Trust basis, or just let people go for power?

[andylvv]

Ok, so a friend of mine wanted me to create a quick list for him to use, based on his epic Tyranid/40 nid list (cheap assault units + bio monsters).

I made a fairly nasty/cheap assault troop (at about 11pts a unit with swarm, remembering that troops without ranged weapons are even cheaper), created some bio-tanks that walk (aimed for slow moving bio-monsters with acid launchers/missile launchers).

The result was, the infantry was evil in close combat (even using the advanced rules, over watch and all). But more importantly I could stop them if I could shoot them from range (so fair).

The bio-tanks... I'd made a cheap self-healing/missile launching monster (points wise). I seriously can't deal with a self-healing heavy tank that has low point values with my generic army list.

KEY POINTS (I've thought about):

-Using the builder you can min/max a slow moving heavy tank with a big missile launcher (this thing with auto-heal is super hard to kill). This is evil, and isn't fun to play against in multiple numbers.

-Deviation is automatic on a miss (with AE)... and sometimes better than high skill aiming... possibly larger deviation for longer ranges/low ability?

-The self-repair is possibly broken, more so for the low cost on tougher units.

TLDR: Do you min/max your list because the rules let you, and it kind of thematically works, or do you try enforce friendly limitations to make things fairer?

[tugunmojo]

I think that as long as the players want to have fun and a good game, things will work out. To be fair, if you are the one making the stats, balance the armies the best you can--also, why not play two games with the players taking a shot at controlling each side. After the games, discuss with each other how you felt the armies played. If both players have issues with a particular unit, then tweek it until it feels right.

There is nothing wrong with tough-to-beat units, just like there is nothing wrong with armies that are a challenge to beat. However, if you never have a chance against them, why would you want to play with them? After all, it isn't fun.

Keep in mind, that a points system doesn't always equal balance by itself anyway. Also, there are other ways to achieve a balance. For example, many years ago, a friend and I were playing an attack-and-defend type wargame in which I was the defender with a force that was only 1/2 the points of his--the idea was that I was trying to hold off a superior force. To balance this, I was allowed to place all of the terrain in such a way as to maximize the advantage in my favor without completely crippling my opponent's force. I must admit that I lost, but it was a close game--and I learned how terrain makes the difference in a game. My point in all of this is, that if your friend wants to play with uber bio-tanks, no biggie, as long as he is willing strike some kind of balance--unless both of you like unbalanced games, that is--and sometimes those are fun to play just to challenge yourself.

[timsnoddy]

The points system is not balanced in 1.0 but hopefully will be in 1.1. See one of my other threads for a suggestion on balancing re a bid system. It is either that or as the previous poster suggested balancing via scenarios.

Are you playing the -5 reduction in damage for a splash hit? The way I play it is for models caught by deviation and for all besides one hit by a missile weapon the -5 damage applies. Thus most units caught by missile splash damage have a reasonable chance to survive.

[andylvv]

Taa for your thoughts. The post did kind of ramble (don't drink and post). So here's a little response to what you said (and a little clarification on the original post).

Both me and my friend didn't try to create min/max armies, and we enjoy a challenge (I was the one that made the bio-tanks for him).

-5 damage on a deviation, when applied to a heavy missile launcher will still wax a grunt with top soak. Super heavy weapons should kill Gruntz instantly, but it was the ease of hitting them that caused problems. The deviation is only D6, and even if the Gruntz were out of sight, tall/wide units like mechs were the perfect target to try and get a deviation out of.

We've been war gaming for many years now, and really like systems that let you use any model you want (I was sick of expensive companies and restricted army lists). Gruntz is great for giving us the freedom to carry on playing skirmish style games, but it still needs work (and the work being done on it is obvious with the lovely rules updates we keep seeing).

It's been mentioned in other threads, so I'll not go on about the way you can min/max things. But it's certainly an area that needs looking into if we were to use the lists in a more competitive way.



Part of the problem was also a dodgy army sheet that didn't calculate the points total correctly, and a free bio-tank turned up.

[Xantige]

I really don't like min/maxing, but at the same time, I don't like being gimped for no reason either. If I can get a better weapon for the same point cost, I don't see why I shouldn't take that option. I admit, sometimes it doesn't make fluff sense, but sometimes you face an opponent that has purposely or accidentally made a min/max army and you need that foot up. I can't wait to see the costs rebalanced -- or just balanced more than they are. It's very painful for me when I try and field cheap pointed units against my friend's current army.