Which is better: Games Workshop or One Page Rules? Part 6

In this video we'll look at the never-ending quest to balance a tabletop wargame. Can it be done?
If you haven't already, check out the other videos in the series.
Join the Kingdom and enjoy the perks of nobility: / @good.nuff.gaming
Help me make more videos and get some cool gear: my-store-f06e09.creator-sprin...
See more models and paint jobs at: / goodnuffhobbies
=====
Music: "Covert Affair" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Images from Games Workshop's website, 40k Wiki, My Mini Factory, Warhammer Community, the One Page Rules webpage, Pixabay, Penny Arcade, Blizzard Entertainment, Noble Collection, and Warlord Games, all under Fair Use.
#gamesworkshop #onepagerules #tabletopgaming

[@Yaffar]

to your question: GDF - AOF Standard-Size point guide: if i remember correct, the author himself said a few days ago: its because units in GDF are more expansive bcause they have mostly both range&melee weapons so you need more points for a similar amount of units/activations.

[@riclacy3796]

You could see it reflecting the advancement of technology! The average fantasy soldier is just a guy with a stick and a board. The average grimdark soldier is a well-trained guy with an automatic rifle and advanced armour.

[@michaelstanet7453]

@good'nuff You make the point perfectly GW's rules and game design are driven directly by the business model. The philosophy is not "lets make a game so well designed that people will really want to play it and by our books and models.", but more like "let's make game play and rules decisions designed to make people feel they need to buy things they otherwise would not be inclined to, just to play they game with a viable army." OPR is operating under the model of "If we make a well designed game, then people will want to buy our products", and this is to the benefit of their rules and their customers (not to mention OPR's balance sheet). It is not that OPR games are balanced across all dimensions or permutations, it just that each individual unit has a point cost that makes them functional in their role and work in an army list. In OPR, if two people with two different factions sit down to design a list, and utilize a basic level of strategy (not picking things at random or deliberately picking things that don't work together), then they will each have a viable list (ie. you could look at the lists and not be able to immediately see that one hopelessly outclassed the other). OPR wants to make money by selling you their STLs and their print on demand models, but they don't care as much which ones you buy. They are not incentivized to screw with the rules and point calculations to move sales of specific models.

[@vlad78th]

I played a game of OPR yesterday. I took a random space marine list without thinking much about it. I faced a well oiled tournament necron list. I was completely overmatched. And yet I still had a chance to make a tie through tactics and game decisions and lost only because I made a poor decision at the end of the game. This is the hallmark of a great game. In a 40k game I would have lost turn one no matter what.

[@YeAuldGrump]

If I remember properly (by no means guaranteed) the recommended points values for 'normal' games is based on the number of units. Units in Grimdark Future cost more, so you get more points so that you get the same(ish) number of units. Also why initiative, after the first turn, is based on who finished first in the previous turn - so an army with tons of scribbly scrabbly weak units does not overwhelm elite armies purely by weight of numbers. (Gods, I love alternating activations.) I remember 2nd edition WH40K - where the tournaments would typically end with an Eldar vs. Eldar battle, the Eldar burying every other army.

[@seriouspoulp3337]

That is the correct answer. You field much more models in fantasy, and profiles are far less punchy. As everything uses the same cost formula, fantasy has to get down the point scale to work as well.

[@MagisterMagnificum]

We need Too Fat Lardies rules philosophies penetrate the fantasy/SF sphere. My most fun playing wargames have been utterly competitive with Warmahordes (because the system held up to it) and Chain of Command campaigns. I'd LOVE to play Wh40k universe but with CofC rules.

[@onkelgroen]

I don't think you necessarily have to sacrifice balance as you increase customisation, it just becomes increasingly difficult to balance multiple permutations. The effect is the same, though.😊

[@michaelstanet7453]

OPR is able to make it so that every unit on a faction list is costed so that it could be useful. You don't have "trap units", which are objectively bad options that should not be taken.

[@Sarados1980]

I think the difference between GDF and AOF is because GDF Units are more geared toward ranged combat and vehicles while AOF is more geared toward melee and infantry units.

[@roshee5573]

Ever played the Saurians in GDF ? Very melee based !

[@Sarados1980]

@@roshee5573It's basically my second OPR army :)

[@johnjeneki3758]

Since Go got mentioned, that game has an interesting take on first turn advantage. The second player gets some free points to compensate; the number of points has been adjusted over the years, using game statistics to estimate how much the second player needs to overcome. This includes a half-point as well, to eliminate ties. On the subject of general game balance, these days I usually run GM controlled scenarios. When only the GM supplies the models, there's no worries about someone bringing (insert that unit / combo here). Of course that means I usually end up double-dipping on the buying and painting. :/

[@MagpieNation]

Go > Chess in terms of balance since first move advantage has some semblance of mitigation. The alpha strike joke was a solid acknowledgement of this. The most balanced game known to man is rock paper scissors. It's pure multi-linear parity incarnate. This was an awesome video, but Chess is not peak balance ;P

[@johnjeneki3758]

Agreed, the alpha strike pun was a good one. :)

[@christisking2373]

listening to you describe the codex creep issue with GW games... all I could think of the major issue to that is a HUGE BARRIER to entry - multiple armies required for cycling, constant book/rule revisions...all I can hear is a cash register ringing in my ear. the beauty of one page rules is the entire barrier to entry is as low as possible by design!

[@midnightrider1100]

Looking at your last point about GDF standard game being 2000 points and AoF being 1500, it seems from my limited observation that there are a few more elite armies in GDF, like Custodian Brothers, who have a hard time fielding a 1500 point army with sufficient activations.

[@Good.Nuff.Gaming]

After playing more games in each system I think it's because one has way more shooting and so units can die very quickly before getting into melee. That's just one possibility though.

[@midnightrider1100]

@@Good.Nuff.Gaming not only more shooting, but units that can effectively dhoot and melee. I noticed recently, the point values for Custodian Brothers were lowered but many units if three were reduced to units of one model to make it easier to field an army.

[@tompollack136]

Editing my previous post, this dude is super communicative and really puts out great content that all of us OPR players love and appreciate. Thank you for the reply, good luck man

[@Good.Nuff.Gaming]

It shouldn't be. It's available to members ahead of the official publication to everyone. It will post either this Saturday or next. I thought when I put members only it simply wouldn't show it to everyone else. I'll have to look at that.

[@Good.Nuff.Gaming]

@tompollack136 It will be available to everyone eventually, but members get early access. I didn't know it would show it to you if you weren't a member. For the time being I don't have plans for any "members only" videos. They'll just to see things as soon as I upload them, and everyone else will get to see it when it's made public.

[@sebastianbaumruker80]

The way the formulars work, range is fairly expensive which makes sense given how deadly the system is. Mele units can often be taken down before they get a chance to do their thing. Now in GDF the majority of armies lean more into ranged units. The inverse is true of AoF. As a result the suggested points cost differ. The suggested point are more feels based I belive than balance base. What point size feels like a complete army or a full team. With the avarage unit/model in GDF having more points the suggested points are also higher. You can test that by building a 1.5k army of Eternal Wardens or Wood Elves and then building a 2k army. For me the 2k version feels more complete since those armys are well above the avarage cost. On the other hand 1.5k Infected Colonies can feel like you'll be painting till the end of 2024 with no pause to get them ready ... lots of big blobs of cheap meele units. Those armies do feel adequatly elite/hoard though which does a lot for emersion and narritive. Setting up 50 zombies to an opponents 15 Battle Brothers already starts telling a story

[@Good.Nuff.Gaming]

That sounds reasonable. Thanks for explaining it.

[@lamMeTV]

The problem is that "balance" in modern discourse just means sameyness. Irregardless of the actual chances of winning. So I would say that balance and fun are opposed lmao

[@Good.Nuff.Gaming]

Good point. We don't want this to look like pro sports where it's all the same just different color jerseys

[@LastoftheMofreakins]

I think the prevalence of toughness and elite units in GDF, along with fairly cheap vehicles that are mutli-wound, make a larger game with more tanks a more viable option than AoF. For instance: the APC and Tank the Dwarven Guilds get doesn't really have an off-set in the Vampiric Undead and that is just the releases from November/December.

[@jferg88]

If I have the time, 40K wins for me

[@bremer1701]

an anektode from a 1000 points tournament at our local GW back in 8th edition (Fantasy). i took a bretonnian fun list because TO said we (tournament players) should tone it down. So i decided to field 2 trebuchets (yes super strong but also very dicey) but also 6 Questing Knights a bunch of bowmen and a Damsel and a BSB on foot in a large block of Men at Arms. The worst unit in the Bretonnian List at the time. Also 5 Mandatory Knights if the Realm and i think 3 Pegasus Knights to hunt down war machines. And in my first match i played against a fairly new and young player and he put his characters not in his units. I asked him twice if he is absolutely sure, if he does not want to put his Waaghboss and Mage into the units next to them. He refused both times. Trebuchet 1: direct hit on his waaghboss, wound, dead (because s10 vs T4) Trebuchet 2: Direct hit on his Wizard, wound, dead And that was basically gg. After that the rest of my army swept through his now leaderless units.

[@rodneygaul2227]

I was OK with GW's rotation of which faction was best , It was fun . Now with Eldari ( of some form ) dominating for 3 edition has become a trope , remember Tau from 4th thru 7th editions . Eldari are becoming the new Tau that everyone hates "faction" and the players becomes the meme > When you go to a RT's , Tournament or Grand Tournament and 1/2 the factions played are the same faction , the gig is up and a no brainer faction is OP broken . It kills the game as it is not fun playing the same load out faction 4 or 5 times over 6 games

[@denvo5462]

Some people say the GDF has more AP as opposed to AoF which has less. So due to that they need more models so the game doesn’t end super quick. Maybe that’s why 2000 is the standard for GDF not sure. I don’t play AoF but I am considering it with the Vampire army

[@onerollbattles]

Also GDF units without the ability to harm enemy's at distance are rare.

[@kadndelondor5982]

A nice way to make a balance and customized game is making all overpowered not underpowered , one example of this is the killteam compedium balance for weapons , the laspistol and boltpistol are worse choices for weapons , but if they give the laspistol more attacks and the bolt pistol an intermediate of the plasma and las ones

[@eldergeeks7301]

World of warships started doing something a bit different for nerfs. tweaking a little at a time. (easy for digital game) small steps. It really made a difference. OPR kind of did this with 3.1 changes when it came out so fast. Play-testers only have so many opportunities to see things vs the multitudes that WILL find the broken combo.

[@riclacy3796]

Think there's a few related concepts that are worth teasing out. Complexity is not the same as customisability, and both these factors make things hard to balance. So, Turnip28 is a simple, silly wargame - but highly customisable. There's a bunch of very asymmetric armies, 150+ random mutations, dozens of pets, etc. But each of those differences is a simple rule built on a simple foundation. It's hard to balance, but it could be much worse. Sometimes increased complexity actually makes things easier to balance - it gives you more levers you can adjust to make sure that balance sticks. Turnip28, as a simple game, does not have 'points' so, to balance units against each other, their stats/rules/model count needs to be adjusted - and that's a trickier beast. And asymmetry might be more important to someone than pure customisability. You could have 300 options for every model, and still have every army feeling much the same (I think old Necromunda suffered from this somewhat, as much as I loved it - a lot of the customisability was superficial). On the other end of the spectrum, an asymmetric wargame like Root has no customisability at all, but every faction plays completely differently. You can still express yourself and feel like you're playing 'your' army. Many historical games are not intended to be balanced, because history is not balanced. From simple games like Memoir '44 to the complexity of Campaign for North Africa. They do tend to be less customisable, but most have some element of 'what if'.

[@umbraelegios4130]

Would love to see a video of a same point size army in 40K and OPR with a break down on how the points are spent.

[@Good.Nuff.Gaming]

Nice idea. It's now on the list of projects.

[@bremer1701]

That comic summes up why i never got into Warmachine/Hordes and also lost interest in Guild Ball very fast. You only could play certain units with certain casters and if you wanted to play smth. else you lost before the game starts.

[@Good.Nuff.Gaming]

I was a clever comic the first time I saw it. I got stung that way in Warmachine too, pretty much lost interest after that.

[@DesertRecon3]

I would guess the fantasy recommends lower points because the units are so much worse/cheaper requiring more models than they want on a table.

[@altulbluo404]

From my competitive 40k experience i would say no, comp games are not win before dice rolls in most case games are close and win player who draw better secondary

[@michaelstanet7453]

Yes, most people who choose to play competitively have enough understanding to come to a tournament with a viable list, and therefore not lose before the game starts. On the other hand in GW games it is very common for the average player to sit down to make list intending to make an army that can succeed, choose a reasonable mix of units to do different functions, and still end up horribly disadvantaged because they took the trap options and/or there faction has not had a recent codex/model refresh.

[@telleryoutube4458]

id say this is mostly true, if your army is at the 50 + win rate tier, otherwise much different beast below (but that goes into bringing a viable army)

[@onerollbattles]

​@@michaelstanet7453 and its not just a matter of experience, if you show up with what you can afford from Ebay you WILL losses to someone who's spent £500 on the latest wonder units no matter how well you plan.

[@rauliglesias3210]

About the extremes in Balance vs Customization, I would say there's a game even more balanced than chess with even less customization: Tic Tac Toe. It's not fun, but as long as both players know enough/are competent enough, it's always going to be a draw, while chess has something like a 2% winrate of white over black when people are skilled enough. It's small, but it exist as you said. But on that same topic, yeah, chess is more fun that Tic Tac Toe, despite being slightly less balanced, because we have preferences, and that's why customization is important, Personally, I like wargames because we can make a story while we play, of an encounter, an heroic action or the weird fall of a hero per chance. And THAT'S why balance is important to me too, because the options that are presented in the game, should feel like what they are representing in the table. My incompetent goblin should go toe to toe with an elite army.

[@Good.Nuff.Gaming]

That's a good point. It's not a tabletop game, but it's so balanced that if you are aware of the only trick, every game will be a tie.

[@buryitdeep]

Probably been asked but how do you rationalise no toughness? You can damage a tank as easily as a pile of straw. I had a trial game and it is faster without the toughness roll but it seems you just point the thing with the most attacks against the formerly toughest target and whittle it down with fingernail attacks.

[@Good.Nuff.Gaming]

Exactly. that's the argument I was making about no strength, just from the other direction. When knights came out in 40 they were too strong because most weapons couldn't hurt them, but then in 8th is was possible for guardsmen to bring them down. Then by tossing it altogether you can drop a titan in a single round of shooting. I guess each will have to determine how far down the rabbit hole to go.

[@nativezero]

Does 40k differ to OPR with turns, so in OPR my understanding one person take a move and activate an army, then the next person goes, where as 40K the first person goes through all army before the next person goes, so you could end up loosing alot of your army before you go even begins?

[@masterwilliam8704]

Yes in OPR it is alternating units. So you don't just stand there while someone does their whole turn. It's more interactive and helps with balance while on the subject.

[@riclacy3796]

Yes and no. 40k, you deploy in cover or in reserve for just this reason. And there are reactive stratagems/rules that can break turn order. There are some small 'second turn advantages' but 1st turn does win about 10% more often.

[@nativezero]

@@riclacy3796 ah ok I'm trying out OPR first as I like that each battle doesn't take as long so I can play during the week after work, as well as the army cost are lower so I can bud my army up while still have a good game. I wouldn't mind then playing warhammer rules once army is at a gd size.

[@riclacy3796]

@@nativezero That seems fair! I play OPR when I can, and wh40k when I play with friends who play nothing else ^_^

[@michaelstanet7453]

@@riclacy3796 Yep, I prefer OPR, but lately been also playing Warcry cause it is much easier to find a game.

[@onerollbattles]

My approch is "screw ballance" bring two cool looking and interesting forces, then after the first game swich forces to see who winns less badly with the weeker one"

[@Good.Nuff.Gaming]

I dunno if I'd go full "screw balance." Sometimes yes (like the Godzilla game), other times you need at least some kind of assurance that you aren't there to get destroyed, but I get that the goal should be to create an interesting game over ensuring everything is perfectly square. The swapping idea is interesting.

[@onerollbattles]

@@Good.Nuff.Gaming to me some of the most interesting battles are facing almost certain destruction but seeing how much destruction you can bring to a superior enemy first.

[@masterwilliam8704]

Age of Sigmar has no balance at all. Some armies have no chance. While some will win most of the time unless playing the top 5 armies.

[@riclacy3796]

AoS army winrates are between 40 to 60%, most within 45-55%. Not that bad. Army list and strategy is going to play more of a role for most folks, I'd say. Internal balance within armies is not that great though - across all GW games.

[@CaimZheit]

When you talk about your experience in wargames is interesting and insightful. But. Come on man, it took less than a minute to Google chess first move advantage and get hard numbers on how much is actually substantial. I don't mind defining terminology first, but this is forty-five minutes video. You could cut fifteen to twenty minutes of Dunning Krueger rambling on game design by just using succinct definition, even personal ones would be ok. You even restricted yourself on one axis to only then showing cases when you clearly needed two. Like in the doom blades examples. You can make some very interesting content when you stick to your strengths, but it's hard to get to that part of the video.

[@Good.Nuff.Gaming]

Yeah, I was a bit worried when the recording hit 45 mins that I'd gone into professor mode.

[@Izzboticus]

@@Good.Nuff.Gaming I liked listening to all the preamble you had in this analysis. I've been recommending this video to many people I know as a worthy listen based on your work here.