Well, folks, here it is: The open beta version of our point based scenario balancing system.

Feel free to beat it up, point out errors, and make suggestions to improve upon it. By all means PLEASE use it to balance some games and see if it actually works. The best way to do this is to play the same scenario using the same forces three or four times and look at the overall results.

We want you guys to be happy with the point system, so we really, truly want your input on it. If you see a way to improve it, please don't hesitate to let us know! We're completely open to your suggestions!

Please remember this is a BETA version - it's almost certainly NOT perfect. That's why we want your help and input!

Remember, too, that this system is designed to serve as a tool to help you balance scenarios. It is not meant to be a precise system to support cut-throat competitive tournament play - you can use it for that, of course, but that's not its intended use.

The attached files contain a PDF with a description of how the system works and an Excel worksheet to help you design your forces. If you do not have a copy of Excel, you can find a free Excel reader here:

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=10

Enjoy!

_________________
Shawn Carpenter
Game Designer, Ambush Alley Games

"I don't wanna be remembered as the guy who died because he underestimated the threat posed by a monkey."

Wow, thanks Shawn. I've been waiting for this. Can't promise I'll test it out right away, but will sooner than later. We want to use TW for a space faring campaign - and we need a way to turn 'X' armies into 'Y' points on the battle field - where players may not have the same 'X'!

I noticed your comment about there is no way to balance vehicles if the other player has no weapons to defeat the vehicle - couldn't agree more, but if you are playing in that type of environment you have to make sure to brings some AT weapons at least.

-Tim

Page two of the PDF under Attributes, there isn't a value for Advanced Sensors.
**edit** It's not in the xls either.

Looking good so far, since I'm on formal paternity leave starting Friday I'll give this a good look through. Vehicles do look very expensive, but then I think that's not such a bad thing at the moment.

Does Supply Level need to be part of the calculated points cost? I've always seen that as a scenario feature rather than part of the unit build cost, but then I'm unavoidably looking at this in the unintended way (smash and bash tournaments points, versus scenario building points).

_________________
Talk to my Lawyer

Supply does need to be factored in, simply because it grants dice benefits, and ultimately, dice equivalents are the foundation of the point system

Good catch on Advanced Sensors. Thanks!

_________________
"We're on an express elevator to hell...going down!!!"

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I haven't played the game yet. Should there not be a modifier for the tech level of non-support weapons (i.e. the regular squad firearms)?

Also, what about SMGs/Shotguns, handguns and other melee weapons? What if a unit doesn't have a rifle in lieu of these?

Thanks,
-Tim

Shawn, I'm working through the Excel sheet and I don't see where to list the AP value of a support weapon. I'm really new to the game so I'm likely as not missing something here but I don't see anywhere to list or pay for increased AP values.

J--

I'm both happy to see this and dismayed. Having made the leap from 40k, I'm completely sold on the idea of scenarios. I started playing 40k back in the Rogue Trader days and was always a little saddened that the game moved away from something narrative.

In getting into FoF and TW, I have enjoyed the published scenarios immensely. The ones we have made up, though, have been hit and miss - mostly in terms of balance. A points system, albeit a light one, seemed like something that would be useful.

I know it sounds ungrateful but, now it is here, I'm a little disappointed. Not because of how it has been compiled (it is a great work and obviously a lot of effort went into it) but moreso by the fact that its mere presence immediately triggered my "competitive gamer" mindset. I really don't want to fall into that trap.

I guess what I'm looking for (in addition to, not instead of the balancing tool) is the expansion of a recent post where Shawn replied to a request for rough scenario balancing. e.g. if one side is in a defensive position then they have half the troops of their enemy. x irregulars = roughly y regulars. That sort of thing.

Having said all that, I have a few days off work coming up so I'll try to give the balancing system a spin. Thanks to all those involved for the hard work and apologies for my grumbling

BaldLea

we recomend a 2.1 superiority in numbers for lower quality troops in a fluid situation and as a minimum a 3 to 1 in a attack on a static defensive position.

_________________
"All Men for the rights of Every man, every man for the rights of all Men"

That is the quote of the day! Exactly how we felt in putting it together

We understand that many of our customers wanted this and will use it as intended. But with great power comes great responsibility

_________________
"We're on an express elevator to hell...going down!!!"

I second this post. Once of the things I enjoy about TW is the interplay between players in setting up the scenario as much as playing the game. Without points it gives the game flexibility because both players can agree on what the scenario needs vs fitting your forces into fixed points.

What I would like to see is a primer on how to design forces and scenarios similar to what is TW book around building an alien force. My gaming group is still struggling on how build a fun scenario with low tech force vs high tech force and incorporating grid.

I had chance to play test the points. Overall, these are my thoughts:
[list=][*]I think D12/D12 troops are too cheap. I think they should be 3 to 4x more expensive then D8/D8. While the game recommends, not taking them as more then a single operator or weapons team this would discourage someone from making a squad.
[*] Are there point costs for taking handguns, shotguns, flamer throwers, etc?
[*]I feel that vehicles should about of the quarter of the points that they currently are. This is for two reasons, one is it's just seems like saying you are going to run 5,000 point game to include some heavies makes the game seem larger then it will be. The other reason is vehicle survivability has a lot to do with class of weapon being fired against. A heavy tank isn't as tough against a heavy support weapon which is much cheaper to take. [/list]

Overall, I would like to see a detailed primer that helps explain how to balance forces across the game. I TW because building a list/scenario is qualitative not quantitative.

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

Let's fine tune the points, then we'll discuss the scenario generator/primer we're working on.

Our long-term goal is to produce a combination of point-balancing and a scenario generator/picker that will make pick-up games fast and easy - and work as a tool to help you get the foundation under scenarios you design yourself.

_________________
Shawn Carpenter
Game Designer, Ambush Alley Games

"I don't wanna be remembered as the guy who died because he underestimated the threat posed by a monkey."

You don't yet have an option for the cost of a disposable support weapon, like an AT4/Panzerfaust.

I think I'll try and write up basic lists for WWII Infantry. Platoon or 2 at the core, then support.

Sounds good.

I have two comments on the points after looking through them again:
* Attributes that make your army more vulnerable should have a negative value like deathtrap on vehicles. Units taking these types of skills/attributes should make them cheaper not the same in cost.
* I don't see any points for making leaders positive or negative.

We'll add these to the list of adjustments to be made.

Thanks for the input! Keep it coming!

_________________
Shawn Carpenter
Game Designer, Ambush Alley Games

"I don't wanna be remembered as the guy who died because he underestimated the threat posed by a monkey."

Some more thoughts on the point system:

Gigantic Vehicles - does it make sense to pay twice to have gigantic vehicle. Once for the class and second for the attribute. I think it would make more sense to just pay once (ie gigantic class includes the attribute).

Walkers - does it cost more to take a walker?

Power Armour - similar to the gigantic vehicles when you buy power armor, I think you should automatically get certain attributes. The rules seem to imply that power armor comes with certain attributes but it's not clear from the point system.

When building the point system, what makes a large game vs a small game based only on points? 40K is meant to be played at between 1500 - 1850 points. After 2000, it get's unwieldy. As we you look for feedback on the points, I think this would be helpful to know.