opportunities have the potential to impact balance.

I liked 2nd ed., but any role-playing elements, I pretty much had to invent. Third had a hint of narrative- especially the Hunter dexes, which included enemies and missions, and also allowed for allies. There wasn't a lot of thought put into progression, or extended campaign systems and the game didn't scale. Fourth and Fifth are where you start to see serious thought put into RPG elements- progression, escalation, campaign structures, etc. This is also the genesis of Kill Team and Apocalypse.

I classify 9th (and specifically Crusade) as the peak system for folks who lean toward RPG's. Wargames actually tend to bore me- they can be fun, and I can appreciate them... but they don't compel me to play them as campaigns- they are occasional distractions from expansive RPG and RPG-hybrid campaigns.

But that's merely my opinion... Which is the point. Which edition is your favourite is going to depend at least some degree upon your game-type preferences. That is the point I was referring to when I said Eilif gets it.

I don't equate progression systems with RPG elements, and instead think of a game being easier to roleplay in if it is more immersive.

9th had a great progression system (Crusade) but was not immersive, and 10th is even worse.

I care a lot less that my Company Commander has the Medal of Personal Inconvenience and the Sword of Archmurdering +1 if my tanks can't blow smoke because my Guardsmen spent all the CP passing their morale checks.

Equipment never should have been changed to strats. That much is certain.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Eilif wrote:


I do think that there is always going to be some difference in opinion between those who are fine with simplicity in their army lists and those who want RPG style flavor.

This guy gets it.

I'm not so sure. That might be a tremendous overgeneralization.

There is a vast gulf between 2nd ed or RT era design, and just how simplified OPR is. Arguably 3rd-era 40k is right in the middle between the two, where army lists are still simple, but there's still a ton of flavor to go around, because interesting tactival interactions still are made possible with increased resolution in the core rules. I'd even say that era offered detail if you wanted it, but you could also get by without it.

I wasn't agreeing with any edition/system comparison. I'm agreeing with Eilif's point that some people are always going to prefer games that favour tactical/positional/wargame playstyles where balance is considered absolutely critical and other people who prefer large rambling sandboxes full of roleplay style opportunities, and are prepared to accept that some of these opportunities have the potential to impact balance.

I liked 2nd ed., but any role-playing elements, I pretty much had to invent. Third had a hint of narrative- especially the Hunter dexes, which included enemies and missions, and also allowed for allies. There wasn't a lot of thought put into progression, or extended campaign systems and the game didn't scale. Fourth and Fifth are where you start to see serious thought put into RPG elements- progression, escalation, campaign structures, etc. This is also the genesis of Kill Team and Apocalypse.

I classify 9th (and specifically Crusade) as the peak system for folks who lean toward RPG's. Wargames actually tend to bore me- they can be fun, and I can appreciate them... but they don't compel me to play them as campaigns- they are occasional distractions from expansive RPG and RPG-hybrid campaigns.

But that's merely my opinion... Which is the point. Which edition is your favourite is going to depend at least some degree upon your game-type preferences. That is the point I was referring to when I said Eilif gets it.

I mean, obviously personal preferences are going to colour which edition/s an individual favors. But I don't think the proposed extremes "simplicity" vs. "flavor" are necessarily so opposed to each other.

Eilif's statement also appears to be more about list construction too, in particular. This is why I mention the 3rd ed era (3-5). The basic rules incorporated a number of abstractions for the sake of gameplay, representing a huge cleanup from 2nd ed, but it also grew to be one of the most pro-listbuilding-creativity eras (which is what I would consider to be more RPGish). I'd also say that it seems to me that whenever a poll comes up about it, the 3-5 era is pretty popular too, and I'd wager that a part of that is its clean foundation, with the allowance for expressive (RPGish) detail in both the codexes and the core rules. I believe you can reasonably satisfy both crowds and get a great game out of it.

I'd also second the above post regarding how RPG =/= progression mechanics. I'd say character/unit design and on-table narrative detail would be more RPGish.

Also, hey if campaign books and a progression system are what you need to make it an RPG that satisfies you, that's not really a core-design point anyways as long as the system has enough "give" to handle any progression. It sounds like just an add-on.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They worked on a small scale, which is why Necromunda was so good.

Imo 90s necromunda was the best incarnation of 40k that gw has done.

Deadnight wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They worked on a small scale, which is why Necromunda was so good.

Imo 90s necromunda was the best incarnation of 40k that gw has done.

Hear Hear,

Necro is peak 40k for me

I also dont like to place "progression" as a core element for RPG-like gaming. As a kid playing my first D&D games in the early nineties, I always thought the whole XP grind and leveling up were goofy mechanics. To me, the essence of RPGing comes from the continuity of the story, and immersing into the character / world building, not from some abstraction of becoming a superhero. In a way, this kind of "XP grinding for levels" thing reminds me of some perverted version of the American Dream, ie building up a "success story" where you build some sort of internal empire.. This sort of ideas would have been quite alien to most people living in medieval times, unless they were born to Royal families.. or is it another angle into the whole "juvenile power fantasy" thing?

One very vital aspect to RPGs in my opinion is a "creative sandbox" dimension, meaning that things are never 100% set in stone, improvisation and unexpected new things can happen any time.. And I lament the shrinking down of modern 40K's sandbox that is slowly happening on several levels simultaneously. RT could be considered to be 100% "Open Play" 40K compared to modern times, and now, "Open Play" is becoming a swear word

Yup, it's also a pet peeve of mine when people call games RPGs just because they have XPs, stats and levels. You can have a perfectly good RPG with no rules or numbers at all but you can't have it without emergent, player-driven narrative where characters' traits of, well, character (and these are determined by roleplaying not rules) dictate their decisions and choices.

So, no, Darkest Dungeon or X-Com aren't RPGs just like Duolingo isn't.

Cyel wrote:
Yup, it's also a pet peeve of mine when people call games RPGs just because they have XPs, stats and levels. You can have a perfectly good RPG with no rules or numbers at all but you can't have it without emergent, player-driven narrative where characters' traits of, well, character (and these are determined by roleplaying not rules) dictate their decisions and choices.

So, no, Darkest Dungeon or X-Com aren't RPGs just like Duolingo isn't.

Sounds like you'd like 'Fate' or 'Spirit of the Century'.

Dnd is fine for what it is but its a hack and slash dungeon crawler/looter more than anything else.

Personally I dislike micromanaging the minutaue all the time and an excessive focus on 'the numbers' at the expense of 'the story'.

Agree with the comments on RPGs in general whether pen&paper or computer based. To me, the 'playing a role' is a central aspect of 'role playing games' and a huge conponent of that is about taking a strong character through an immersive story with a strong narrative component. Far more important than 'levelling up' imo. Whilst i love games like cyberpunk 2077 and witcher 3 for having fantastic story elements, I found, funnily enough, that 'life is strange' has far stronger 'role playing' elements in terms of the game's story and mechanics. And there's no levelling up in sight.

Coming back to 10th for a second, I just realized today that my local group's discord is absolutely flooded with people trying to unload their Leviathans. Especially the rules part.

 Insectum7 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Eilif wrote:


I do think that there is always going to be some difference in opinion between those who are fine with simplicity in their army lists and those who want RPG style flavor.

This guy gets it.

I'm not so sure. That might be a tremendous overgeneralization.

There is a vast gulf between 2nd ed or RT era design, and just how simplified OPR is. Arguably 3rd-era 40k is right in the middle between the two, where army lists are still simple, but there's still a ton of flavor to go around, because interesting tactival interactions still are made possible with increased resolution in the core rules. I'd even say that era offered detail if you wanted it, but you could also get by without it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I agree that OPR doesn't quite have the crunch I'm looking for. But modern 40k doesn't either

"Peak 40k" being 3rd - 5th is understandable, but I'd have to include 2nd, even though it's on a totally different set of rules. Core factions were solidified, tournaments were played, and the WD battle reports were just perfection.

I find 2nd ed mechanically fascinating. I've only read the rules and have never played it, its hard for me to say it was a *good* game per se, but the designers came up with some pretty fun mechanics.

It's greatest strength was flavor. It was otherwise both great and incredibly clunky. Very gritty and tactile, and sorta hard to explain. The detail meant that you often couldn't help but tell a great story. I do recommend trying it if you can.

I'd say that 2.x OPR is actually far more tactical than most editions of 40k outside of 2e with just how nitty gritty 2e gets, as while OPR lacks for vehicle rules it gets extremely complex when it comes to movement due to alternating activation, and most importantly the morale phase is potentially devastating compared to 40k where half the time it just doesn't matter at all. Melee is also a lot more effective than in 40k because of morale, as a broken unit is completely wiped out and routed from the field in one fell swoop. The addition of suppression is also a welcome one that does much to improve the game, although I found need to house rule just how it works otherwise nobody can do anything as they end up buried under a mountain of suppression markers.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't equate progression systems with RPG elements, and instead think of a game being easier to roleplay in if it is more immersive.

I know that. I think I also asked you once to name an RPG that doesn't have one. I don't think you could.

When every instance of a thing shares a common characteristic, that characteristic is a definitional part of the thing in question, regardless of what YOU believe.

You can believe that nursing their young isn't a definitional characteristic of being a mammal if you want to- maybe you really like spines, and think that being vertebrate is the only characteristic that is relevant to being a mamal. You'd be wrong, but you can believe it.

PenitentJake wrote:

I know that. I think I also asked you once to name an RPG that doesn't have one. I don't think you could.

Traveller. One of the oldest.

MongooseMatt wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

I know that. I think I also asked you once to name an RPG that doesn't have one. I don't think you could.

Traveller. One of the oldest.

Classic 1977 Traveller might not have had a progression system, but the versions published for GURPS and the D20 open GL certainly did, since progression is native to those systems. We looked into traveller during the early 80's- I think we saw an article in a gaming magazine. I designed a ship, but we never played.

The Wikki, which references all of the versions of the game, includes this quote "Characters are defined not by the need to increase native skill and ability but by achievements, discoveries, wealth, and so on."

So I guess that does mean classic traveller didn't have a progression system. I don't know how anyone enjoys playing a character that can't grow, but you found a game where it's possible. Congratulations!

Are there others? (at this point, it's genuine curiousity- I've played a lot of RPGs in my time, but evidently not all of them).

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't equate progression systems with RPG elements, and instead think of a game being easier to roleplay in if it is more immersive.

I know that. I think I also asked you once to name an RPG that doesn't have one. I don't think you could.

When every instance of a thing shares a common characteristic, that characteristic is a definitional part of the thing in question, regardless of what YOU believe.

You can believe that nursing their young isn't a definitional characteristic of being a mammal if you want to- maybe you really like spines, and think that being vertebrate is the only characteristic that is relevant to being a mamal. You'd be wrong, but you can believe it.

Yes but the point of debate isn't whether or not an RPG *has* level-up/XP mechanics. 4th edition has a leveling/XP campaign system in the BRB just as prominently as Crusade.

It's that improving/adding a progression system doesn't make an RPG better. If you took DnD's levelling system and added it to the Great People in Civilization VI (allowing them to choose feats, etc.) you may have improved the progression system for characters in Civ6 but you haven't made Civ6 an RPG.

Immersion and the coherency of the world around the characters is *more* important. Arguably, the *most* important. Heck, you can roleplay in real life and I am not sure I ever have wondered how much XP I got for successfully completing the WWII reenactment.

Yeah, progression was absent in every LARP I have ever played and I have played in quite a few.

Also plenty of purely narrative RPGs, with no rules and no progression systems.

PenitentJake wrote:

Are there others?

Paranoia.

We can keep going on, but I don't think the issue is that these games do not exist.

PenitentJake wrote:


So I guess that does mean classic traveller didn't have a progression system. I don't know how anyone enjoys playing a character that can't grow, but you found a game where it's possible. Congratulations!

Good people, good story. Nachos.

PenitentJake wrote:


Are there others? (at this point, it's genuine curiousity- I've played a lot of RPGs in my time, but evidently not all of them).

'Fate' and 'Spirit of the Century' don't really have progression systems either.

I may have mislead folks when I used the term "RPG".

I've typically used it to refer to the idea that folks want wargame profiles to reflect the character of their units so much that the profiles have "RPG-like" levels of flavor via long statlines and special rules. I was NOT referring to mechanics for character and unit progression and campaigns.

In my opinion (many will disagree) wargaming (especially above the platoon vs platoon level) benefits from simplified rules encouraging larger games to move more quickly. The units should reflect the fluff/background/art somewhat, but not at the expense of weighing down the game. It seems GW has constantly battled between the desires of those who want a faster more cinematic game and those who want their units to reflect the fluff in increasing levels of detail. My observation is that though there has been vacillation and some editions have begun leaning somewhat toward simplicity, GW has always eventually given in to those who want more rules more strategems, and more complexity. This is good for a company that sells wargaming books, but not so good for the player. Knowing this is also a major factor in why I resisted jumping back in with Editions 8 and 10. They both seemed like a return to simplicity at first, but both moved (or are now moving) the other way.
 

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


"Peak 40k" being 3rd - 5th is understandable, but I'd have to include 2nd, even though it's on a totally different set of rules. Core factions were solidified, tournaments were played, and the WD battle reports were just perfection.

I find 2nd ed mechanically fascinating. I've only read the rules and have never played it, its hard for me to say it was a *good* game per se, but the designers came up with some pretty fun mechanics.

H.B.M.C. wrote:They worked on a small scale, which is why Necromunda was so good.

This is very much what I feel about 2nd edition. I find it way too much crunch (especially with specialized units and psykers) for battles of platoon and above. However, the same set of mechanics works fantastically in Necromunda.

This should not be surprising as 2nd edition was an outgrowth of Rogue Trader which itself began as a rather small skirmish game that gradually ballooned to Platoon level without a corresponding simplification that one would expect when taking a squad skirmish game and expanding it to the Platoon level. I don't have a source, but I recall hearing that it was largely the desire of players to have larger battles.

What I'm trying to say is that Necromunda is the size/scope of game that the RT/2ndEd mechanics were designed for and it plays well because of it. I jumped ship from Newcrowmunda after I saw the rules doing what GW usually does. However, despite it's rather dated mechanics, I'm always up for a game of classic Necromunda. It's a game that drips flavor, has a fun campaign system, works very well mechanically and doesn't bog down.

IIRC GW has said in retrospect that people who played long enough ended up with "too big armies for the game" so the scope of the rules had to be increased. I dont even know if that was a problem in and of itself, if 3rd - 5th edition period is looked back as being in the goldilocks zone for the game.. so were consolidating vehicles into having toughness values and the introduction of stratagems steps too far? Or the reduction of wargear options? Or did the inclusion of Knights and superheavies mess up everything, so that the originally skirmish scoped poor core ruleset cannot handle the massively inflated scope?

Would 40K be better off redesigned from the ground up like KT21 did? It ditched all of the established stat foundations in favour of new ones.. Would such a redesign even be a feasible task for 40K, considering it has so many factions and units now?

 tauist wrote:
IIRC GW has said in retrospect that people who played long enough ended up with "too big armies for the game" so the scope of the rules had to be increased. I dont even know if that was a problem in and of itself, if 3rd - 5th edition period is looked back as being in the goldilocks zone for the game.. so were consolidating vehicles into having toughness values and the introduction of stratagems steps too far? Or the reduction of wargear options?

I don't think those things helped. 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size. Roughly company level: A few squads, a vehicle or two, maybe a walker, things like that. Basically the same size Bolt Action is now.

Wayniac wrote:
I don't think those things helped. 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size. Roughly company level: A few squads, a vehicle or two, maybe a walker, things like that. Basically the same size Bolt Action is now.

That's a platoon size, not a company.

A company has several squads and/or dozens of tanks.

A company if tanks in the real world is typically between 9 and 14 tanks, depending on the military in question. Most common is 9-10 vehicles.

A platoon is several squads, a company is several platoons (usually 200-300 personnel).

Bolt Action is built around the concept of a "reinforced platoon". IE a platoon minimum plus additional support. Most 1500 pt bolt action armies would really weigh in around 2-3 platoons worth of troops if they don't sink too many points into tanks and artillery, etc. Which would actually constitute a smallish company

 Eilif wrote:
I may have mislead folks when I used the term "RPG".

I've typically used it to refer to the idea that folks want wargame profiles to reflect the character of their units so much that the profiles have "RPG-like" levels of flavor via long statlines and special rules. I was NOT referring to mechanics for character and unit progression and campaigns.

Yeah that's sorta what I had read. "RPG" relating to character and options available to units, vs. "streamlined" reduction of options for the sake of balance and ease of maintenance.

And IMO 40k better serves its audience when it's a bit messier in terms of options and character. GW can't really balance it when it's a "cleaner" system anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size.

I tend to agree with this, but with the observation that 3rd-4th had a better focus around infantry, especially more basic infantry. 5th began to move the balance more in favor of Vehicles, MCs, and high-statted "power units", which was not good.

Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah that's sorta what I had read. "RPG" relating to character and options available to units, vs. "streamlined" reduction of options for the sake of balance and ease of maintenance.

And IMO 40k better serves its audience when it's a bit messier in terms of options and character. GW can't really balance it when it's a "cleaner" system anyways.

How 40k serves it's audience is an interesting discussion itself. GW do fans seem to clamor for options and character, but that comes at the expense of balance and gameplay.

I would argue that a cleaner system is the only way to balance gameplay and options and character tend to work against it.

Interestingly, Grimdark future has nearly as many weapon options as GW codices, it's just that there are vastly fewer stats and special rules to complicate them

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tauist wrote:IIRC GW has said in retrospect that people who played long enough ended up with "too big armies for the game" so the scope of the rules had to be increased. I dont even know if that was a problem in and of itself, if 3rd - 5th edition period is looked back as being in the goldilocks zone for the game.. so were consolidating vehicles into having toughness values and the introduction of stratagems steps too far? Or the reduction of wargear options? Or did the inclusion of Knights and super-heavies mess up everything, so that the originally skirmish scoped poor core ruleset cannot handle the massively inflated scope?

Would 40K be better off redesigned from the ground up like KT21 did? It ditched all of the established stat foundations in favour of new ones.. Would such a redesign even be a feasible task for 40K, considering it has so many factions and units now?

All those things you list contribute to a game being unwieldy. However, at least some them could have been introduced in an effective way if the rules were written in a way to accommodate a larger game. I do think such a thing can be done and certainly has by other companies but I don't know that GW fans would tolerate the less "characterful" play. .

Tyran wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I don't think those things helped. 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size. Roughly company level: A few squads, a vehicle or two, maybe a walker, things like that. Basically the same size Bolt Action is now.

That's a platoon size, not a company.

A company has several squads and/or dozens of tanks.

What "size" game you play is largely dependent on what army you play. An IG player can put a company on the table inside of 2000 points easy. A Space marine player can more likely field a reinforced platoon. Assuming as per the US army, 3-4 vehicles is a platoon and 20-50 soldiers is also a platoon, I do think that GW has generally surpassed a simple "platoon" sized game. Most players are going to field a couple platoons worth in a given game.

Wayniac wrote:

 tauist wrote:
IIRC GW has said in retrospect that people who played long enough ended up with "too big armies for the game" so the scope of the rules had to be increased. I dont even know if that was a problem in and of itself, if 3rd - 5th edition period is looked back as being in the goldilocks zone for the game.. so were consolidating vehicles into having toughness values and the introduction of stratagems steps too far? Or the reduction of wargear options?

I don't think those things helped. 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size. Roughly company level: A few squads, a vehicle or two, maybe a walker, things like that. Basically the same size Bolt Action is now.

Don't forget that "normal" was designed to be 1500 then as well, so there's a 500 point inflation in game size even if points were 1:1. But I agree that size felt better.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Equipment never should have been changed to strats. That much is certain.

100% this.

a unit could have a strategem to make them use grenades better, more effectively, representing command focus on the action, but should not need one simply to use the things.

like say any can use the strat as it is, 0CP, but its on a 6+, the strat makes it work as it does now.

ditto overwatch, go back to the unit reacting is the only being charged (only) but all can do it, make the strat the movement phase again reflecting command focus

 Eilif wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah that's sorta what I had read. "RPG" relating to character and options available to units, vs. "streamlined" reduction of options for the sake of balance and ease of maintenance.

And IMO 40k better serves its audience when it's a bit messier in terms of options and character. GW can't really balance it when it's a "cleaner" system anyways.

How 40k serves it's audience is an interesting discussion itself. GW do fans seem to clamor for options and character, but that comes at the expense of balance and gameplay.

I would argue that a cleaner system is the only way to balance gameplay and options and character tend to work against it.

Interestingly, Grimdark future has nearly as many weapon options as GW codices, it's just that there are vastly fewer stats and special rules to complicate them

I think a cleaner system is a system which makes measuring balance easier.

But I would argue that there's potential for a messier system to have it's own different form of balance, just in a less linear form. For all the messiness of 2nd edition, one of it's strengths was the wealth of available tactical options that came out of all those options. If you happened to find yourself grossly outnumbered by a huge swarm of Hormagaunts via a spam list, you also could have ways to fight it that just weren't so available in "cleaner" editions. Whole squads could jump in transports, ram through swarms of Gants and toss tons of Frag Grenades out the doors, while the vehicle rules made the Transports invulnerable to Homagaunt counterattacks. People often complained about cheesy Eldar Exarchs, and their amazing powers and equipment. . . but you could also set them on fire and watch them burn for a few rounds while attempting to put out the flames. Potential balance comes in different forms by way of having a wide variety of options to deal with different threats. There's a real merit to it, IMO.

Also, it seems like balance is currently measured primarily by faction winrate, which is an extremely shallow metric.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 tauist wrote:
IIRC GW has said in retrospect that people who played long enough ended up with "too big armies for the game" so the scope of the rules had to be increased. I dont even know if that was a problem in and of itself, if 3rd - 5th edition period is looked back as being in the goldilocks zone for the game.. so were consolidating vehicles into having toughness values and the introduction of stratagems steps too far? Or the reduction of wargear options?

I don't think those things helped. 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size. Roughly company level: A few squads, a vehicle or two, maybe a walker, things like that. Basically the same size Bolt Action is now.

Don't forget that "normal" was designed to be 1500 then as well, so there's a 500 point inflation in game size even if points were 1:1. But I agree that size felt better.

Minor point, but I recall tournament games at 1750 in 3rd, and 1850 in 4th . . . ? I think?

I mean, don't forget that in 4th edition, Imperial Guard literally fielded platoons as a single troops choice.

They were the most similar army to a historical layout at the time. I think it is reasonable therefore to say that if 4th edition 40k was a historical game, it would have been company scale.

The reason it worked so well for both RPG AND wargame play in my opinion is that it abstracted things reasonably - i.e. the lore tether.

Consider terrain: it is rigidly indefinable by definition at a company scale. In DnD you can differentiate between different levels of cover or darkness, but in 4e, you had Night Fighting and Area or not-area (i.e. scatter) terrain. Area terrain was heavily abstracted, but it worked well because the tether was there. A ruin is not an empty shell with windows - it is a pile of rubble, collapsed floors, and upended furniture. We know you can't play on that, so it isn't going to Look Just Like That, but it will look good and the RULES will interact in an RPGish "theater of the mind" sort of way.

Consider too Power Weapons: the main mechanism of damage is the armor-ignoring power field. The physical difference in shape and use between an axe and a sword is less important than the fact that it has a power field.

Those kind of abstractions actually HELP RPGers rather than hurt them, as the narrative is very clearly tied to the rules via an obvious tether. So if a power maul beats my power axe in combat, it wasn't because I was an idiot and took the axe like a fool. It was because the other guy had more attacks/higher weapon skill/good luck/whatever.

I miss platoons. They were such a cool thing. Removing them was a mistake.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also, it seems like balance is currently measured primarily by faction winrate, which is an extremely shallow metric.

It's all about them win rates, yo!

Your army getting a 50% win rate? Then it's perfectly balanced and we don't need to look at how or why it's achieving this rate, what units are being used or not used, or anything more detailed than that!