How to balance without points?

[Noserenda]

2 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

"Average cost" means the unit does not differentiate between wargear options, yeah? It does not only fall down with old units that can take a huge amount of different wargear. One example from many - Inceptors are the same Power Level whether they have bolters or plasma, despite one costing 50% more than the other when using Points.

 

 

Or just have two power levels in those rare cases? These are all easy fixes

[NovemberIX]

For the sake of a thought experiment: Units are organized by effectiveness into different groups, for this example, each group is named after a color. Their effectiveness is determined as points are, by wargear, stats and other intangibles. For example, lets take Vanguard vets, run them basic and they'd be in the same rough category as say Tac Squads, Assault Squads, scouts, et cetera. Upgrading them with certain weapons bumps them over to another color. Some units may be upgraded out of their category. Thus you and your opponent would agree to a specific amount and combination of colors before a game, which should roughly be about equivalent.

 

TLDR; A weird hybrid of FOC and PL that really would only work for casual games

[phandaal]

23 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Or just have two power levels in those rare cases? These are all easy fixes

 

Okay, but those cases are not rare, and that is not how the Power Level system works right now.

 

Maybe there is some confusion here. Someone made an assertion that people are hard to please and that is why they dislike the Power Level system. I am saying there are valid reasons for people to be unsatisfied with what is, to me, a simpler but less balanced system than Points.

 

If you want to argue over some other point I cannot help you there.

[Rogue]

I've always liked the way Space Hulk balances - both players play both sides, so the forces can be totally asymmetric and it doesn't matter.

 

If I can win as terminators and stealers, I'm clearly the winner. If we both win with terminators, we can call it a draw, or, if we're feeling the need to be competitive, decide who 'won better'. 

 

It's not necessarily something that would work for 40k, just due to time and scale if nothing else, and the far greater complexity of a tabletop battle over a square-based board game. But maybe you could do something along similar lines with combat patrol games.

 

Bring any five units you like, as tricked out as you want. But remember that you don't just have to beat whatever your opponent brings - you have to use that army to beat your own selections too...

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

Thanks for making this topic; since I was one of the people who brought this up on the other thread it's nice to have a spot dedicated to talking about it without totally derailing the wishlisting thread.

 

I have two initial thoughts which are:

 

1.  Balancing is only important if the goal is to have equal possible outcomes for a gaming session.  The reason I lean hard on the RPG aspect of wargaming is that rarely is "kill the other army completely" a scenario that I like to play out, and having narrative goals can really influence which army is at an advantage even if the army books are "balanced" correctly.  And if one side is tasked with heroically surviving against unknown/immense odds for a number or rounds as a last stand or waiting for reinforcements, or trying to get a macguffin off the table, or any other asymmetric scenario, suddenly it's easier to accept lack of "balance".  If the goal is to see how various narratives play out and you accept that you may be given the tougher job, it takes the pressure off of "winning" the scenario, because what matters is not winning but how you lose.  It's really about completely removing the need to get one over on the opponent in some clinical matched situation and embracing different sorts of role playing situations. 

 

A lot of this is already sort of part of the 40k experience with how many scenarios they pump out for people to try, but somehow people get too focused on whether those scenarios are fair or not, or people assume they should just play the "matched" stuff because it's going to have better outcomes for people.  Well, only if you care about winning as an outcome. 

 

Even in rulesets where things are "balanced", there are always hard counters to various play styles.  Even sub-factions that are hard counters.  Grey Knights?  Sisters of Silence?  These are dedicated demon/psyker killers.  How is that balanced?  Is it fun to play against if you're a demon or a psyker knowing you're facing an army that basically is designed to turn off your basic advantages?  It's perfectly fine if you accept that you've been given a difficult narrative challenge, and are facing a special arch-nemesis and are possibly needing to face your doom bravely.  Perhaps your loss will still engender some grander victory in a campaign. 

 

There's just too much to think about in terms of balancing, which is why points can be a distraction and derail more interesting possibilities of playing.

 

2.  Kill Team doesn't have points, but has lots of detailed interesting lists, especially once they started releasing factions beyond the compendium lists which are a little boring.  The other lists have so many types of specialists and while maybe some lists are better than others, at least within reason you can play a game of Kill Team and have an interesting textured experience with lots of cool abilities and wargear and faction abilities, and no points!  If individual models were simply slightly scaled differently to be squads and if the rules of movement and coherency were detailed I have no doubt that there could be a very interesting no-points but lots of variety game of 40k that would be possible. 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Inquisitor Eisenhorn

[Craig]

I think points is the best/only way to balance units and therefore balance the game. This falls down in the current game as there are so many overlapping rules on top of the pointed unit. You can have 2 units with the same datasheet and the same cost being better or worse because of army rules, faction rules, stratagems etc that have no cost being placed on top.

[gideon stargreave]

I've go to agree with @Inquisitor Eisenhorn here. Finding balance is only important in a certain type of game. Now, for whatever reason, people have latched onto that game as the default. I've always liked playing warhammer with people who also RPG. They are much more likely to come up with wierd encounters that drastically skew the balance. Like using teh last chancers against a lictor or something ot represent Predator, or playing 5 special character marines against a horde army to get a feel of the fluff. I see 40k as a situation simulator rather than a competetive game. Just play "what happens if we do this"

 

In terms of more easily balancing things if you want to play competetively, someone else mentioned removing the options, and I agree. Just give everyone their basic weapons and balance by max unit size or something

[Grim Crafter]

I think that the most effiecient balance in adding randomness to the game, the main issue imo of the current mmatched play format is how much of the game is decided before you even get to the table, secundaries are way to predictable, list crafting decides way too much of the outcome. With more randomness it has the effect of making the game happen on the table and where the players tactical experience and capability will shine. Also maybe an army building system more similar to AoS where certain units will become battleline according to whom is your warlord is more efficient than a keyword determining a detachment. Points are stil crutial but not the only way and the balance if it is to be across all the different playstyles has to be less competitive only focus. Competive play should be more amicable to casual and narrative players and vice versa.

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

14 hours ago, Grim Crafter said:

I think that the most effiecient balance in adding randomness to the game, the main issue imo of the current mmatched play format is how much of the game is decided before you even get to the table, secundaries are way to predictable, list crafting decides way too much of the outcome. With more randomness it has the effect of making the game happen on the table and where the players tactical experience and capability will shine. Also maybe an army building system more similar to AoS where certain units will become battleline according to whom is your warlord is more efficient than a keyword determining a detachment. Points are stil crutial but not the only way and the balance if it is to be across all the different playstyles has to be less competitive only focus. Competive play should be more amicable to casual and narrative players and vice versa.

 

The issue you’re describing is simply about balance. If they had the game balanced and didn’t have codex creep almost every new codex then it wouldn’t be such a big deal.

being a dice based game it’s already plenty random. The more random it is the less player decisions matter.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Closet Skeleton]

On 10/17/2022 at 11:19 AM, Captain Idaho said:

I don't think there is any way to balance a game like 40K without points. The game is too big and too varied. 

 

I imagine specific scenarios could have set forces that are balanced for the situation, but that's not practical for a game with so many factions and so many different choices.

There's no way to balance it with points either.

 

All 40k games have an initial 'balance' that favours one side or the other. If both players accept that the balance is between 55-70% in favour of one of the sides and judge the performance of the disadvantaged side appropriately then you can have actually enjoyable balanced games between mature people. If you know that one of the armies has a 90% chance of defeating the other then you change the scoring rules with a custom scenario that's about getting a relative victory by surviving as long as possible. That's actual hard core wargaming

 

On 10/17/2022 at 1:59 PM, Noserenda said:

Personally i like Power level, all it needs is something for units with lots of options to up the power level if you take a bunch of them.

Not really, since stuff like Tyranid Carnifexes which can get insane 'power level discounts' are always better spamming without the upgrades when you have the option.

 

Being forced to take upgrades and being banned from spamming budget versions can actually increase balance in power level games

On 10/17/2022 at 5:29 PM, Xenith said:

The people that would cause problems in a PL based system by giving everyone a thunder hammer for example, would also cause problems in a slot system...as they would pick the best option available to them in every instance, as opposed to say, picking the units they like the best, or what their unit is actually equipped with thematically in a PL system. 

 

Making thunder hammers better than powerfists for an extra third points bump on a single sergeant model isn't game balance. What it really means if they if you're at 101 power you have to drop a whole unit while if your army is 2004 points you just downgrade one of the sergeant's weapons.

 

An entire unit of Vanguard veterans with thunder hammers is specialised against high wound high T targets, its not all round superior to other load outs.

  

On 10/18/2022 at 4:05 PM, gideon stargreave said:

I've go to agree with @Inquisitor Eisenhorn here. Finding balance is only important in a certain type of game. Now, for whatever reason, people have latched onto that game as the default. I've always liked playing warhammer with people who also RPG. They are much more likely to come up with wierd encounters that drastically skew the balance. Like using teh last chancers against a lictor or something ot represent Predator, or playing 5 special character marines against a horde army to get a feel of the fluff. I see 40k as a situation simulator rather than a competetive game. Just play "what happens if we do this"

 

In terms of more easily balancing things if you want to play competetively, someone else mentioned removing the options, and I agree. Just give everyone their basic weapons and balance by max unit size or something

 

Its the default because its the most casual out of the box way to play the game while what you're taking about is the more traditional style that was assumed by the writers of First Ed/Rogue Trader, a game that was basically unplayable out of the box by hobby novices.

 

Tournament play has confused this even further since the competativeness implies that its a less casual form of play when its actually just 3-9 casual games linked up by a ladder system. Grand Tournaments through people off even more since they don't understand that adding more players to a tournament doesn't actually make it more competative, it just increases the percentage of casuals. A Grand tournament is really just a big convention of casual games with a side show at the top tables which is actually competative.

 

Hard core 40k is when you have not only custom written scenarios but custom built terrain key to your custom scenario, that's just too much work for most people's hobby.

[Schlitzaf]

For the record “All THammer’s” on units like VV is actually a really bad idea and anyone who does so in power level is a for lack of a better term “tryhard”. Sense -1 to Hit and AP 2 leaves alot to be desired into certain units/armies. Your better doing something like 4 Hammers, Relic Sword, 5 LClaws or PowSworf for example. And even in case of Sgt; Fists or Claws are better AP -3 and what you intend to fight and/or the additional attack. 
 

Which is why stuff like HBolter or GravCannon still > Lascannon in Crusade. 

[Slave to Darkness]

20 hours ago, Closet Skeleton said:

 

  

 

Rogue Trader, a game that was basically unplayable out of the box by hobby novices.

 

 

Thats because it didnt come in a box. 

 

 

[Warhead01]

My thoughts on the topic of balance are probably not what a lot of people would consider balanced. 

I really liked the AoS 1st edition method of simply deploying units from your collection. No list needed. There could be foc restrictions on that but just picking a unit and seeing what your opponent places next and so on would be how I would balance my no points games. A social contract between players would be necessary or missions where setting up an op army would balance out actual army disparity or a different than competitive matched play mode of play. But I would also ask for wysiwyg models as much as possible out of fairness. 
I mostly like the idea of fielding right from my collection as a reaction to my opponent and the mission more than building a list and then seeing the mission and what ever my opponent might bring. This opens up the army to being as op as either player wants. As far as restrictions. maybe a foc limitation including a total number of units if not a whole foc's worth or a modified or themed foc for the game.
Not recommended for competitive matched play but more for games with likeminded friends.  Maybe you have units you really want to field and never find the points to justify including or if both players are new they probably have relatively close in size forces.  (Two battle forces/patrol boxes and a few extra units. ) 

I'm sure a lot of people will read that roll their eyes and not like that at all.  

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

7 minutes ago, Warhead01 said:

My thoughts on the topic of balance are probably not what a lot of people would consider balanced. 

I really liked the AoS 1st edition method of simply deploying units from your collection. No list needed. There could be foc restrictions on that but just picking a unit and seeing what your opponent places next and so on would be how I would balance my no points games. A social contract between players would be necessary or missions where setting up an op army would balance out actual army disparity or a different than competitive matched play mode of play. But I would also ask for wysiwyg models as much as possible out of fairness. 
I mostly like the idea of fielding right from my collection as a reaction to my opponent and the mission more than building a list and then seeing the mission and what ever my opponent might bring. This opens up the army to being as op as either player wants. As far as restrictions. maybe a foc limitation including a total number of units if not a whole foc's worth or a modified or themed foc for the game.
Not recommended for competitive matched play but more for games with likeminded friends.  Maybe you have units you really want to field and never find the points to justify including or if both players are new they probably have relatively close in size forces.  (Two battle forces/patrol boxes and a few extra units. ) 

I'm sure a lot of people will read that roll their eyes and not like that at all.  

Nice, a fellow AoS 1st edition appreciator!  This 100% how I do things too.

[Scribe]

That is quite factually not 'balance' though. ;)

[Warhead01]

3 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

Nice, a fellow AoS 1st edition appreciator!  This 100% how I do things too.

My friend and i did this in 7th or 8th, not sure now, Tau vs Orks nd after the game we found our armies were about 2500 points each just on picking units we liked. So balance is possible just not in a specific way. If I remember we fought to a draw as well. 

[Warhead01]

1 minute ago, Scribe said:

That is quite factually not 'balance' though. ;)

It's almost like "balance " was unnecessary and fun was the goal of playing a game. 
And maybe it really was balanced in a unit vs unit way if not a different metric?  

[Scribe]

11 minutes ago, Warhead01 said:

It's almost like "balance " was unnecessary and fun was the goal of playing a game. 
And maybe it really was balanced in a unit vs unit way if not a different metric?  

 

While fair, I cannot imagine AoS v1 style anything, would be deemed 'balanced' by anything but a vast minority of the modern gaming playerbase.

[Valkyrion]

If every codex had this in their heavy support options;

 

One anti horde infantry unit

One anti heavy infantry infantry unit

One anti tank/monster infantry unit

One anti horde vehicle/monster

One anti heavy infantry vehicle/monster

One anti tank/monster vehicle/monster

 

And players MUST pick one infantry unit and one vehicle/monster unit - you could possibly balance without points.

the game would need to remade for such a system, and things like Devastator squads would have to removed or forced to take identical weapons, but I think theoretically it's possible.

 

It's not a good idea for casual or friendly games, but maybe truly competitive meta chasing type games need something so restrictive?

[Guest Triszin]

Flip a coin. Heads wins.

Pack up your army

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Triszin said:

Flip a coin. Heads wins.

Pack up your army

 

This is it, fellas. 11th Edition Matched Play right here.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Kill Team attempts to do it by prescribing what you can take, with some options.

As per human nature, players will usually take the better options.

So the issue becomes one of internal balance.

Now the factions sure aren't fully balanced in KT as we know,  I merely put it out there that internal balance is what really makes things fun.

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

2 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Kill Team attempts to do it by prescribing what you can take, with some options.

As per human nature, players will usually take the better options.

So the issue becomes one of internal balance.

Now the factions sure aren't fully balanced in KT as we know,  I merely put it out there that internal balance is what really makes things fun.

There are still optimal options that you can take when things are pointed out though, so this isn't really an issue of giving things point values or not but rather just the inherent problem of giving players different options.  And if you're only going to choose the "best" option for winning, there's no reason for the other options to be there from a standpoint of winning.  Ideally different options would be the "best" for different scenarios too. 

 

I wouldn't say that choosing the best option is "human nature" though, because it depends what one's goal is.  I don't always choose the "optimal" options because  I choose what makes sense for the scenario I'm playing. 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Inquisitor Eisenhorn