Codex Design: How many options are too many options?

[Atrotos]

In the past few days I've gotten a few emails and comments about the list of additional rules posted on RM. All the unit entries on the site are, so far, meant to plug in to existing codecies in order to take advantage of the playtesting and writing that GW has already done and to make it easier to include homebrew rules in 'official' lists. While most readers seem happy to have new options to add to their existing armies one reader states:

"Codecies, especially those written for 5th edition, are already filled to the brim with options. These [additional rules] (http://rulesmanufactorum.blogspot.com/search/label/Imperial%20Guard%20Doctrines) you've written don't add to the game system, they overload it with options. ...[Codex Add-ons] would make it impossible to play competitively because the sheer variety of builds would make it impossible to build an 'all-comers' force. ... The overabundant variety of competitive builds would make the tournament circuit a crapshoot where only luck prevails."

I admit that this comment took me by surprise. I had never considered that an army might have "too many options." I've always wanted to enter a tournament and have armies that were completely different to one another as well as the option to build an army that is both themed AND competitive. IMO this can only happen if the codex is overstuffed with viable options. But the above quote does have some truth to it.

So what do you guys think? Can we ever reach a point where there are too many army builds to keep track of? Would it be distressing to you competitive players if there were too many rules to know by heart and that any game may present you with combos you've never faced?

[Madness]

Tbh, no, the metagame has to die and so do anti-x builds, the more variety we get the more versatility will be rewarded.

[MVBrandt]

Atrotos, I've mentioned it before, but we went through and rebalanced the codices for the occasional game with our group. Adding options or units was always a VERY BAD idea. The solution instead was to tweak around with the units we did have in the codices until we got to a place where choosing what units was the nailbiter, vs. figuring out how to most efficiently spam the best units. This resulted in way more options, without overloading people with entirely new units/characters/etc. to playtest. It gave a much better starting baseline.

[Lord Azaghul]

I think how you format the option in the codex is far more important.
Just compair the old IG 'dex to the new IG 'dex.
I started with the old book so most of the time I didn't eve bother with the options since I had to look in 3 different pages to get my price, availablity, and cost. Not to mention combinations

The newer formatting is fantastic: all your option on the unit's selection page, and all are pretty straight foward.

As long as the options make sense, IE a platoon commander with 8 options, and a penal squad with none. Both make sense.

[therealjohnny5]

i think to some degree the guy has a valid point as there are many options that exist already, however like madness says the good combos are all spammed to death and i for one prefer a fluffy and tactically sound army list. As i play RG i have to work in some unique ideas for HS slots and anti-mech. and it'd be nice to have some viable options. while i think some armies have tons of options and others need more, i think the key is looking at the gaps in an army and fluff and making it work from there.

[BuFFo]

Can we ever reach a point where there are too many army builds to keep track of?

That is the problem. This isn't Magic the Gathering. There should be next to no predictable meta game at all.

The concepts of being able to track the top 5 builds (see Fantasy for this travesty) is insulting to the hobby.


Would it be distressing to you competitive players if there were too many rules to know by heart and that any game may present you with combos you've never faced?

If it annoys the 5 competitive players in my area to make sure the 50 casual players have fun, then yeah, more options the better.

[MVBrandt]

I think the best way to accomplish the variety of build issue is not to add more options, but to make every optional internally competitive. Consider, for example, if sisters repentia were every bit as good in their own way as 5 celestians w/ 2 melta in an immolator. By "every bit as good" I mean impactful + durable for their points. They are neither right now.

The way to accomplish this is sometimes new special rules, or different options, but it is NEVER to just add a bunch of units, or to overcomplicate units to the extreme with lots of options and rules.

Games should be balanced for the most intense, competitive, list-breaking players. If they are, they'll be balanced by default for the rest. Balance should not just be codex vs. codex, but every possible list build within a codex vs. any other possible build.

Adding depth to a codex should be the SECOND priority. The first should be normalizing it across all unit choices. IIn microcosm, if your players are agonizing over whether to take assault terminators or regular terminators, your mission is accomplished.

[Madness]

I have to agree in whole with the "if you're having a hard time picking your units, your codex is made right", right now we're seeing too much of "this unit is rubbish let's just skip it". Although there's the value of situational effectiveness, some units can be subpar generally but have a redeeming quality in a specific context, the army should also have sinergies that make specific combinations work better than just picking a cream of the crop and putting it into the field.

[Atrotos]

The way to accomplish this is sometimes new special rules, or different options, but it is NEVER to just add a bunch of units, or to overcomplicate units to the extreme with lots of options and rules.


I'll respond to you MVBrandt since I disagree with what you say. This only works if the Codex creation and Codex re-evaluation and editing were done by Games Workshop but this is not the case -whatever GW prints is only replaced by new editions never updated.

Thus you have an 'official' set of rules and non-officials trying to figure how to augment the rules that already exist (because we don't want to wait 5 years for replacement rules). If you change the official ruleset then your rules will never be accepted because they will not have that GW label. However if you add to the rules then there is room for discussion because the vast majority of your army list will still carry that GW 'formality'.

Example: No tournament is going to simply let you simply reduce the cost of Storm Troopers to 12 pts each (even though that would fix the problem more or less) and even friends will wrinkle their nose at simple points hacking. If you were however to introduce a new IG HQ character that augmented the way Storm Troopers played without changing their rules you would have a more subtle solution to the same problem. I feel this latter solution is less "invasive" and will therefore leave less of a mark on the body of rules as a whole. Reducing the cost of your army list by 300 pts or so is inherently bad but adding a 45 point character is more likely to be acceptable.

I hope I'm not being too vague in my rambling.

[DarkLink]

I hope I'm not being too vague in my rambling.

I think you're missing the point of his post. Don't add a bunch of ultimately useless options onto a unit. That doesn't make a unit better. Instead, make sure each unit is a good unit. If you can't decide what unit to take in a codex, and have to struggle to pick from a bunch of really good choices, then that's a good codex. It's not about making the whole army 300pts cheaper, nor is it about including a handful of special characters that give other units extra options.

And it doesn't take GW to make a balanced codex. It's not like there's a college of 40k codex design or something. In fact, GW's track record with horrible units isn't the best. Look at the new 'nidz. Solid codex, but there are some units in it that make you ask "why?"

[Polonius]

Never confuse total options with effective options. Dark angel tactical squads don't suck because they have limited options, they suck because none of those options are good. IG had more total options in the old codex, they have more effective options now, so while we see less overall diversity, more kinds of Ig are able to compete.

I have a couple of rules of thumb for codex design, however. First, for armory options, people are going to stick with one shooty, one assaulty, and one cheap option. nobody buys a boltgun when they can take a plasma pistol for 8pts more, and nobody takes a power weapon when they can take a relic blade.

that ties into my main rule: the rule of three: as a general rule, when there are more than three options, be it units in a FOC slot, armory options, or heavy/special options, three will rise to the top for nearly all applications. Gw has gotten a lot better at eliminating this rule, but the rule is still hard to avoid.

[Renegade]

I think you're missing the point of his post. Don't add a bunch of ultimately useless options onto a unit. That doesn't make a unit better. Instead, make sure each unit is a good unit. If you can't decide what unit to take in a codex, and have to struggle to pick from a bunch of really good choices, then that's a good codex. It's not about making the whole army 300pts cheaper, nor is it about including a handful of special characters that give other units extra options.

And it doesn't take GW to make a balanced codex. It's not like there's a college of 40k codex design or something. In fact, GW's track record with horrible units isn't the best. Look at the new 'nidz. Solid codex, but there are some units in it that make you ask "why?"

I agree with the majority of this, and would add that a good comparison would be the C:CSM3.5 and the C:CSM4.0

The 3.5 was a bit all over the place with the options and rules, but the 4.0 took so many away that the codex has become like bran fakes and skimmed milk for all three meals and any snack in between.

They could have kept the options, but limited who got what. That would have given a lot more builds and none would have been more dominant than the other over all. Take the 5 top played 3.5 lists and put them against the top 5 4.0 lists. You will find more diversity of units in the 3.5 than in the 4.0 being used, and being used in a way that is very different to each other.

When it comes to a point that some units are consider fail, then the codex its self is fail. Each unit should work well with something else to make a good build that wont be tabled in 3 turns, and luck as well as skill should play a leading factor. Every list and army should be able to land a surprise or whats the point in having options at all, just print a few lists of what can be taken and set builds and leave it at that (and kill the hobby and the game)

[Melissia]

I have to agree in whole with the "if you're having a hard time picking your units, your codex is made right", right now we're seeing too much of "this unit is rubbish let's just skip it". Although there's the value of situational effectiveness, some units can be subpar generally but have a redeeming quality in a specific context, the army should also have sinergies that make specific combinations work better than just picking a cream of the crop and putting it into the field.
I completely and utterly agree. More options = AWESOME.

Compare the army list for Sisters of Battle to the army list for any fifth edition codex. Yeah, uh, I'll take more options rather than less, kthxbai.

[MVBrandt]

Atrotos, as mentioned, I think you may be partially "missing" the point I was attempting to make. The majority of options in the current codices are noncompetitive. You will not fix storm troopers unless you fix storm troopers. To wit, when most of the options in most of the codices aren't worth taking, folks will have little regard for new ones.

It is especially meaningful in the sense that you appear to want actual tournaments to pay attention to your rules and consider them. Models do not even exist for NEW equipment, or NEW units/characters/vehicles. They do exist for units that are so crap nobody ever takes them.

As a result, if you aren't MODIFYING the costs, and equipment options of the units already in the codices that aren't worth taking as a result of these being poorly done ... you aren't ever going to be interesting to a serious tournament organizer.

Now, that said, maybe that's not your goal, but you'd have to let me know - I'm not fully in tune with it. For my own part, "different" or modified rules of the game are even worse to include in a tournament than Composition. As such, while I will be hosting a 128-person circuit qualifier this year, I would not ever be interested in utilizing them - even if they were magnificently done (and when you're finished, they may be!).

[UltramarineFan]

I don't think that you can ever have too many options they just have to format them in a way that people can understand. If they can do that then the more options, the better!

[Atrotos]

Atrotos, as mentioned, I think you may be partially "missing" the point I was attempting to make. The majority of options in the current codices are noncompetitive. You will not fix storm troopers unless you fix storm troopers. To wit, when most of the options in most of the codices aren't worth taking, folks will have little regard for new ones.

It is especially meaningful in the sense that you appear to want actual tournaments to pay attention to your rules and consider them. Models do not even exist for NEW equipment, or NEW units/characters/vehicles. They do exist for units that are so crap nobody ever takes them.

As a result, if you aren't MODIFYING the costs, and equipment options of the units already in the codices that aren't worth taking as a result of these being poorly done ... you aren't ever going to be interesting to a serious tournament organizer.

Now, that said, maybe that's not your goal, but you'd have to let me know - I'm not fully in tune with it. For my own part, "different" or modified rules of the game are even worse to include in a tournament than Composition. As such, while I will be hosting a 128-person circuit qualifier this year, I would not ever be interested in utilizing them - even if they were magnificently done (and when you're finished, they may be!).

Hmmm maybe I misunderstood. To me it sounds like you're saying "don't add any extra rules because you'll just make things worse" and this is what I can't agree with. As you stated it's not the presence or absence of options that determines competitiveness but the availability of good options. We both seem to agree on this but you still seem to be arguing that only a direct modification of GW rules will ever be appropriate for competitive play. As I said before I agree that that is a viable solution but disagree in that I think it will be much more difficult to find "modifications" that everyone can agree on.

Meanwhile the pure and simple addition of options, based on existing rules, is a smaller pill to swallow. Another example: Forgeworld released it's Imperial Armor rules for free online. In their Valkyrie entry they've added the rule that Valkyries may be taken as dedicated transports for Inquisitorial Storm Troopers. ISTs are overcosted units with overcosted transports but this simple combination of existing rules (IST entry + Valkryie entry) makes the unit much more competitive than it was before. No new playtesting, no arguing with opponents as to whether ISTs are worth 7 pts or 8 pts each.

[modelguyicmt]

I think that this problem can be solved rather easily. There is a game called Battletech. It has rules divided into three 'levels'. Level 1 is the most basic ruleset. Level 2 adds new equipment and rules to level 1, and so is more complex. Level 3 is a level full of experimental rules and equipment. Levels 1 and 2 are the 'core' rules, and before each game players decide which rules they want to use, level 1 rules correspond to a different time period than level 2, less technologically advanced, this difference in time period is the main reason for the differences between the two levels. Level 3 are a series of rules that can be added to either a level 1 or 2 game to make it more interesting, they are dependent on both players agreeing to use them.

Let's use the 5th ed rulebook as 'level 1', and then modify the 5th ed rules/codicies only to provide for more balance and to bring all codicies up to date- this would be 'level 2'. And then we can create a whole host of house rules and lists, make them as balanced as we can and call them 'level 3', this allows players to choose to play a slightly modified version of 40k, and if they so choose, to cherrypick rules from the third level.

Addtionally, I think the goal of your site has to be made more clear, are we going to produce lists based on solely trying to gain legitimacy, or are we going to go all-out and fluffy and make the rules the way WE think they should be, and focus on a smaller group of gamers as hardcore as the pro-gamers, but in a more fluff-oriented way?

---Ian---

[Nabterayl]

I disagree with the comment in the OP, Atrotos. The writer seems concerned that additional units and rules will make an "all-comers force" impossible to build. Unless you're adding new types of units, I don't see how that could be, though. The game has a fairly large number of unit types already (I break the game down into about eleven types personally*; YMMV), into which additional units and rules will almost certainly fit.

As for MVBrandt's point ... I agree with what he's saying, but it doesn't actually seem addressed to what you're doing. When it comes to making the game better designed, I agree with MVBrandt's approach - start with making the units in the codex better suited to your local players until everybody wants to take everything all the time.

Rules Manufactorum has never struck me as an attempt to do that. To me it's seemed like an effort to fill in perceived holes in the way the game represents the background, which is a totally different endeavor more akin to what Imperial Armour does. Sentinel Powerlifters and Trojans and Atlases aren't in the IA books because they fill a hole in the Imperial Guard codex. They're in the IA books because they exist.

* My personal list: Light infantry, heavy infantry, light armored fighting vehicles, heavy armored fighting vehicles, main battle tanks, and cavalry; plus/in parallel with: units that are good at shooting light infantry, units that are good at shooting heavy infantry, units that are good at killing units that are bad at CC, units that are good at killing units that are good in CC, and monstrous creature/MBT/heavy AFV killers. Honorable mention to artillery, self-propelled guns, and medium infantry.

[therealjohnny5]

As I said before I agree that that is a viable solution but disagree in that I think it will be much more difficult to find "modifications" that everyone can agree on.

Meanwhile the pure and simple addition of options, based on existing rules, is a smaller pill to swallow.

I would have to agree here. I think that point is the center of misunderstanding or the primary point of disagreement, Simply overhauling GW's rules with a large base of playtesting and the like is an idealistic concept but unlikely and ultimately pointless when Atrotos is interested in getting his rulesets accepted on the large. so they have to be modifications using already existing rules. The addition of a single character (and to earlier posters concerned with model availability, lets be real and acknowledge not all options are currently available, that's part of the hobby aspect of the game) with specific rules that change units overall playability is an easier and more widely acceptable manner of improving a codex army than trying to get a complete dex overhaul accepted. Much like FW does as Atrotos mentioned above. While this will still be challenging enough to get accepted and is an auspicious project, it's much more likely to succeed than codex rewrites and the inherent copyright issues that'd be sure to raise...thank you GW army of lawyers....


There is a game called Battletech.

Kudos for the battle tech shout out....i miss that game...still have minis and maps and books collecting dust...


Addtionally, I think the goal of your site has to be made more clear, are we going to produce lists based on solely trying to gain legitimacy, or are we going to go all-out and fluffy and make the rules the way WE think they should be, and focus on a smaller group of gamers as hardcore as the pro-gamers, but in a more fluff-oriented way?

I think that couldn't hurt to be absolutely clear, though i think the OP has accomplished this by stating in earlier posts his desire to have his rules accepted on tournament and wider spread game play levels, much like FW's work but more focused on balancing out the current codecies rather than creating or expanding fluff. pls correct me if i'm wrong Atrotos....:D

[Lerra]

I love a deep codex with lots of options, mostly because it lengthens the lifespan of that codex - both on a competitive and a casual level.

For competitive play, variety means you can adapt to new codices or new editions. How many "terrible" units or options from old codices became decent or even competitive in 5th? I want as many options as possible so that my codex has a better chance of standing the test of time when 6th ed comes out and the game changes in ways the codex writers can't prepare for right now.

It's fun to have lots of units to test out and add to the army. I don't even mind the bad units in a codex - they allow me to play new players or poor tacticians and still have a good game (you should see my krootox spam list). I love playing armies that I've never seen before because it keeps the game interesting - it keeps you on your toes and makes the game a lot more exciting. Small, simple codices lead to a stale game.

[Atrotos]

Well to respond to some comments the rules on the site are meant to be both fluffy AND competitive. There's no reason to assume rules can't be both. By maintaining a 'living document' approach you can start with a good idea for a fluffy rule and then edit it according to popular (thoughtful) demand. You can already see this happening with the Legendary Dreadnought and Imperial Guard Doctrines. Readers leave good comments and then you'r 'realistic' rules slowly become balanced as well.

[Denzark]

Back in RT days they showed you how many points each 'level' of characteristic was worth, so you could design your own right from scratch.

The problem now is this isn't the case - 15 points may get you a 2 CCW bolt gun toting spikey marine, a 2 CCW bolt gun toting smelly dog marine with Acute senses and ATSKNF but you need 16 points to add in the ability to combat squad without 2 CCW?

Presumably there is a GW design methodology, taught to new members of the design team in induction, and overseen by some overlord who makes sure a codex doesn't go too far off track.

You don't have these checks and balances with homebrew. What makes the abstract game fair-ish is that 1500 points of IG should be roughly the same in capabilities as 1500 points of SM.

Now we know the problems of old codexes, and tht GW aren't always the best at balance, updates, etc. So how the hell can we trust homebrew rules? How can you guage the worth of a special ability?

If you don't trust the GW points system the only fair substitue would be to play wth identical armies - might as well give up.

Its only the qualities of BoLS play aids that makes them acceptable in my group - and even then it tends to be the big boys and not the random special characters.

[Atrotos]

Back in RT days they showed you how many points each 'level' of characteristic was worth, so you could design your own right from scratch.

The problem now is this isn't the case - 15 points may get you a 2 CCW bolt gun toting spikey marine, a 2 CCW bolt gun toting smelly dog marine with Acute senses and ATSKNF but you need 16 points to add in the ability to combat squad without 2 CCW?

Presumably there is a GW design methodology, taught to new members of the design team in induction, and overseen by some overlord who makes sure a codex doesn't go too far off track.

I lol'ed at this. Your own example pretty much kills this idea. There is no "methodology". How could there be?
How can you put a price on Combat Tactics or a Psychic Power based on a chart? All you can do is play the game. After a few hundred matches you get a 'feel' for how much stuff is worth and what doesn't feel right rules-wise. Not everyone has this ability and those that do have it still f*ck up fairly often. That's why it's important, as I stated in the previous post, to keep rules open to editing even when you're designing them for competitive play.

The honest truth is no two armies will ever be perfectly balanced against one another. Beyond the rock/paper/scissors effect that many forces have against one another there's also the fact that many rules are situationally costed. For instance Acute Senses is a special rule that all Space Wolves get for free - it's not included in their points. It's like buying a battalion - there's a unit inside that's discounted or free to make the package as a whole more attractive. The larger the "purchase" the less important the price/points costs of individual models/rules.



You don't have these checks and balances with homebrew. What makes the abstract game fair-ish is that 1500 points of IG should be roughly the same in capabilities as 1500 points of SM.

Now we know the problems of old codexes, and tht GW aren't always the best at balance, updates, etc. So how the hell can we trust homebrew rules?

Here again you're assuming that the gentlemen at GW HQ somehow know more about the game you've been playing for decades than you do. It's not as if you can get a degree in Codex Design so what makes the 'official' unit entry more balanced than the unofficial? I would say the difference is the time and resources to playtest but I'm not entirely certain that GW does playtest very rigorously. Rules design is a burden for a company that makes models so they cut out alot of the options you used to have and make 5th ed codecies more streamlined - this reduces the amount of time they have to spend designing rules.



If you don't trust the GW points system the only fair substitue would be to play wth identical armies - might as well give up.

Or you could write your own rules. If you've played an army for years and you think something is inappropriately costed you're probably right. You can wait for GW to spoon-feed new rules that might be equally worthless or you can do something about it.



Its only the qualities of BoLS play aids that makes them acceptable in my group - and even then it tends to be the big boys and not the random special characters.

Yes quality is the first step to acceptable homebrew rules. I'm working on it.

[MVBrandt]

I think the flak you'll catch originates, Atrotos, from the fact that it's next to impossible to legitimze homebrew rules, when the rules put out by the actual game designers are themselves so close to illegitimate in the minds of many players.

The codices, by unit, need to in many cases be fundamentally changed or at least altered. Problem is, as soon as you start to do that, you'll encounter just as much flak. Adding options to units, or adding new units, goes even further - politely IMO - in the wrong direction, b/c of the fundamental problem NOT being that the codices are not balanced, but that many codices have so few choices for competitive builds, based on the fact that many of their units are obsolete by design and points cost, not by options.


It's also a matter of bias. Case in point - Storm Troopers. 5 Storm Troopers w/ 2 Meltaguns in a Chimera is an EXCELLENT unit by any standard, capable of outflanking in their transport, suicide deep striking and leaving their chimera for another squad to hop in at will, etc. There's a plethora of very poor players across the intarweb that go STORM TROOPERZ SUX LULZ b/c of their points cost and crappy guns (s3ap3 = crap). Regardless, that's the kind of thing you'll run into as you press on ... everyone has a different opinion, and this is worsened to a degree by the fact that most 40k players are not exceptional at the game, so the "average" opinion is typically quite wrong.

That makes the impact of changes tailored around the common opinion even more difficult to accept in a tournament setting, where the best players are going to take the greatest advantage of codex buffs, and the average players not as much. It's readily scene across the board, and is largely why the cheaper / better varied codices do better in tourneys, yet not necessarily better in average gaming circles, but this becomes a much bigger discussion ... perhaps one I should blog about :p ... edit: and of course, ramblingly, I did.

[Atrotos]

b/c of the fundamental problem NOT being that the codices are not balanced, but that many codices have so few choices for competitive builds, based on the fact that many of their units are obsolete by design and points cost, not by options.

Very true, but wouldn't you agree that many of these "obsolete by design" units could be restored through the addition of options? An example would how Chaos bikers are outshone by other options in the codex but become a competitive choice with the Mark of Nurgle.Similarly if you could take a 'Legion of the Damned' HQ choice that made LotD Troop choices would they not instantly become more competitive?

Additions to rules suggest a level of intimacy and involvement in the theme of your army as well as its competitiveness. Yes a simple points-hacking fixes the LotD just as well but when you only end up taking 1 min-sized unit of them deep striking with a multimelta this is going to rankle with other players. My interest in rules design is allowing anyone and everyone to field a themed, competitive army. Currently many choices (LotD, Penal Legion, Raptors etc.) have strong background material which leads many players to say "I wish I could field an all X army!" These players can not do that either because of FOC limitations (all-Raptor army) or competitive limitations (all-Thousand Sons) or sucky, uninspired rules limitations (Penal Legion) or no rules whatsoever (Adeptus Mechanicus) etc. This is what I'm trying to fix. Too many players give up on the army of their dreams because their desired theme is not supported with existing rules.

So that's why I add to rules rather than change existing ones. Changed rules are easier to exploit because they don't encourage rules design for the right reasons. Your example is an excellent exhibit for my case as well - Storm Troopers Deep Striking with 2 Meltas for even cheaper than they do now isn't necessary. However those of us that want an all Storm Trooper army are stuck with terrible cost in points of fielding full-sized squads at the expense of other choices. How do you keep the points cost of ST suicide squads level whilst also allowing the player to field an all Storm Trooper army? You make a Storm Trooper Officer. (http://rulesmanufactorum.blogspot.com/search/label/Storm%20Trooper%20Officer)



...everyone has a different opinion, and this is worsened to a degree by the fact that most 40k players are not exceptional at the game, so the "average" opinion is typically quite wrong.

This is very true and I'm glad you mentioned it. I could not be a rules designer if I didn't believe my opionion was more informed than most others. It's arrogant but it's necessary. I know I'm an exceptionally good 40k player, otherwise I wouldn't bother.



That makes the impact of changes tailored around the common opinion even more difficult to accept in a tournament setting, where the best players are going to take the greatest advantage of codex buffs, and the average players not as much. It's readily scene across the board, and is largely why the cheaper / better varied codices do better in tourneys, yet not necessarily better in average gaming circles, but this becomes a much bigger discussion ... perhaps one I should blog about :p ... edit: and of course, ramblingly, I did.

Though you may not know more people agree with you than you think. Everyone tends to point a finger at others saying "why make custom rules when no one else will follow them?" Write the rules, play with them and others will follow. Just like currency rules are worthless pieces of paper until you start believing in them.

[Melissia]

A prime example of a unit ruined by having no good options are the Retributors. They get either heavy bolters or multi-meltas, so most people just ignore trhem in place of something more useful like Exorcists or even penitent engines. Multi-meltas are an overpriced joke on infantry units that aren't relentless, and heavy bolters provide anti-infantry firepower which the Sisters have no lack of.

[MVBrandt]

See, I would give Retributors their own Act of Faith that grants Relentless, instead of changing their options to make them into double-redundant Dominions or SoB with unfluffy heavy weapons options.

Rules and points changes > "options."

[david5th]

Fewer more effective and attractive options >more ineffective and pointless options.

[Denzark]

[QUOTE=Atrotos;58845]



This is very true and I'm glad you mentioned it. I could not be a rules designer if I didn't believe my opionion was more informed than most others. It's arrogant but it's necessary. I know I'm an exceptionally good 40k player, otherwise I wouldn't bother.
QUOTE]

Reeeeeaaaaaaaaaalllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy. How interesting. Which multi million pound games company employs you then Captain Modesty?

[Herald of Nurgle]

[QUOTE=Atrotos;58845]



This is very true and I'm glad you mentioned it. I could not be a rules designer if I didn't believe my opionion was more informed than most others. It's arrogant but it's necessary. I know I'm an exceptionally good 40k player, otherwise I wouldn't bother.
QUOTE]

Reeeeeaaaaaaaaaalllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy. How interesting. Which multi million pound games company employs you then Captain Modesty?
Microsoft?

[Melissia]

So you get a unit that's only useful with an Act of Faith (which lasts only one phase and you get roughly one per squad per game). That's rather stupid, no thanks.


Fewer more effective and attractive options >more ineffective and pointless options.

Don't act like it's one or the other. More attractive and effective options > than fewer attractive and effective options.

[MVBrandt]

You could also simply give all devastator equivalent foot units in the game (namely, retributors and devastators) Relentless. It's not like they'd be an "auto take" even at that point.

As far as stupidity goes, you should tailor the tongue. You come off sounding petulant and childish, rather than wise and informed. Maybe that's what you're going for, but it leads to numerous flame wars across the boards. It's curious that you would waste your breath on commentary that turns people off giving you the time of day.

[Atrotos]

See, I would give Retributors their own Act of Faith that grants Relentless, instead of changing their options to make them into double-redundant Dominions or SoB with unfluffy heavy weapons options.

Rules and points changes > "options."

Actually MVBrandt this would be an example in my favor. You're not changing the basic stats, cost or equipment of the Retributors. Instead your adding to a list of existing peripheral rules in much the same way I've written additional Doctrines for Imperial Guard. You're making retributors useful without changing anything about the unit itself.

I'd love to have your opinion on the main body of my last post if you get the chance (re: additonal rules that are more acceptable because they endeavor to create a "themed" force)




Reeeeeaaaaaaaaaalllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy. How interesting. Which multi million pound games company employs you then Captain Modesty?

Friend, I wrote an extensive response to your last post and in return you ignore it and focus on an irrelevant sentence written in response to someone else. I respected what you have to say by responding to it in detail please don't belittle my opinion.

Being a good player is, to me, a prerequisite to designing rules for any game. I can't prove to you that I am a good player all I can say is being a good player is advantageous to designing balanced rules because of the inherent thorough understanding of the game and its mechanics.


So you get a unit that's only useful with an Act of Faith (which lasts only one phase and you get roughly one per squad per game). That's rather stupid, no thanks.

Don't act like it's one or the other. More attractive and effective options > than fewer attractive and effective options.

This is a very good point but MVBrandt is correct is stating that your prickly response detracts from it. There is no fuctional limit to how many good options there can be nor is it fact that for every few good options there must be some that are sub-par.

[Denzark]

Listen Atrotos I am not belittling your opinion - I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death their right to say it and all that jazz. If I am responding to anything with sarcasm it is what comes across as your colossal arrogance with some of your comments.

Even so, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and pop some points for debate in below.





I lol'ed at this. Your own example pretty much kills this idea. There is no "methodology". How could there be?

I'm sure there is a methodology. Games designer A writes the IG codex. Game designer B writes the Space Wolves. Game designer C does not write a codex next where MEQ costs 5 points and all have plasma guns that don't get hot, plus furious charge (even though he thinks this unit may sell rather well) - he writes something roughly in line with the others.

How can you put a price on Combat Tactics or a Psychic Power based on a chart? All you can do is play the game. After a few hundred matches you get a 'feel' for how much stuff is worth and what doesn't feel right rules-wise. Not everyone has this ability and those that do have it still f*ck up fairly often. That's why it's important, as I stated in the previous post, to keep rules open to editing even when you're designing them for competitive play.

This is why I reckon there must be some checks and balances amongst the design team - is there anything out there that game breaking? That a half decent experienced player can't counter after some consideration and a quick scan of teh intuhwebz?

The honest truth is no two armies will ever be perfectly balanced against one another. Beyond the rock/paper/scissors effect that many forces have against one another there's also the fact that many rules are situationally costed. For instance Acute Senses is a special rule that all Space Wolves get for free - it's not included in their points. It's like buying a battalion - there's a unit inside that's discounted or free to make the package as a whole more attractive. The larger the "purchase" the less important the price/points costs of individual models/rules.

OK I agree- but a rough balance is achievable.



Here again you're assuming that the gentlemen at GW HQ somehow know more about the game you've been playing for decades than you do. It's not as if you can get a degree in Codex Design so what makes the 'official' unit entry more balanced than the unofficial? I would say the difference is the time and resources to playtest but I'm not entirely certain that GW does playtest very rigorously.

Rigourous enough that the system has evovled for 5 editions whilst its sister is on 8-ish?Rules design is a burden for a company that makes models so they cut out alot of the options you used to have and make 5th ed codecies more streamlined - this reduces the amount of time they have to spend designing rules.

I am of the opinion the stream lining of rules is to make it more acessible to their target market, not to reduce time. IE teens whose parents will drop a bucket load of cash in year one to get them off the PS3 - everything is n one place - rules, minis, glue, paint, terrain etc. Its easy and they can take the moral high ground that thye are not employing a one eyed baby sitter. Stream lined rules mean quicker games for those attention lacking teens, and that they can actually GET the rules.


Or you could write your own rules. If you've played an army for years and you think something is inappropriately costed you're probably right. You can wait for GW to spoon-feed new rules that might be equally worthless or you can do something about it.

Rules is rules. They don't change just becuase you don't like them. "Sorry Mr Usain Bolt you seem to be better than everyone else - from now on everyone else is going to start at the 80M line"

Yes quality is the first step to acceptable homebrew rules. I'm working on it. I hope this works for you, I'll be playing GW rules, not 'Billy Bob's Back Alley Battlefield Blast of Bilious Babbling Bolter shells mod' written by some unknown entity


Hope this is more in line with your mass debate.

TTFN.

[Atrotos]

Listen Atrotos I am not belittling your opinion - I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death their right to say it and all that jazz. If I am responding to anything with sarcasm it is what comes across as your colossal arrogance with some of your comments.

"L'audace, l'audace - toujour l'audace" - Loui XIV

Can't argue with you there. I am arrogant, I'll do my best not to shove it your face so much next time. Apologies.



I hope this works for you, I'll be playing GW rules, not 'Billy Bob's Back Alley Battlefield Blast of Bilious Babbling Bolter shells mod' written by some unknown entity



This comment has a distressing quality to it. I know from the rest of your comments that you have a lot of confindence in GW's design process. I'd be interested to know what armies you play since it seems you've never faced dire disappointment in the form of GW rules.

I believe that GW is very good at what they do but, in addition to the target customer issue you brought up, they also face the problem of fleshing out an infinite amount of fluff. We can't expect them to write a codex for every single faction, vehicle, unit or character that's referenced in the fluff. We can, however, design these rules ourselves. We can even have these rules be equal in quality and balance to the one's published by GW.

Why would you turn your back on this part of the hobby? Has your codex never let you down? Do you field an army that plays exactly the way you want it to both in its theme, strategy and competitive capacity?

[Denzark]

"L'audace, l'audace - toujour l'audace" - Loui XIV

Can't argue with you there. I am arrogant, I'll do my best not to shove it your face so much next time. Apologies.

And I often come over as an argumentative tw*t so reciprocal apologies

This comment has a distressing quality to it. I know from the rest of your comments that you have a lot of confindence in GW's design process. I'd be interested to know what armies you play since it seems you've never faced dire disappointment in the form of GW rules.

I am a realist and know they are far from perfect. I have suffered discontent with rules , the only dire disappointment for me is the latest chaos codex compared to the previous one, in terms of flavour (the Gav Thorpe Blog about 18 flavours of vanilla covers this) My armies (in order of playing time) are Ultramarines, IG, CSM (nowadays my Daemons are obviusly separate) and Eldar who I took up this edition for some variety in painting not for fast skimmer shenanigans

I believe that GW is very good at what they do but, in addition to the target customer issue you brought up, they also face the problem of fleshing out an infinite amount of fluff. We can't expect them to write a codex for every single faction, vehicle, unit or character that's referenced in the fluff. We can, however, design these rules ourselves. We can even have these rules be equal in quality and balance to the one's published by GW.

I personally see no reason to flesh out every bit of fluff, but whatever floats your boat. However, if you used a GW process to do so, a la Jervis' old Vehicle Design Rules, I would be happy with a quantifiable audit trailed method to tell me what you (the hypothetical opponent) are doing is fair. In lieu of this, I wouldn't trust any old person - especially because of what you mentioned earlier, an inability to quantify special rules.

Why would you turn your back on this part of the hobby? Has your codex never let you down? Do you field an army that plays exactly the way you want it to both in its theme, strategy and competitive capacity?

No but like any good commander I play the hands I get dealt with a weapon in hand, prayer to the gods in my heart and a curse for the enemies on my lips. If all else fails, straight up the middle and bags of smoke, or, as we like to say in Borzhag's Axe Slaughterers, 'BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD'

[MVBrandt]

Woah there. Game. Fake. You know, all that "it's not real" stuff.

[Melissia]

You could also simply give all devastator equivalent foot units in the game (namely, retributors and devastators) Relentless. It's not like they'd be an "auto take" even at that point.
And giving them Relentless doesn't solve the fact that they're STILL using multi-meltas and heavy bolters and NOTHING else. The Sisters have no lack of melta capability to begin with anyway, every single squad in many competative lists has some kind of melta weapon or other, leaving the deficiency in the army not being lack of melta, but rather a lack of long-ranged anti-tank and anti-transport. Something which the Retributors cannot provide even with Relentless.

Moire useful choices > fewer useful choices.

[Madness]

When you have a game who provides a set of choices, what IS there is as defining as what is NOT there, to mention popular games, in Magic the Gathering you will never have a black effet that gives you card advantage without a payback, in World of Warcraft shamans used to be defined by their lack of crowd control.

Everything is defined by both what they excel at, and by their taboos. You will never see psykers in a Black Templar army, and that's by design, yes, it does mean that they lack psyker support, but it is what makes Black Templar be Black Templar.

Likely the Sisters of Battle are all about mid range, they have a few exceptional options (exorcist), but if we take that away, we will end up with an army that plays and feels more like the others.

[MVBrandt]

An army with 3 immolators housing multiple relentless multi-melta retributors would be significantly superior to one with 3 exorcists. You don't need long range anti-tank support with Sisters, it's just that Exorcists are so far superior to the other options there it's a no brainer.

The immolator/retributor approach - presuming relentless - would give you a 27" range of +2d6 and a 39" range of +d6. That's plenty of range on a 6x4 board. You'd also get 2 threats instead of 1 (immolator + retributors instead of just exorcist). Critical thinking is useful when trying to make any kind of serious evaluation.

[david5th]

So you get a unit that's only useful with an Act of Faith (which lasts only one phase and you get roughly one per squad per game). That's rather stupid, no thanks.



Don't act like it's one or the other. More attractive and effective options > than fewer attractive and effective options.

What i was trying to say is as follows. if i were given two lists of options for a unit and one composed of a larger but what i viewed less effective list vs a smaller but more effective list i would chose the former.
Obviously if they were both the same size and one had a higher % i would chose that.

However as with everyting, it comes down to personal choice.

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Friedrich Nietzsche

[Daemonette666]

I know this may incite some flame comments and some agreement, but what about the following.

Some armies are really designed for close combat, others lots of shooting, and some a good mix of the two. Withing each army you have squads that are designed for thier specific roles. So ---

What if an assault army had a general rule that gave them an assault bonus (furious charge, or preffered enemy), shooting armies got a rule that helped them shoot better (relentless ot tank hunters), and balanced armies got a rule that made them well balanced (counter attack or true grit).

Within each army the individual unit types could except vehicles - but including walkers which arre treated differently, can get 1 or 2 universal special rule they can choos between, but you pay for the one you choose. This taylors the unit to its role you want it to play. I.E. Biker units that can get Skilled rider or hit and run. Assault jump troops with hit and run or prefferred enemy, and so on.

The individual choice would be based on what type of army you are running, but it could be fun.

As per the Unit weapon and equipment upgrades. No more than 3 troops allowed to get special and or heavy weapns (1 only and not for fast attacjk units) upgrades for a troop or fast attack unit. upto 5 upgradable troops for an elite unit but only 1 heavy weapon allowed, and upto 4 upgradable troops in a heavy support unit. Squad Sergeants ot their equivelant are in addition to this, and should be allowed to replace their main shooting weapon and their close combat weapon.

Also the allowable choices you can choose from can vary from army to army, but say 2 -3 special weapons optoins, 2 heavy weapons options to decide from except in units of heavy support where they get say 4-5 options, and for elite units allow close combat upgrades, say 2 choices to be taken instead of special weapons.

Close combat orientated armies or troop types might be given less special weapon upgrades but more close combat weapon upgrades. I.E. Khorne berserkers or Death Company, or Assault Squads, get only 2 special weapons choices but also troops can take close combat weapon upgrades instead. say a flamer and a plasma pistol, or a pair of lightning claws or a power weapon. This gives your unit a bit more punch in close combat, but seriously weakens their shooting ability. They are designed more for close combat anyway.

General Characters can be limited to what they can take as well. Suped up killer characters really spoil a game sometimes. You might have paid a lot for the upgrades, but surely one really good choice like a 2+ artificer armourcould be priced so you get less points to spent on other nasty powerful weapons or defensive upgrades. I really liked points limits for characters to spend on upgrades in the old codexes. Maybe a limit on the number of upgrades as well.

It is an idea, and probably one many will not like. I will probably get comments that every army will be the same or too similar, but assault armies wil lseem similar, shooty armies will be a little more alike but not in what equipment they carry - Tau compared to IG way different weapons. As I said it is just an idea based on the original question of how many options do we give to units.

[the jeske]

So more or less play with even more premade armies then we do now ?
the problem is not the armies or the codex[which are made as stand alone always , GW almost never does options with other dex in mind] , its the fact that after 5-6 dex they change design philosphy or even the design team . And then you end up with some 5th ed dex with options , some without options or have dudes who have 0 actual gaming expiriance write dex for armies they know nothing about and word them bad .
more builds out of a single dex was always good . 3.5 chaos , trait IG, trait SM tons of different lists not just for casuals . Right now the casual player can play what the hell he wants [and considering he doesnt play to win it doesnt matter what the dex has inside] , but a person who like to game is forced to play 2-3 builds , sometimes less . Worse GW still didnt notice that mainland europe plays 1500-1750 mostly , so balancing the game [am speaking about the difference in power and options for amries here] out at 2-2250 or more doesnt help us much . But then again sales in euroland[save for UK] fall so what do they care ?


denz a quick question what kind of csm did you play in 3.5 ?

[rbryce]

So more or less play with even more premade armies then we do now ?
the problem is not the armies or the codex[which are made as stand alone always , GW almost never does options with other dex in mind] , its the fact that after 5-6 dex they change design philosphy or even the design team . And then you end up with some 5th ed dex with options , some without options or have dudes who have 0 actual gaming expiriance write dex for armies they know nothing about and word them bad .
more builds out of a single dex was always good . 3.5 chaos , trait IG, trait SM tons of different lists not just for casuals . Right now the casual player can play what the hell he wants [and considering he doesnt play to win it doesnt matter what the dex has inside] , but a person who like to game is forced to play 2-3 builds , sometimes less . Worse GW still didnt notice that mainland europe plays 1500-1750 mostly , so balancing the game [am speaking about the difference in power and options for amries here] out at 2-2250 or more doesnt help us much . But then again sales in euroland[save for UK] fall so what do they care ?


denz a quick question what kind of csm did you play in 3.5 ?

as far as im aware, the armies are tested at 1500, and this is the recommended points limit to play at. usually we hear from areas who play 1850+ complaining about balance...

[the jeske]

which dex you mean by that ? yes chaos was made with 1500 pts[the DA too] in mind the later dex were not . the whole 5th ed , just like every new edition rises the "balanced" lvl and while it is true that some armies are more balanced against others[nids] at higher points , the problem is that for main land europe the points played didnt change[I mean what the players normaly play, not what the DT wanted for people to do].