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.

It gets mentioned a lot, and discussed endlessly. How balanced (or not) 40k is. How internally and externally balanced the codexes are. But a lot of the time it seems like people just talk past each other, and it seems that there is basic disagreement on what actually constitutes balance. Is the balance meant to be "balance between take-all-comers lists" or "balance between tailored lists"? Is it balance between death star units, ie everyone gets one? Or does it mean something else?

I get that the basic idea is that no army should be inherently stronger than any other, and that victory should come down to player skill and the luck of the dice. But how exactly is this to be achieved in practice? And how much diversity are we willing to sacrifice to achieve it? Is it down to the players to choose an army that won't be unreasonable, or should they be rewarded for finding a powerful build? And if they do, is it bad design that such a thing is possible? How much do we want list-building to be a strategic endeavor that is part of the game and how much should this possibility be curtailed in the name of balance?

In a perfect game, each unit should have a role which makes it useful and give you a reasonable chance to win against an enemy unit provided it has been played correctly.

I think.

That is what I would call balance.

 Swastakowey wrote:
In a perfect game, each unit should have a role which makes it useful and give you a reasonable chance to win against an enemy unit provided it has been played correctly.

I think.

That is what I would call balance.

Seems reasonable. I think when most people complain about the lack of balance in 40k they are referring to some units being completely unplayable if you want to have a chance of winning (Which is why the current meta encourages spamming of your army's most powerful units).

A TAC list, a fluffy list, and a good list should be very much the same thing. Armies with fluff based around being brutal in close combat, even to go as far to forgo shooting to do so, should offer the same enjoyment and tactical capabilities as armies that are the inverse (shooting so well, forgoing any want or ability to punch back).

Even from a pure fluff perspective, fluffy lists like Samm Hain Eldar, Draigowings, White Scars biker armies and the like are extremely powerful compared to an a mono-god non-nurgle Chaos anything list.

And dice should be nothing but random number generators based upon weighted probability. Every other game, when rolling dice, uses it as a modifier to a success; meaning my stat + dice is >= your defense, I hit. It's much easier to look at something and figure out odds of sucess by doing so. What Games Workshop has done is to forgo this with obtuse tables like BS and WS, the latter being so marginalized it's silly, and added in a lot more random elements that have no weighted probability what-so-ever, such as charge distances. Games Worshop has incorporated a lot of bad game design into their products, what people accept as forced narrative elements, that it makes attempting any further balance a poor showing and why you get such hard swings with codex or edition releases. Obviously a game cannot be balanced if your able to bring a bunch of elements and have random outcomes of spells, warlord traits, and other things involving the multitude of tables and random elements. Random might be wacky fun for some, but in terms of game design, it's abhorred.

The game only performs well with a ton of either informal or formal (tacit or stated) house rules between mutually minded players (tournaments, narrative events, like minded people who've played together for a long time) and breaks down everywhere else.

office_waaagh wrote:I get that the basic idea is that no army should be inherently stronger than any other, and that victory should come down to player skill and the luck of the dice.

That is one point of view in a nutshell. It's certainly not the only (nor, I'd easily argue, the most popular).

Most people want what they choose to field to have real meaning. They want to be able to improve their chances of winning (or their chances of something else) by being able to apply skill to list building. What you bring to the table should matter, rather than it being nothing more than a choice of aesthetic.

Also, it would make 40k an even shallower strategy game than it already is if you had the same chance of winning whatever you brought.

office_waaagh wrote:But how exactly is this to be achieved in practice?

Symmetry.

The idea of "asymetric balance" is a complete fairy tale. There's just imbalance you like more and imbalance you like less. Unless you're playing with the same pieces or have the same options, there's no real balance.

office_waaagh wrote:And how much diversity are we willing to sacrifice to achieve it?

Personally, I'd argue no amount of diversity. We already have lightweight, balanced strategy games, which 40k will never be, even if we try. What makes 40k good is the ways that 40k does its own unique blend of imbalance. Were it a small, lightweight, balanced game, it would just be a reskinned version of a game that already exists.

 Ailaros wrote:


Also, it would make 40k an even shallower strategy game than it already is if you had the same chance of winning whatever you brought.

I would argue that there are plenty of deep strategy wargames that specifically market the ability to bring what you want and win with effective play. There will always be a list building element and fluff should actually be a guide to building a competent and able force should you understand it's strengths and deficits.

Also, that behemoth .pdf that you continuously link is not worth the time I spent reading, more so going off in crazy things like bashing gunline armies, of which there are plenty of fluffy reasons as to why you'd want one. I see you've broken it up in to at least digestible chunks, but there's no value in them as you routinely ignore components of game design. In fact, the entire piece of balance, or rather perfect imbalance, has been better summed up in a much more informative and entertaining video that frequents the discussions on balance:

I dont want perfect imbalance. That means the game will constantly be changed up. It talks about how one thing would be powerful, so to stop it being powerful they make something that can beat it, only to repeat the cycle.

I do not want that. May work for video games, not for models.

To be fair I watched the video a long time ago now, dont fully remember it. But I do remember that being part of it.

So, to fix the riptide being powerful, they add a unit to beat it. That sounds like an awful way of making money. Why should I have to buy a unit to take on a unit thats powerful? Thats not balance, thats what we have now.


Correct me if im wrong, at work so cant re watch the video.

Thanks OP! one of the best discussion on game balance.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I dont want perfect imbalance. That means the game will constantly be changed up. It talks about how one thing would be powerful, so to stop it being powerful they make something that can beat it, only to repeat the cycle.

I do not want that. May work for video games, not for models.

To be fair I watched the video a long time ago now, dont fully remember it. But I do remember that being part of it.

So, to fix the riptide being powerful, they add a unit to beat it. That sounds like an awful way of making money. Why should I have to buy a unit to take on a unit thats powerful? Thats not balance, thats what we have now.

Correct me if im wrong, at work so cant re watch the video.

The process would be a lot slower for a game that has a much higher investment cost and we can see that in games that manage their games this way; Privateer Press is a prime example of perfect imbalance within the miniature gaming community (whether you agree or table flip on the notion is another story, but this strongly appears to be what they are striving for). You have casters that are good. A new caster is put out that is perceived as better (but really just beats up on previous good), changing an army play style with just a single $15~$50 purchase. This then makes other casters, usually not fielded, a chance to shine to counter the new hotness. All while still using your same basic allotment of models. This also doesn't really require new releases, but rather a close enough imbalance that makes this rotation happen naturally over time. Malifaux does this, as well, to a great extent.

The problem with Games Workshop in this regard, is instead of balancing the units already released, they simply invalidate previous strategies through either removing units, deleting rules, or changing the ability for the army to be played and then releasing something else (be it rules or models) to make that the new hotness. Games Workshop is imbalanced imperfectly; you still have that revolving door of power builds like found in perfect imbalance, however you lack any of the intelligent subtlety that perfect imbalance implies.

So the idea isn't "OP units" but you should have a unit be good at what they say it's good at and with known deficits. And I posit that while the game still continues very hard random elements and not enough granularity for things like weapon skill to matter, you'll never achieve it. The core rules first need corrected and then each army addressed in one fell swoop. You could then say Farsight gives a bonus to crisis suits (like objective secured), but makes them more expensive or makes it so you cannot take other special characters or ethereals. Hey, that's them being on the right track! The Tau book is very nearly spot on to a well, internally balanced book that exemplifies this balance structure and the supplement, minus a named Riptide, makes the right ideas and building blocks for this notion.

I still think, instead of making units to counter units, regardless of speed or price, isnt my ideal idea of good balance. The only benefit I see is an evolving game may come from it.

I would rather they made models to match the others in play, instead of making them to need a new counter (however minor).

So instead of releasing some megalonian infantry (example) who prove to be a powerful shooting unit over most other shooting unit, then releasing shield rabbitins for other races to act as shot shields to balance out the power of the megalonian infantry, they should instead have released the megalonian infantry, to be moderate shooters, so that they shine in shooting, but not enough to need a a new unit of shield rabbitins.

Or, butloonies suck, at the moment. Lets make bananalumpi units that give people a reason to use butloonies in their armies. Instead of making people pay for balance, it should be striven so that the unit that sucks is made well to begin with.

Units should be made to fit into the existing game, not give reason to expand the game.

Maybe im not getting it, but I dont think perfect imbalance is desirable for a table top wargame. The only time this should be applicable, is if they screw up a unit and its better than they expected.

(whether you agree or table flip on the notion is another story, but this strongly appears to be what they are striving for)

Also, saying stuff like this doesnt sound inviting to new people. The models for the game you are talking about, along with the militant attitude of some of you really put me off the game to the point were I wont try it. I came close to trying it too.

I'm not as interested in every codex being totally balanced with one another as I am every codex having the chance to compete at a high level, so I voted for "Two players that tailor their lists against one another should have even odds of winning regardless of what codex each of them uses."

It's not exactly what I think of when I think of 40k balance, but it gets the job done. If 2 people are going to tailor lists against one another, and one person's codex has no chance to compete or even defend itself....bad times.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I still think, instead of making units to counter units, regardless of speed or price, isnt my ideal idea of good balance. The only benefit I see is an evolving game may come from it.

I would rather they made models to match the others in play, instead of making them to need a new counter (however minor).

So instead of releasing some megalonian infantry (example) who prove to be a powerful shooting unit over most other shooting unit, then releasing shield rabbitins for other races to act as shot shields to balance out the power of the megalonian infantry, they should instead have released the megalonian infantry, to be moderate shooters, so that they shine in shooting, but not enough to need a a new unit of shield rabbitins.

Units should be made to fit into the existing game, not give reason to expand the game.

Maybe im not getting it, but I dont think perfect imbalance is desirable for a table top wargame. The only time this should be applicable, is if they screw up a unit and its better than they expected.

You are but you aren't. It's that the shooting you unit, if new, can excel at shooting but have a deficit and that your army already has a unit to take advantage of that deficit. Tau suck at close combat. Khorne Bezerkers are AMAZING at blending hordes of infantry, more so wimpy Tau. However, due to the poor core rules of the game like random charge distances and the constant mucking with using transports, you make it so those poor Bezerkers cannot effectively do their job. Again, you're already on the imbalance treadmill, it's just that it's an imperfect imbalance treadmill, such that Bezerkers have been bad for awhile now, across several books, while Tau get a new book that super buff fire warriors from good shooting, poor defense, to really good shooting, and even more defensive shooting!

(whether you agree or table flip on the notion is another story, but this strongly appears to be what they are striving for)

Also, saying stuff like this doesnt sound inviting to new people. The models for the game you are talking about, along with the militant attitude of some of you really put me off the game to the point were I wont try it. I came close to trying it too.

That's not the point of the statement. The point is to say that some people will rage that Warmachine isn't balanced, to which I use the internet rage hyperbole of table flipping. It's not a militant attitude or any statement of attitude on Warmachine players or the game. However, it is a much better balanced and groomed game over Warhammer 40k wholly. The game is also incredibly inviting having individuals highlighted by the company to do so, frequent sponsored growth leagues, and a business strategy that revolves around this notion that one or two new models can unlock new strategies without invalidating any of your previous builds; growth through options and choice, not flavor of the month power creep. I am currently befuddled on where to take my Cryx next as I have too many options that result in viable army lists where as my Circle army sticks to a thematic force for a caster, thus I am fairly happy with the models I own. So I can both branch out and be successful, but stick to the games fluff and be successful. I call that a win-win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voidwraith wrote:
I'm not as interested in every codex being totally balanced with one another as I am every codex having the chance to compete at a high level, so I voted for "Two players that tailor their lists against one another should have even odds of winning regardless of what codex each of them uses."

It's not exactly what I think of when I think of 40k balance, but it gets the job done. If 2 people are going to tailor lists against one another, and one person's codex has no chance to compete or even defend itself....bad times.

Malifaux does exactly this, but actually built it into the rules. After finding out what your objectives are, both shared and (potentially secret) personal ones, you then list build to maximize your effectiveness choosing a leader and minions plus upgrades to play to the desired strength of your playstyle and the goals at hand. Warhammer 40k could actually benefit from this, but it would require a lot of game structure changes and, again, the removal of random stuff like psychic powers, warlord traits, etc. to make it effective. It's why I chuckle at the notion that people think Maelstrom of War, another random element, is good asymmetrical mission design when a small upstart is doing it better. They've turned list tailor, which in 40k can be absolutely game breaking, into an every game occurrence and makes it enjoyable.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I still think, instead of making units to counter units, regardless of speed or price, isnt my ideal idea of good balance. The only benefit I see is an evolving game may come from it.

I would rather they made models to match the others in play, instead of making them to need a new counter (however minor).

So instead of releasing some megalonian infantry (example) who prove to be a powerful shooting unit over most other shooting unit, then releasing shield rabbitins for other races to act as shot shields to balance out the power of the megalonian infantry, they should instead have released the megalonian infantry, to be moderate shooters, so that they shine in shooting, but not enough to need a a new unit of shield rabbitins.

Units should be made to fit into the existing game, not give reason to expand the game.

Maybe im not getting it, but I dont think perfect imbalance is desirable for a table top wargame. The only time this should be applicable, is if they screw up a unit and its better than they expected.

You are but you aren't. It's that the shooting you unit, if new, can excel at shooting but have a deficit and that you army already has a unit to take advantage of that deficit. Tau suck at close combat. Khorne Bezerkers are AMAZING at blending hordes of infantry, more so wimpy Tau. However, due to the poor core rules of the game like random charge distances and the constant mucking with using transports, you make it so those poor Bezerkers cannot effectively do their job. Again, you're already on the imbalance treadmill, it's just that it's an imperfect imbalance treadmill, such that Bezerkers have been bad for awhile now, across several books, while Tau get a new book that super buff fire warriors from good shooting, poor defense, to really good shooting, and even more defensive shooting!

(whether you agree or table flip on the notion is another story, but this strongly appears to be what they are striving for)

Also, saying stuff like this doesnt sound inviting to new people. The models for the game you are talking about, along with the militant attitude of some of you really put me off the game to the point were I wont try it. I came close to trying it too.

That's not the point of the statement. The point is to say that some people will rage that Warmachine isn't balance, to which I use the internet rage hyperbole of table flipping. It's not a militant attitude or any statement of attitude on Warmachine players or the game. However, it is a much better balanced and groomed game over Warhammer 40k wholly. The game is also incredibly inviting having individuals highlighted by the company to do so, frequent sponsored growth leagues, and a business strategy that revolves around this notion that one or two new models can unlock new strategies without invalidating any of your previous builds; growth through options and choice, not flavor of the month power creep.

I will rewatch the video (many details are still blurry), but im still not convinced. I would prefer FoW style balance where its just balanced from the start. On the odd occasion things arent (I think some late war american lists werent) they simply release free rules to replace it. Thats better balance and means that very few models dont see action for rules reasons, so new models dont have to be added to keep up the balance and cycles. They simply release themes and settings to expand their models as they tend to be balanced without needing imbalance at all. Popular models are there for the looks and theme, not rules etc. Rather than people using things as simply counters to the new units to keep the cycle going. But, as siad, maybe I just need to watch the video again because I may just be remembering the gist of it wrong.

As to your second paragraph, the way the players act in regards to supporting a game, is a reflection of the attitudes, and saying it isnt changes nothing. Just ask why "Sing Your Life" is having no luck in the crusade against FoW in that area of the forum. That kind of attitude gives a bad name, and solely the reason I dont actually give the game a try. Hyperboles can be effective when used right, just not to target people who dont share your opinion. (well, in my opinion). You pretty much said anyone who doesnt share your view is a raging individual, in a place, where nobody even mentioned the game you are promoting. Thats all.

Nice poll, the two I also chose are the stand-out leads in what people want from balance.

 TheKbob wrote:
All the posts

Stop saying everything I want to say, only sooner and better.

 Swastakowey wrote:


I will rewatch the video (many details are still blurry), but im still not convinced. I would prefer FoW style balance where its just balanced from the start. On the odd occasion things arent (I think some late war american lists werent) they simply release free rules to replace it. Thats better balance and means that very few models dont see action for rules reasons, so new models dont have to be added to keep up the balance and cycles. They simply release themes and settings to expand their models as they tend to be balanced without needing imbalance at all. Popular models are there for the looks and theme, not rules etc. Rather than people using things as simply counters to the new units to keep the cycle going. But, as siad, maybe I just need to watch the video again because I may just be remembering the gist of it wrong.

As to your second paragraph, the way the players act in regards to supporting a game, is a reflection of the attitudes, and saying it isnt changes nothing. Just ask why "Sing Your Life" is having no luck in the crusade against FoW in that area of the forum. That kind of attitude gives a bad name, and solely the reason I dont actually give the game a try. Hyperboles can be effective when used right, just not to target people who dont share your opinion. (well, in my opinion). You pretty much said anyone who doesnt share your view is a raging individual, in a place, where nobody even mentioned the game you are promoting. Thats all.

I cannot speak to Flames of War, but the idea of using perfect imbalance is that it's also a marketable strategy that works for a company in the business of selling you plastic McGuffin's and characters of epic proportions. You sound like you prefer a historical setting. You cannot exactly make up new models for such a game and you really cannot bend the idea of what a certain tank or infantry platoon used or did in those settings, so perfect imbalance does not work there. I imagine the creators of Flames of War branch out into various campaigns to flesh out the war versus introduction of new game elements. Historical games fall more into simulation, but I know FoW and Bolt Action are far more "gamey". Everything you are saying is a different road of game design constrained specifically by the setting. Such a game would probably want to err closer to perfect balance and complete product in which the gamers can recreate the narrative of the setting. That tank should pretty much always beat this tank because the former is of a latter time period and reaps benefits of greater technology versus the latter and so on. But said tank is always "asploded" by that air strike no matter if it's 1930s tech or 1940s tech.

And don't take my statement as that, again, not a reflection to Warmachine, but my reflection of the crowd that gets mad any time you compare said game to their "special snowflake" that is Warhammer 40k. That a company could be producing a better game, be it one they do or do not like being another story, is not a criticism they want to hear. I support Warmachine because Privateer Press is not hostile towards me as a player and ensures their game is well maintained on many fronts. These are factual and marked differences between Games Workshop and the "which is better" is fairly obvious with little dispute. I play the game because I like the models and the rules. The marriage of both makes me use it as an example in comparisons.

What balance means:

1) Each major strategy archetype has a roughly 50/50 win rate against a field consisting of an equal number of opponents from each major strategy archetype. So, for example, it's ok if a list is 60/40 against one particular opponent as long as it's 40/60 against something else. In short form, what this means is that if you bring a well-designed list against an unknown opponent you can expect a fairly competitive game.

2) Each option in a codex has a viable use in at least one major strategy archetype, preferably multiple archetypes. If you really want to use unit/upgrade/etc X you should be able to come up with an effective list that uses it. There should not be any options that are so terrible that you only take them if you don't care about winning.

3) No option should be so obviously strong that it is an auto-include, or even close to automatic. You should never be forced to take a unit that you don't like just because not taking it cripples your chances of winning.

And no matter how many pages Ailaros spends trying to defend his absurd beliefs about game balance this does NOT mean that all armies are the same, or that the choices you make in building your army do not matter.

 Peregrine wrote:

And no matter how many pages Ailaros spends trying to defend his absurd beliefs about game balance this does NOT mean that all armies are the same, or that the choices you make in building your army do not matter.

QFT, not for a response to Ailaros, but for the notion that striving for such makes for bland games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yonan wrote:
Nice poll, the two I also chose are the stand-out leads in what people want from balance.

 TheKbob wrote:
All the posts

Stop saying everything I want to say, only sooner and better.

I'm fairly curt and short when posting on my phone and more verbose when posting on my PC. I'm perceived as very unfriendly when posting from my phone as "ain't nobody got time for that." Also, typos abound...

Swastakowey wrote:I dont want perfect imbalance.

It's funny because 40k is literally the paragon of perfect imbalance. It's a game that's imbalanced with clear strong and weak stuff, and what's strong and weak changes over time, and so develops a meta, preventing the game from becoming stale.

Which is why 40k is still around after a few decades while most other games of its type have failed over time - exactly because everyone figures them out, and all the challenge is lost. This is especially true in games with a strong random element to them as once armylists and player skill become controlled variables, there's literally nothing else but luck (compare, say, two basically equal players forced to play with the same army list), and it becomes nothing more than a dice rolling game.

Which is, ironically, what people who want to be able to take more or less anything and have an even chance of winning are ultimately advocating.

There's a good reason why warmahordes is one of the very few counters to the endless parade of failed minis games - they figured out how to do things exactly the way GW does.

Swastakowey wrote:I would rather they made models to match the others in play, instead of making them to need a new counter (however minor).

Do you really want 40k to be just a more complicated version of rock-paper-scissors, though? That also cheapens things a great deal.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


I will rewatch the video (many details are still blurry), but im still not convinced. I would prefer FoW style balance where its just balanced from the start. On the odd occasion things arent (I think some late war american lists werent) they simply release free rules to replace it. Thats better balance and means that very few models dont see action for rules reasons, so new models dont have to be added to keep up the balance and cycles. They simply release themes and settings to expand their models as they tend to be balanced without needing imbalance at all. Popular models are there for the looks and theme, not rules etc. Rather than people using things as simply counters to the new units to keep the cycle going. But, as siad, maybe I just need to watch the video again because I may just be remembering the gist of it wrong.

As to your second paragraph, the way the players act in regards to supporting a game, is a reflection of the attitudes, and saying it isnt changes nothing. Just ask why "Sing Your Life" is having no luck in the crusade against FoW in that area of the forum. That kind of attitude gives a bad name, and solely the reason I dont actually give the game a try. Hyperboles can be effective when used right, just not to target people who dont share your opinion. (well, in my opinion). You pretty much said anyone who doesnt share your view is a raging individual, in a place, where nobody even mentioned the game you are promoting. Thats all.

I cannot speak to Flames of War, but the idea of using perfect imbalance is that it's also a marketable strategy that works for a company in the business of selling you plastic McGuffin's and characters of epic proportions. You sound like you prefer a historical setting. You cannot exactly make up new models for such a game and you really cannot bend the idea of what a certain tank or infantry platoon used or did in those settings, so perfect imbalance does not work there. I imagine the creators of Flames of War branch out into various campaigns to flesh out the war versus introduction of new game elements. Historical games fall more into simulation, but I know FoW and Bolt Action are far more "gamey". Everything you are saying is a different road of game design constrained specifically by the setting. Such a game would probably want to err closer to perfect balance and complete product in which the gamers can recreate the narrative of the setting. That tank should pretty much always beat this tank because the former is of a latter time period and reaps benefits of greater technology versus the latter and so on. But said tank is always "asploded" by that air strike no matter if it's 1930s tech or 1940s tech.

And don't take my statement as that, again, not a reflection to Warmachine, but my reflection of the crowd that gets mad any time you compare said game to their "special snowflake" that is Warhammer 40k. That a company could be producing a better game, be it one they do or do not like being another story, is not a criticism they want to hear. I support Warmachine because Privateer Press is not hostile towards me as a player and ensures their game is well maintained on many fronts. These are factual and marked differences between Games Workshop and the "which is better" is fairly obvious with little dispute. I play the game because I like the models and the rules. The marriage of both makes me use it as an example in comparisons.

I agree on the first paragraph. Maybe my idea of balance only works in a historical setting. But that doesnt mean a company could create their own setting then make the models fit in the same way historical games do. In my opinion, thats the way to go for balance. Which essentially is, make the unit work for the setting/current stuff. Expand the setting to get more sales if needed.

I like flames of war for its rules and models (which is undeniably better than 40k also), they also treat me like a customer etc and provide/do everything I need and want as a wargamer. But I recognise that the models/rules are not everyone's cup of tea regardless of how much better they are. As a result, I dont bother dismissing those who enjoy a game seen as bad in many ways as "table flippers" and so on. Its bad advertising regardless of the intention or truth behind it. Anyways, you have heard it hundreds of times im sure.

 Ailaros wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:I dont want perfect imbalance.

It's funny because 40k is literally the paragon of perfect imbalance. It's a game that's imbalanced with clear strong and weak stuff, and what's strong and weak changes over time, and so develops a meta, preventing the game from becoming stale.

Which is why 40k is still around after a few decades while most other games of its type have failed over time - exactly because everyone figures them out, and all the challenge is lost. This is especially true in games with a strong random element to them as once armylists and player skill become controlled variables, there's literally nothing else but luck (compare, say, two basically equal players forced to play with the same army list), and it becomes nothing more than a dice rolling game.

Which is, ironically, what people who want to be able to take more or less anything and have an even chance of winning are ultimately advocating.

There's a good reason why warmahordes is one of the very few counters to the endless parade of failed minis games - they figured out how to do things exactly the way GW does.

Swastakowey wrote:I would rather they made models to match the others in play, instead of making them to need a new counter (however minor).

Do you really want 40k to be just a more complicated version of rock-paper-scissors, though? That also cheapens things a great deal.

I ish agree on your first one, expect I think GW does a bad version of imbalance so its not perfect imbalance. If it were more subtle and less pricey, and it properly cycled between units, then nobody would notice. So its a bad version of imbalance yes. I guess.

Second point, flames of war is not a rock paper scissors, nor is any other historical game. Anti tank guns work better against tanks, but can also kill infantry or blow through cover etc. Nothing simnply beats one thing and looses to another. Which I think is balance. When something is useful without eliminating someone else stuff entirely.

 Ailaros wrote:

It's funny because 40k is literally the paragon of perfect imbalance.

G'Night, everybody.

I must say I am really enjoying this thread. It seems to be the most thoughtful discussion on game balance we've had on Dakka for a long time.

 Ailaros wrote:
It's funny because 40k is literally the paragon of perfect imbalance. It's a game that's imbalanced with clear strong and weak stuff, and what's strong and weak changes over time, and so develops a meta, preventing the game from becoming stale.

No, you just don't understand balance at all. Perfect imbalance is a concept where you use deliberate and subtle variations in power level to drive the metagame. 40k's balance issues aren't a carefully-crafted metagame, they're just GW being hopelessly incompetent at writing good rules.

Which is why 40k is still around after a few decades while most other games of its type have failed over time - exactly because everyone figures them out, and all the challenge is lost.

Lol, no. 40k isn't around because of its (garbage) rules, it's around because of the amazing fluff and models combined with GW's past business successes. If 40k was a new game that had to sell based on its rules and gameplay it would be forgotten almost immediately.

Do you really want 40k to be just a more complicated version of rock-paper-scissors, though? That also cheapens things a great deal.

That's better than the current game of rock/paper/auto-win. Your entire argument against balance seems to be based around this ridiculous assumption that 40k's poor balance is difficult to "solve" as a player, when in reality this is the opposite of the truth. The overpowered options and combinations are usually pretty obvious, so what you're so-called "perfect imbalance" really means is that most of the models you can buy have no purpose besides sitting on your shelf unless you really enjoy losing. You can make "choices" in building your army, but the choices are all extremely obvious and you end up with the same cookie-cutter netlists over and over again. I fail to see how this is better than a game where there are more options that are capable of winning, and the gap in power level between the best units/upgrades and the worst units/upgrades is much smaller.

 Peregrine wrote:

That's better than the current game of rock/paper/auto-win. Your entire argument against balance seems to be based around this ridiculous assumption that 40k's poor balance is difficult to "solve" as a player, when in reality this is the opposite of the truth. The overpowered options and combinations are usually pretty obvious, so what you're so-called "perfect imbalance" really means is that most of the models you can buy have no purpose besides sitting on your shelf unless you really enjoy losing. You can make "choices" in building your army, but the choices are all extremely obvious and you end up with the same cookie-cutter netlists over and over again. I fail to see how this is better than a game where there are more options that are capable of winning, and the gap in power level between the best units/upgrades and the worst units/upgrades is much smaller.

I believe he has yet to answer another user on a very specific question: What, then, is the purpose of completely ineffective units, such as the Penitent Engine, in the perfect imbalance of Warhammer 40k?

The question is dodged because there is no answer. Poor to out-and-out ineffective units exist in a great amount within Games Workshop games. Units that you know "hey, I've never actually seen that played." Other games have the same problem before I pretend to be casting the first stone. I wish the Woldwrath was a more viable piece. However, there is a new caster for Circle of Orboros who specializes in Wolds, so he may yet make good on that $135(!) model. Sames goes for the Archangel or Mountain King. Massive, awesome models which are routinely stated as large ineffective with any list. However, I have faith that Privateer Press notices this and wishes to sell more of them, thus will introduce some caster, solo, or other element to make them more effective.

It could then be argued, but "Hey!, what about just fixing that one unit that's already out?! I spent good money on it!" I'm sure they've noticed that always tweaking units starts you down a dark path of what Games Workshop does. Constant buffing and debuffing of the same tired units, like Eldar Grav Tanks, on a circle of is it good or isn't it. And most of the time, it's points values that get dropped for these models that result in "spam" builds. Would the Woldwrath be amazing for 5 points versus 20 points ( I think it's that..)? YES! Oh, My God yes! But would that promote game balance? No, it just makes power creep. Instead, I suspect a new unit, like this caster, will come out and help make it more viable. Is it all "Just As Planned!" by PP? I doubt it, they make mistakes and botch models. They issue FAQs, too. But I know they are good on fixing those mistakes at some point.

I'd also like to add that not tweaking units on end is better for the players. A player can always look at a Woldwrath and know what it does. A player can then remember what a Woldwrath + Brad does, if the new caster (Bradigus), makes him baller. Compare that to Warhammer 40k with the all too often statement heard by the grognards of ages past "Wait, doesn't X do Y? No, wait, that was the 3E codex in 4E that it worked like that." Units, and the rules that dictate said units, have changed so dramatically in 40k that it makes the very idea that they are striving for perfect imbalance an asinine one. After SEVEN editions of a game, we still have drastic rules changes. Many of their competition hits a major stride in their second, maybe third edition. And players who've stuck it out that long will have to remember (or can accurately recall) what state line which model has over which edition of the core rules and codex. While the Woldwrath will continue being the Woldwrath, for better or for worse. Hopefully, with Brad, it's for the better. Magic Monkey Smash!

 TheKbob wrote:
I believe he has yet to answer another user on a very specific question: What, then, is the purpose of completely ineffective units, such as the Penitent Engine, in the perfect imbalance of Warhammer 40k?

He's answered this before elsewhere: the purpose of those units is to allow you to deliberately weaken your list to give yourself a bigger challenge or to go easy on a less-skilled opponent. It's just too bad if you happen to like the fluff or model and don't want to participate in this masochistic self-nerfing, but that's the price of having options. And of course he'll never accept the fact that the easiest way to nerf your own list is to just take fewer points than your opponent.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
I believe he has yet to answer another user on a very specific question: What, then, is the purpose of completely ineffective units, such as the Penitent Engine, in the perfect imbalance of Warhammer 40k?

He's answered this before elsewhere: the purpose of those units is to allow you to deliberately weaken your list to give yourself a bigger challenge or to go easy on a less-skilled opponent. It's just too bad if you happen to like the fluff or model and don't want to participate in this masochistic self-nerfing, but that's the price of having options. And of course he'll never accept the fact that the easiest way to nerf your own list is to just take fewer points than your opponent.

Yep, if you're a better player you give the other guy extra points to fight you in a a balanced game. Voila, you give them an advantage and all units remain usable in general play and they get the awesome feeling of having more stuff to play with rather than facing rarely seen weak units. Starcraft 2 handles handicaps by reducing the HP of units and buildings byu the handicap amount, so setting it at 90% means that a 150 HP unit will become a 135 HP unit (10% less). Setting it at 50% on a probe means that probe will have 10 HP and 10 shields. This works great with friends who are less skilled or knowledgeable about the game than you in still allowing them to compete at an equal level. When working from a balanced base, you can find the exact handicap needed for equal play, then adjust it as they get better.

edit: wtf, wrong thread for that edit

I see. That's not actually imperfect imbalance. That's just a bad unit, as I suggested with Mr. Woldwrath. And one I know will be fixed in a deliberate fashion rather than "Baby + Bath Water = Sucess!" approach that's quite fond with Games Workshop rules changes.

I played a great board game that was "passive aggressive" multiplayer, the best I can put it, called Nations that had a player difficulty setting that regulated the amount of resources a player got while everyone still played the same game. One good player was on hard while the rest of us poor plebians were on normal. It changed nothing about the game dynamic or required "pulled punches" to allow all players to enjoy the many hours we put into it. The same idea could be baked into a wargame.

I gave a demo of Malifaux recently to a new player and, by accident ("bad things happen" after all), I one shot his master on a riposte which is super rare. But, being a good player, he still kept the game close and scored enough, given just a few more tricks, he'd have bested me. On his first game! Now, granted, he seemed very talented at war games to recover from that nasty turn of events, more so with just the basic explanation of rules and reading the character cards once, but I've found the better a game, the easier it is for a player to simple just "get it" and play.

Swastakowey wrote:I ish agree on your first one, expect I think GW does a bad version of imbalance so its not perfect imbalance.

"Perfect" in this case doesn't mean "the way I like", it refers to something more specific.

In this case, you can have perfect imbalance that some people don't like, just as you can use the perfect imbalance model to create a version of imbalance that some people like more.

Furthermore, the idea of perfect imbalance, even by its very name defies the idea of balance. It exists for some units to be stronger and others to be weaker, and for that to change over time. That's literally what it is. Imbalance.

If you don't have weaker units you necessarily don't have stronger units, and if all units are roughly equal in power, then you've taken all skill and meaningfulness out of the decisions you make when you choose what to bring to the table. There's no real strategy to it anymore if everything is functionally the same with regards to the outcome of the game.

Swastakowey wrote: If it were more subtle and less pricey

Well, of course, if you're GW the pricey makes a lot more sense.

In any case, I think one of the things that people greatly overplay is the unsubtlety of 40k, as you'd say. The strongest guard list, for example, isn't THAT much stronger or weaker than any other army list, for example.

I think it's easy to look at the extremely vocal minority who decry bad game balance and then completely fail comprehensively to come up with balance. Put a tau player and someone who's lost a game against tau once in a room and have them decide what true, objective balance should look like and the two would likely starve to death before coming up with an agreement.

Because there isn't such a thing as objective balance outside of symmetry, and there never will be. The only way to get around this, price-wise is to play a cheaper game (like MTG), or to approach 40k with a different attitude other than to only win all the time slightly more easily than some other way.

So long as you're not a powergamer who must play with the absolute strongest possible list at any given moment, there's no real problem here.

Swastakowey wrote: Which I think is balance. When something is useful without eliminating someone else stuff entirely.

Why?

That doesn't sound like a balance of strength, but rather seems to be a choice regarding the difference between specialization and versatility.

---

One of the things I always find interesting about discussion of balance as well is that 40k can be 100% perfectly balanced with no changes whatsoever in the rules. Just show up to the game with the exact same list as your opponent, and voila, instant balance. Just like chess.

But nobody seems to do this. Most people would rather the game be imbalanced so that they could think about things and take different units to be able to have an edge on their opponents. Plenty of people also decry balance openly - you don't need to go any further than "at that tournament, it was just everybody playing X" to see how much people don't really want balance, but would rather have meaningful imbalance in the game.

If you do want balance, though, then seriously, only ever play mirror matches. All your problems are solved. It's only a matter of time before you get bored with balance and want to have meaningful decisions about what you bring to the table again. Just like everybody else.

MTG is cheaper than 40k? I spent more on 1 modern deck than I did on 5k points of a 40k army and most of my army was purchased new at full retail price. I won't even get into legacy where you could easily drop $3k on a deck to be competitive. Sorry for the OT post but I see that thrown around quite a bit and it simply isn't true. MTG is no more balanced than 40k either. Buy a booster box and make a deck using only those cards and play against someone with an optimized tournament deck. You will get demolished. Funny how there aren't nearly as many complaints about a lack of balance in that game.

Im gonna answer roughly in the order of your answer...

Well. I agree that not everyone will like perfect imbalance (like me). There is nearly nothing that everyone will agree on anyway.

I hate Imperfect Balance. As I said earlier, its not balance. Its just not letting a game go stale and driving sales (subsequently expanding the game). Nothing more.

The problem with having weaker units, is those units might be what someone enjoys. Which defeats the purpose of a lot of the hobby. But the key wording you have wrong there, is the functionality of the units being the same. That is wrong, in a balanced game as I see it, is every model has a purpose, without rendering other units useless. An anti tank gun, has a purpose and does its job. In a balanced game, an anti tank gun is not just as good as a rifle. They both serve a different purpose and in a balanced game each one will do their job without making units that are redundant or useless as a result. Equal in USEFULNESS and equal in ROLE FULFILLMENT not equal in power. Balanced to the point where how you use a unit defines that unit.

I agree, the minority greatly over play the unbalance. But I do agree that bad match ups are frequent in certain situations. What you are trying to tell me, is paying 60 points for 3 mortars is balanced when I can get a wyvern for 65, or when an Eldar Weapon platform is equal to the cost of a heavy weapons team, yet can move, shoot, has its own superior profile and superior weapons plus run shoot run etc etc, is all balance and that the skill involved is simply choosing the best units which are a result of the imbalance. So, to be a good player, you think I should go unbound, buy the best units in the game, and use them together, and that would make me one of the best players in the game? (im just not sure where you are going with this bit). Or, am I a better player, for using the chimeras in the Inquisitor codex in an unbound army to fight the chimeras in the current AM codex? Because the inquisitor ones are 10 points cheaper?

The most perfect balance WITHOUT VARIATION is symmetry yes. But when variation is added and a value is given to each variation in accordance to its usefulness, changes can be made while keeping the balance. Like buying water melons by the KG. For example, buying a water melon from GW, one may be smaller than the other, but you may pay MORE for it (which it seems you are calling balance). In a desired wargaming balance world, you pay less for the smaller watermelon, and pay more for the bigger watermelon. In short, in a decently balanced world, things are priced according to their differences, like melons are priced according to their weight. Which is seen as a fair system by most of the world

I am not a power gamer. I feel I have less issues with the game than most. But I still, feel the pain when up against power gaming lists. So I do see a problem. I would like you to make a list right now, knowing nothing about your enemy. THEN take that list, and put it up against a list which contains an eldar revenant titan. Do you feel like, the revenant titan player is superior to you because he can wipe out at least 2 units a turn and tank more hits than it gives out? What if he went unbound and had a revenant titan, backed up by an army of nightwings flying around? I would not call that balance and nor would I call it skill on the other players part.

Now I think about it, that should be the choice. Specialization and versatility. Choices should be be designed and created to do a certain role within the army within the game. The strength should be equal, so how you use them in accordance to their role enhances the strength. So if used properly, will eliminate tanks. But, what stops it from being paper scissors rock, is the tank can be used to its full efficiency too, so the tank isnt negated by the anti tank guns, from things such as placement, movement and a bit of dice luck. So the factors in play, arent just strength, but how they are used and how the player can bring out their full strength. Which is something I dont see in 40k, well, its not important in 40k.


If this makes no sense, tell me, I am still learning to articulate my thoughts on the internet


The only reason, I dont think 40k is horrible, is because I believe in list tailoring and pre game planning. Which gets rid of many issues. I actively go out of my way to make the game balanced and fair. Because of that, the games are awesome and the narratives are enjoyable. But I will not kid myself that it is a strategy game, or a balanced game. As many know, I try limit my complaints, as I feel the many issues with 40k can be solved if you have the right mindset, but I wont say its balanced. A good game, but at the same time, a terrible one.

Toofast wrote:
MTG is cheaper than 40k? I spent more on 1 modern deck than I did on 5k points of a 40k army and most of my army was purchased new at full retail price. I won't even get into legacy where you could easily drop $3k on a deck to be competitive. Sorry for the OT post but I see that thrown around quite a bit and it simply isn't true. MTG is no more balanced than 40k either. Buy a booster box and make a deck using only those cards and play against someone with an optimized tournament deck. You will get demolished. Funny how there aren't nearly as many complaints about a lack of balance in that game.

Red Deck Wins, Eggs, Goblins, Elves, and Storm all disagree with you on that. Several of those Legacy Decks are under $50. My own 2 Legacy Decks (Reanimator and Stax) each sit around $350, and do very well. The notion that being able to figure out good combinations, but also knowing how to play what you have well is what makes the game semi balanced.

It's one reason why I like my Necron Codex. There are a number of options to make a nice TAC list that allows me to play a combined arms style army, where models can provide support for each other. Having a GA with a squad of Destructeks inside babysitting a Warrior unit with a Triarch Stalker walking next to them allows for a good deal of adaptability. Is that an uber optimized use of 600 points? No, but it gives me good results and in a wide variety of situations and can be just a single part of an army.

Ideally, balance should come down to being 25% list building and finding combinations that work, 50% tactical decisions made in game, and the last 25% of dice luck.