Didn’t you win that game with the Troll Champions that I was unable to kill?[/quote]

I refuse to let something as petty as facts get in the way of a good whinge. :-)

Didn’t you win that game with the Troll Champions that I was unable to kill?

I’d like to ask the editor to implement this “losing lots of Warmachine games” policy a little more thoroughly when I play against him.

Number crunching can be fun on its own. And useful. When we were working on the Epic:Armageddon book one of the testers would typically provide statistical analysis of weapon systems or army point costs to help clarify decisions we were making

This has always troubled me about WFB, and to a lesser degree 40K. There are options that are given to gamers that are not worth buying. And some combos of options that make the other less attractive.

So why include them. Why not provide a smaller set of better balanced and more characterful options instead?
[/quote]

This is exactly what GW has done with their latest Chaos codex, and presumably the upcoming Ork codex. The way you describe it, it almost makes sense. :)

For instance, there was a thread on Dakka where they determined there were only two or three Demon Princes worth taking in the old book. Ditto the new Carnifex.

While I understand I’m probably in the minority, as an old time Computer RPG player, I find it repugnant due to the fact that I actually _like_ determining what the best options are. That said, this sort of discussion, what rule set makes for the game that’s the most fun to all parties is the next step up. I’ll admit that I’m one of the guys that starts off as a spreadsheet guy and then gets into the hobby side when he finally learns to paint.

There are indeed transparent costs associated with the detachments in AE-WWII. The game does lack a system by which you can customize the troops with the outlay of additional points.

There are customization options but again they have all been “priced” at the same level and so in the end the cost of any army is the same.

I can definitely see that people will still argue in the manner you described.

So there is then a differentiation between points and the level of options that games like 40K and WFB give you using points.

Does this added complexity really make the game more fun? Are the additional options in terms of army building worth the price? And can a game be fun and not have those options?

I think it can and I think that if developers focus more on creating fun games they might find that they can create systems that allow gamers to have fun without so many point driven options.

I know that for me half the fun of 40K was creating new army lists and playing with the options and part of the problem with WFB is that there are so many options that it is difficult to find what are good and what are bad options.

This has always troubled me about WFB, and to a lesser degree 40K. There are options that are given to gamers that are not worth buying. And some combos of options that make the other less attractive.

So why include them. Why not provide a smaller set of better balanced and more characterful options instead?

[quote comment="11757"]
[quote comment="11592"]I will admit that I am not a very competitive gamer.[/quote]

I totally disagree. I’ve personally seen you go for the jugular in a most gruesome fashion. ;)[/quote]

I have indeed pummelled the heck out of some people playing Hordes and Warmachine but the games I always tend to remember are the ones that are close and competitive. I’m using “competitive” in the sense of active tournament play and focus on developing competitive game winning army lists.

I’ve got rid of my FoW models specifically because I thought that the game lead to people needlessly focused on creating the most efficient and effective use of their allotted points. I lost a *lot* of FoW games specifically because my armies had tanks I liked as opposed to tanks that were more point effective.

I also lose a lot of Warmachine games because I don’t like the Iron Fang Pikemen of the Man O War Shocktroopers which are very good units for their point cost.

[quote comment="11592"]Darkson Designs is coming out with [a game] that…does away with points entirely. They are hoping to do this by coming up with a rather unique army building system that allows gamers to build a force from a set numbers of units that you then customise to create an army as well as focusing on story driven scenarios for tournament and casual play.[/quote]

There *IS* a point system to this game. It’s just not obvious. Every unit in the game is worth one point. A close combat unit could be composed of models with stats or and abilities that works out to an equation, such as A+2C.
So:
A+2C = 1 point
A shooting unit could be composed of models with stats and abilities that works out to X(2Y+1)
So:
X(2Y+1) = 1 point as well.

In their system A+2C = X(2Y+1). The rules simply limit the customization options of the units. But the underlying point value is still there. As a result, tournament level players could just as easily argue about the value of units without referring to their point values.
“X(2Y+1) will always destroy A+2C!!” some will say.
“A+2C will win in any scenario with lots of cover!” others will reply.

Doing away with point values doesn’t really make the game more fun. It just makes the game simpler. Some people may not want or need that level of customization in their game. So if point values are removed the game will be more fun for them.

The other design aspect that can make for some poor 40k or Fantasy games is the ability to make Rock, Paper, or Scissor armies. The Rock army will almost always beat the Scissor army, bu again the Scissor will almost always beat the paper. Is that design feature or flaw? In a competitive tournament environment it can just make for some games that are almost foregone conclusions. That’s not very exciting, so tourney organizers will put composition restrictions into place. Point values have nothing to do with this and doing away with them wouldn’t affect anything. The most obvious examples of the RPS armies are those that use a lot of magic and/or shooting. A gunline will obliterate an army of high-valued elite infantry. Privateer made the design decision to really shorten the range of both magic and shooting so that combat armies would always have a chance. Is that realistic? Not at all. Is it fun and “balanced”? Hell ya.

[quote comment="11592"]I will admit that I am not a very competitive gamer.[/quote]

I totally disagree. I’ve personally seen you go for the jugular in a most gruesome fashion. ;)
You just enjoy playing games that are fresh and new, so you never really develop the killer strategies that become obvious after years of playing the same game.

I think that most gamers would be surprised at their ability to gauge balanced forces in game without recourse to point costs.

Give it a try the next time your playing WFB or 40K. The characters may complicate things but I think that you’ll be ablet o “eyeball” two armies and get a good idea if they are balanced or not[/quote]

You could always start with points costs and then add a squad or two if you knew something was a little beardy, or one opponent was more experienced than the other.

I think that most gamers would be surprised at their ability to gauge balanced forces in game without recourse to point costs.

Give it a try the next time your playing WFB or 40K. The characters may complicate things but I think that you’ll be ablet o “eyeball” two armies and get a good idea if they are balanced or not

:-D

Gaming is as fun as you make it, whatever game you’re playing the rules and PVs etc. are all guidelines to play within. Yes they can be bent out of shape but some people do that in all things in life to try to get the ‘edge’.

I actually don’t mind playing against ‘uber’ army lists or ‘cheese’. It’s just another opponent that gives me even more things to think about on a tactical level.

And as for ‘having to have a 3000+pt army’ - GW does promote that bigger is better, it’s good for them to do so and the sheer spectacle of a game that big is great to see. But you don’t have to play games like that. Personally I prefer the small games of 1000-1500pts on a 4′x4′ table - they’re quicker and easier to build armies for.

I also like playing 40k in 40mins (or the WFB and LOTR equivalents) for the same reasons.

I prefer using balanced forces (wide troop options) myself so that I can take on whatever I come up against - I win some and lose some but, most importantly, I have fun trying to win every time.

So say in an Imperial Guard army for one Heavy Support slot you could take:

1 Basilisk + 1 3 man Fire Support Team
or
1 Leman Russ w/ Lascannon
or
1 Leman Russ w/ 3x Heavy Bolters
or
1 Leman Russ Demolisher w/ Multi Melta or Plasma Gun Sponsons (but no hull weapon)

For one Fast Attack you could take
1x Hellhound
or
2x Sentinels w/ Lascannon
or
3x Sentinels w/ Multilaser
etc

And then these wouldn’t take up “points”. It would be more like, for this mission you can bring 2 Heavy Support choices. Or else, ‘1 Heavy Support choice will start on the table, and 1 Heavy Support choice will come in from reserve. Choose wisely.’

You could even limit weapon options. So say for Eldar War Walkers could be armed with Missile Launchers or Scatter Lasers only. Meanwhile Wraithlords could be armed with Starcannons, Brightlances and Missile Launchers only.

In all honesty, I don’t think power gamers or point costs really wreck 40k as much as people like to think (or bitch about). I find what’s more important is using the forces you bring to the table well. Tactics, as it is called. What’s equally important is knowing what your opponent’s army can do. I don’t really see what’s wrong with taking 3x Bassies. Can they hide all three? Didn’t you have a say in laying terrain? Don’t you have infiltrators, deep strikers and flanking units? If they take 3 Bassies they don’t have Russ tanks or multitudes of Heavy Weapons teams. What if you’re in a tournament and you roll escalation. Good chance those bassies won’t be firing until 4th turn.

As far as getting rid of army lists is concerned, it could be possible to create pre-defined missions or armies. Say each army book gets 10 to 20 lists for the equivalent of varying point scales: 500, 1000, 1500, 2000. With some variety contained therein, like I mentioned above. GW or players could even make their own home brew army lists, along the same lines of the Apocolypse data sheets. With these army lists, some lee-way could be given. So say if someone wants to field a defensive army with 6 bassies in an 1850 point game they only get the equivalent of say 1200 points, with the rest of their army represented by say 10 man infantry squads with one or two heavy weapons each in bunkers. Meanwhile their opponent’s list could be a full 1850 Space Marine strike force.

In all honesty, I really like this idea of fixed army lists and missions. Provided there was ample variety it would really give players elbow room. There would have to be some allowance for the practicalities of purchasing miniatures, but that’s no different from the WM/Hordes player with 1500+ points and a preference for 750 point games.

The PP games tend to be more fun. They are more tactical on a basic level, compared to 40k which is more line them up and knock them down. As such, it’s quite possible that the points cost/organization chart just doesn’t work.

Army of the week syndrome. “The army of the latest codex is unbeatable.” Do I really need to deal with this one? That would mean that no one would ever be playing Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Orks, etc. And what, write the codex once and never change it again, ever? um, yeah, right, next.

Anybody getting the drift of where I’m going with this?

“I don’t want to have to buy a 3000 point army.” I really don’t know what to say about this absurdity. I’ll give it a try, and I’ll keep it simple enough to understand.
Don’t!

“No one wants to play with 3000 point armies.” Who have you been talking to? I’m looking forward to exercising the other half of my army.

GW interested in selling miniatures? Interested in selling books. No ship Sherlock. GW is a company. They are in the business of selling, um, what was it again? Oh, yeah, that’s right, miniatures! (geez)
What Battlefront is a non-profit charity now? Don’t think so.

Does this mean GW is the greatest thing since sliced cheese? Fork no.
They pass me off all the time. WHFB, rank bonus size changing from 5 to 6. Which changes unit size, ergo the number of models you need. It’s that kind of chit that gets me. Is it legal? Yes? Then STFU. Will it change? Most likely. Let GW know what you think is wrong. They do listen, at least a bit. The Defiler lost it’s indirect fire in the new Chaos codex because alot of people said it was unbalanced.
Am I contradicting myself? Nope. Cheese and balance are both relative (second cousins once removed) They will both change as time goes on.

So always remember what my old gran’pap used to say…
“One man’s cheese is another man’s sandwich topping.”
“And balance? Heh, in a fight between a 50 point elephant and 50 one point mice, who’s gonna win?”
“Go get a rag boy, and make sure you wipe between that elephant’s toes”

MG’s are only any good against infantry and soft skinned transports, so maxing them out will only get you so much of an advantage against say an armored or mechanised infantry coy. Unit choices in FOW are also at least vaguely historically based.

Jeremy raises some good points regarding 40k, although I take the pov that GW are and have never been interested in creating a balanced game. They’re interested in selling rulebooks and figures. That’s essentially why I moved to FOW. Certainly they’re interested in selling rulebooks and figures too, but do still seem to be concerned about game balance imho.

Warhammer 40k is a terrible game. It is compounded by an abundance of poor sports and a ridiculous tournament atmosphere. The points values are surely a problem, but not the only one. I think that points can be very useful in creating balanced forces for a game. And that is a necessity when creating a game to market. While I applaud your ability to play games without points or balanced forces and still have fun, many players, and therefor customers, cannot.

I have played all different ways in my years of gaming. I have played in dog-eat-dog tournaments, friendly pick-up games at the local store, competitive games with my friends, and just-for-fun games where balance was not an issue. I enjoy all of these. But the truth is that most players only like to play in a few of these different types of games. And a company should work towards a ruleset that recognizes that and works well in any type of game. It is important for a game to have a balancing system because of the ever popular tournament, and more so because most gamers get there games in at clubs and stores, often with strangers or people who they only see in that environment.

Yes, you can get a game of 40k almost anywhere because of its popularity. No, it isnt popular because of its points system. But the points system gives the players the illusion of balance. This allows even the most competitive gamer you come across to feel comfortable playing a stranger in a pick up game, because he/she feels that they have a fair chance. If everyone played by their own house rules, pick up games would never happen, as both players would have to spend hours before the game deciding what rules they would play by and then feel frustrated as they tried to remember them during the game.

The real problem with most games, and 40k in particular is the lack of balance inherent in the system itself. Any system of balance could be used to allow for pick up games and tournaments; be they points, organization charts, cards, or slips of paper in a hat; if the game and its armies themselves are balanced.

The points system in 40k is abysmal truly. They admit there is no formula to even begin to give it legitimacy. But the real problem is what you can spend your points on. You can take the FoW machine gun min-maxing as an example as well. But lets look at one simple, often debated case in 40k. An IG player can field 3 Basilisks because he/she has 3 Heavy Support slots. But should he/she choose to do so, the comp score would suffer in a tournament, and they would hear cries of cheese in a club. Are the Basilisks fairly priced points-wise? Maybe as individuals. Even if GW had a perfect value placed on a Basilisk, 3 in an army would still be considered by most to be cheesy. The problem is that 3 are allowed. If 3 Basilisks make for an unbalanced game no matter the points cost, then dont let a player use three. It would be a simple matter of leaving 3 Heavy slots, but making the Basilisk choice a 0-1 or 0-2 option. The same goes for machine guns in FoW. If the price for a single gun is fair, but too many gets out of hand. Limit the number allowed. And in a historical setting this is even easier to legitimize by history.

The other option would be to make a scaled points value. I hear complaints about the cheesiness of a single unit much less than complaints of a good one being taken far too often and weak ones abandoned. In this case the points might increase as more of the same unit is taken. Thus if a unit is more and more unbalancing the more it appears in one force, it would cost a number of points to reflect that increased value. Thats what points are supposed to do anyway; show what the unit is worth compared to others. So with the Basilisk example lets say one Basilisk is worth 100 points. But 3 could take on a 450 point force fairly. Simply make the first Basilisk cost 100 points, the second 150, and the third 200 points. The same goes for mystic space elf lasers, German machine guns, and flying cats.

Of course, ideally, the units would be written in a way that a game would be balanced with one Basilisk or 20, as long as the points add up to an equal number to your opponent’s. But GW games, and most others have long burnt that bridge. Changes can be introduced however to help bring balance back, and 5,000 points of tanks does not have to be the answer.

The power gamers arent the problem. The fact that points are used are not the problem (if they are well calculated). Tournaments are not the problem. The problem is that the games arent inherently balanced to begin with. If the games were balanced the tournaments could be played without comp scores and power-gamers would have a lot more time to paint once they realize they cant break the system.

It would be nice to know that you can go to your local store, meet someone new, play a game where the rules are understood before the game, and know that both sides have a fair chance because their forces are well matched by a well made system. Heres looking forward to that day.

Edit - wow that was long. feel free to skip this one in your reading. ^_^

I stopped playing because it got boring playing against people that min/maxed their forces to get the most out of them. For instance taking unit choices not based on anything other than maxing out the number of MGs in an army.

If ever there was a game that could have easily been created using a system that didn’t rely on points it is FoW.