Abstract Principles of 40k

[Dave Bone]

The idea that for a game to be both deep and varied it must be imbalanced by design is not only false, it's asanine.

[DrBored]

Great essay. It really just breaks it down little by little. I can't help but agree with it, but then, I was already there before I read the essay because of my dislike of WAAC players and competition in general.

The idea that for a game to be both deep and varied it must be imbalanced by design is not only false, it's asanine.

I think your definition of 'balance' is wrong. You should re-read the article.

[Ailaros]

I think a lot of people commenting on the BOLS front page posts could benefit from reading it also.

Is there a way to submit things for the possibility of them getting on the front page?

It isn't about being able to take anything and win, it's about anything being a viable choice for the appropriate plan or army style.

How do you define "viable"?

I'll give you a hint, saying that a viable unit is "a unit which is strong enough to help you win" a game is a trap.

it is, essentially, a long-winded blog post. It has no references, no empirical content. Before we can make assumptions, we need data, and quite a lot of them.

So it's very nice, and really shows your love and dedication to the hobby, and I will pass it around. But it's pre-scientific.

To be fair, it's a theory paper, not an applied sciences paper.

Also, I don't know how much of what I'd written would seriously benefit or desperately needs empiricism. I mean, how many games do we need to play before we come to the conclusion that you need to roll dice to determine if something was killed or not? In this case, it's deconstructing the rules themselves, not an inductive exercise in data mining.

Plus, it's practically impossible to conduct experiments for this material anyways. How do you even go about collecting a huge mass of rigorous data that is also still applicable to the topics at hand?

[Charon]

I really liked your essay in the beginning where it tried to stay professional and objective. But sadly on later pages it became more and more of a rant and a personal opinion how the game should be played and how all other ppl play it wrong.

How do you define "viable"?

I'll give you a hint, saying that a viable unit is "a unit which is strong enough to help you win" a game is a trap.

A unit which doesnt put you at a disadvantage just because you pick it (for whatever reasons) is viable.
Sadly there are units which suffer design flaws. Thats not the players fault. These units have an intended use but cant fullfill the role they are intended for no matter how hard you try.

The approach you have on game balance is quite confusing. Nobody believes that everything should work in no matter what circumstances. You can even unbalance your game on purpose to make it "balanced". Its called "perfect imbalance" (her is a good explanation for this concept [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w[/url] ).
But you want to make each choice meaningful. Which is not the case. If you create 3 units which basically do the same, you NEED to give them niches in which they shine. For example one unit is better dealing with many weak enemies, one is better dealing with few elite enemies and one is more general in case you need an intervention unit to support. And this is where GW fails. When they try to create a niche unit vs elite units they overload it with abilities and the points increase to such an extend that at the end the more general unit is so much cheaper that it survives longer, has more attacks, gets more equipment and can deal with the enemy elite units easier than the specialised unit.
That is lazy design.
This is especially evident in your "rant" against gunlines and how they are unfun, prevent your opponent from playing the game fully and using only a small fraction of the rules. There are 2 armys which basically only exist as gunlines BY DESIGN. Thats not the players fault.

Also, I don't know how much of what I'd written would seriously benefit or desperately needs empiricism. I mean, how many games do we need to play before we come to the conclusion that you need to roll dice to determine if something was killed or not? In this case, it's deconstructing the rules themselves, not an inductive exercise in data mining.

If you state "its all just luck" you need to brin evidence. While you are right that dice rolls determine if something was killed or not, the manipulation of chances go way deeper than you give them credit. There is a reason why the same people win more tournaments or end up in good positions every time. And in an environment where people roughly play the same armies and are around similar levels of "skill" its hard to support the "its all luck" theory.
Sure. You will have "that game" where nothing goes right. We all had that at one time or another. But in a typical game the better player (overall) will come out top. If you think you are in trouble because your lascannon shot missed, you already made a mistake before.

[joosterandom]

I think it's well written, aside from one thing. You use too much jargon without any explanation or definition.

Unless you know your target audience already plays 40k, it's going to be a difficult read. I have no idea what "MSU spam" is, I only know what M;tG is because I've played it, and even 40k itself won't make much sense to an outsider until you elaborate a little. You say that the purpose of the essay is to bring together a collection of basic ideas and definitions, but you jump straight into the ones that would only make sense to someone who's played before.

[Ailaros]

A unit which doesnt put you at a disadvantage just because you pick it

By this definition, a game where all units are viable is a game where all units are of equal power. Taking anything weaker means you're at a disadvantage.

The article goes over what everything being equal would do.

Nobody believes that everything should work in no matter what circumstances. You can even unbalance your game on purpose to make it "balanced". Its called "perfect imbalance"

Sure. So what you're saying is that 40k should be at least somewhat imbalanced. I agree, it turns out.

The only thing left to negociate is HOW imbalanced 40k should be. Given all of the drawbacks for making 40k in specific a balanced game, I'd argue for "less" over "more" because I like 40k to be a game with diversity and meaningful player choices, rather than fewer of those things.

If you create 3 units which basically do the same, you NEED to give them niches in which they shine.

Why?

If you state "its all just luck" you need to brin evidence.

As mentioned, this is theory, not applied. Think of it like a math paper. How many data points do you need to prove that 2 + 3 = 5? That question doesn't even make sense. The reason why is because the mathematical proof for it isn't based on empiricism, it's based on deconstruction. What the math proof here is "given a certain definition for 2, 3, 5, + and =, then 2 + 3 = 5". Saying that someone needs empiricism for that statement to have validity is false.

The article I've posted is the same way. If these are the definitions of the words, then this is their logical outcomes. As mentioned, the logic itself is the proof. If there's a fallacy I've accidentally embedded in there, or if something could be defined better, or there's a structural problem to the arguments, then I'd like to hear them, but the lack of a graph full of data points isn't a problem here.

I think it's well written, aside from one thing. You use too much jargon without any explanation or definition.

Yeah, I know. I tried to apologize for this in the OP as well as in the article. It's esoteric, I know.

Unfortunately, an author sort of just needs to pick an audience and write for them. I figured that the kinds of people who would most be able to understand the abstract theory and the people who were likely most badly in need of what I wrote were the kinds of people who would understand all that jargon.

[ElCheezus]

I agree with a huge, huge portion of this. From evenly-skilled opponents leading to games based on luck to the idea that not allowing your opponent to even play being a huge problem when the game is supposed to be a game. I used to play M:tG and always considered counter-control decks to be the equivalent of masturbation. That can apply here, too: shutting down your opponent too completely means they don't get to actually *play* the game.

I think, though, that there's a hole. There are some people who like playing this high-end, smash at each other type of play; players who know that they have to be really wily to get out of a lockdown. So, while for the most part your assertion that building lists like this is "bad", there exists a subset that is looking for exactly this type of challenge. You made the point that there's no replacement for communication, which I guess addresses this. However, I think that a lot of people will say "Hey, I like playing hard and don't want my opponent to pull any punches! Anything less is just hitting each other with wet noodles". I think the real important thing about calling lists or playstyles 'good' or 'bad' is that it's subjective: the important thing is matching the type of game your opponent wants to play.

I think my own take on what makes a good 40k player is similar to what makes a good player of any game: playing with the same values as your opponent. You make a good case for how 40k is supposed to be played, what its strengths are, and why it is a bad game for playing to win or to test skill. However, if both players are playing to test skill, even if 40k is a bad game for it, they can have a good game.

I think Ailaros is going to get a lot of flak for saying that certain types of play are "wrong". And while it may be semantics and a case of definitions, I think what he really means to say is that 40k is just plain sub-optimal for certain types of play. So, if you're the type of player who likes to play to win, instead of taking this as a rebuff, try reading Ailaros's message as "There are probably better games for you, where you'll get more enjoyment for your style of play."

[Charon]

By this definition, a game where all units are viable is a game where all units are of equal power. Taking anything weaker means you're at a disadvantage.

The article goes over what everything being equal would do.

This is still not about "everything beeing equal". But every choice should be meaningful. It is obvious that an Assault Squad with Jetpacks, Chainswords and Bolt pistols is not an optimal choice if you pick them just to shoot with them. Thats not their intended role and yes, they should be clearly better at melee than at shooting.
It starts to get more complicated if it is not that clear anymore. Like orcs with guns and orcs with melee weapons. A narrative gameplay would suggest that the orcs with melee weapons are much better in melee than the orcs with shootas as they have very short range, must cross the table and suffer from overwatch. Agree? In reality the orcs with shootas are only very slightly worse in melee than the orcs with melee weapons not enough to offset the fact that they can deal damage from a much longer range and can choose between going melee or just running around shooting things. Thats one of the cases where points and stats are equal but the shooting unit is not only better at shooting but is also so good at melee that the melee orcs lose their purpose.

Sure. So what you're saying is that 40k should be at least somewhat imbalanced. I agree, it turns out.

Imbalance actually helps the game a lot. If it is the "right kind" of imbalance. Imagine you have 3 units/weapons and you arrange them in a rock/paper/scissors scenario. Unit A is really good, some would say it is completely overpowered compared to unit C (which was the most played unit). Suddenly all players compose armies around "A type units" and "C type units" suddenly disappear deemed useless. Now you have a fixed meta. In this meta some guys start to use "B type units" and find out that it is actually doing amazing against "A type armies". More and more people start to use "B type armies" until A nearly completely disappears. B type armies rule supreme a new meta is gona be fixed. People remember Type C units and experiment. As it turns out it didnt work very well against A but is very good against B, which is the most used unit type by now. The circle begins anew.
This helps sales, it promotes experimentation and it allows the meta to shift. There is no "best choice" cause every unit is unbalanced in a certain niche.

The only thing left to negociate is HOW imbalanced 40k should be. Given all of the drawbacks for making 40k in specific a balanced game, I'd argue for "less" over "more" because I like 40k to be a game with diversity and meaningful player choices, rather than fewer of those things.

Choices should always be meaningful. But that also means that every unit should have a designated role and be able to fulfill that role without getting outclassed in every situation by another unit with the same role.

Why?

Because you will either get in a situation where one of the units is the default unit because its clearly better than all other choices or you reach a point where the unit choice has no meaning at all and you just pick the nicer model. While the last one sounds somewhat appealing, its exactly what you wrote under "everything is equal".
If you create 3 melee units and make one of them a designated "MEQ killer" the other 2 melee units should not even come close doing their job with the same rat of success or you create a scenario where again the MEQ Killer sits on the shelf even against MEQ armies cause the "Horde Killer Unit" is cheaper and has basically the same rate of success for less points.

As mentioned, this is theory, not applied. Think of it like a math paper. How many data points do you need to prove that 2 + 3 = 5? That question doesn't even make sense. The reason why is because the mathematical proof for it isn't based on empiricism, it's based on deconstruction. What the math proof here is "given a certain definition for 2, 3, 5, + and =, then 2 + 3 = 5". Saying that someone needs empiricism for that statement to have validity is false.

The article I've posted is the same way. If these are the definitions of the words, then this is their logical outcomes. As mentioned, the logic itself is the proof. If there's a fallacy I've accidentally embedded in there, or if something could be defined better, or there's a structural problem to the arguments, then I'd like to hear them, but the lack of a graph full of data points isn't a problem here.

Nobody argues that there is luck involved. The interesting point is how much influence does "skill" (the manipulation of chances) really have. According to what I read you seem to factor "luck" much higher than "skill" and this is the point which would benefit from scientific data cause it completely contradicts my experience. If skill was a very small factor the better player (skillwise) would only win in a little more than 50% of all his games. That is different from what I observe. The better player will win a huge majority of his games.

[Ailaros]

However, I think that a lot of people will say "Hey, I like playing hard and don't want my opponent to pull any punches! Anything less is just hitting each other with wet noodles".

That brings up a funny situation. Two perfect "challenger" personality types playing a bunch of games against each other.

Person A brings a stronger list than Person B to the first game, so then makes a list weaker than person B's list for the next game, who then makes a list weaker than person A's revised list, and it all devolves into a race to the bottom.

It would be just as silly as people trying to increase their list power in a race to the top, I suppose.

But every choice should be meaningful...Thats one of the cases where points and stats are equal but the shooting unit is not only better at shooting but is also so good at melee that the melee orcs lose their purpose.

They lose power, not purpose. Your definition of meaningful is tightly correlated to strength. Something becomes more meaningful the more powerful it is.

That's not the definition I'm using, though, hence the confusion. To me, if two units are equal in strength, then they're only different in aesthetic. It is a less meaningful decision if two things are equally useful, as it's like choosing the shoe or the iron in monopoly.

Choices should always be meaningful. But that also means that every unit should have a designated role and be able to fulfill that role without getting outclassed in every situation by another unit with the same role.

Which is reiterated here. If strength isn't what matters, then what does it matter if a unit is just a lower-strength version of another unit? Having a weaker unit only matters if what you care about is winning games. If you want to win games, then the lower-strength version seems like a non-choice, but that's only because you've added your own restrictions (needing to only pick the strongest units), not a function of the game itself.

The interesting point is how much influence does "skill" (the manipulation of chances) really have.

So, one of the things this article is designed to do is to stop the strange practice of seeing luck and skill as if they were both on different sides of a see-saw. That there is some magic thing called luck and skill and they are in direct competition in a zero-sum game.

They're not. Skill isn't something that competes with luck. Skill is a way of interacting with luck. In this case, a lower skilled player would make their choices on what dice to roll randomly, while a more skilled person would have more detailed reasons for playing the odds that they want to play.

They're complementary, not contradictory.

[Charon]

They lose power, not purpose. Your definition of meaningful is tightly correlated to strength. Something becomes more meaningful the more powerful it is.

That's not the definition I'm using, though, hence the confusion. To me, if two units are equal in strength, then they're only different in aesthetic. It is a less meaningful decision if two things are equally useful, as it's like choosing the shoe or the iron in monopoly.

If they lose power, they most often lose purpose. A melee unit which wont survive a cc against whatever opponent may still call itself "melee" as its intended purpose but lost that purpose in the moment where it actually cant compete in melee.
You seem to believe that "strenght" means equal stats, thus the "shoe or iron" comarison. That is not right and contradicts what im trying to say. Lascannons, heavy bolters and heavy plasma are not equal by any means. It is actually a (small) meningful choice if you pick one or the other. At the moment we introduce the autocannon, choices become less meaningful as you go with "Do I need more tankbusting, more horde decimating or more elite evaporating? Bah who cares autocannon does all of these things!"

Which is reiterated here. If strength isn't what matters, then what does it matter if a unit is just a lower-strength version of another unit? Having a weaker unit only matters if what you care about is winning games. If you want to win games, then the lower-strength version seems like a non-choice, but that's only because you've added your own restrictions (needing to only pick the strongest units), not a function of the game itself.

If this does not matter (btw "choice" is not restricted to picking units... Firing a heavy bolter at al landraider is a bad choice. You would not go and say "strenght does not matter you dont have to pick the strongest weapon") then the "shoes or iron" approach would me much better. So you are free to go with aesthetics at least. This quote is like "It does not matter if iron get 20% less money than shoe because you dont try to win anyways."