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.

 Zweischneid wrote:
. well, to start the cycle, people need to flock to the better-than-average unit (and abandon the worse-than-average unit). E.g. champion A in the video. If people don't pick up champion A, the circle doesn't start, even if champion A is overpowered.

If you cling to the weak stuff just to wallow in your misery, that is what you will do.

The thing is, in a more balances system you can still have your cyclic metagame... you're just not forced into it by some units being useless.

In a more balanced game, people have more variety due to being able to freely select from their codex without having to worry about certain units being useless. And if you want to keep your game fresh, you're free to just change your army from time to time. You don't need to have the studio periodically shifting the bar to make your army useless and force you to change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
There are many reasons for game-designers to reject balance. "Perfect balance" is only one of these reasons at best. Emphasis on narrative is at least another.

You keep making this statement, but you still haven't explained how lack of balance helps narrative play more than a more balanced system would.

 Zweischneid wrote:

WIth X-Wing selling more than Warmachine, while having a far smaller range, presumably it is far more profitable.

That assumes a lot. Greater sales by no means indicates greater profit. A convenience store has more sales than a Ferrari dealership.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
now imagine that if all units were equal today, new ruleset comes out and changes how things are for everything and it ALL goes to gak... no ones gonna be happy, but if the good become weaker and the bad better... not all models are then invalidated. which goes with the release of rulesets and codex's. its not all dropped at once, some codex's span multiple editions, so need to be able to weather the changes that come along. and yeah sure you can say feth you GW, your see saw of units is crap, but we know they write rules to sell models.....

The problem is that even if this is true (and I doubt it's a deliberate decision like that) it's still inexcusably bad game design. We only have the problem of new editions invalidating stuff because GW has no consistent design goals for its new editions. Each new edition is just whatever random ideas the rule authors happened to have at that moment. Instead of converging on the perfect version of the rules like a better game might (MTG, for example) we just get lots of change for the sake of change. If GW's rule authors were doing their jobs properly then there wouldn't be wild swings in game balance with every new edition because 90% of your codex would work exactly the same as it used to.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.

So was TSR... until they weren't. And then they changed hands several times in a very short period of time until they were finally purchased by Hasbro/WotC.

True. But TSR only ever was a studio of guys (and girls?) writing books. Wound down, it was a bundle of licenses and perhaps the odd writer still on contract, passing along.

GW is still a full-blown retail chain, logistics company and manufacturer. It's a bit more .... cumbersome.

General Motors was far more than that. If not for a government rescue it would have gone away rather quickly.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
now imagine that if all units were equal today, new ruleset comes out and changes how things are for everything and it ALL goes to gak... no ones gonna be happy, but if the good become weaker and the bad better... not all models are then invalidated. which goes with the release of rulesets and codex's. its not all dropped at once, some codex's span multiple editions, so need to be able to weather the changes that come along. and yeah sure you can say feth you GW, your see saw of units is crap, but we know they write rules to sell models.....

The problem is that even if this is true (and I doubt it's a deliberate decision like that) it's still inexcusably bad game design. We only have the problem of new editions invalidating stuff because GW has no consistent design goals for its new editions. Each new edition is just whatever random ideas the rule authors happened to have at that moment. Instead of converging on the perfect version of the rules like a better game might (MTG, for example) we just get lots of change for the sake of change. If GW's rule authors were doing their jobs properly then there wouldn't be wild swings in game balance with every new edition because 90% of your codex would work exactly the same as it used to.

which would be GREAT for us, because then we could own the same models for 20 years and not need to look to other things. the wild swings is what motivates the competitveness inside us to look to new models etc. it may not seem intentional, and it may just be craziness on their part, BUT look what happens when 3-4 years on you need to replace half your army because it just doesnt work anymore. It definetley alienates some, most adapt. now as i said good swings would be a 30% swing. but leaving 90% exactly as it was, wont motivate anyone to go buy anything. 30% and you need to start looking for new options.

and MTG is a very tight ruleset, but the competitive side of it is totally invalidated every 6 months (type 2 i think it is.) and every time a new set comes out you dump the first in line of the old one. to compare i was recently looking back at mtg, iv played since 4th edition, its about what 10 editions on since then. now if i were to buy a semi competitive deck, and JUST the deck, id be looking at around 600$ + then when 2 new sets are out, im having to replace a bunch of stuff to keep up with the main tourney type. its release schedule and replacement rate is well ahead of 40k, and just as if not more so expensive. where as my CSM army i dont need to worry about replacing stuff that is totally non-useable every 6 months. because those exact models will be able to be used to a lesser degree, where as MTG, BAM. box them as they cant be used in a tourney anymore as its not that sets cycle. and i can expect that my CSM, aslong as GW dont actually fold 40k totally, will be able to be used for years.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
now imagine that if all units were equal today, new ruleset comes out and changes how things are for everything and it ALL goes to gak... no ones gonna be happy, but if the good become weaker and the bad better... not all models are then invalidated. which goes with the release of rulesets and codex's. its not all dropped at once, some codex's span multiple editions, so need to be able to weather the changes that come along. and yeah sure you can say feth you GW, your see saw of units is crap, but we know they write rules to sell models.....

The problem is that even if this is true (and I doubt it's a deliberate decision like that) it's still inexcusably bad game design. We only have the problem of new editions invalidating stuff because GW has no consistent design goals for its new editions. Each new edition is just whatever random ideas the rule authors happened to have at that moment. Instead of converging on the perfect version of the rules like a better game might (MTG, for example) we just get lots of change for the sake of change. If GW's rule authors were doing their jobs properly then there wouldn't be wild swings in game balance with every new edition because 90% of your codex would work exactly the same as it used to.

So, Games Workshop is run by Tzeentch? If so, I think everything they do now makes sense.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
which would be GREAT for us, because then we could own the same models for 20 years and not need to look to other things. the wild swings is what motivates the competitveness inside us to look to new models etc. it may not seem intentional, and it may just be craziness on their part, BUT look what happens when 3-4 years on you need to replace half your army because it just doesnt work anymore. It definetley alienates some, most adapt. now as i said good swings would be a 30% swing. but leaving 90% exactly as it was, wont motivate anyone to go buy anything. 30% and you need to start looking for new options.

The same could be achieved by adding new releases rather than invalidating existing models, and through the addition of campaign books adding options or changes specifically for those campaigns... and either of those alternate solutions avoids the problem of alienating a portion of your customer base by rendering their existing collection worthless.

and MTG is a very tight ruleset, but the competitive side of it is totally invalidated every 6 months...

Only for certain game types.

They still run open tournaments that allow pretty much everything.

 insaniak wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
which would be GREAT for us, because then we could own the same models for 20 years and not need to look to other things. the wild swings is what motivates the competitveness inside us to look to new models etc. it may not seem intentional, and it may just be craziness on their part, BUT look what happens when 3-4 years on you need to replace half your army because it just doesnt work anymore. It definetley alienates some, most adapt. now as i said good swings would be a 30% swing. but leaving 90% exactly as it was, wont motivate anyone to go buy anything. 30% and you need to start looking for new options.

The same could be achieved by adding new releases rather than invalidating existing models, and through the addition of campaign books adding options or changes specifically for those campaigns... and either of those alternate solutions avoids the problem of alienating a portion of your customer base by rendering their existing collection worthless.

and MTG is a very tight ruleset, but the competitive side of it is totally invalidated every 6 months...

Only for certain game types.

They still run open tournaments that allow pretty much everything.

point 1 i agree with, i dont think the method i mentioned is sensible at all... BUT it does save them on 1 other thing... development time, less time spent creating new models etc. agian the way you suggest is great, but imagine 10 years from now the codex bloat, you would have so many different models, rules, it would be buying the BRB as a codex just because of all the extra information required on an army by army basis.

point 2... yes iv seen those tourneys, iv seen the turn 1 kill decks in open tourneys iv played with them... thats not fun. its also the reason some cards used in those formats are worth $800 Each... and if you want to stay in a deck like that be prepared to spend upwards of 15-20 thousand to get into it.. those formats only exist in minor ways, you could turn up to a gaming store play 1 game have people go wooooow, then tell you to put it away after they have fingered your cards more than a hilton. because they dont see the point in shuffling up to lose in 45 seconds.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
... but imagine 10 years from now the codex bloat, you would have so many different models, rules, it would be buying the BRB as a codex just because of all the extra information required on an army

Releasing new models doesn't always have to mean releasing new rules. There are plenty of old kits always waiting for an update...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:


which would be GREAT for us, because then we could own the same models for 20 years and not need to look to other things. the wild swings is what motivates the competitveness inside us to look to new models etc. it may not seem intentional, and it may just be craziness on their part, BUT look what happens when 3-4 years on you need to replace half your army because it just doesnt work anymore. It definetley alienates some, most adapt. now as i said good swings would be a 30% swing. but leaving 90% exactly as it was, wont motivate anyone to go buy anything. 30% and you need to start looking for new options.

and MTG is a very tight ruleset, but the competitive side of it is totally invalidated every 6 months (type 2 i think it is.) and every time a new set comes out you dump the first in line of the old one. to compare i was recently looking back at mtg, iv played since 4th edition, its about what 10 editions on since then. now if i were to buy a semi competitive deck, and JUST the deck, id be looking at around 600$ + then when 2 new sets are out, im having to replace a bunch of stuff to keep up with the main tourney type. its release schedule and replacement rate is well ahead of 40k, and just as if not more so expensive. where as my CSM army i dont need to worry about replacing stuff that is totally non-useable every 6 months. because those exact models will be able to be used to a lesser degree, where as MTG, BAM. box them as they cant be used in a tourney anymore as its not that sets cycle. and i can expect that my CSM, aslong as GW dont actually fold 40k totally, will be able to be used for years.

This dovetails nicely with how much trouble the company is in. They've reached market saturation and are relying on exploiting their current customer base to stay afloat.

After reading this whole thread, I only have an inkling of an understanding for the term "perfect imbalance", I probably never will. The words used seem to indicate a state of being where one side is exclusively greater than the other, with this state remaining thus in perpetuity. But the way that the arguments are going that doesn't seem to be the case. Like I said, I don't get it.

What I seem to garner from the conversation is that Zweischneid (two tailor?) believes that the capricious and random nature of GW's points valuations assigned to units is great for the game and he thinks that consistency is at best superfluous and at worst unbearable. He also seems to equate balance with identical. Not directly, but it's the overall feel that I get from reading his posts.

Balance is a great term to use. Another great term, perhaps even better, is parity. When a unit that is twice as strong, twice as fast, twice as good it should be valued as twice as much. Now there is a bit of subjectivity involved with so many variables that go into the make up of the differing units, so there will be disagreements as to what level of parity is reached.

That being said, parity would have a negligible effect on the narrative nature of game play. The standard game would be based on each participant having a level playing field and opportunity to win. The deciding factor would be based on play style and preference. The narrative would be forged by the players. Is a large group of poorly equipped grunts going to run up against an smaller elite unit of technologically superior fighters? Is a group of blood thirsty berserk warriors hell bent on carnage attacking an entrenched army that also has help on the way? All of that is narrative.

If you wanted to "forge the narrative" even further and create truly desperate encounters then it would be up to the players. By playing the game with an established points/force org imbalance, by placing beneficial terrain features all on one side or by playing a scenario from one of the many supplements. You could do all of those things at the same time!

I've never played War Machine so I can't speak to that, but I have played X-wing and there is no loss of narrative in that game and it has a great deal of parity.

Edit: Man that was tough. It didn't want to quote properly. Took 4 edits to fix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
... but imagine 10 years from now the codex bloat, you would have so many different models, rules, it would be buying the BRB as a codex just because of all the extra information required on an army

Releasing new models doesn't always have to mean releasing new rules. There are plenty of old kits always waiting for an update...

You have the right idea. There is another way to release new models with new rules and allowing other older models to die off slowly. They are too attached to their past methodology to change.

Simply having the rules for the unit in the box with the model and requiring that the rules card be present for games, would just about do it. They could still even drop basic codexes, just with slightly fewer base units in the codex.

 Idolator wrote:


After reading this whole thread, I only have an inkling of an understanding for the term "perfect imbalance", I probably never will. The words used seem to indicate a state of being where one side is exclusively greater than the other, with this state remaining thus in perpetuity. But the way that the arguments are going that doesn't seem to be the case. Like I said, I don't get it.

Think rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock, saltzman from accounting, dynamite, boomstick, etc.

Each unit has a certain weakness or each model has a certain ability that they excel greatly at. A few items within each book would be better. In a more balanced games, these items are limited in some fashion. GW chooses points level and uniqueness (named character vs. non). Privateer Press uses point cost and allotment allowed. So on, so forth. The idea is that the list building portion limits these highlights and all-stars, your riptides and farseers and what not. In a better balanced game, we'd see lists include these, but not revolve around them that we see now.

But each book would have a less than stellar unit, one not really limited in any fashion, not terrible costly, but they do something super damn good. Just one thing. It just so happens that it's the rock to that scissors, but not that lizard or spock or boomstick. The diversity is such that you can never take an answer to all threats. You will likely always be "down" on some elements, but you can leverage two rocks to kill that paper where only one would stand no chance.

Zwei states that what we have now is the closer to this concept when in practice it is not. Many of the powerful units we see are either not point costed correctly or not appropriately limited in some fashion. It's like having that 1000 pt tournament and that guy comes with 2 Land Raiders. In larger games, we know Land Raiders are super risky because we have more elements in a balanced list. In a 1000pt game? Yeah, maybe? The Land Raider guy is "putting it all on black" and hoping no one went, screw it, all in on melta-sternguard.

The other issues lie around the poor units that what they excel at are so worthless that they will never be taken as you cannot effectively implement without either luck or sheer incompetence on the opponents part. Normal examples are stuff like Pyrovores, Mandrakes, Repentia, etc. Mid tier examples are units like Blood Claws which are the same cost as Grey Hunters, but Grey Hunters are superior in every fashion. The player has no incentive outside of supposed narrative to ever take them. Then you get flat out broken units like the Exalted Flamer Chariot of Tzeentch which cannot even function properly.

To round it out: Deathstars. Deathstars are the epitome of bad design and should not be a part of 40k except maybe Apoc, but again, because of poor limiting factors due to bad design, you can bring a Jetseer Council in a 1000pt game and absolutely faceroll to the bank.

That's my limited understanding. I'm not a game designer in any fashion, but it's easy to spot when things "don't work". While you don't have to like Warmachine, the game implements these concepts much better by having more restrictions on list building making 15, 25, 35, 50 points levels all viable and balanced settings (1000, 1500, 1750, 1850 kind of mentality in 40k). Infinity uses a restriction method of a dual point system. I am blanking on what Malifaux does, but I think it's primarily unique models and points.

Edit: I should add the other games state specifically "we balanced the game for this points level. You may play at others, but be aware that conflicts may arise." There's always been a discussion of what points level you should play 40k at, but since we have seen the authors in official battle reports have mismatched armies, battalion kits all of the place, and even the starter box being woefully lopsided, that mentality just doesn't work because the game devs themselves can't settle one something.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Idolator wrote:


After reading this whole thread, I only have an inkling of an understanding for the term "perfect imbalance", I probably never will. The words used seem to indicate a state of being where one side is exclusively greater than the other, with this state remaining thus in perpetuity. But the way that the arguments are going that doesn't seem to be the case. Like I said, I don't get it.

Think rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock, saltzman from accounting, dynamite, boomstick, etc.

Each unit has a certain weakness or each model has a certain ability that they excel greatly at. A few items within each book would be better. In a more balanced games, these items are limited in some fashion. GW chooses points level and uniqueness (named character vs. non). Privateer Press uses point cost and allotment allowed. So on, so forth. The idea is that the list building portion limits these highlights and all-stars, your riptides and farseers and what not. In a better balanced game, we'd see lists include these, but not revolve around them that we see now.

But each book would have a less than stellar unit, one not really limited in any fashion, not terrible costly, but they do something super damn good. Just one thing. It just so happens that it's the rock to that scissors, but not that lizard or spock or boomstick. The diversity is such that you can never take an answer to all threats. You will likely always be "down" on some elements, but you can leverage two rocks to kill that paper where only one would stand no chance.

Zwei states that what we have now is the closer to this concept when in practice it is not. Many of the powerful units we see are either not point costed correctly or not appropriately limited in some fashion. It's like having that 1000 pt tournament and that guy comes with 2 Land Raiders. In larger games, we know Land Raiders are super risky because we have more elements in a balanced list. In a 1000pt game? Yeah, maybe? The Land Raider guy is "putting it all on black" and hoping no one went, screw it, all in on melta-sternguard.

The other issues lie around the poor units that what they excel at are so worthless that they will never be taken as you cannot effectively implement without either luck or sheer incompetence on the opponents part. Normal examples are stuff like Pyrovores, Mandrakes, Repentia, etc. Mid tier examples are units like Blood Claws which are the same cost as Grey Hunters, but Grey Hunters are superior in every fashion. The player has no incentive outside of supposed narrative to ever take them. Then you get flat out broken units like the Exalted Flamer Chariot of Tzeentch which cannot even function properly.

To round it out: Deathstars. Deathstars are the epitome of bad design and should not be a part of 40k except maybe Apoc, but again, because of poor limiting factors due to bad design, you can bring a Jetseer Council in a 1000pt game and absolutely faceroll to the bank.

That's my limited understanding. I'm not a game designer in any fashion, but it's easy to spot when things "don't work". While you don't have to like Warmachine, the game implements these concepts much better by having more restrictions on list building making 15, 25, 35, 50 points levels all viable and balanced settings (1000, 1500, 1750, 1850 kind of mentality in 40k). Infinity uses a restriction method of a dual point system. I am blanking on what Malifaux does, but I think it's primarily unique models and points.

That sounds an awful lot like...balance. Like I said, I probably won't understand that use of terminology. I despise buzzwords and newspeak. I find it double-plus-ungood.

I have never understood other posters' disdain for game balance. Certainly improved game balance, all other things being equal, would improve the gaming experience for all players. As many have pointed, good game balance would mean fluff players wouldn't be screwed by playing fluffy units that are terrible in game, casual players wouldn't suffer unfair advantages or disadvantages because the models they happen to like are excellent/terrible, and competitive players could use any of the models in their codices. Improved balance detracts from the game in no discernible way.

The only cost I can associate with improve game balance is that someone, in this case GW, would have to devote time and effort into achieving this end, which they would have to direct away from other activities. However, with as many as half of the units found in codices such as CSM and Blood Angels in an unplayable state do to rules imbalance, this would be a rather productive use of effort. A great many cherished units with rich backgrounds loved by dedicated fans could be restored to a usable state, and in the case of codices that suffer from a lot of poor and unused options, you are looking a doubling the number of playable units. Certainly this would be better use of GWs time than releasing supplements like Militarum Tempestus or Escalation, which nobody seemed to be asking for and which seem to be openly hated.

When you cut through the semantics, all people are really asking for when they are asking for improved game balance is the ability to play a fair game using the models they love and have invested time and money into. Nobody wants to look across the board, see a bunch of FMCs, and know they have lost before the game has begun. Its nice that some people have gaming groups that sort out many of 40k's balance problems, but a great many people play pick-up games, tournaments, in gaming leagues and in 40k campaigns through their gaming store, in which those problems are very much present. I see no reason to deny these people a fair game.

Those defending 40k's lack of balance because they are part of a gaming community that has managed to correct these problems need to understand not everybody has access to such gaming communities and can only play in far less controlled environments in which they are going to encounter the likes of spam armies and deathstar armies. Those who are limited to pick-up games are every bit as deserving of having a enjoyable experience as those in self-policed gaming communities, so why not improve game balance so everyone can have just as an enjoyable 40k experience?

In regard to this concept of "perfect imbalance", I viewed the hyperlinked Extra Credits and I don't think this is a game design concept. It is a marketing concept. They cited games like MtG and LoL as examples, whose business plan requires players to purchase new Cards and Champions respectively nonstop in order for the company to survive. I also don't see perfect balance as the cause of the static metagames associated with Chess or Starcraft. Chess has a static metagame because it is a many centuries old, deterministic strategy game with symmetric forces and no way to introduce variation into the game through things like missions and terrain. Starcraft suffers from a whole host of problems that have far more sway over its metagame than unit balance. If Starcraft games seem repetitive, perhaps you ought to look into the fact that most games end with a Zerg/Zealot/Marine rush before they even get started or the insane level of micromanagement required just to maintain a functioning economy in that game. Unit balance is not the source of its problems. In any case, the whole point of "perfect imbalance" is to fix a static metagame, which 40k does not have nor is ever likely to have, so its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 Idolator wrote:


That sounds an awful lot like...balance. Like I said, I probably won't understand that use of terminology. I despise buzzwords and newspeak. I find it double-plus-ungood.

It's a form of balance, more specifically. Yes, it's mincing words, but that's what you find when you open up concepts for a further look. Perfect balance would be chess, essentially a mirror match. Perfect imbalance makes a "chase the tail" meta where almost every unit has a role within a time and place. I'm sure there are more different types, such as the concept of "one vs. many" or "engineered balanced" like in a tabletop RPG with a DM.

But Warhammer 40k, being a table top strategy game that appears to be a competitive game by design, despite what the creators say, doesn't seem to follow any set strategy. Perfect imbalance would be desirable, but we cannot even get proofread codecis, let alone actual game corrections.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanixis wrote:
Words Words Words

*nods* That's an admirable goal we can all agree towards. Why would we actively want a unit that's so terrible and ineffective that taking it would be an actual detriment to our enjoyment of the game?

There are plenty instances when I look at a model and shake my head knowing that I could buy it, paint it, and have it ready to go, but actually playing with it would be an exercise in futility. If I buy models to paint, they are usually collectors models from actual model companies like Andrea Miniatures, Kingdom Death, and more.

I think the most frustrating thing associated with this hobby is playing with a new player in 40k as they develop what they want from the hobby and have to explain this disparity.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Idolator wrote:


That sounds an awful lot like...balance. Like I said, I probably won't understand that use of terminology. I despise buzzwords and newspeak. I find it double-plus-ungood.

It's a form of balance, more specifically. Yes, it's mincing words, but that's what you find when you open up concepts for a further look. Perfect balance would be chess, essentially a mirror match. Perfect imbalance makes a "chase the tail" meta where almost every unit has a role within a time and place. I'm sure there are more different types, such as the concept of "one vs. many" or "engineered balanced" like in a tabletop RPG with a DM.

But Warhammer 40k, being a table top strategy game that appears to be a competitive game by design, despite what the creators say, doesn't seem to follow any set strategy. Perfect imbalance would be desirable, but we cannot even get proofread codecis, let alone actual game corrections.

Yeah it's a pet peeve of mine, as you may have noticed in other threads. Improper language. It's the unnecessary creation of an oxymoron to describe something rather straightforward that gets me every time.

I get why it was used, it was because you all were trying to prove a point to a zealot who equates balance with being identical. He's less likely to change his mind than the Pope is to take up Hinduism.

Yeah it's a pet peeve of mine, as you may have noticed in other threads. Improper language. It's the unnecessary creation of an oxymoron to describe something rather straightforward that gets me every time.

To be honest, I don't think "perfect imbalance" is a meaningful phrase. However, Zweisc posted a hyperlink back at the beginning of this thread to an episode of Extra Credits (which is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w ) describing the concept. While I agree that the phrase is probably BS and I also don't agree with Extra Credits that this is a valid game design principle (it screams marketing to me), to their credit Extra Credits does do a fairly explicit job of describing what they mean by this term. If nothing else, just treat the phrase as short hand for "what the Extra Credits guys were talking about."

The way I understand this "perfect imbalance" concept is that things are balanced as a whole, rather than individual. So Unit A is individually better than Unit B, but Unit B has a role to fill and can beat Unit A through a superior use of tactics or when used in tandem with Unit C; there is a reason beyond "I like how Unit B looks" to take Unit B, and more importantly taking Unit B doesn't reduce your chances of winning a game simply because Unit B sucks. This works the opposite of 40k where if you take a subpar unit, let's say a CSM squad, you actively hinder your chances of winning a game just because you made the wrong choice to pick a subpar unit over a superior unit, and no amount of tactics or usage is going to make that subpar unit function properly.

As I've said before this is roughly how it works in Warmachine and Hordes - every unit has a place in a force and has tactics that can make it work. Even the choices that are generally considered to be subpar for their points cost can be used in the right way (i.e. unlike 40k there's no "Don't take that unit, it's bad" it's "That unit isn't great but here's how you can make it work..."), with the right warcaster/warlock (army commander) and with the right supporting units, and a skilled player can win. There is nothing that is so bad that taking it instead of something else can cost you the game before you even start, and nothing that's so good that every list (especially in competitive games) must take it; there is of course still ways to "choose poorly" and lose with a low chance of winning (think picking units that have no synergy and don't work well together) but those cases are usually very few and far between, and in general there are ways to make any choices, even the subpar ones, effective via how you play. The big Warmachine tournaments usually have varied lists (although there are a few more common ones due to how they work around certain strategies), because there is no "one list to rule them all" like you tend to see in 40k where most every faction has one or more "winning" lists that always gets fielded. Case in point Warmachine's Colossals (big Titan-like guys) aren't an "I Win" button like they are in 40k, they're just another tactical choice that you have the option to field. You don't see everybody running around with one because they're just flat out better than everything else in the game, and a list without one can defeat a list with one in the hands of a skilled player who uses their force to their advantage.

In Warmachine, a skilled player with a "bad" list can still defeat an unskilled player with a "good" list via superior tactics; in 40k barring some extreme circumstances the good list will win regardless of player skill, especially in the case of the "point and click" lists.

 Ailaros wrote:
... not everything that someone considers a glitch is, in fact, a glitch.

An excellent example of this is the veteran squads for the tank platoon army.

The book very clearly says only 2 special weapons can be taken. Everyone thinks it's meant to be 3, because it's 3 for every other form of veteran, but that's not the case here, and FW stuck to their guns.

WayneTheGame wrote:

In Warmachine, a skilled player with a "bad" list can still defeat an unskilled player with a "good" list via superior tactics; in 40k barring some extreme circumstances the good list will win regardless of player skill, especially in the case of the "point and click" lists.

I don't think that you can go that far in any game as a few of the deathstars require some tactical ability to pull off well. Some are blunt objects, though. Having played a Deathstar army now, they will crush less skilled opponents or less optimized armies for certain, but I highly doubt a novice player could take my Draigowing and use it effectively against something I gin up from my sisters as an optimized counter (not list tailoring, but I always bring three exorcists and Paladins HATE Exorcists).

Well, what is the major factor of the 40k balance issue? Is it the deathstars or the specific units that may or may not be a little bit good for the points? Even so how would the issues be solved would you nerf or would you boost the more underpowered choices so it could compete against the others.

 spacemarinedude92 wrote:
Well, what is the major factor of the 40k balance issue? Is it the deathstars or the specific units that may or may not be a little bit good for the points? Even so how would the issues be solved would you nerf or would you boost the more underpowered choices so it could compete against the others.

Personally, rebuild the rules from the ground up. At this point, it's just too much of a mess. The I go you go alone is a flawed premise. Imbalance is complex and at multiple stages from the rulebook to the models themself. Deathstars are nasty along with units like riptides and the sorts but its more subversive than just that. An example is assault vs. shooting. These are two big components of the game. Now then, at the moment, there's a very small number of units that can do the former. All around, shooting is superior and assault units tend to not be worth it. That said, there have been times (3rd edition) where assault was the better tactics and the pendulum was swung too far to the shooting side. The main rules themself are clunky and all the other rules simply make it more clunky. At this point the only fixes are bandages. Just nerfing the good units isn't enough because the underpowered choices are sometimes so bad that even the average things are vastly superior.

The first solution, bandaid style, would be repricing units and upgrades. Not all would be fixed, but this would solve many of the problems. Make re-roll saves more restrictive (a re-roll on invuln of a 2+ is fine. In fact, this goes for basically all re-rollable saves. A max of a 4+ seems fine. Still pretty tough but not god mode). Actually price the spells for the individual caster again like in the previous edition as well.

Well, what is the major factor of the 40k balance issue? Is it the deathstars or the specific units that may or may not be a little bit good for the points? Even so how would the issues be solved would you nerf or would you boost the more underpowered choices so it could compete against the others.

A lot of balance issues could be solve simply by costing units appropriately. For example, a Tau Sunshark, Eldar Crimson Hunter, IG Vendetta and CSM Heldrake all cost approximately the same amount of points (this include the Vendetta price hike in the new AM codex), but the Vendetta and Heldrake are far superior to the Sunshark and Crimson Hunter. One solution here is either to discount the Sunshark and Hunter, price hike the Vendetta and Heldrake, or some combination of both.

As for the deathstars, some control needs to be exercised over the rules interactions that result in these nigh invulnerable units. First thing I would do is bring rerollable saves under control. Make it so failed invulnerability saves can never be rerolled, I am sorry but if the enemy has already bypassed both armor and cover you should not be permitted two saving throws. Even on the weaker saving throws, I would still limit the reroll to a 4+, this would obviously have no effect on savings throws of 4+ of worse, would make a rerollable 3+ equivalent to a 2+ and a rerollable 2+ stupidly good but not unmanageable (1 in 12 instead of 1 in 36), and would be on the whole fair. Another measure that can be taken is to do away with battle brothers. If players want to build death stars, then at the very least they cannot be constructed using more than one codex. Getting rid of attaching ICs to Riptides while being very specific, would do away with O'vesa star, and is a needed change regardless.

Some minor changes need to be made on a unit by unit basis, either to salvage underperforming units or reign in broken units. For instance I am going to let a friend reuse hunting lances on his rough riders so he can actually field them without wasting points. Sometimes just thinking a model over and determining if it has the tools to do its job will reveal the fix.

Thank for answering my questions StarTrotter and Phanixis. Finally seeing some progress instead of the back and forth of the meaning of balancing or whether 40k if balanced or not. Though I will say that probably the biggest way to fix the problems is for the force organization to go percentage. So you can't have an army that is over saturated in a certain section of the list.

 spacemarinedude92 wrote:
Thank for answering my questions StarTrotter and Phanixis. Finally seeing some progress instead of the back and forth of the meaning of balancing or whether 40k if balanced or not. Though I will say that probably the biggest way to fix the problems is for the force organization to go percentage. So you can't have an army that is over saturated in a certain section of the list.

Problem is it still isn't a full solution. It'll certainly remove the current deathstars from their broken level as well as some other forces. Problem is it still doesn't really answer White Scar lists nor does it even touch upon the problem that is Waveserpent spam. Along with that, it brings in to questions allies, dataslates, wraithknights, and armies like the Inquisition that have no actual troops.

Stepping stones though.

To the OP.
The problem with 40k is the GW corporate management do not take game development seriously.
People play games of 40k inspite of the rules, not because of them.

When Jervis says GW plc develop rules for their core demographic. Eg 'new players who never get around to playing a full game' , and 'collectors' who 'do not care about rules'.
It speaks volumes about how little GW plc think of the players.

If GW plc develop 40k for narrative games.
That is great,just Do NOT use point values in any part of the rules.As this implies a level of balance suitable for competitive play, eg random pick uo games.
And the rules are NOT suitable for this style of play.

Thank for answering my questions StarTrotter and Phanixis. Finally seeing some progress instead of the back and forth of the meaning of balancing or whether 40k if balanced or not. Though I will say that probably the biggest way to fix the problems is for the force organization to go percentage. So you can't have an army that is over saturated in a certain section of the list.

I actually don't think the current force org chart is the true culprit here. I think the force org chart would prove to be more effective if GW would only let it. Currently, there are simply to many ways to get around it. Including:

Possessing similar entries in two or more different force org spots. The old Nidzilla was probably the biggest offender here, which allowed the Nid player to take Carnifexes in both the HS and Elite slots, as well as an additional two MCs in the HQ slot, resulting in 6 Carnifex, 2 Hive Tyrant armies. It looks like the new AM codex may be guilty of the same offense, enabling IG to take Leman Russ in both its HS and HQ slots. Riptides are arguably another offender (if more in Spirit) as they really belong in Tau HS, which would force Tau to choose between them, Skyrays, Hammerheads and Broadsides. And Necrons can take flyers in both their troops and HS slots, enabling 9 flyer builds.

Allies, which gives the player an extra free FOC slot. This is particularly exploitative when an army can essentially ally with itself, see Tau allying with Farsight to take 5 Riptides using a single FOC chart (number five is because of the above problem, O'vesa being an HQ version of a Riptide).

Squadrons of units like Leman Russ and Vendettas. These should not be squadron-able; nobody should have to face 9 AV14 vehicles or 9 AV12 flyers in a single FOC game. I think IG/AM is the only offender here, but it still needs to end.

Powerful units that can be taken as troops, enabling 6 copies of a powerful unit to be taken instead of 3, with scoring ability to boot. Nightscythes are case and point, enabling Necrons to run 6 AV 11 flyers using their troops alone and 9 total when combined with the overlapping FOC problem mentioned above. This is also what makes Waveserpents a terror in conjunction with their shield. 3 waveserpents are manageable, 6 typically isn't (although this is tricky because WS are currently Eldars only dedicated transport). Special characters that enable non-troops choices to be taken as troops can also bring about this problem.

Finally you have double FOC charts, although at least these serve a purpose and can't come into play below 2000 pts. I actually think double FOC might be ok if all the above problems are eliminated, perhaps a toned down version that add only a single FOC slot at 2000 and another every 1000 thereafter rather than doubling the number of slots.

If GW got rid of all the above nonsense so that players could only take three of any given powerful unit (and at the cost of everything else in the associated FOC no less), a lot of the above problems would become more manageable. 3 Night/Doom Scythes is far easier to handle that 9. 3 Leman Russ are perfectly take-able. Even 3 Riptides might be less of a problem as their would be no Skyrays or Broadsides to back them up, they probably still need a nerf, but it would be easier to fix Riptides in an environment where Tau cannot take 3 Riptides AND 9 Broadsides in a single FOC.

Don't forget about formations and allies that are taken in addition to normal allies. For example, that Tau player can take Riptides and Broadsides as formations that don't use up FOC slots at all, get extra bonus rules, and leave their FOC slots free for other stuff.

I think the way to improve 40k F.O.C. is to class units by how rare they are not function.
Eg HQ , Common, Specialized, Restricted.
Rather than HQ, elite,troops, fast attack, heavy support.

And use the simple proportional system like this.

HQ allows 2 to 8 Common unit to be taken.
For every 2 Common units a Specialized unit can be taken
For every 2 Specialized units a Restricted unit can be taken.

The HQ unit you pick determines what units are Common, Specialized and Restricted in that particular force.
(Based on HQ /force theme.)
This allows more diversity in army composition, but restricts counter theme units in the army in a intuitive way.

Phanixis wrote:

Thank for answering my questions StarTrotter and Phanixis. Finally seeing some progress instead of the back and forth of the meaning of balancing or whether 40k if balanced or not. Though I will say that probably the biggest way to fix the problems is for the force organization to go percentage. So you can't have an army that is over saturated in a certain section of the list.

I actually don't think the current force org chart is the true culprit here. I think the force org chart would prove to be more effective if GW would only let it. Currently, there are simply to many ways to get around it. Including:

Possessing similar entries in two or more different force org spots. The old Nidzilla was probably the biggest offender here, which allowed the Nid player to take Carnifexes in both the HS and Elite slots, as well as an additional two MCs in the HQ slot, resulting in 6 Carnifex, 2 Hive Tyrant armies. It looks like the new AM codex may be guilty of the same offense, enabling IG to take Leman Russ in both its HS and HQ slots. Riptides are arguably another offender (if more in Spirit) as they really belong in Tau HS, which would force Tau to choose between them, Skyrays, Hammerheads and Broadsides. And Necrons can take flyers in both their troops and HS slots, enabling 9 flyer builds.

Allies, which gives the player an extra free FOC slot. This is particularly exploitative when an army can essentially ally with itself, see Tau allying with Farsight to take 5 Riptides using a single FOC chart (number five is because of the above problem, O'vesa being an HQ version of a Riptide).

Squadrons of units like Leman Russ and Vendettas. These should not be squadron-able; nobody should have to face 9 AV14 vehicles or 9 AV12 flyers in a single FOC game. I think IG/AM is the only offender here, but it still needs to end.

Powerful units that can be taken as troops, enabling 6 copies of a powerful unit to be taken instead of 3, with scoring ability to boot. Nightscythes are case and point, enabling Necrons to run 6 AV 11 flyers using their troops alone and 9 total when combined with the overlapping FOC problem mentioned above. This is also what makes Waveserpents a terror in conjunction with their shield. 3 waveserpents are manageable, 6 typically isn't (although this is tricky because WS are currently Eldars only dedicated transport). Special characters that enable non-troops choices to be taken as troops can also bring about this problem.

Finally you have double FOC charts, although at least these serve a purpose and can't come into play below 2000 pts. I actually think double FOC might be ok if all the above problems are eliminated, perhaps a toned down version that add only a single FOC slot at 2000 and another every 1000 thereafter rather than doubling the number of slots.

If GW got rid of all the above nonsense so that players could only take three of any given powerful unit (and at the cost of everything else in the associated FOC no less), a lot of the above problems would become more manageable. 3 Night/Doom Scythes is far easier to handle that 9. 3 Leman Russ are perfectly take-able. Even 3 Riptides might be less of a problem as their would be no Skyrays or Broadsides to back them up, they probably still need a nerf, but it would be easier to fix Riptides in an environment where Tau cannot take 3 Riptides AND 9 Broadsides in a single FOC.

Pardon me but how do you equate squadrons of Leman russ tanks to taking 5 riptides?

Sorry tanks do die to a fart and really the IA:ABG squadrons are only really worth running due to the fact they are 1-3 as a choice without the crap squadorn rules coming into play (hence the reason why most use 1 or 3 russes and vendettas). The runner up being the new HQ squadron that a least has split fire. And your suggestions would only make most guard armies look like copies of each other, oh sorry they already do...


The real serial offenders here are MCs/FMCs due to their inherently higher survivability than vehicles (unless you bump into Dark Eldar of course) and even then that is dependent upon which army you are talking about.

I do concur that flyer squadrons should be removed, but i've only ever seen them once. Taking mutliple vendettas is still perfectly viable and many will continue to do so, even if now the cost is "about right".

Plus GW went directly away from 0-1 choices due to the fact that it restricts what players can do with their armies, are we really saying here that army variety should be neutered even more just because squadrons are OP? When they are horribly usless for Leman russes anyway as you waste their firepower.


However the overriding point here is that everyone has their own opinion on where things should go. Personally it would take many pages just to sort out units that need price hikes, and then you start on changing unit rules (like the wave serpent shield) and so on.

Allies were a nice idea, in principle, but it failed due to the real word of 40k being several galaxies away from the word that the GW devs play in.


Just my humble opinions...

Perfect imbalance is pretty much a red herring due to it being no different to what most people mean when they say they want a balanced game. People who say nonsense like well if it was perfectly balanced all units would be the same or every game would end up in a draw are either intentionally building straw men or have no idea what people mean when they say they want a balanced game.

People who want a balanced game want every army to have its place in the current meta and have every unit to have a role if used. They don't want units that you would never take for any reason whatsoever that only fill the role of wasting points.m