Fan-made points

[Evil Eye]

I'm firmly of the opinion fanmade supplements/reworks are a great idea. You see it all the time with video games and modding communities for them, and making homebrew rules for a tabletop game is MUCH easier than modding a closed-source computer game. And as with mods, the real bonus is that if you don't like the mod/homebrew, you don't have to use it.

 

That being said, I don't think trying to make a definitive "this will fix the game and make it perfectly balanced" fix would really work in all honesty, because as mentioned above the opinions on how to go about doing that are incredibly myopic (my own being it's a fool's errand, and that making the game more fun at the narrative level would be a much more worthwhile endeavour) and also trying to make a "definitive" balance mod would rather go against the point of homebrew- that they're optional supplements (and also could risk the "patch" becoming gospel to a vocal minority of players, and as a result of trickle-down meta-madness/"The Netlist Effect", if you DON'T want to play with the patch you find yourself unable to get a game).

 

Myself, if I had the time, effort, resources and skill I'd be tempted to make a series of unofficial supplements intended to make the game more fun and interesting, with additional optional rules, and new units (and also expanded options for existing ones) intended to allow more creative modelling options. Kinda like an unofficial Imperial Armour series- you could call it "Chapter Unapproved" or something similar. This would include reworked points costs but it wouldn't be the main focus of the project.

[OldWherewolf]

I think there's 2 distinct areas, and trying to do them both is a fool's errand (but could be fun):

• Army rules
• Points cost

The current faction imbalance could mostly be fixed by just points cost adjustment.  Even if it's not perfect it could say bring DE more in line.  

 

Other armies (like AM) do have more issues, but they're still mostly playing the game.  Guard output is ~50% of where it needs to be.  That really needs to be fixed by a rules adjustment, but could at least be compensated somewhat by dropping points, even if it is across the board.  A LRBT will never be competitive at 160 points when it has the durability and output of units 60% of its points cost.  But at least dropping the points would bring the army a little above pointless.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

@BrainPsyk - I agree with you to an extent, I think the problem though is that creating an objective sample is easier than done.

 

1) Terrain - I've played on tables with sparse terrain, and I've played on tables with a ton of terrain. This can have a pretty dramatic effect on what's good, and it just isn't something I expect to be uniform.

 

2) Sample Size - You need to get a fairly large number of players in order to get enough games to draw a lot of conclusions from. That's a tricky balancing point. I play 2d fighters and I was reading an article about a player that imported the matchup results from over 3.3 million games to make a win rate table. He only had access to the PC data but you're never going to come close to a sample size like that with 40k. 

 

3) Player skill - There really isn't a great way to measure this, and I do think that it can have a huge effect. Going back to the 2d fighter analogy the game ranks you in matched play so there is a least an approximation for how skilled the player. If you start a project like and you have a couple of really skilled players in small fraction, they might skew the data.

 

I'm only hard on GW for the current point changes because they're charging so much for them. I can understand the challenges they face, but I just think in general fan fixes should focus on your playgroup because you're going to have a strong understanding of it.

 

So I'm just a fan of 

[LemanPuss]

Crazy suggestion, people are so partisan getting agreement would be impossible. It's not as if the community has a central consensus that GW is ignoring.

[OldWherewolf]

@BrainPsyk - I agree with you to an extent, I think the problem though is that creating an objective sample is easier than done.

 

1) Terrain - I've played on tables with sparse terrain, and I've played on tables with a ton of terrain. This can have a pretty dramatic effect on what's good, and it just isn't something I expect to be uniform.

 

2) Sample Size - You need to get a fairly large number of players in order to get enough games to draw a lot of conclusions from. That's a tricky balancing point. I play 2d fighters and I was reading an article about a player that imported the matchup results from over 3.3 million games to make a win rate table. He only had access to the PC data but you're never going to come close to a sample size like that with 40k. 

 

3) Player skill - There really isn't a great way to measure this, and I do think that it can have a huge effect. Going back to the 2d fighter analogy the game ranks you in matched play so there is a least an approximation for how skilled the player. If you start a project like and you have a couple of really skilled players in small fraction, they might skew the data.

 

I'm only hard on GW for the current point changes because they're charging so much for them. I can understand the challenges they face, but I just think in general fan fixes should focus on your playgroup because you're going to have a strong understanding of it.

 

So I'm just a fan of 

I agree that's it's impossible to be 100% objective, but even 80% would be better than what we have now, as GW has *zero* objectivity as they only compare within a codex and not across codexes like they need to.

 

The funny thing is, you don't need a sample size of 3.3M, that's actual win rates.  To guess at what would happen over 1000 games you need ~280 games.  But to make a decision, you only need 9 data points (a person who lives in statistics where I work told me that, where he got it from I don't know, but holy damn it works).  So if we can get 9 games across multiple players, that's enough to get us close.

 

The harder part is determining the middle of the pack 'balanced' units.  The game is supposed to be balanced around 20-point intercessors, but that breaks down when you get to T6/T8 models because they're not just 16/32% improvements over T4.  A S8 weapon doesn't matter if it does 2 damage, 20 or 200000 damage against an Intercessor.  So you have to find those units along the curve at T6/T8 to give you those reference points.

[Orange Knight]

The community has too much emotional investment, bias and preconception to ever be trusted with awarding points fairly.

 

There are also examples of factions that are disliked, such as the Tau or the Ultramarines, and that would see them punished.

I've simply noticed the trends in the community over many years, and that give me no faith or trust in such a course of action.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Orange Knight

[tychobi]

Fan made balance fixes were the norm for tournaments of GW games until ITC was absorbed? Eaten? Purchased? dunno.  We balanced Fantasy in all sorts of ways (mostly restrictions on "cheesy" units).  If GW can't get it right for long enough some enterprising soul will do a grand tournament with their own twist that gets rave reviews and propagates imitators. It would be nice if GW would magically change their spots and become better at internal balance but I am not going to hold my breath.  Fan balance may return sooner than I thought!  Fan made balance rules? Do it.  Do it well, often, and in public! 

[Orange Knight]

Fan-made missions can work. They can balance the game, and are not directly related to a specific faction.

 

The mission design in 9th is directly inspired by the fan mission rules that became popular during 7th edition.

 

I personally think this was a mistake, and prefer the older GW mission rules that required less admin and book keeping on a turn by turn basis.

I felt that just before 9th, they really found a good set of missions that generally worked, but then abandoned them for the Nova/ITC system.

[Scribe]

The community has too much emotional investment, bias and preconception to ever be trusted with awarding points fairly.

 

You know whats fair?

 

Math.

 

Its honestly not this impossible task.

[Scribe]

All you have to do, is set baselines, and assign values. Now obviously there would be (a lot of) work involved, and I certainly dont currently care enough to do said work for free, but conceptually, is it really so difficult?

 

1. Set a baseline, whatever the current stock Primaris is with whatever they call a Bolter these days.

2. Break that model down, and determine its core components, based on the Stat line, and dice averages in play.

3. Assign values to those Stats, as well as the Weapon stats.

4. Those values = Model Cost.

 

Use those stats, to determine average damage, average durability, and so on.

 

I seem to remember when we could compare a normal Marine, to a Chaos Marine? Break down the costs, and we found that And Know no Fear was free?

 

Well once you set a baseline, you then figure out how much is a W, how does it relate to W in relation to T? How about Sv?

 

Yeah, I get it, it would take some math, but you know what the real problem would be?

 

People dont actually want balanced. They want everyone else to be balanced, while they hold onto something undercosted. :D

[Orange Knight]

You can't assign points based on simple math as some abilities are hard to quantify.

 

Take Morven Vahl's aura that makes a unit re-roll all hits and wounds. The value of that ability is totally dependent on the unit it's applied to.

 

There are countless examples like this across the game.

[Wulf Vengis]

That ability can broken down into its base points (or at least semblance of then). The price on that ability wouldn't be effected by the target so much as the range of aura and type of rerolls granted.

[Orange Knight]

But that's not actually fair, because the ability is tied to interactions between multiple units.

 

It's value is different based on the unit it interacts with.

[Wulf Vengis]

No. That's not how game development works. Furthermore thats not how it would work in d&d or any video game or even any card game (barring magic with its pay X per target).

The ability targets a unit, any interaction beyond that is already accounted for via how many points the rerolls are worth.

The rerolls would be worth a set amount like 10pts for attack rerolls and 15pts for wound rerolls, Plus additional 10pts for "target unit" and any other things it does are factored in as well.

It would total out to a base cost. That would be how many points that ability is.

 

(But this ALL comes back to what i said before about current 40k trying to be too many different types of game all at once.)

Edited January 26, 2022 by Wulf Vengis

[Orange Knight]

But I disagree because of the above statement that it's a case of "simple math."

 

It is not.

 

The issue is much bigger than my example if you think about it;

Take the Black Templars and their various Rites of Battle. They can select a 5+ invul and an additional defensive bonus that completely eliminated the wounding advantage of weapons above Str 8.

 

This defensive bonus has a huge value. Against the right opponent (take Imperial Fists for example) it doesn't even have the downside of losing cover perks.

 

If you want to assign a simple mathematical cost to unit abilities and stats, then you have to increase the cost of all Black Templar units when they select this Rite of War. And here is the second issue: They can chose a different ability at the start of each game, so now the army will have to be size variable based on the ability chosen as the cost has to be adjusted.

 

Simple math, right?

 

Compare a Black Templar Intercessor vs an Ultramarine.

 

The Ultramarines has a bonus to leadership and can leave combat and shoot at a penalty. The second ability might never come into play, in fact some armies will NEVER engage your army in combat.

 

A Black Termplar Intercessor can re-roll charges, has a save against mortal wounds, has a 5+ Invul and can't be wounded on a 2+

 

Their costs should be vastly different, and this is not linked to any wargear.

 

I'm not going to defend Games Workshop and claim they are doing a fine job with points, as they clearly are not.

I'm also going to vehemently disagree with the premise that the points of all units can be worked out with simple maths, and I also don't trust the community to do it due to existing bias and preconceptions that are often out of tune with reality.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Orange Knight

[Wulf Vengis]

But that's just it each of those abilities is worth X points in and of themselves. That cost is added to the overall point cost of the army when you build it. Like buying 5th edition space wolves sagas except they benefit the whole army for a turn or whatever it is you're trying to describe.

5+ save = 5 point boost

Immunity to str 8weapons/2+wounds = 50 point boost

Reroll charges 15 points

That's a 70 point boost to your army. Build your armylist leave 70 points open if you want THAT Rite of Battle.

 

Give me another. I can do this all day.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Wulf Vengis

[Orange Knight]

I disagree with that also. A 5+ invul is worth more an Eradicator than it's worth on a Scout, for example.

 

It's math.

[Wulf Vengis]

No. It's not. A 5++ is a 5++. If it had a set point cost to begin with we wouldn't be arguing about it because we would have a base for how many points it is. How many points is a 5++ piece of Wargear these days?

[Orange Knight]

But that's factually incorrect.

 

A unit that is harder to wound and remove invited a certain type of weapon to be used against it.

A 5+ invul has a big impact against low fire, high damage weapons.

 

Those aren't the weapons one uses against a horde of low toughness infantry, for example.

 

If you want to reduce 40k to mathematics only, then certain abilities and perks have to cost different amounts based on what they are applied to.

[Slave to Darkness]

I dont think community points would work, fanbase is too big and what part of the 'community' do we work with? Tourny types or beer and pretzels dudes? and who makes the points? B&C users only? Or do we reach out to Dakka Dakka, Discord, FB groups and other areas of the fanbase? Do we hold a vote to see what changes? Because a lot of people will argue for their factions to get cheaper whilst ones they dont like go up, and its pointless tweaking points when the rules need kicking into shape as well. 

Imho fan fixing only worked for Necromunda back in the day because it was a dead game and the player base was virtually dead with it, (if you looked here, yaktribe or Ammobunker it was usually the same people keeping the game going) the 'community' as a whole was a lot smaller and had a vague idea of what they wanted, and what they wanted was the best for the game, the 40k player base cant seem to agree on anything. 

 

Also, if we did have fanfixed points, where will we use them? Official tournys and GW stores wont touch them, so local indy stores, clubs or your bedroom. Then you may as well just homebrew with your mates. Whilst the idea looks good on paper I dont think it would work in reality. 

[Wulf Vengis]

I understand that (continuing our example above) a 5++ is going to cause different results based on who you're giving it to but that's one of the things you have to accept when making a "balanced" game. It gets a set point cost to make it as fair and balanced as possible regardless of what it's applied to.

If a wizard casts mage armor in d&d on a target it doesn't count as a higher spell if the wizard is targeting a character with an already high armor class. It's as balanced and fair as it can get BECAUSE it's a 1st level spell.

 

@Slave: Think smaller than community. Please yourself and your immediate gaming buddies and the rest of the community doesn't matter.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Wulf Vengis

[Orange Knight]

But this topic is about doing a better job of point allocation than GW. Saying that an effect has a standardised cost across everything is doing a bad job.

 

Even Games Workshop themselves price some wargear differently depending on what is taking it because they recognise that the effect has a different value based on the platform. EG: A Thunderhammer on a character costs more that it does on a generic model.

 

This game is massive, faction variety and unit selection is huge. If chess can't be balanced perfectly, 40k won't be a simple matter of basic math.

[Wulf Vengis]

But this topic is about doing a better job of point allocation than GW. Saying that an effect has a standardised cost across everything is doing a bad job.

Yes this topic is which is exactly WHY these things needs points added to them. Cuz GW (like a game of who's line) didn't think points mattered. How can you say attributing a points score to an ability to bring it into balance with the rest of the game is "doing a bad job"? Go ahead and spout something else I'll wait.

 

Even Games Workshop themselves price some wargear differently depending on what is taking it because they recognise that the effect has a different value based on the platform. EG: A Thunderhammer on a character costs more that it does on a generic model.

Yes they do; and this method of points variance ultimately leads to where we are now. It's why the Astartes were brought into line via the primary codex and supplement method.

The thunder hammer being different based on whether it's on a single model HQ or a unit is terribly unbalanced. My reasoning: a single model HQ can cause X hits, Y wounds and Z saves; a UNIT with thunder hammers causes A hits, B wounds and C saves. These two number are generally disproportionate and I'll give you one guess as to which attacking thunder hammer wielders will generally see better basic results. (Spoiler: it aint the single model HQ my friend; if anything the HQ thunder hammer should be the cheaper one.) The law of averages alone is going to almost guarantee that the unit making a larger number of attacks will land more hits and thus score more wounds.

Bringing us back to using the same price for a "semblance" of balance. As balanced as it can get at least.

 

This game is massive, faction variety and unit selection is huge. If chess can't be balanced perfectly, 40k won't be a simple matter of basic math.

Chess is balanced. Period. The only DEBATABLE imbalance that MIGHT exist in chess is the first turn advantage (which i just don't agree with because if I'm going second i can gain quite a bit data on my opponent based on their opening move).

However i absolutely agree that 40k won't be a matter of simple math. There's going to be plenty of cases of "good enough", where something is brought as close to balance as possible.

 

It strikes me as interesting Orange Knight that as the person who brought up all that negativity talk a little while ago you sure don't have ANYthing positive to say about anyone else's attempts/ideas about balance or the current state of the game. You yourself say it's imbalanced but would rather argue, rather rabidly (or vehemently, one of those) that it is impossible to balance or correct, even when every example you've come up with I've given a bit more balance than it had before by putting a point total to it.

 

I'm not saying it would be easy and by the time I finished every faction 10th or possibly even 12th will be out. But it's doable with an absolutely miniscule amount of effort (as i demonstrated earlier). Something GW honestly doesn't care about because $SALES$.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Wulf Vengis

[Orange Knight]

It strikes me as interesting Orange Knight that as the person who brought up all that negativity talk a little while ago you sure don't have ANYthing positive to say about anyone else's attempts/ideas about balance or the current state of the game. You yourself say it's imbalanced but would rather argue, rather rabidly (or vehemently, one of those) that it is impossible to balance or correct, even when every example you've come up with I've given a bit more balance than it had before by putting a point total to it.

 

I think you have entirely missed the point of the topic I made.

 

It's perfectly acceptable for people to disagree. I certainly disagree with a lot of viewpoints in this topic, and am presenting my reason for doing so in a clear and concise manner, whilst adding constructive discourse to the subject.

 

I have been involved in this hobby for a long, long time. I have experience in every edition, and have seen the game in dire straights at various points over the years.

The community has achieved great success in the past with bespoke missions and various unit restrictions. Adjusting the points is an entirely different, and altogether more difficult issue to tackle.

 

Also, you can't dismiss my point about chess, because the fact is that the game is NOT perfectly balanced (although it is nearly perfect, admittedly, as far as strategy games go). Going back to the subject of points, the hardest hurdle to overcome on this issue would actually be community acceptance. There is no popular organisers today (like FLG back during 7th) that are going to push for a recognised and unified amendment to the game. They are all affiliated with Games Workshop, and they offer advice directly to them.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Orange Knight

[OldWherewolf]

I think both sides right now are about halfway there...

 

Abilities like a 5++ can't be a fixed points cost (like 5pts), because it's very different depending on if it's applied to a 1W model or a 20W model.  A Thunder Hammer on a single Vanguard Vet (WS 3+) should cost less than a single TH on a Captain with a WS2+.  Simply put, in both this cases the value in regards to output & durability is quite different. 

 

For example, a HB on a TC (BS3) and LRBT (BS4) is around 15 points.  The mean damage is 1.3, so 1.3*20 (the cost of an intercessor)/2W = 13.  So I'd say a HB on a TC is fairly costed.  Now if you take 2 of them (in sponsons), then the cost should be 25, as 13*2 = 26.

 

Compare that to a normal LRBT with BS4.  The mean damage is 1, so 1*20/2 = 10, so a HB on a normal LRBT should be 10 (rather than it's current 15), and 2 sponsons should be 20.

 

Now you have 2 units, same weapons with different points cost because their output is different.

 

Here's where the balance in the game fails.  An squad of Incubi can do 14.9W (mean) to intercessors, which is almost 300 points of damage per combat phase.  But that squad of incubi only costs 90 points.

 

Now, we have to calculate durability differently, as 9th is a very lethal game.  A 5++ on an intercessor is dependent on what weapon is used against them.  A 5+++ is easier since it's really just a 33% increase in wounds. 

 

 

Gotta run (work calling), so I'll continue this thought later