the question of balance... or, a new way to play
what is balance?
aside from how the term "balance" is getting constantly mentioned but never defined, and concepts of balance seem to range depending on point of view and army played and local meta and a ton of other minor factors, it seems like the one thing we can agree upon is that GW has done a terrible job balancing their games.
and many of us who also played WHF might attribute that lack of balance and lack of decent rules with our WHF play (and purchases) going on hiatus, which was blamed rather than bad product for the "failure" of WHF and the creation of AoS. perhaps for this reason, and the further action of AoS removing points as a balancing metric, the idea of what "balance" means and how to play a "fair" game -- as well as the effect of play style on apparent fairness -- has come up in tons of threads of discussion both online and locally.
30k is easier to balance than 40k, given that the majority of its forces are all comparable. in a closed system with a lower power curve, taking different choices is less about opting for power-builds and more about faithfully representing a specific quasi-historical event. narrative play seems to do that -- play that might have a scoring metric, but that also has objectives greater than just cards or claiming markers for points. still, it has its flaws. the mere knowledge of the local meta gives advantage, knowing that someone will probably bring armor-heavy, or flyers, or hordes, means you cn tailor your list to be more effective. and just by allowing formations and detachments that offer free rules and models/units means it becomes harder to balance. still... there has to be a way to make these less of a determiner.
if you have certain mechanics in place, you can mitigate certain advantages by nature of forcing everyone to attempt the same alterante goals, particularly if the goals are not known at list creation, promoting all-rounder lists that can go the distance, or extreme lists that might be solved by week three or four and easily beaten from then on. an army good at mowing down infantry might not be so good at claiming this specific location. a unit that is powerful but brittle might do poorly in a game where the main object is to kill one unit you nominate before the game begins. a beast of a HQ might do poorly as a prisoner that cannot act, needing to be rescued before it may take action. thus, it's just as much about playing effectively as it is about finding gimmicks that work better than they should. the tactics suddenly shift to playing the mission and not just meat-grindering.
play styles matter too.
i have been wondering if the major reason that 40k in certain formats is not terribly well-balanced is because it is head-to-head instead of focused on one goal at a time. as such, i have been tinkering with an idea for a narrative campaign.
competitiveness is an interesting animal. some people are externally competitive -- they like to overcome others, win games, build lists that win, etc. when this is a regular in a community, it alienates those who are not as competitive, and can encourage exploitative play to gain an edge, but it is respectful of others because it's an assumed mode of play and approach to the game. often, their roots are in CCGs, where deckbuilding is as if not more important than actual play, and certain skills are less important than finding out how to utilize specific tricks. they are the "ultimate tactic" players, whose skills (supposedly, to the less competitive crowd) rely primarily around learning how to use (or exploit) specific types of play rather than all around skills... or maybe they do both, and are particularly effective players. again... not bad, despite what some people think... unless it comes out of nowhere at the expense of another player, and that's a separate issue.
some people are not competitive externally. those who are just not competitive at all are often fun players who care little about winning, and just come to play. they might be good, they might be terrible, but they have fun regardless of their victory count. these are people who the "beer and pretzels" games are aimed toward. they are the ultimate pickup game players, always willing to throw down and trade stories. sometimes, they are more narrative players who just want to have fun. often, their roots are in RPGs, where win and lose are relative terms and the experience is more important than the competitive goal.
then there's another type that's often overlooked: the internally competitive. they play hard, they like to win, but they look at the game as an opportunity to test themselves, not to prove dominance over others, not to take pride in the win. sometimes, these are players who have had an easy time at certain regular activities, and have grown to self-handicap to keep things more interesting -- the "can i still get a B in this class if i don't do any homework or study?" goal being the only thing keeping them from going crazy from boredom. they often play less-common armies, or nonstandard builds, just to see if they can still win with them. if they lose due to a better player, they learn. if they lose to a twist of fate (random game mechanic or dice suddenly betraying them) they'll laugh about it. if they make a mistake, that's when they get frustrated. for them (and i'm one of them), it's about fun, but it's also about getting better. unfortunately, these players offer up a curveball. they are harder to gauge, harder to detece. the noncompetitive player who is good might actually be kicking him/herself in the parking lot over an easily-avoidable loss. the player who wins as much as the competitive players but seems more laid back may be the product of this kind of thinking. and, if they are just starting, the newb who gets really frustrated -- inordinately -- at having lost to a seasoned player might be one of these who just hasn't gotten their footing yet.
all too often, our efforts to pigeonhole and qualify forgets some people. it's hard enough after all to design an event for your group if there's only two mutually-exclusive groups (the competitive and the narrrative) that are never the same... it's harder adding a third, or acknowledging that competitiveness is complicated and not mutually exclusive with narrative play.
leading to the problem...
if you start a league, how can make sure all your players are having fun? these are three dramatically different play-styles. the first needs to feel challenged and to be able to use their tactics in such a way as to feel encouraged to play with teeth. the second needs to play with people who offer a fun game. the last needs to be able to be tested, but at a variety of levels.
thesis: what if 40k had a DM?
a DM... or Dungeon Master... often replaced by GM (Game Master) or ST (Storyteller... is a non-player who dictates events and runs all but the player characters (PCs) in a tabletop RPG. a DM is a player, a ref, and an organizer all in one, but is the only one not to play like the other players do. obviously, this model does not work with 40k, or else a league would be one dude playing a hundred hours a week to keep up while other gamers patiently waited their turn. not gonna happen.
but... an early alternate model of D&D contained an interesting mechanic: the Adversary. in this, the DM's job was split into two positions, with one playing the narrator's role and the other controlling the opponents. while the game went on, the Adversary would be running the antagonists in the background, keeping track of time, assigning appropriate level-ups, and stepping in to control any non-player opponents during combat rounds. they were a half-DM, not a ref, and an active part of the game. i played in one game like this in college (well, sorta... they traded off who was adversary and who was DM according to whose plotline we bought into, but it effectively ran this way), and it was one of the best gaming experiences of my life, over 30 years of rolling dice.
how to apply the theory to 40k?
what about a league as follows:
1. each player signs up a specific list, 2500 points organized however you want.
if you want limits, any limits may be applied here. they would be things like
- highlander format
- restriction of certain formations/detachments/units
- forgeworld bias
- LoW bias
- build points (you get x points... to include certain things in the army you must spend a point... meaning you have to prioritize between options such as psykers, flyers, GCs, LoWs, superheavies, multiples of certain oft-spammed units, whatever you decide needs mitigation)
if you do not want to place limits here, that's fine -- the missions will do that for them. if you're trying to get your group out of their comfort zone, and if they are more competitive/exploitative, you might need to adapt -- too many rules and they are not interested, not enough and the whole point gets coopted by them playing the system.
2. each week, a new mission is released. it contains
- narrative information for the Active Player (see below)
- all necessary props
- dictated sides, goals and deployment for each player
and, most importantly
- how many points each player may choose form their 2500 point list to field
yep. choose from your 2500-point list. no adding that titan you just got out of the blue. no changing after you see the lay of the land. and missions are not all at 1500 -- with this in place, mission one might be 1500 points, mission 2 might be a killteams mission at 300 points, and the last game might be a full-board game of 2500 with all the formations, with an attacker/defender survival game with unbalanced point totals, a character-driven mission involving alternate goals, or the like before the league is over. it can be as competitive as the players want it to be, given how armies are handled. but formations and detachments might be restricted, or unuseable due to points, or not the best idea, depending on mission parameters. and each game would play differently depending on who the Adversary was. you could, with the right kind of people, have mission sub-lists submitted before the first game for that round is played, if list-tailoring is an issue... or allow them to freely choose during setup for a more varied game.
the scoring on the mission would need to be clear. points would be recorded according to the scoring metric after the game... for one player only. the mission has a clear delineation between the Attacker and Defender (to use the old distinctions), or the Active Player and the Adversary. the Active Player has a set of goals to achieve, and scores points based on their achieving of said goals. the Adversary plays their army not to win, but to interrupt or antagonize the Active Player, and may cost them points. thus, Slay the Warlord might be +1 to their game score if the AP can achieve it, but -1 if the Adversary completes it.
you can set limits... such as "only two Active Player games count each week" or go biweekly, or take the average score between a certian number of tries. additionally, the Adversary earns a certain number of league points per game played as an Adversary... maybe limited so as not to prompt overuse, being able to earn up to 3 a week. this would be a matter of knowing your players. and, if someone needs a game, the GM could act as an Adversary but earn no points.
good players will score well on the mission. randomization would prevent one "good player" from steamrollering over the same people while also showing via their score that they are excelling, or prevent the one newb or terrible player from giving away too many points to one person. it should allow variance and balance.
it would need to be set up beforehand. the GM would probably have to playtest the games briefly to tweak the scoring, but then posting it (and its results) online would be a great resource for others who wanted to run similar leagues. most importantly, if done correctly it would allow a wide variety of game play styles to be used, attract both the externally and internally competitive, and give a fun experience to the group.
if winning is important, or if you have a lot of flakes that drift away, then have everyone chip in $10 to start. if reward is needed, give that money out in prizes at the end (either 50/30/20 for first/second/third, or do "most points," "best game," "best painted" (especially if used as a replacement for an escalation league), "most fun adversary," etc). if community is more important, have the last game be an all-points free-for-all and use the cash to buy everyone pizza. if your store/club benefits from having the league -- either initially in purchases to fill that 2500-point list, or secondarily if it works and more people sign up next time -- then see if they will offer some prize support. or, if you wan tit to be an open event, come up with an averages system -- run it as an alternative to pickup games, record scores, and factor scores as an average over the whole of the run of the event. with proper preparation, you could run it as an open-ended activity over 4-6 months... you just need clear goals and comparable scoring. alternatively, if the first one is successful, they could be regularly-scheduled events, and expand with new players after a certain amount of time to run.
there are a lot of factors to consider. this isn't an easy task. but at minimum it would change the playing field to an unsolved situation that can offer new challenges. adding in named SC status and minor rewards for HQs that weather certain situations or manage to make it through impossible situations might promote narrative play more. adding an XP system to help show units improving over time might add variance (or be exploited). again... knowing the group means knowing when to give them options while also restricting abuses.
is it worth the work?
- if this was pitched at your local store, would you write up a list?
- if it required a signup fee (like $10), would you pay?
- if this was an alternative to an Escalation League -- each week, you would need to paint a new unit, or could get points for painting a unit that was not painted before -- would you join?
- if resources and tools were to appear online for a league like this, would you be tempted to use them locally?
- if GW were to create rules structured around this kind of league, and also others, that incorporated their older rules supplements (like Planetstrike and Cities of Death), gave resources a GM might need to create individual missions, and regularly gave mission reports or result info (either using their website as more than just a store, or using WD as more than just a browsing menu), would you be tempted to pick up the rules?
