Post by gauntlet on Jul 13, 2023 15:10:51 GMT
The game mechanics severly penalises low points, low strength units.
Larger models are disproportionately efficient in attacks and defenses.
Larger models can have their cake and eat it. High movement, Shoot in combat, and Fight, and get Objective Control.
If the games mechanic was only two phases.
Phase 1) perform one action, either
- issue command (if not engaged, or other hinderences)
- shoot (if not hindered)
- fight
- perform mission action
Phase 2) leadership test, game mechanics accounting, scoring missions etc.
Then having cheaper bodies for more or larger expendible units, board control would be easier.
An aside. You can balance Knights, Monsters and Vehicles, in a thematic way, by taking into account the slowness of their inertial mass, so they can be strong and invulnerable like in the fluff, but only use one weapon a turn, have low number of attacks, not shoot and fight, low rate of performing Objective secured actions.
Some back of the envelope scratchings/musings
If a unit has double wounds it should cost twice as much
If a unit has an armour save it cost should increase in proportion to it's durability.
Take a basic model stat
S3 T3 W1 cost = 5 points
If it has more wounds multiply the cost
W2 = 10pts
W3 = 15pts
W4 = 20pts
If it has an armour Sv increase cost appropriately
Sv6+ x120%
Sv5+ x130%
Sv4+ x200%
Sv3+ x300%
Sv2+ x600%
Sanity Test, Number of lasguns S3 Ap0 shots to kill
Sv6+ = 1.2
Sv5+ = 1.3
Sv4+ = 2
Sv3+ = 3
Sv2+ = 6
If they have higher Toughness, cost adjusted based of S3 as basic shooting.
T1 x30%
T2 x60%
T3 x1
T4 to T5 x150%
T6+ 300%
example
New Marines T4 W2 Sv3+
x1.5 x2 x3 x5pts = 45pts
old Marines T4 W1 Sv3+
x1.5 x1 x3 x5pts = 23pts
new Termagants T3 W1 Sv5+
x1 x1 x1.3 x5pts = 6.5 pts
old Termagants T3 W1 Sv6+
x1 x1 x1.2 x5pts = 6pts
A monster T10 W10 Sv3+
x3 x10 x3 x5pts = 450pts
Marine Terminator T5 W3 Sv2+
x1.5 x3 x6 x5pts = 135pts
Extending the trend from old Termagants through to new Marines, you can see how Monstrous and Vehicle units are greatly undercosted in 10th Edition (and all editions). The hopefully balancing factor is that a single expensive cost model cannot be everywhere and do everything, like many small cheap units. But shooting offsets the limitations of a single models locality because it greatly increases the range a solitary model can reach out and affect the battlefield. (Made worse if unit cannot hide from you.) Add on top of that the balance complexity of giving anti-tank weapons to low cost infantry.
When you unfairly abuse the basic points formula for larger durable models, then you have to risk the fragile concept that Anti-tank weapons and ability to Objective Control is the key balancer of the game. It's risky and difficult, and you will fail to balance, without rigorous testing of in-game real life situtations.
EDIT: An interesting way of balancing the game is to have units return to the board after destroyed, this prevents the viscous cycle of one player being at a mathematical disadvanctage if one side suffers several unit loses near the start of the battle. Outside of 40k I forget which other games has this rule for all units. Maybe you know? Was it Project Pandora by Mantic Games?
My points system is basically a measure of durability vs lasguns T3 AP0 D1
Hiding a Termagant in cover T3 W1 Sv4+
x1 x1 x2 x5pts = 10pts
Tyranid Warrior T5 W3 Sv4+
x1.5 x3 x2 x5pts = 45pts
Tyranid Warrior with cover T5 W3 Sv3+
x1.5 x3 x3 x5pts = 67 pts
EDIT again we see the unfair advantage of armour for expensive units, going from Sv5+ to Sv4+ is 50% durability increase. But Sv4+ to Sv3+ is 100% increase indurability, compounded by the efficiency effect of saving more points per pip of armour. And if on top of that you are abusing the points formula.
Larger models are disproportionately efficient in attacks and defenses.
Larger models can have their cake and eat it. High movement, Shoot in combat, and Fight, and get Objective Control.
If the games mechanic was only two phases.
Phase 1) perform one action, either
- issue command (if not engaged, or other hinderences)
- shoot (if not hindered)
- fight
- perform mission action
Phase 2) leadership test, game mechanics accounting, scoring missions etc.
Then having cheaper bodies for more or larger expendible units, board control would be easier.
An aside. You can balance Knights, Monsters and Vehicles, in a thematic way, by taking into account the slowness of their inertial mass, so they can be strong and invulnerable like in the fluff, but only use one weapon a turn, have low number of attacks, not shoot and fight, low rate of performing Objective secured actions.
Some back of the envelope scratchings/musings
If a unit has double wounds it should cost twice as much
If a unit has an armour save it cost should increase in proportion to it's durability.
Take a basic model stat
S3 T3 W1 cost = 5 points
If it has more wounds multiply the cost
W2 = 10pts
W3 = 15pts
W4 = 20pts
If it has an armour Sv increase cost appropriately
Sv6+ x120%
Sv5+ x130%
Sv4+ x200%
Sv3+ x300%
Sv2+ x600%
Sanity Test, Number of lasguns S3 Ap0 shots to kill
Sv6+ = 1.2
Sv5+ = 1.3
Sv4+ = 2
Sv3+ = 3
Sv2+ = 6
If they have higher Toughness, cost adjusted based of S3 as basic shooting.
T1 x30%
T2 x60%
T3 x1
T4 to T5 x150%
T6+ 300%
example
New Marines T4 W2 Sv3+
x1.5 x2 x3 x5pts = 45pts
old Marines T4 W1 Sv3+
x1.5 x1 x3 x5pts = 23pts
new Termagants T3 W1 Sv5+
x1 x1 x1.3 x5pts = 6.5 pts
old Termagants T3 W1 Sv6+
x1 x1 x1.2 x5pts = 6pts
A monster T10 W10 Sv3+
x3 x10 x3 x5pts = 450pts
Marine Terminator T5 W3 Sv2+
x1.5 x3 x6 x5pts = 135pts
Extending the trend from old Termagants through to new Marines, you can see how Monstrous and Vehicle units are greatly undercosted in 10th Edition (and all editions). The hopefully balancing factor is that a single expensive cost model cannot be everywhere and do everything, like many small cheap units. But shooting offsets the limitations of a single models locality because it greatly increases the range a solitary model can reach out and affect the battlefield. (Made worse if unit cannot hide from you.) Add on top of that the balance complexity of giving anti-tank weapons to low cost infantry.
When you unfairly abuse the basic points formula for larger durable models, then you have to risk the fragile concept that Anti-tank weapons and ability to Objective Control is the key balancer of the game. It's risky and difficult, and you will fail to balance, without rigorous testing of in-game real life situtations.
EDIT: An interesting way of balancing the game is to have units return to the board after destroyed, this prevents the viscous cycle of one player being at a mathematical disadvanctage if one side suffers several unit loses near the start of the battle. Outside of 40k I forget which other games has this rule for all units. Maybe you know? Was it Project Pandora by Mantic Games?
My points system is basically a measure of durability vs lasguns T3 AP0 D1
Hiding a Termagant in cover T3 W1 Sv4+
x1 x1 x2 x5pts = 10pts
Tyranid Warrior T5 W3 Sv4+
x1.5 x3 x2 x5pts = 45pts
Tyranid Warrior with cover T5 W3 Sv3+
x1.5 x3 x3 x5pts = 67 pts
EDIT again we see the unfair advantage of armour for expensive units, going from Sv5+ to Sv4+ is 50% durability increase. But Sv4+ to Sv3+ is 100% increase indurability, compounded by the efficiency effect of saving more points per pip of armour. And if on top of that you are abusing the points formula.
