Balance and how to achieve it

[JackStreicher]

Since many people argue that balancing a game like age of Sigmar or 4k is impossible I wanted to provide a crude and conceptional approach to balancing which we used for our own game and which works perfectly fine:

One has to start setting points for different values, this will take most work of it all since you want to weight them properly.
 

Hit costs
6+ 0 pts
5+ 0.5 pts
4+ 1 pts
3+ 1.5 pts
2+ 2.5 pts

bonus to hit: double the costs of the value the buff would put you at. if you get +1 and this uts you at a 3+ the cost would be 3 pts

To Wound costs
6+ 0 pts
5+ 1 pts
4+ 2 pts
3+ 3 pts
2+ 4 pts

Range costs
<8"    -1 pts
8"-12"  0 pts
13"-15" 1 pts
16"-18" 2 pts
19"-23" 3 pts
>=24"   5 pts

Rend costs:
0R     0 pts
-1R    2 pts
-2R    3 pts
-3R    4 pts
-4R    5pts
-5R    6pts (equivalent to a mortal wound when wounding)

Melee Weapon: Add up the costs of the hit,the wound roll, modifiers (causing additional hits, mortal wounds etc) and multiply it by the amount of attacks for that weapon.
Ranged Weapon: Add up the costs of the range, the hit and the wound roll and multiply it by the amount of attacks for that weapon

Movement costs
4" -2 pts
5" -1 pts
6" 0 pts
7" 1 pts
8" 2 pts
9" 4 pts
10" 5 pts
11" 6 pts
12" 7 pts
13" 8 pts
14" 10 pts
etc.

Save costs
6+ 1 pts
5+ 2 pts
4+ 3 pts
3+ 5 pts
2+ 6 pts

multiply the armor save and each bonus-armor ability with the amount of Wounds per model in the unit.

Bravery costs
BR4 -2 pts
BR5 -1 pts
BR6 0 pts
BR7 1 pts
BR8 2 pts
BR9 3 pts
BR10 4 pts 

Special Rules costs concerning buffing other units

Aura Range Wholly within:
<=6" -2 pts
7"-9" -1 pts
10"-12" -1 pts
13"-16" 1 pts
17" - 24" 3 pts
>24" 6 pts

Aura Range Within:
6" 1 pts
7-9" 2 pts
10"-12" 4 pts
13"-16" 5 pts
17"-23" 8 pts
>=24" 10 pts

Aura Range SELF-Buff Wholly within:
<=6" 1 pts
7"-9" 2 pts
10"-12" 3 pts
13"-16" 4 pts
17" - 24" 5 pts
>24" 6 pts

Aura Range Self-Buff Within:
6" 1.5 pts
7-9" 2.5 pts
10"-12" 4.5 pts
13"-16" 5.5 pts
17"-23" 8.5 pts
>=24" 8.5 pts

Effect costs
Rerolls affecting amount of results that can be rerolled

Hit:
1            1 pts
2            2 pts
3            3 pts
4            4 pts
5            5 pts
6 (full rerolll)    6 pts

Wound:
1            1 pts
2            2.5 pts
3            3 pts
4            4.5 pts
5            5.5 pts
6 (full rerolll)    6.5 pts

Causing Mortal Wounds, add this to the costs value of each attack before you multiply it by the amount of attacks.
These values represent the causing of 1 mortal wound. Multiply the costs per mortal wound this hit/wound would cause.
Hit rolls:
6+ 4 pts
5+ 5 pts
4+ 6 pts
3+ 7 pts
2+ 8 pts

Wound rolls:
6+ 2.5 pts
5+ 3 pts
4+ 3.5 pts
3+ 4 pts
2+ 6 pts

Double hits - take the costs of an attack before adding other effects like mortal wounds. multiply the cost of the attack by 1+Chance to cause it for the according category-costs (like hit) rounding up.
Example:
hit cost before any additions: 4, now causing a double hit on a 6+: 4 pt * (1+1/6) = 4,67 (rounding up) -> 6 pts as costs for the hit value.

the same system works for all additional effects on a certain roll. Base value of the step they happen (hit/wound), multiply it by 1+chance to happen = new base costfor that step

Damage add this to the costs value of each attack before multiplying
1dmg 1 pts
2dmg 2 pts
3dmg 3 pts
4dmg 4 pts
5dmg 5 pts
6dmg 6 pts
etc.
D3 2 pts
D6 3 pts

Ability Fixed costs
1 per ability of a non-hero unit
2 per ability of a Hero

Immunity to Battleshock
(just have to set a value and test it to fine tune)
15 pts

Rerolling Battleshock
if this is a self-buff of a unit:
costs: Bravery cost * 0.5

If buffing:
4 pts

Additional Attacks and Equipment choices:

Equipment granting more attacks or a better save:
determine the costs the same way you would determine the costs of an attack / save and divide it by the number of available single-choices 
(example: if you have to choose one among dual daggers and a shield you'd divide by 2. If there were five choices you didve it by 5. 
You don't divide it if there is no decicion to be made since you can take all choices).

Other abilities
If an ability can only be used when in a certain situation (only usable during one or a certain turn or only once per game for example):
Once, only during one turn: Fixed costs + Ability effect costs * 1/5 (once per five turns)

Example Cost of freeguild greatsword:
Move 5": -1pts
Save: 3 * 1pts 
Bravery 6: 0 pts
Zweihander: (Hit 1 + wound 3 + Rend 2 + DMG 1) *2 = 14 + 1 for champ
Standard: Immunity to BS 15 * 1/6 (chance) = 
Hornblower: ability 1 + charge (costs 7, again have to set a value and test it) = 8.
Ability: ability 1 + range (5.5) + attack hit costs 3 * attacks 2 = 17;
Total for a unit of 10: 44.5 pts rouding up: 45 pts

 

The Above example shows that you need to start at a basis and then work your way through setting u pointing rules that reflect the power of abilities and stats. It isn't hard but it takes a lot of work while ensuring achievable balance across ALL armies no matter the system.

OFC GW would need to hire a programmer to program the logic in order to make the point calculation easier.

Edited May 14, 2019 by JackStreicher

[Towercap]

According to Jervis Johnson (and courtesy of SlyRebirth), GW already use a calculator. See here:

 

[JackStreicher]

42 minutes ago, Towercap said:

According to Jervis Johnson (and courtesy of SlyRebirth), GW already use a calculator. See here:

 

But since when? 🙂 I like that they (finally) do. Thx for the info! =}

[dekay]

Sorry, but I can't agree with the concept.

Units can never be priced in isolation. That is a common beginner mistake leading to broken combos. Unit that's bad at hitting things is worth more in a faction with access to something that makes units good at hitting things. Shooters are worth more when they can be used together with a cheap screen. And so on.

Even if method like this is applied in the first design stage, after creating a full list and then balancing it, proper costs will probably be completely different.

Also, costs of specialisation - using this script i can make a unit that's useless in combat, but is relatively hard and grants rerolls of 1-3 hit and wound to everything withing 24 of it. It would cost, what, 50 points?  And yet, it's a huge force multiplier for any force surrpounding it.

[Dead Scribe]

Other games designed by guys that have been in the industry 30 odd years use something exactly like this.  I don't really place those designers as beginners making beginner mistakes.

[sal4m4nd3r]

You CANNOT price units in a vaccuum. Its poor game design. However, you can use this as baseline. 

 

Question @JackStreicher.. you example gave up a cost of 45. Are you saying a unit of ten should cost 45 points?  What value does that figure have? It wouldnt be terribly difficult to drop this into a google sheet. 

[dekay]

Aren't the published mechanics for calculation points usually for things with simpler mechanics and less variety than GW? It tends to work very well in historicals for instance, mostly due to way fewer options to be taken into account.

If there's such a calculator availible for a large and overly complicated game resembling any of the Warhammers I'd be happy to see it (having a professional interest in subject ;)) - what I usually encountered is things like Corvul Belli claiming to have such a universal method, while their point values clearly show that if it exists, it must have some *weird* mechanics in it.

[JackStreicher]

9 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

You CANNOT price units in a vaccuum. Its poor game design. However, you can use this as baseline. 

 

Question @JackStreicher.. you example gave up a cost of 45. Are you saying a unit of ten should cost 45 points?  What value does that figure have? It wouldnt be terribly difficult to drop this into a google sheet. 

45 points per 10. ~4.5 per Miniature though you can‘t compare my system to GWs.

 

it‘s no vacuum, ofc you‘d price in Allegiance Abilities as well etc. as well ^^

[sal4m4nd3r]

2 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

45 points per 10. ~4.5 per Miniature though you can‘t compare my system to GWs.

 

it‘s no vacuum, ofc you‘d price in Allegiance Abilities as well etc. as well ^^

I just dont understand the outcome.  Are you "saying" or theorizing that a unit of 10 great swordsman should be 45 points? For the record they are 140 points per ten currently. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by sal4m4nd3r

[JackStreicher]

2 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

I just dont understand the outcome.  Are you "saying" or theorizing that a unit of 10 great swordsman should be 45 points? For the record they are 140 points per ten currently. 

No I don‘t. I used a different point scale so my 45 points can‘t be compared to GWs 140 points.

 

[PJetski]

Trying to balance a game only with math is a foolish endeavour. It's a great starting point but there is much more to consider than what you can get off a spreadsheet.

Furthermore, balance should not be defined by having all units within some arbitrary range of power of each other. It's okay for some units to be stronger than others because there are many other factors - two armies could have the same unit but use them in totally different ways.

Balance should also come secondary to creating a fun and interesting game. Chess is perfectly balanced by nature of being symmetrical, but also pretty a bland and boring game.

[dekay]

2 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

 

it‘s no vacuum, ofc you‘d price in Allegiance Abilities as well etc. as well ^^

And that's my problem, there are a lot of layers here. Units stats itself [and it's not linear,  otherwise specialised units are too cheap due to getting discounts on things they don't need anyway. Static artillery probably shouldn't have reduced cost for low movement value]

Access to other units within the list [also not linear, having easy access to models complimenting designed units' weaknesses increases its value, but having a monotask list good only at one thing doesn't necessary reduce it.]

List wide abilities [depending on unit's function. army wide CC buff is clearly worth something on CC uinits, less so on shooters]

Access to reliable buff like auras [cost depending both on aura generator and its intended targets]

Access to unreliable buffs [spells and such. Again, depending on all the same factors as auras, and additionally, on your army's abilities to increase probability of spells succeeding]

And, the worst part - comparison with all the other factions and how does this one measures to their capabilities.

 

If there is a single script that could price it properly, it'd be hugely complicated and still, there would be a high risk of it crumbling apart with any new content added.

[Skreech Verminking]

@JackStreicher, your point system seems interesting although although I’m not sure where clanrats are put then.

they cost literally 1points in total, and will outnumber probably most units.

I mean a unit of 10 greatsword would need to kill 40of them in close combat if we’d consider playing that way with points.

still it is a interesting way of thinking.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Skreech Verminking

[Dead Scribe]

Balance should also come secondary to creating a fun and interesting game.

This also leads to the metas and why a lot of our game goes unplayed as well in terms of things you never see and things you always see.  I'd argue that that also does not make for a fun and interesting game.

[AGPO]

@dekay is 100% on point with this. Synergy is vital in a game like AoS, and the number of possible combinations is almost infinite, especially since you not only have to manage internal balance within your own army, but external balance against every army you could possibly take. There's a famous legend about the inventor of chess being offered a reward by their ruler. They took the chessboard and asked for a grain of rice on the first square, two grains on the second square, double that for the third, double that for the fourth and so on. The emperor agreed only to be told that this was more grains of rice than currently existed in his empire. That's what you're facing.

That's without taking into account that a big part of the hobby for competitive players is list writing, which is about trying to make the game unbalanced and giving yourself an edge going in. You're never going to get a vibrant, actively expanding game that's 100% balanced when a large part of your player base is dedicated to rowing in the opposite direction. The best balancing mechanic you could introduce would be to limit the game to only use certain pre-made armies. That's going to be deeply unpopular with a hellva lot of players.

The number one issue affecting game balance though is always going to be the existence of competitive, casual and narrative play alongside each other. Competitive players will always try to break whatever balancing mechanic you can come up with to get an edge. Narrative players want lots of cool options to keep things fresh and casuals just want a system that's simple, easy to pick up and means they can show up with their collection and not be stomped into the ground by an optimised list. You can't please all of those groups at the same time. You could try and limit the options and update all points every time there's any new release or shift in the meta, but that's going to eat up tons of resources. It'll also p*** off any narrative player waiting on updates or wanting expansions, as well as casuals who need to get new rules set and write a new list every time they want a pick up game.

Thankfully, there's a neat solution - talk to your opponent. If you both go into a tournament setting knowing that trying to build a better army than your opponent is part of the game, great! You're all picking from the same books after all. If your casual or narrative games are always one sided because of a certain combination, maybe speak about leaving that at home. If you're playing someone scraping together their first 1.5k points from the starter set and minis they thought were cool, don't bring a fully optimised list. This game didn't have any points for the first year and a bit and it worked just fine.

tl;dr - the best balancing mechanic in this or any game is an adult conversation between you and whoever you're playing with.

Edited May 14, 2019 by AGPO

[Zadolix]

The waters become even more murky if you bring in the hobby element. We all love the feeling a painting a unit and bringing it to the table. I'm currently playing up to 1000pts matches with my LoN friend and he brings Arkhan while another friend brings a Mawcrusha with his Ironjaws. They both love the models and have done an excellent paint job on them too. Am I to tell them to not use their favourite models that they poured dozens of hours into painting just because my dwarves keep getting stomped? It's not always as simple or fair to ask people to leave something at home that they've poured time and effort into, and understandably so.

[JackStreicher]

22 minutes ago, Zadolix said:

The waters become even more murky if you bring in the hobby element. We all love the feeling a painting a unit and bringing it to the table. I'm currently playing up to 1000pts matches with my LoN friend and he brings Arkhan while another friend brings a Mawcrusha with his Ironjaws. They both love the models and have done an excellent paint job on them too. Am I to tell them to not use their favourite models that they poured dozens of hours into painting just because my dwarves keep getting stomped? It's not always as simple or fair to ask people to leave something at home that they've poured time and effort into, and understandably so.

You dwarves would not get stomped since you would field an equivalent amount of points in number and power. That‘s the sense of Balancing.

“Balance should also come secondary to creating a fun and interesting game.„

imo one does not exclude the other but guarantee that this fun mechanics also feels adequately fair to your opponent while you are having fun =}

 

I‘ll have to check on the clan rats =} I‘ll reply in a few hours. 

 

The biggest criticism about my system currently is that a used too low point costs since changing points to shift a units value currently equals too big of a step. By doubling or tripling all point values I used for the concept above there should be enough space to balance things out (might even be comparable to GW‘s point-scale)

 

@dekay

„And  that's  my problem, there are a lot of layers  here. Units stats itself [and it's not linear,   otherwise specialised units are too cheap due to getting discou nts on things they don't need anyway. Static artillery probably shouldn't have reduced cost for low movement value]“

that‘s why I‘d introduce a importance factor for each stat. (And Allegiance Abilities).

One way to do this is to establish „roles“ for units.

example: blood Stalkers are meant to be objective defenders and supporters, how much should movement factor in? You could try to calculate the weight of each stat that it has in the units role and change points accordingly.

 

I‘ll write up a short summary of how we managed such things this evening I guess to make it easier to see all the factors =}

It‘s an interesting discussion so far.

Edited May 14, 2019 by JackStreicher

[dekay]

29 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

‘ll write up a short summary of how we managed such things this evening I guess to make it easier to see all the factors =}

I'd very much like to see it then! Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discourage you with criticism - even though I don't really believe that perfect formula is possible, I do believe that solid base for future balancing can be done.

[ChaosLord]

While this would seem like a reasonable starting point to get some initial values, you can't balance a complex game in a vacuum. You have to look at competitive tournament results and then intelligently tune factions according to their results. 

Look at other competitive games as an example - card games Magic the Gathering, MOBAs like League of Legends, or fighting games like Smash, These games are never completely balanced. The meta is ever-evolving, and the balancing needs to change with it.

I think the core problem with AOS balance is that GW doesn't really care that much about competitive. It's just not a priority for them because their sales are driven by casual hobbyists. They are happy to sell new rules books, but those are only updated yearly... so it is what it is.

There is also the question of internal balance vs external balance. I think one of the best things GW could do for the game would be to buff up underutilized units to promote army diversity and open up new combinations.

Edited May 14, 2019 by ChaosLord

[Minis by Night]

6 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

But since when? 🙂 I like that they (finally) do. Thx for the info! =}

From the podcast I understand that they've been using that kind of system for a few years already and constantly refining that values, the weight of different attributes, and taking external buffs into account (like spells, hero abilities and allegiances). It gives them a rough estimate for points value and then they test those through playtesting and make adjustments with the feedback they get. Sometimes a unit can look pretty decent on paper but through some synergy, or by filling an unpredicted role on the battlefield, they end up over or under performing. The difficult part is not to determine the cost of a unit by itself but to take into consideration all the externalities.

Point cost is also just one aspect of balance. Is that unit a battleline? Is it a low cost unit that would allow you to fill all your battleline with just 15 models and 200 points? Is this unit super good in the hands of an advanced player but underwhelming for a beginner? Do we make this unit a character (max 1 in the army) or just a generic hero(up to maximum amount of Leaders)? Is it the only unit to fit a specific role in the army or is it more generic?

[Dead Scribe]

The question is then begged how do some of the things that exist with their current points tag exist?

[stratigo]

Chain jay claire to a desk and make him write all the rules, and not just sbg

[gjnoronh]

There was quite a long and involved thread on the pros and cons of a basic calculator approach to points some months ago here:

 

There is an excerpt on the first page from White Dwarf many many years ago on the pros and cons of calculator and on the last page from this last year from White Dwarf on the same sort of issue. GW  used a rough calculator (and included it in the rules set) back in 2nd/3rd ed fantasy around 30 years ago they have always noted while it's a nice place to start it's not as accurate as playtesting in the context of the rest of the army.   They've publicly said it's a basis for discussion but not completely accurate in the recent AoS era as well.  

Please read the WD article with screenshots at the end of the thread for their more recent thoughts. 

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by gjnoronh

[stratigo]

Gw also isn’t just about balancing. There are a lot of things that go into making models, and often balance is put to the side in favor of production targets, sales, or coolness

[zedatkinszed]

How to achieve balance? Play chess mate. Two evenly matched diametrically opposed sides with exactly equal forces and a completely fair and even playing field. It has a sound mathematical basis that's been play-tested and perfected over centuries. And it even has miniatures representing units with special moves and rules

Sorry I'm getting really tired of these threads. Warhammer has never been a perfectly balanced game. It's a fantasy battles simulator fought with toy soldiers. And in all fairness to GW re: the fairness of games, things have gotten so much better since AOS and 40K 8^th edition.

Wargames being ‘balanced’ is a bit of a silly idea anyway. War isn’t balanced and most scenarios and narrative experiences in wargaming (not just in AOS but historical etc) involves unequal forces in a specific engagement, in particular terrain with individual objectives.

I'm sorry but the straight forward massed battle or "Little Wars" style game that fundamentally boils down to killing more of the other guys' soldiers is never going to be interesting in a fantasy or SciFi setting because "balancing it" means reducing it to chess and chess already exists.