Game design, "balance", "fun" and how they interact

[Karhedron]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

Fair enough. I actually agree that having the FOC back in some capacity would be good. The rule of 3 is a step in that direction, which is better than a free for all, but I like thematic list restrictions in general.

 

One refinement I would like to see added is change the Rule of 3 to the Rule of 1-3 where you cannot run more of a particular unit than you have Battleline units. Or maybe have 1+ Battleline for Incursion, 2+ for Strikeforce etc. But that is just theory-crafting.

[DemonGSides]

59 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

One refinement I would like to see added is change the Rule of 3 to the Rule of 1-3 where you cannot run more of a particular unit than you have Battleline units. Or maybe have 1+ Battleline for Incursion, 2+ for Strikeforce etc. But that is just theory-crafting.

 

That's just tax units all over again which we know doesn't lead to flavorful armies, it leads to whatever the cheapest battle line is being spammed. 

 

The game would be cooler with a generals type system like AoS has, but would require so much more effort due to the disparate types of armies. 

Edited April 30 by DemonGSides

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I think the confusion is caused by my use of the term “etiquette.” I don’t just mean being polite to your opponent at the table, I also mean not fielding broken things

Who decides what's broken if nobody cares about balance? More importantly, what if someone likes running a particular unit that just happened to be broken? 

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I think that this is what a lot of people are sore about in 10th. The demise of the FOC and introduction of factions like Knights means that it is much easier to run skew lists (in fact, it is almost impossible to not run skew lists with Knights). Infantry hordes have always been thematic for Orks, Nids and some flavours of IG. Simmilarly, Knights are only slightly harder to crack than IG armoured companies.

The FOC never stopped skew lists, and I don't know why anyone wants to pretend it did. 

[Antarius]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

Fair enough. I actually agree that having the FOC back in some capacity would be good. The rule of 3 is a step in that direction, which is better than a free for all, but I like thematic list restrictions in general.

The FoC had its flaws as well, but yeah, something along those lines would be nice.

I actually tend to think some sort of restrictions on army construction makes it more fun to build armies, not the other way around. But it seems many people (and, most importantly, GW) disagrees with me. But then, I also think that the utopian force construction rules would relegate skewed lists like all-tank armies to the realm of special scenarios and "opponent's permission".

Edited April 30 by Antarius

[Evil Eye]

12 minutes ago, Antarius said:

The FoC had its flaws as well, but yeah, something along those lines would be nice.

I actually tend to think some sort of restrictions on army construction makes it more fun to build armies, not the other way around. But it seems many people (and, most importantly, GW) disagrees with me. But then, I also think that the utopian force construction rules would relegate skewed lists like all-tank armies to the realm of special scenarios and "opponent's permission".

I still feel like a WHFB-style points-scaled rarity-based FOC would work nicely. Having some degree of unit categorization (and subsequent restriction) would allow for better balancing and naturally more flavourful army-building than the current free-for-all we have.

[ZeroWolf]

I could be wrong but wasn't 2nd edition rules on those lines?

[Gillyfish]

From memory there was a percentage of your overall points that could be spent on characters, Elite and Heavy Support (each).

[Antarius]

22 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

I could be wrong but wasn't 2nd edition rules on those lines?

Yeah, at that point the army construction rules were pretty much entirely the same across the two systems.

[crimsondave]

Good memories….

[apologist]

... and to build on that, it's worth noting that these percentage proportions of different unit types varied across the different armies. The equivalent in later editions would be different force organisation charts (FOCs), which is something I was always baffled GW didn't do more with.

 

The standard FOC chart was great for Marines, but served other factions badly. While there were different FOCs, these tended to be based around things like Planetstrike or other special missions, rather than being themed to the army. As a result, we had weird things like the Imperial Guard platoon system or the need for special Biel Tan rules to take lists with lots of Aspect Warriors.

 

Throwing it out entirely, however, was not the best move, in my opinion. I agree with @Antarius that some restrictions make army building more fun – and the reason for that is twofold: firstly, the rules can be used to help reward thematic play, and secondly they create a fun puzzle or mental exercise.

 

When implemented well, you can enjoy the challenge of striking the right balance. When implemented badly, it's just exhausting. An example of the latter – lots of seemingly arbitrary restrictions that don't actually have much effect – can be found in Legions Imperialis, where army construction is both awkward and unrewarding while simultaneously failing to create recognisable or familiar themes. 

Edited May 1 by apologist

[Karhedron]

The FOC was created with good intentions but failed to keep track with the way the game grew. The basic one was fine for an infantry-centric skirmish game but struggled with things like armoured companies, even before Titanic units and flyers came on the scene.

[Kallas]

4 hours ago, Karhedron said:

The basic one was fine for an infantry-centric skirmish game but struggled with things like armoured companies

I mean, armoured companies are inherently a skew list. If we're talking balance, a FOC in place for competitive systems (ie, the tourney packs) would help curtail a lot of the hardest skews, while leaving casual play for the more wild builds where people are (sort of) more likely to be able to communicate what kind of game they want.

[Karhedron]

6 minutes ago, Kallas said:

I mean, armoured companies are inherently a skew list. If we're talking balance, a FOC in place for competitive systems (ie, the tourney packs) would help curtail a lot of the hardest skews, while leaving casual play for the more wild builds where people are (sort of) more likely to be able to communicate what kind of game they want.

 

That is true but would basically invalidate Knights as a competitive faction. The only solution would be to give Knights their own FOC. But then what about other fluffy lists like Deathwing that don't have Troops/Battleline units. Should they get a special FOC too? We very quickly end up in a situation like 8th/9th where skew lists actually had an additional advantage in that they didn't need to bother with Troops taxes.

 

For better or worse, there are too many armies out there now which would be invalidated by trying to bring back an FOC. Having a competitive game-mode is fine but really that is the default way to play 40K. Campaigns, narrative play etc normally require an established friend group to play or at least an impartial GM to say what the restrictions are.

 

My personal preference would be for units that are meant to form the backbone of armies to actually have rules that make them worth taking. GW have taken some tentative steps in this direction in 10th as Battleline units tend to have higher OC values and often have rules like stickying Objectives but I think that they could go further. The dataslate that gave Intercessors +2 shots when the squad shot at the same target was a good improvement and I would like to see more buffs to under-fielded Battleline units.

[Kallas]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

would basically invalidate Knights as a competitive faction

Oh no! Anyway... No, but really, Knights should not be a viable competitive faction because they have such a warping effect on builds.

 

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

For better or worse, there are too many armies out there now which would be invalidated by trying to bring back an FOC

That's assuming a new FOC would look the same for every faction - or potentially, for every detachment. There is absolutely room for factions and/or detachments to provide unique FOCs to highlight different styles of army.

[Karhedron]

57 minutes ago, Kallas said:

That's assuming a new FOC would look the same for every faction - or potentially, for every detachment. There is absolutely room for factions and/or detachments to provide unique FOCs to highlight different styles of army.

 

While that is true, I am nervous of the madness of Formations in 7th edition where some factions could leverage their special formation for insane bonuses. It just becomes yet another factor to balance. I do see you point to some extent though. GW has dabbled with giving certain units Battleline in specific Detachments (e.g. Wraithguard in the Spirit Host) but I think they could be a bit bolder about it.

[Kallas]

Yeah, we had "x unit is Troops if y Special Character is in the army" in prior editions too (eg, Belial for Deathwing). It doesn't need to be insane changes, but the lack of FOC has really removed any feeling of "army" since people will just pick whatever units. I feel like having detachments or factions modifying FOCs to give them better leeway for different builds would be much better for the feel of the game rather than just allowing whatever - and in terms of balance it would allow for better limitations on strong units.

 

Hell, one of the classic issues with FOC was things like Iron Warriors trading 2 Fast Attack for 1 extra Heavy Support slot, which was of course never really a problem because most IW players wanted more Vindicators, Land Raiders or Basilisk, not more Bikes! So yeah, I get that the FOC stuff isn't always amazing or some universal solution, and that adding it is another layer of balancing - but I do feel like the complete removal of FOC has led to less cohesive armies and, by extension, worse balance since weak units are ignored entirely while enabling skew even harder than was previously available.

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Kallas said:

I do feel like the complete removal of FOC has led to less cohesive armies and, by extension, worse balance since weak units are ignored entirely while enabling skew even harder than was previously available.

 

I disagree here, I have always hated taking weak units as a tax. In 10th GW now have to give Troop/Battleline units rules to make them worth taking. GW hasn't got this right for all armies yet but Marines are quite good with all flavours of Intercessor having a decent reason to take them.

 

Intercessors. Fairly cheap, Objective Secured and can double their firepower when they focus fire.

 

Assault Intercessors. Rerolls to Wound which are fairly rare in this army and they pass that on to attached Characters. 

 

Heavy Intercessors. Pretty cheap for 3W T6 Objective campers and their shooting is not too shabby either. 

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Kallas said:

worse balance since weak units are ignored entirely while enabling skew even harder than was previously available.

 

I just find this is more feeling than fact. Scout spam in 7th, or whatever other small battle line tax you needed to was just as skewy as saying "Fine, take whatever" that the Arks of Omen detatchments turned into.  It's not like the FoC actually MADE people take Tacticals; those only showed up when the detatchment buffed them or provided them with so much free :cuss: that it was the same problem just from the other direction.

 

I don't have a clean answer besides making the units worth taking on their own, like Karahedron suggested above. There's always going to be people who will abuse whatever system, but if the system doesn't actually make people who want to adhere to it have fun, what's the point?  Rule of 3 at least lets most situations be covered while minimizing abuse, but like you said, flavor falls flat in face of that.

 

It's a tough row to hoe. 

[Emperor Ming]

Being allowed to take whatever without any form of army structure has defiantly contributed to my long 40k hiatus atm

[Kallas]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

In 10th GW now have to give Troop/Battleline units rules to make them worth taking.

No reason to not have that included. I'm not saying get rid of the things to make Troops/Battleline better

 

2 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

I just find this is more feeling than fact. Scout spam in 7th, or whatever other small battle line tax you needed to was just as skewy as saying "Fine, take whatever" that the Arks of Omen detatchments turned into.  It's not like the FoC actually MADE people take Tacticals; those only showed up when the detatchment buffed them or provided them with so much free that it was the same problem just from the other direction.

Yeah, things being taxes wasn't/isn't good. I'm not saying things should be bad and remain bad - like Karhedron said, units having rules to make them better, or just generally being better overall than previously (or, having detachments that provide buffs to specific units or unit types, like they currently do) is also helpful.

 

Considering we're talking about balance and fun, it's hard to say that skew lists are particularly fun - because either the skewer has no counter and the opponent will likely have a rough time; or the skewer will get countered heavily and is unlikely to have a good time. Further, FOCs (especially if they were bespoke, or at least tweaked, for each faction) provide a framework for armies to actually have a shape that better represents a faction's identity rather than it being the same game-wide.

 

2 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

There's always going to be people who will abuse whatever system, but if the system doesn't actually make people who want to adhere to it have fun, what's the point?

I don't know how to respond other than yeah...I'm not against making things fun, of course. I'm not saying, "units should be :cuss: and have FOCs."

 

 

[TheTrans]

I suppose the whole issue with 'tax' units being dragged along is inherently a balance issue as well haha. No unit in the game should be a 'tax', it should be appropriately priced for its slot and function.

Interestingly enough, back in 3rd (to harp on), I think there is a designers note saying something like 'we made heavy weapons in devastator squads cost more than in tactical squads as they are more useful in a devastator squad" which was very true and seems that rules designers have forgotten that even though the wargear is the same, it is better/worse depending on what it is mounted on/carried by (looking at HH2.0 where a lascannon costs the same on a Heavy Support Marine as it does on a crap Militia Auxilia support weapon..go figure).

But yeah, tax units just showed an inherent balance issue even back then! The FoC certainly isn't perfect, and people would try to avoid units if they could, but even bringing back a FOC with the old 1+ units like you had back in the day would be great. I think guard had it as 1+ unit for the infantry platoon, so at least guard armies always had that sort of 'core' in earlier editions. 

I'm not going to lie, I fell off the 'current' 40k battlewagon late 8th.... 9th looked like it took too much effort to even play in..was interested in 10th... but then those unit profiles and no FOC I think was the nail in my Grognardy coffin. I love list building and trying to jigg and move stuff around in list building apps is kind of like the 'hobby you can do at work/toilet/train etc" so is always fun to tinker. But AoS and now (well 10th) 40k with its 'free wargear' and 'by the 5 models' unit building, linked with no force org... like the 'tournament game' now just seems like what you did as a kid playing with what you had and ignoring any minutae in list building... 

List building to me at least is still a big part of the hobby, and working within its limitations was always fun. But now..well yeah... maybe removing the foc and indicvidual wargear costs was to help balance.. but it just seems like it hasn't helped balance in any real way and just makes armies..well..not look how they should in my minds eye. 

 

Salty old bastard out. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

I am glad the FoC is dead. Even when GW offered alternative FoCs built around non-troops they were inherently worse than the basic version. Sure, you could use a Spearhead detachment and bring just Heavy Support, but then you start with less Command Points than a Battalion with Troops as minimum. Plus you can only have up to 2 Elites and Fast Attack. What if you needed 3? At that point you may as well take the Battalion, but then you must take 3 Troops which eats into your points.

 

I have complained about the FoC since 5th Edition. It was restrictive for no real reason other than the "troops win wars" mentality that seemed to be the only defence I heard when I asked to leave my Troops at home and just run what I wanted to. The trade off for running nothing but terminators, or an armoured company, or entirely too many Hellions was they cost more points.

 

The only thing I want back, and I still don't know why GW thought it was a good idea, is wargear points and points per model. Those are the only two things I miss. I will never miss the FoC.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, TheTrans said:

List building to me at least is still a big part of the hobby, and working within its limitations was always fun.

Limitations of the FOC leads to all lists being samey. With more leeway, the possibilities of what casual and competitive players create can be entirely out of the box. 

[Antarius]

7 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Limitations of the FOC leads to all lists being samey. With more leeway, the possibilities of what casual and competitive players create can be entirely out of the box. 

Or it leads to samey lists because people just take the units currently perceived as "best".
FOC or lack thereof doesn't create or solve the problem of samey lists - people choosing to/not to build samey lists do.

Which is (obviously) not to say that army construction rules don't do anything at all for the army building process.

[Valkyrion]

GW should have properly supported Apocalypse and had supreme commanders, super heavies, flyers and no army restrictions or individual wargear costs live their lives there.

By properly supported I mean to the extent Kill Team is so it actually sees time on the table top and becomes a viable 3rd way of playing, introducing new strategy cards or unique orders and so on.

I played plenty of 'small' apocalypse (the 2019) version on a 6x4 board by basically topping up a 2000-3000 point army with a flyer, super heavy and primarch, and those games took far less time to play than a 2000 game of 9th ed 40k.

Even if one player just took 6 knights, the game would still be pretty balanced even against a horde, because whilst each knight could do decent damage, by using the blast marker system you have to aim to overkill your enemy because you don't know that you've killed them until the end of the turn and what strategy cards your opponent might have to mitigate damage.

 

With a bit of will and a bit of imagination, the system could have been a wonderful addition to the 40k catalogue.