Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This came up in another thread about WFB vs. 40K but kind of got lost in the shuffle. I thought other people might be interested in seeing this analysis as it shows the relative imbalance in WFB vs. 40K.

http://confoundingblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/is-warhammer-balanced/

Seems skewed. In the 40k one Witchhunters come out near the bottom. This is because the armies lack of popularity and not its effectiveness. He is basing his results on popularity, and while he does note that results may be effected because of it he doesn't realize how much. Space Marines are far and away the most popular army but they compete with IG, Eldar, Witchunters, DE to an extent, SM variants, Orks, and many others for top spots.

Yes, true, but the point of the argument is that Fantasy is less balanced than 40K, which that shows. Your point actually works in favor of that argument as it shows that Fantasy is even more skewed as there is more army diversity. Marines are heavily represented in 40K, but they are not a top ranking army in tournaments in most cases. They form a baseline more than anything else.

If WH really were top-tier domniant, like Daemons, then like Daemons, they would show up more.

That is my belief as well.

Hi all.
I appreciate that annalising data from a tournament is a place to start.
But this just pits the most 'competative build types' of each army against each other, within a very limited sample.

To get 'true' value of imballance in a system , ALL the options should be concidered.
However as BOTH WHFB and 40k have no provable level of balance , all that is left is subjective opinion.

Even the data from tournaments is subjected to the players interpitation of what units are most competative in thier opinion.

Games that have provable level of imbalance, like Thane Games Armies of Arcana, for example. Can therfore be used for competative play with the ABSOLUTE proof of how balanced/imballanced the units across ALL armies are.

I belive 40k is harder to ballance due to all the exceptions and multiple systems that cover basic functions.So the devs are probably far more cautious with codexes.(As horrendously under and /or overpowered units are much harder to aviod.)Because of this caution at the unit level , army level balance appears to be better.

As WHFB is more of a straightforward game system , its easier to get internal balance within an army. But the relative ease of achiving internal balance often leads to complacency resulting in entire army books bieng over powered.

Just my 2p worth.
TTFN
lanrak.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If WH really were top-tier domniant, like Daemons, then like Daemons, they would show up more.

Except for the fact that the army is ridiculously expensive. Im not sayin it is dominant. Im saying it is balanced meaning they can still compete with other armies. As a new player, if you have a list of balanced armies and one is all metal, and one is all plastic it makes for a wise choice to pick the army that is all plastic. You get more models for your money. Hence why witch hunters can still be competitive and not popular.

That is why people convert Horrors from Ghouls, and Flamers from Dryads. Works good and brings the cost into line.

And really, if all Daemons were plastic so there weren't any cost barrier, presumably, WFB really would degenerate into all Daemons, all the time.

Nah, not everyone would play them. But it's not hard to see that Daemons are a bit overpowered at present.

Lanrak wrote:...Games that have provable level of imbalance, like Thane Games Armies of Arcana, for example. Can therfore be used for competative play with the ABSOLUTE proof of how balanced/imballanced the units across ALL armies are.

I am guessing you are saying that because all armies in AoA are built using the same formula for move, melee, shooting, morale, etc. that there is inherent balance in that system?
Other than that (and you could still build 'broken' lists min-maxing effectiveness), I'm not following how someone coul prove imbalance/balance in AoA while similar games like WHFB and 40k aren't similarly provable.

Very interested in your thoughts.

I don't see how you would quantify the strength of on army over another. Untill someone comes up with a repeatable mathematical system for testing a armybook/codex, we can only go by their popularity in tourney's.

thekerrick wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If WH really were top-tier domniant, like Daemons, then like Daemons, they would show up more.

Except for the fact that the army is ridiculously expensive. Im not sayin it is dominant. Im saying it is balanced meaning they can still compete with other armies. As a new player, if you have a list of balanced armies and one is all metal, and one is all plastic it makes for a wise choice to pick the army that is all plastic. You get more models for your money. Hence why witch hunters can still be competitive and not popular.

For a new player, sure, you would probably want to go with a plastic army. For someone concerned more about winning tournaments though, models are not an issue, as tournament players buy 20 bloodcrushers, 9 vendettas, forgeworld artillery, etc. If WH were really super good they would be used more, regardless of models.

Personally I find the unbalance makes the game more interesting, chess is perfectly balanced, I also find it EXTREMELY dull (unless you play it with sjg's Knightmare chess)

Hmmm. Well. I think DIFFERENCES make the game more interesting, and those differences lead to a certain imbalance. As long as the imbalances aren't too large, that's fine. In the case of WFB, a couple of things have become no brainers, which actually reduces the difference between forces.

All I ask is you don't mistake Game balance for player skill...

I've seen too many people blame their loss vs me on my list... and not their poor timing on assaults or their movements.

Or not realize why they won. For example, when I got my butt kicked down at the necro vs A sisters army. I lost because I made poor choices/mistakes while my opponent didn't make any mistakes in playing

He said it was my dice... but i know otherwise : (

JohnHwangDD wrote:If WH really were top-tier domniant, like Daemons, then like Daemons, they would show up more.

They would if they had some inexpensive kits like marines, deamons and VC. But the fact is you need to spend $45-$50 on 10 models, then a couple more to get the right special weapons(or heavy) then another what, $35 for a rhino.

Thats just for one troop unit, and its getting upwards of $100 for one solid troop choice. Never mind the fact you have to order from GW a $50 exorcist kit direct, or make your own.


The price tag of sisters army is one of the reasons folks shy away.

Where as you have several nice plastic kits for Deamons, and you can use them for both 40k and fantasy.

It's an interesting article. The only criticism I have is that you can't make a sweeping statement based on the data. The conclusions he comes to are only valid when making remarks about just those army lists used in that one tournament, and don't have any validity when you make judgements about the game as a whole.

It's similar to poling 17 people in a small town in Kentucky and deciding based on their responses who is going to win the world series or a presidential race.

Both ANOVA and SAS are good tools to use, but anyone that has a statistical background also knows that the error factor is going to be extremely high when using a small population, with no repetition, and no control to measure it against. Not high enough numbers. Go play that tournament over again 50 times, and you'll have good data on that tournament. Play 20 tournaments over again 50 times each, and you'd have a basis for large, sweeping statements.

It is interesting to see which armies have very consistent performance.

BT, SW, DH and WH all have very tight groupings. That is perhaps more interesting then which army does better. Most other 40k armies have a very large variance. What is it about these four that make them so repeatable? Is it lack of codex choice or a general lack of various strategies in the codex?

If we look at the fantasy side it becomes clear that armies with one play style IE Brettonians, tend to have a very tight variance. It would be interesting to break the data into the subarmies and do the comparison.

Are all the VC armies summon spam + death star? Do all DE armies contain Hydra? I suspect that if army does not have many subtypes then the variation seen would be weighted more on the player skill.

@carmachu: you can always buy used to bring the cost down. Or you simply own fewer armies.

I have a minimal Sisters force, and I could easily have gone for a larger force had my interests been there. (se my sig for my primary armies).

It didn't take into account matchups or actual builds.

I am not familiar with the tournament used, but does it have comp/sports/painting, and did he just go overall or with only battle points?

If there is sports/comp/painting then that will affect the armies used. (Yes, even painting, as some armies look better than other armies and that affects what is taken).

Durandal wrote:It is interesting to see which armies have very consistent performance.

BT, SW, DH and WH all have very tight groupings. That is perhaps more interesting then which army does better. Most other 40k armies have a very large variance. What is it about these four that make them so repeatable? Is it lack of codex choice or a general lack of various strategies in the codex?

for the DH and WH its there are fewer players of the armies, and less chance for bad players. Or rather less overall number of players to make the data swing wildly....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@carmachu: you can always buy used to bring the cost down. Or you simply own fewer armies.

I have a minimal Sisters force, and I could easily have gone for a larger force had my interests been there. (se my sig for my primary armies).

I have been buying and trading for years. Sisters in general are harder to get ahold of then say, orks or marines. I have 5K or orks I gathered in a very short amount of time, including stompa battlefortress and otehr items. There are just less sister items out there to trade for.

I've been logging information relating to 40k tournament results in this thread. As there haven't been very many big tournaments yet this year, my data are still comparatively limited, but you might want to keep an eye on that thread if you're interested in tracking this sort of thing.

NO_SUCH_LUCK wrote:chess is perfectly balanced

Nope, it is not. If you go first you have better odds of winning. No game is perfectly balanced that I know of.

This data is not unquestionable, of course not, but it gives a good picture that falls in line with what, to me at least, is obvious. Fantasy has less balance within it's system than 40K does.

When tournaments are dominated by a small amount of armies in Fantasy, where you have a lot more army variety, and all of those armies are tier 1, you know you have a problem.

The other issues I've seen are that points value isn't taken into account when comparing power levels.

For instance, Space Wolves could build a quite powerful list at 3K points from what I've seen, but Necrons would seriously struggle.

However, Necrons have some great 1850 points builds.

I think seeing how much of an army's true power is tied up in 1 or 2 particular slot choices (Heavy Support or Elites, usually) can be a good indicator as to effectiveness at points levels, but considering that you can have a 600 point elites unit in Space Wolves (10 wolf guard all with TH/SS) vs around 300 for guard (Storm troopers + Valk) it can throw out how effective an army can be at a particular points cost.

Daemons aren't nearly as powerful in Fantasy if you are playing a small enough game to make the # of magic dice managable.

I agree, and the concept of power scale is one that some people just don't get.

But when you consider the sheer amount of variables in these games, it would be pretty damn hard to do a totally comprehensive study. I think this is good for a baseline though, and probably as good as one could hope for.

Whilst this is all good and dandy for competitive players, and I also agree that Fantasy is imbalanced, it seems to me like this is being taken a bit out of context.

If you are playing Fantasy without the most cheese/beard-filth list, it can be pretty balanced. I mean, Daemons are popular in tournaments, but I rarely see the DoC players out and about on regular days.

However, Fantasy is certainly imbalanced, and I'm a wee bit disappointed that all the armies I like (Orcs, Ogres, Tomb Kings, Dwarfs, Empire etc.) Have yet to be updated.

This study was taken in the context of tournament play.

If you make a list to avoid imbalances in the armybook, then yeah, of course things will be OK. But that is not something you can quantify and it is sort of a given.

But when you play a game competitively, things are way out of wack.

Reecius wrote:

NO_SUCH_LUCK wrote:chess is perfectly balanced

Nope, it is not. If you go first you have better odds of winning.

No game is perfectly balanced that I know of.

Correct. Playing white is a clear game advantage over playing black. White is categorically superior to Black, and this can be demonstrated convincingly from a statistical standpoint.

Actually, there are quite a number of perfectly balanced games, but they are typically double-blind mirror-match games on symmetrical battlefields. A good example would be a Starcraft or Warcraft tournament map. With 2 players, the balance is much harder to do, but can be approximated pretty well when there is a significant maneuver phase to that allows both players to mutually-commit to the time and place of combat.

Yeah, an RTS mirror match on a tournament map is pretty much as "balanced" as you can get.

That is true, I didn't think of that. I was only considering board games.