# 40k fix at the meta level?



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

I laughed reading on BOLS about a wulfen meet DA list combo.
Someone speculated that the game may "spontaneously explode" if it got any more broken.
So true.

But, I think that there is a fix for this sort of thing at a community level, such as with the ITC.

One is to put up a "rarity" coefficient in front of points costs for units that are over-underpowered.
Note that this rarity value can be assigned as part of a running narrative,
or drawn from scenario cards randomly,
so this is easily addable as a second layer of the game once the value system is in place.

Basically, the idea is that the best units get tapped more often, 
run through a hot period with a wave of excellent recruits, or better equipment,
and so become more expensive to field both because they are likely taking losses on a number of fronts 
and are also under greater demand - 
I mean, GW can make infinite wulfen, but that ain't how it is in the game.
So, OP cheez like wraithknights and scatbikes and d-scythes will be weighted heavily, and cost more.
Plus, taking more than one or two of something should end up costing more, depending on scarcity and so on...

On the other hand, less powerful "fluffier" stuff might get a coefficient less than one
so that taking storm guardians might be encouraged
while too many wave serps are also discouraged due to scarcity multipliers.

These values can be voted on, tested regionally and adjusted over a period of time.
Narratives/campaigns can be constructed with these multipliers implicated.
And, this way, tournament organizers can design events with greater control...
we might imagine global narrative driven events in this way really,
all computer tracked with for example
the west fielding on the one hand and then losing on the other hand (2 dimensions)
more of unit type X than Y,
so the scarcity modifier is higher for X than Y.
Scarcity multipliers will be different for different regions as different areas play different styles.
this thing could be super huge.
in fact, i want to run it.
if itc called me i would take the job.
guaranteed epic...

Anyways, am I way off base here?
Couldn't something like this work?
I mean, the ITC already does something like this, as is...


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Since, after all, in the fluff Mutilators are the most common foot soldier of the Chaos forces.

Honestly: it sounds like an incredible amount of bookkeeping for an asymmetrical fix that in many cases won't help. An Eldar Jetbike list... look, it's running entirely common units, just every single model happens to have a scatter laser! Or wave serpents, in the last Eldar codex, before they were tuned down and every single other unit in that book was tuned up to as powerful as they used to be.

Some folks run a comp system that is.. difficult to balance. In the end it becomes a matter of who can balance not only the explicit limitations of the ruleset, points, and formation options, but also metagaming the metagame to recognize the under-comped units, and so on. It adds a recursive rabbit hole of scheming while making everyone's day rougher.

That's not to say it doesn't make some broken cheese-spam more palatable--it totally does, in many cases, even as GW moves further closer to releasing broken cheese-spam for every single army (seriously, have you seen those Wulfen rules?). I just think that a comp system for competitive balance is complex enough that you shouldn't try to rationalize it on the competitive side of things with a fluffy explanation, as that way lies, erm, inefficient and ineffective sorting rationale.


----------



## Battman (Nov 2, 2012)

Certainly agree with the sentiments, this game that we all love, does need ballencing to make it "fare" but thats just part of this game its not well ballenced, the points system isn't even ballence within single books let alone between them. But thats just how it is. If all we cared about was balenced rules and units we would play chess or checkers.

This idea sounds like many before it, a community run "COMP" yes if implementation is correct; 100% perfect actually it would work, but even with testing and more testing and more testing. Imbalances will be found, new power units will be found and maybe even the "OP" units may be what was originally the weakest mutilators , assualt centurions or even emperor forbid mandrakes. 

These kind of ideas can and are great, certain things can help ballence things but in the end do we really need it? If its just you and a buddy playing in the basement have a chat, if one army is much more "powerful" ask them to scale it back. If its for competition? You may have to select one of the "Top Tier armies" to be on a level playing feild.

Only two ideas apart from this I'll suggest, though each has its own flaws: 

● High lander 40k (There only may be one); only one selection for a section of the force org may be take untill all other options are exhausted eg if I'm building an ork list i must have one BOYS squad and a GRETCHIN squad before i can take another BOYS squad. The main flaw with this is that the problems involving spamming units is sometimes even limited to certain codexes armies such as a SEER STAR don't particularly care if the other units are removed the deathstar itself functions quite well on its own. With this case the problem isn't removed just a new power is set.

● Handicapping in points; armies or codexes would be handicapped depending on their apparent strenght, i was thinking in increments of 50 points if there are 5 teirs of armies the top teir or strongest armies would have a 250 point handicap. But yet again this just shifts the scale.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Here's a revolutionary alternative, GW could use a real balance system when devising the unit rules where each attribute has a points value attached.

The designers could then use statistical analysis AND play testing to arrive at final adjustments. 
@jin I don't know when you started playing GW games but in the early days of 40k and fantasy battle army selection was based on percentages. E.g. >25% of troops, <50% characters, <25% heavy support, <25% allies, etc. It wasn't perfect especially because some points values were still very suspect but it did enforce a level of reason when building army lists. There was "abuse" of the army lists but nothing quite like what we've seen in the last few editions.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Mossy Toes said:


> Since, after all, in the fluff Mutilators are the most common foot soldier of the Chaos forces.


Maybe you misunderstood the proposition.

The idea is that - when people in a given gaming community get together on the broken stuff - they can fix it by putting up for a vote a certain adjustment to a given unit/weapon/equipment/character/vehicle/ally.

I mean seriously, eldar with wraithguard in dark eldar transports SHOULD cost more because it is ridiculous. 

once, a long time ago, i knew a guy who spent like 30,000 to break his car. it was so outrageously modified, it basically started destroying itself as soon as he turned it on... some people play games that way too i guess.


Anyways, the ITC already uses votes, and with computers and online real-time social networking potential here, this is a cool platform actually. for example, members could log in and every morning vote on adjustments based on public demand, and do it all on their phones... would be so cool. and easy enough to build.



> Honestly: it sounds like an incredible amount of bookkeeping for an asymmetrical fix that in many cases won't help. An Eldar Jetbike list... look, it's running entirely common units, just every single model happens to have a scatter laser! Or wave serpents, in the last Eldar codex, before they were tuned down and every single other unit in that book was tuned up to as powerful as they used to be.
> 
> Some folks run a comp system that is.. difficult to balance. In the end it becomes a matter of who can balance not only the explicit limitations of the ruleset, points, and formation options, but also metagaming the metagame to recognize the under-comped units, and so on. It adds a recursive rabbit hole of scheming while making everyone's day rougher.


yeah, but ... not with tek-now-ledgy and some forward thinking proactive smart people ...



> That's not to say it doesn't make some broken cheese-spam more palatable--it totally does, in many cases, even as GW moves further closer to releasing broken cheese-spam for every single army (seriously, have you seen those Wulfen rules?). I just think that a comp system for competitive balance is complex enough that you shouldn't try to rationalize it on the competitive side of things with a fluffy explanation, as that way lies, erm, inefficient and ineffective sorting rationale.


the point here is that such a scarcity coefficient can also be used to reinforce narratives in campaign and tournament settings, and opens up new ways to design events around themes, and finally, i do expect there to be an electronically bound social networked global 40k/30k/and??? community with the sort of integration afforded that makes the sort of direct democracy that i am talking about here an everyday occurrence.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Kreuger said:


> Here's a revolutionary alternative, GW could use a real balance system when devising the unit rules where each attribute has a points value attached.
> 
> The designers could then use statistical analysis AND play testing to arrive at final adjustments.
> @jin I don't know when you started playing GW games but in the early days of 40k and fantasy battle army selection was based on percentages. E.g. >25% of troops, <50% characters, <25% heavy support, <25% allies, etc. It wasn't perfect especially because some points values were still very suspect but it did enforce a level of reason when building army lists. There was "abuse" of the army lists but nothing quite like what we've seen in the last few editions.


yeah. that was the best simplest way. loved it.

still, i like this technology enabled smart phone app direct democracy networking thing.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

::shrugs::

I think this is more of a 'competition' issue than not. My local group is very casual and we have no real issues with the 'imbalance' of the game. If something seems over the top broken we tend to just laugh and then either tailor lists to compete against that broken thing or more often than not the guy with the broken list shelves it because its boring to play.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

jin said:


> Someone speculated that the game may "spontaneously explode" if it got any more broken.
> So true.


Gamers break the game by exploiting things like this. Stop playing with those people and it might not seem like much of an issue to you.

Unless you're all about the tournament scene. Then good luck.


----------



## Squire (Jan 15, 2013)

I think it sounds like a good idea

That said my favourite system I know of is composition scores. So if you play 6 tournament games you rank your opponents' lists 1-6, with 6 being the fluffiest/most fun list and 1 being the furthest from fluff. You have to rank your opponents, so you can't just give the highest score to everybody. That way if you turn up with five wraithknights you might win all of your games but if everyone is giving your list a composition score of 1 you won't actually win the event

That system isn't going to work outside of a tournament but for casual games if your opponent isn't considering your enjoyment and trying to make it fun for both people, just don't play with them again


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

ntaw said:


> Gamers break the game by exploiting things like this. Stop playing with those people and it might not seem like much of an issue to you.
> 
> Unless you're all about the tournament scene. Then good luck.


Isn't that basically called the "Don't be a douche" system?


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

In other news, fluff players think that tournament players are WAAC jerks and hate them for trying to win, and tournament players think that casual players are self-righteous whiners who try to passive-aggressively force their way of playing onto everyone else.

Pro tip: both groups are right.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

I don't think the 40k tournament scene has been all that strong since the ending of 4th ed. Not in my local scene at least. Went downhill after the first couple tournaments in 5th ed and neither 6th nor 7th have re-invigorated. The last few editions simply haven't lent themselves well to competitive play imo. 

You could always just play 4th ed rules or earlier if you know them and incorporate the extra rules for flyers and such.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Squire said:


> I think it sounds like a good idea
> 
> That said my favourite system I know of is composition scores. So if you play 6 tournament games you rank your opponents' lists 1-6, with 6 being the fluffiest/most fun list and 1 being the furthest from fluff. You have to rank your opponents, so you can't just give the highest score to everybody. That way if you turn up with five wraithknights you might win all of your games but if everyone is giving your list a composition score of 1 you won't actually win the event
> 
> That system isn't going to work outside of a tournament but for casual games if your opponent isn't considering your enjoyment and trying to make it fun for both people, just don't play with them again


that was the way it used to be done, back in the day when right was true and true, right.
i think that what i am talking about here is basically a real-time live interactive comp


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I think if it had a system for not penalising regularly-taken units that weren't that good (Fire Warriors, Tactical Marines etc.) it's certainly be a better system than the old peer comp (which doesn't work - you play, you lose, you give your opponent a low comp score because you're salty about losing, he gets salty because you screwed him on comp, nobody's a winner).


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

I'll honestly say that I preferred it when only troops could claim objectives - as opposed to having "Objective Secured" or whatever that rule is called.

----

In general I think Assault needs to be buffed somewhat across the board so that there is more options to 1) list building 2) play styles 3) fun


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Fallen said:


> I'll honestly say that I preferred it when only troops could claim objectives - as opposed to having "Objective Secured" or whatever that rule is called.
> 
> ----
> 
> In general I think Assault needs to be buffed somewhat across the board so that there is more options to 1) list building 2) play styles 3) fun



me too.
i liked it when only troops could claim objectives, too.
that fixes a lot.

about the rest, there are always options for list building for fun.
but one might also argue that the real problem with assaults has something to do with something else,
shooting is too powerful, blasty d flame templates everywhere on allied transports provided by the evil twin race which in my opinion should not be so close as to lend their skimmers to a bunch of dead goodies in bone suits... that is so stupid it makes my head hurt.

i am most sensitive to your play styles thing. and that is really the point. there is no reason that the old tourney ideal couldn't happen even within the existing competitive 40k community. industries evolve. this one needs to and this is the future of this evolution if it is going to evolve. anyways, just the picture i see going forward. i am happy to have had the issue get so much attention.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

MidnightSun said:


> I think if it had a system for not penalising regularly-taken units that weren't that good (Fire Warriors, Tactical Marines etc.) it's certainly be a better system than the old peer comp (which doesn't work - you play, you lose, you give your opponent a low comp score because you're salty about losing, he gets salty because you screwed him on comp, nobody's a winner).


no doubt!

but still, losing to wraithguard in allied dark eldar skimmers is black biskits.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Yeah, it's a nasty unit combo - Imperial armies often don't care (I have Ultramarines and Guard - against the former, I have nothing worth dropping 5 Distort Scythe guns on that's not Invisible and you bet you're at the top of the Grav kill list, and against the later you've bought some mighty expensive heavy flamers), but it can really do a number on Tyranids, Orks, other Eldar and anyone who's not prepared for it regardless of list.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

Just because I'd like to see some change to 40k, I'll post a PDF of what changes that *I* would like to see changed.

NOTE: if you plan on actually reading the PDF I highly recommend for you to have the 7th ed BRB out with you, because for several changes it only changes a single sentence or so (LoS for example)

I hate the current version of the Psychic phase, I have to some degree completely retooled that phase.

I omitted my "erratas" to the codexs because 1) half of them were out dated/got a new codex 2) I generally do not find much issue with the codexs themselves - in view of CAD/Force Org requirements styles for the game 3) I don't like formations and I don't want to fuck with them/piss a bunch of people off.

----

Lastly please note that this is very much rough drafty, I personally do not play a whole lot of 40k anymore and this has been my pet "project" whenever it has excited me, and it hasn't really be play tested.

If anyone does play test these and would like to tell me their findings - feel free to PM me your results and thoughts; besides that - please enjoy and comment.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Fallen said:


> Just because I'd like to see some change to 40k, I'll post a PDF of what changes that *I* would like to see changed.
> 
> NOTE: if you plan on actually reading the PDF I highly recommend for you to have the 7th ed BRB out with you, because for several changes it only changes a single sentence or so (LoS for example)
> 
> ...


7 pages...
i looked at it but already almost 4am.
my head is mush.
tomorrow...


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

it's a real light "7" pages, I could probably condense it into 3 or 4, but I have it set up that way for any potential changes/additions.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Fallen said:


> Just because I'd like to see some change to 40k, I'll post a PDF of what changes that *I* would like to see changed.
> 
> NOTE: if you plan on actually reading the PDF I highly recommend for you to have the 7th ed BRB out with you, because for several changes it only changes a single sentence or so (LoS for example)
> 
> ...



I looked at your document with an alert brain.
mostly liked the ideas in there...

would like to see a fatter band of 3's in the weapon skill to hit in assault.
for fear, i would think pinned with failure within 6" is best.

I like the overwatch.
would like to see a similar treatment with charges.

I would like to see the chance to charge any direction for instance to take a hill or an objective,
or as an orderly redeployment, with the caveat that the unit cannot charge the next turn.

Look out sir should be within 2", imo.

Psychic powers should be once per turn per power up to mastery level.
No overlimit nonsense...

The skyfire thing is weird...

difficult terrain test failure is immobilized.
If you wanna add that the crew (not embarked troops, but otherwise invisible crew, can try to un-immobilze it at a 4+, suffering a hull point on a roll of 1.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

jin said:


> I looked at your document with an alert brain.
> mostly liked the ideas in there...
> 
> would like to see a fatter band of 3's in the weapon skill to hit in assault.
> ...


My mistake on a couple of things, again - mostly because I know what I'm reading (mostly because I short handed it and just didn't notice - as this is the first "public" viewing in a long while)

On Vehicles and Difficult Terrain; it should have been two choices on how to write the rule, not a choice that the player makes in game.

It have been:

If you roll 1 on the difficult terrain test, you become immobilized - but with no loss of hull points. (Driving into a tree doesn't hurt the vehicle that badly - so it is still a potential danger to enemies)

OR

If you roll 1 on the difficult terrain test, you lose 1 Hull Point and stop your movement and consider the vehicle has moved at Cruising Speed (Or whatever the fastest version of speed is now) for this turn. 

----

I lifted the second rule from one of @neferhet 's posts a year or so ago - as I thought it was a pretty neat idea.

----

I shall attach my ever so slight changes to my Errata/FAQ/FIX-THIS of 40k.

Thanks @jin for reading and the feedback.:good:

IF anyone else wishes to read and comment I will do my best to reply as quickly as I can.


----------



## jin (Feb 20, 2014)

Fallen said:


> My mistake on a couple of things, again - mostly because I know what I'm reading (mostly because I short handed it and just didn't notice - as this is the first "public" viewing in a long while)
> 
> ----
> 
> ...


my pleasure man.
i will check out your most recent composition once i get this first paper in a series of three solving the hard problem of consciousness sent to the editor...deadline is in hours. shall see what happens


----------

