thats all

Maybe.

No. With this many different forces, matchup advantages are inevitable, even if it is a sort of rock paper scissors setup. What they can and should strive for, however, is giving all the newer books a fair shake against armies they match up poorly against, usually with some form of unit/gear that targets a problematic issue in the metagame, as long as said option is not so powerful that it becomes an automatic choice.

Psyfleman are a good example of something along those lines (and their equivalents in the new chaos book) in that they were brutal against the razorspammers, but infantry heavy armies really don't care about them too much. Where they messed up with Psyflemen is making them so cheap that they were worth taking even if you did not anticipate a lot of opposing transports. Conversely, the flak missle option on Havocks is an error in the other direction, since the upgrade is so expensive that its not worth taking unless you are absolutely certain that there are going to be flyers in every game. They need to find the middle ground between those extremes.

No.

They can't force people to make good armies out of good codecies.

They can't force people to play smart.

1- This is not tournament discussion
2- This is not constructive
3- Less QQ, more pew pew.
4- May I suggest chess? It comes prepainted 32 pieces. Made of durable plastic and is available in all languages for the same price.

Actually, based on the statistics of chess wins and losses, it's been proven that white is broken, cheesy, and OP.

Phryxis wrote:
Actually, based on the statistics of chess wins and losses, it's been proven that white is broken, cheesy, and OP.

Perhaps, but the player that plays white is randomly chosen before the game begins.

Imagine the games you'd see if you bring any given army to the table, and then right before the game begins, you've got a 50/50 chance of actually playing your army, or whatever random army your opponent brought to the table.

It's not possible for GW to balance the game.

Ive played for at least 10 years, there has never been balance.

Its always.. The newer Codex is best, the outdated books are behind alot.

GW is a model company, they state this. They just happen to have rules... This shows... they do not care about balance.

I just repainted my black chess pieces white, (you could just use counts as if you dont feel like repainting) now my chess set is completely balanced

Not unless they re-release every codex at one time, every time they update editions.

Stop crying and jusy play.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Not unless they re-release every codex at one time, every time they update editions.

Stop crying and jusy play.

That would be cool if they did that, one can only dream

fursphere wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Actually, based on the statistics of chess wins and losses, it's been proven that white is broken, cheesy, and OP.

Perhaps, but the player that plays white is randomly chosen before the game begins.

Imagine the games you'd see if you bring any given army to the table, and then right before the game begins, you've got a 50/50 chance of actually playing your army, or whatever random army your opponent brought to the table.

On a serious note I can highly recomend swaping sides after a game and playing through from the other players perspective. It can really be an eye opener as to what is really unfun/broken easy/hard to counter and encourages you to build a list you would want to play against.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Stop crying and jusy play.

When did this become the go-to line whenever someone ever says anything that can be described as critical of GW.
Hey. We only pay a large amount of money for this game best thing we can do is never QUESTION IT EVER.

But no. It will never be balanced because of how it's layed out. And I don't think GW is particularly interested in making it perfectly balanced either.

GW's best balanced game was Blood Bowl which had a crapton of community playtesting *AND* a Living rulebook.

This allowed every time something was added and changed, that everything else could be 're-pointed' if need to compensate. Every new codex increases or decreases power of things in the meta and the points of old codexes should be adjusted accordingly.

All they really need to do is publish the codexes 'without points' simply unit rules. Then as a codex is released, they can re-point the entire game based upon shifts in meta or when units are found to be under or over costed.

I understand GW designs models first, rules second, and they want the absurd rules to stay... so just change point values. If something sucks, lower the cost until it is useful. If something is overpowered, increase the points.

I feel like even doing a 'living points value' would help with the balance (but be a nightmare for games as no one would ever have the correct points)

nkelsch wrote:
I understand GW designs models first, rules second, and they want the absurd rules to stay... so just change point values. If something sucks, lower the cost until it is useful. If something is overpowered, increase the points.

I feel like even doing a 'living points value' would help with the balance (but be a nightmare for games as no one would ever have the correct points)

Only if all the customers had electronic versions of the codex and army building software that's updated simultaneously. I don't see it happening anytime soon, but at least their coming out with IPad versions that can be updated. It's like any economic system: centrally controlled, fixed prices lead to stagnation. If the 'prices' (points costs) were to be changed based on supply and demand (how often people take some unit) then the system would essentially repair itself, not be perfect mind you (we're still influenced by propaganda and irrationality).

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Stop crying and jusy play.

When did this become the go-to line whenever someone ever says anything that can be described as critical of GW.
Hey. We only pay a large amount of money for this game best thing we can do is never QUESTION IT EVER.

But no. It will never be balanced because of how it's layed out. And I don't think GW is particularly interested in making it perfectly balanced either.

I'm not saying that GW is perfect. However, I am saying that the whining and crying about game balance gets really tiring. There is no way to keep a game balanced over time without making either loose or just re-releasing everything. Look at Magic, how many Revised set cards are considered "viable" in today's game? Remember D&D minis? How quickly did Harbinger get power-creeped out? Even with Flames of War people are whinging about unbalanced forces, sorry, that's how we won and they lost.
And what use does it do to complain online? "Oooh, I'll write a fandex! That'll show 'em!" No, no it won't. GW doesn't care. They won't unless you make them. Complaining to them, rather than away, might affect something.
And balancing the game "in every matchup" means GW will have to write each army list, to prevent imbalance. So each codex would have only 1 or 2 permissable lists. Really? This is what you want?

Now, stop whining that certain armies are broken and some are unviable. It happens. Just play. Or find a new game, I hear solitaire is very balanced...

No.

That's all.

The big problem with balance is that GW does not update rules and codexes over time. Sure they "FAQ" stuff, but mostly these muddy things up as much as they address.

GW has no interest in balance, so no I dont think that GW can do so.

Warhammer and 40k could be balanced, but it would take a concentrated effort to keep every thing UPDATED...that means all codexes and army books.

captkurt wrote:
The big problem with balance is that GW does not update rules and codexes over time. Sure they "FAQ" stuff, but mostly these muddy things up as much as they address.

GW has no interest in balance, so no I dont think that GW can do so.

Warhammer and 40k could be balanced, but it would take a concentrated effort to keep every thing UPDATED...that means all codexes and army books.

Isn't this what I just said?

 Hindenburg wrote:
. And I don't think GW is particularly interested in making it perfectly balanced either.

Other than the FAQs, obviously.

Which don't balance anything.

12thRonin wrote:
Which don't balance anything.

See "YMDC" for examples of how the FAQs are not helpful.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I'm not saying that GW is perfect. However, I am saying that the whining and crying about game balance gets really tiring. There is no way to keep a game balanced over time without making either loose or just re-releasing everything.

There's no way to keep a game balanced over time and still release new content for a steady income stream without being a little loose or just re-releasing everything.

Look at Magic, how many Revised set cards are considered "viable" in today's game?

Magic doesn't cycle because things are unbalanced. They cycle card sets out of Standard to keep the money flowing.
If Standard included every card set (That's Legacy) they'd have to try and balance the tournament scene over around 18 thousand cards. With a professional circuit and a about 6 month release cycle that's not viable.

And balancing the game "in every matchup" means GW will have to write each army list, to prevent imbalance. So each codex would have only 1 or 2 permissable lists. Really? This is what you want?

No, they really wouldn't. Balance the codex internally, and make sure that a few lists are balanced against the other codexes. As long as internal balance is consistent the test list won't matter - there would still be poor matchups but it wouldn't be as drastic as it is now (ie instead of being essentially an auto-loss it'd be a more challenging game).

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Stop crying and jusy play.

When did this become the go-to line whenever someone ever says anything that can be described as critical of GW.
Hey. We only pay a large amount of money for this game best thing we can do is never QUESTION IT EVER.

But no. It will never be balanced because of how it's layed out. And I don't think GW is particularly interested in making it perfectly balanced either.

I'm not saying that GW is perfect. However, I am saying that the whining and crying about game balance gets really tiring. There is no way to keep a game balanced over time without making either loose or just re-releasing everything. Look at Magic, how many Revised set cards are considered "viable" in today's game? Remember D&D minis? How quickly did Harbinger get power-creeped out? Even with Flames of War people are whinging about unbalanced forces, sorry, that's how we won and they lost.
And what use does it do to complain online? "Oooh, I'll write a fandex! That'll show 'em!" No, no it won't. GW doesn't care. They won't unless you make them. Complaining to them, rather than away, might affect something.
And balancing the game "in every matchup" means GW will have to write each army list, to prevent imbalance. So each codex would have only 1 or 2 permissable lists. Really? This is what you want?

Now, stop whining that certain armies are broken and some are unviable. It happens. Just play. Or find a new game, I hear solitaire is very balanced...

Ya know, if you hate these discussions so much, you should probably stop browsing them then.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

There is no way to keep a game balanced over time without making either loose or just re-releasing everything.

It is possible to keep a game balanced over time. It's just not possible with GW's games. As I said.

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

There is no way to keep a game balanced over time without making either loose or just re-releasing everything.

It is possible to keep a game balanced over time. It's just not possible with GW's games. As I said.

It is possible by keeping a game small, unexpandable, and a bit loose in the rules. Look at Monopoly. With a game like Warhammer, Flames of War, or D&D Minis, where there are almost infinite combinations, it makes it a bit harder to make sure that any balance is possible. You seem to confuse "can't" with "doesn't want to". If you want a completely balanced game, look into solitaire.

Is it possible? Yes.

Think about any complex scientific task like microprocessor design. Is it possible to make all the little bits of silicon and metals work together and process data at mind-blowing speed? 100 years ago anyone would say "you crazy, that's some kind of magic you talking about". Yet it was done. Is it even close in complexity to make a relatively tiny number of well-defined game pieces to work in a balanced way?

Is it possible for GW? No. Because they are not interested in that even slightly.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

There is no way to keep a game balanced over time without making either loose or just re-releasing everything.

It is possible to keep a game balanced over time. It's just not possible with GW's games. As I said.

It is possible by keeping a game small, unexpandable, and a bit loose in the rules. Look at Monopoly. With a game like Warhammer, Flames of War, or D&D Minis, where there are almost infinite combinations, it makes it a bit harder to make sure that any balance is possible. You seem to confuse "can't" with "doesn't want to". If you want a completely balanced game, look into solitaire.

It is impossible to provide a perfect balance. It is possible and not that hard really to provide much better balance that there is now in 40k. You don't even have to remove craziest rules, just have to set a proper point cost on them.

Well, I didn't mean completely balanced because making something perfect and all situations accounted for is not possible. There are miniature games that are much more balanced than GW's games. Some would say.... Infinitely more balanced. See what I did. And those games have a lot of variation. But yes. I agree. The variation is what makes Warhammer unbalanced and why it will be forever unbalanced. GW's obviously prefers seperate army books and armies with unique weapon and quirks. Wich makes balance much harder to achieve. And this is how they want it, I assume. The new rules seem to stray further away from balance with random commander abilities and such so they seem to focus more on narrative. And rolling on charts.
They should call it the chart-rolling-game.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

There is no way to keep a game balanced over time without making either loose or just re-releasing everything.

It is possible to keep a game balanced over time. It's just not possible with GW's games. As I said.

It is possible by keeping a game small, unexpandable, and a bit loose in the rules. Look at Monopoly. With a game like Warhammer, Flames of War, or D&D Minis, where there are almost infinite combinations, it makes it a bit harder to make sure that any balance is possible. You seem to confuse "can't" with "doesn't want to". If you want a completely balanced game, look into solitaire.

You're not understanding the "internal balance" statements made in this thread. New codex releases are seldom and this game is not constantly changing. I think the game is easily made...MORE balanced....perfect balance would be near impossible, but there are some VERY GLARING imbalance issues...its not like oh maybe I will take unit x...its some cases where unit x can and should be taken no matter what...as others have stated.

GW does not CARE to balance it though...the competition of the game is largely irrelevant to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

There is no way to keep a game balanced over time without making either loose or just re-releasing everything.

It is possible to keep a game balanced over time. It's just not possible with GW's games. As I said.

It is possible by keeping a game small, unexpandable, and a bit loose in the rules. Look at Monopoly. With a game like Warhammer, Flames of War, or D&D Minis, where there are almost infinite combinations, it makes it a bit harder to make sure that any balance is possible. You seem to confuse "can't" with "doesn't want to". If you want a completely balanced game, look into solitaire.

It is impossible to provide a perfect balance. It is possible and not that hard really to provide much better balance that there is now in 40k. You don't even have to remove craziest rules, just have to set a proper point cost on them.

This

YAY this thread again.

You want balance go PP it's by and large balanced between factions. Even than there are some bad matchups.

I don't really care about balance. My friends don't run cheese lists and neither do I, and we have a good time.

 darefsky wrote:
YAY this thread again.

You want balance go PP it's by and large balanced between factions. Even than there are some bad matchups.

Depends on what you consider balance. Warmachine is about list synergy and therefore, arguably, not that balanced.

 Hindenburg wrote:

 darefsky wrote:
YAY this thread again.

You want balance go PP it's by and large balanced between factions. Even than there are some bad matchups.

Depends on what you consider balance. Warmachine is about list synergy and therefore, arguably, not that balanced.

Its balanced between factions. Its not like GW's "Hey I bring SW or GK and I pretty much auto-win". Yes there are bad caster match ups but by and large the game is balanced. The fact that when they release new models, all factions get a little love helps that out a lot too.

True. Didn't think about that. Point taken.

Remember there is balance in terms not only of codexes/units

you could also ask for balance in terms of

cost eg sports with a wage cap on either individuals/squads

experience eg sports where your squad can't have muliple world champions... rallying went down that route a while back, not so sure now

testing/practice eg several motorsports only allow testing/development over a limited period to keep costs down

handicaping eg horseracing/motorsport, used to bring things closer together

Maybe rather than trying to get GW to change (fat chance) those who want balance should look to implement one or more of the above

If the troops choices in every codex were balanced against every other troops choice, and the internal balance of the codex was maintained, you could have the game as balanced as possible. A pure complete balance would require you to play against your clone, with the exact same army. Even then first turn advantage, and the random rolls of dice, will play heavily in how the game progresses.

Theoretically, internal balance is definitely possible by simply using appropriate points costage. The number of differing interactions between wargear and special rules makes complete balance fairly impossible though.

However, I find dice rolls have more of an impact than anything else anyway. The vicissitudes of fate are the greatest variable in a game and balance is well within acceptable levels imho.

Is it possible to balance the game quite well (between lists and within lists)? Yes. Even GW is able to do it if you look at Epic.

Is GW interested in doing it in 40k? No.

No.
No game is ever perfectly balanced when:
-Players play with different units
-Players start in different positions
-The gameboard is not exactly the same on both sides

Essentially, no tabletop wargame is ever exactly equal.

Deal with it.

Eilif wrote:

Essentially, no tabletop wargame is ever exactly equal.

Deal with it.

I started playing historical war games as a child, balance wasn't an option. The BRB rules are balanced, codex not as much and personal choice plus play style put balance out the window. To me, not a big deal. That being said. No GW can not balance every match up. Especially if someone relies on tactical advice from Dachshunds.

No.

The problem is that the game doesn't have an identity, and different armies have been introduced at different points of the game.


Every army that existed in 2nd Edition were more or less balanced, because in 2nd Edition, the game was all about "modern combat" and was shooting centric. Assault troops in 2nd Edition were specialized. And even Tyranids and Orks were shooty armies in 2nd Edition. That's because, well, in combat, the guy who can blast you to bits from far away is always going to have an advantage over the guy who is trying to close the distance to hit you with a glowing stick.

The problem is, 3rd Edition screwed the pooch in the name of streamlined and shorter games. It did this gimping the hell out of shooting (In the grim darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, cowering in fear, hoping his one or two shots do the trick before he is whalloped by the guy running across the open field with a glowing stick).

As such, you got armies like Tyranids and Orks that switched to focus entirely on close combat in order to "evolve" to the system. Armies like IGuard which are awful in close combat, and the newer entries like the Tau, counter-evolved by becoming so ridiculously shooty that they couldn't move, for fear of losing firepower due to 3rd Ed's awful shoot/movement rules, and having to fight those guys with the glowing sticks.

As it stands, many 40K factions now straddle editions, and the only way to "fix" it for balance is to make a lot of existing collected armies obsolete, and take them back to where they arguably should be. That's not going to make players happy. You can see some of the backlash of the players who liked close combat. But, realistically, close combat troops should be cheap as hell, because they're going to die in droves with a proper ruleset, lol. However, cheaper points means more expensive money wise. Nobody wants to have to buy 400 Tyranids to field a 1500 point army, lol.

The problem with any game, whether video or table top, one on one is almost impossible to balance. There will always be some kind of rock, paper, scissors element, but I think GW have done an ok job at balance this edition, especially with allies really helping.

I think if you want balance, 2v2 is where you're more likely to find it.

No.

Well, that was easy. Can we get on to some more useful questions now?

No, it is not

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Nobody wants to have to buy 400 Tyranids to field a 1500 point army, lol.

I would. In a heartbeat.

No, by the sole virtue that even if we assume every codex has perfect external and internal balance (internal balance occurs when units within a codex are balanced when compared with each other, and external balance occurs when codices as a whole are are balanced when compared to each other), and if we also assume that every player is able to build a perfect list (ie, all of the units synergize properly, no redundant/counterproductive loadouts) and perfect player skill, bad matchups would still exist merely by the virtue of your army list and the metagame. Its because certain types of lists will always counter other types of lists with some degree of effectiveness. For example, a Tyranid horde style list would have a very difficult time against a Necron Flyer list.

Every army that existed in 2nd Edition were more or less balanced, because in 2nd Edition, the game was all about "modern combat" and was shooting centric. Assault troops in 2nd Edition were specialized. And even Tyranids and Orks were shooty armies in 2nd Edition. That's because, well, in combat, the guy who can blast you to bits from far away is always going to have an advantage over the guy who is trying to close the distance to hit you with a glowing stick.

Actually assault was quite viable back in 2nd, Jumping Eldar behind cover often easily gained -3 to be hit,easily got into melee, and tied up units faster and destroyed them with quick precision, Thus you'd usually be shooting at BS1 against those with jump jets, or against vehicles moving fast. Going pure shooter meant those jumper armies easily was able to out maneuver you, get into combat, and easily kill your dedicated shooters.

It meant you needed a mix still, rather than shooting being the primary dominant, usually people took some basic melee weaponry at least, rather than simple knives, though if they didn't go with the mix, they created specialized "Anti melee units" so their shooting didn't take a hit ..Kinda like today.

Psykers dominated all though, even if it took five to six pages to explain some of them.

If they either fire Ward or get him to write everything. The game breaks down when a handful of codices get totally crazy gak and the other ones are nice and balanced.

 ManSandwich wrote:
If they either fire Ward or get him to write everything. The game breaks down when a handful of codices get totally crazy gak and the other ones are nice and balanced.

Didn't take long for the Ward whines to start...

Listen, there is no way for every single matchup to be balanced. Plain and simple. Close combat Tau? Heavy artillery Tyranids? Reliable Orks?

You want balance? Play Monopoly.

Here's a thought...

Only play against other players that use the same army as you. Then you're both playing with the same codex.

COMPLETELY BALANCED!

jcrone2 wrote:
thats all

I think the issue is really is it possible for GW to make this game balanced in *any* matchup?

And the answer today is no. Multiple space marine chapter books full of special rules and each charging different costs for the same weapons and options levels; some armies with flyers, 1 with flyers and heavies with support weapons usable against flyers, and some limited to only having a terrain piece to try and shoot down flyers, and one list without any real flyers or defense available to them; some lists that are now multiple versions of the rules behind.

If I play Codex marines against Space Wolves it *should* be a pretty balanced fight with some different flavor in each army. Instead the wolves get a bunch of silly advantages: cheaper cost units with better options and abilities, heavies that can split their fire when normal marine devastators can't do so, and so on. *that* is the kind of thing that could be fixed in the game to make it less annoying. This is also why some armies are seen as *the* armies to use in a tourney. Space Wolves yes, but codex marines no, when they should both really be on par with each other.

Perhaps if the chaos codex is a starting point of more balanced codex lists, maybe in 4 years *if they stick with it* the game might have some semblance of balance.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Skriker




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eilif wrote:
No.
No game is ever perfectly balanced when:
-Players play with different units
-Players start in different positions
-The gameboard is not exactly the same on both sides

Essentially, no tabletop wargame is ever exactly equal.

Deal with it.

Who said anything about perfect balance? Even some semblance and attempt at *any* balance in 40k would be appreciated. There are areas of consistency that GW could focus on to take away many of the basic complaints about balance in the game. Also some oversight on new codex development to kill crazy levels of codex creep would make a big difference too. It is as if these developers write their new books in complete and total isolation from the rest of the team and the rules and other codecies as well. Pretty dumb way to write a game.

Skriker

I think perfect balance would be bad for the game, because metagames evolve based on powerful armies and the counter to those armies growing (see the current tourney Daemon thing)... of course, let's all remember that tourney format is bad for 40k, since it actively hurts horde armies and encourages silliness and anti-sportsmanship.

I would like to see them bring all armies within about 10% of each other in terms of objective tabletop performance, so that skill mattered and really good generals could fight their way past a mediocre player with a "super" or "cheesy" list. GW would have to be willing to FAQ points cost tho, and outside of typos that's not something they've shown the balls to do.

In a way perhaps. The multitude of combinations makes it harder but some aspects of the game could be better balanced out, or made more fair. I think in some cases, parts of codex books are written to allow the writer an advantage for their army but they put in loopholes to protect it, like with Grey Knights, virtually everything from a soldier through to a tank, is counted as a psyker, they have a unit open in the Assassin's who can counteract psykers, by making its attacks X, X being how many psykers there are. 10 grey knight terminators are 10 psykers, but there is a loophole meaning although you have 10 psykers in the area of making up X, those 10 only count as 1.

The Eldar and undoubtedly others, could use a points cost revamp, and/or a change in their available weapons particularly Heavy Weapons. The Eldar would really benefit from their ranges being enhanced. It sucks to watch what you own die, whether in cover or not, because 90% of army A can shoot 30" and 99% of army B is limited to shooting 12" and the only things that can fire the 30" distance are priced out of range of the game you are playing.

Saves can't be changed, since really that all comes down to luck but the use of instant death/save negating weapons could be balanced out a bit more.

But really I'd say like others, there is no intention of balance. Because if you come in on day 1 you will own certain units, and then on day 20 the company is sick of you not buying anything, so they need X to be introduced. At Day 30, you haven't moved, you don't have X, so what you have must be replaced, Day 1 army is no longer viable, buy Day 20's army. GW needs you to spend money, and allies was a good use of this, but then allies also has the added benefit, you buy a small amount and the codex for that ally. And then you get caught in the 'trap'. You need another army... Then another. Then after you have 4 armies, your first one is viable again because the circle has come round to it again.

Total balance won't happen, but then if opponents looked at each others armies and then wanted to even it out, you just change the points cost for each army. If 1500 points of Imperial Guard has 100 troops, seven heavy tanks and a flier. But your Eldar opponent has little to counter the tanks and flier, but allowing him to go up to 2000 points would bring that balance to a more even level and you both agree on it, balance could be achieved. Also, it would probably look more authentic battlewise.

Sadly, I think in certain areas, the monetary cost of creating the ideal army can be verging on the impossible.

The paper scissors rock balance I think might have been there to begin with, but then it was added on to. Where once we had just paper scissors rock, we now have paper, scissors, rock, incinerator, power klaw, scything talons, nuclear bomb... And no one sat down and figured out what beats what... I just need a bigger gun. Or like that meme, a Commissar in a kick a** tank who needs to get closer so he can hit 'them' with his sword.

The funnier part of this thread is the fact that many of you have the tone that GW intentionally refuses to balance the game. In effect, its true. Do you want Tyranids with heavy artillery? Or Tau that are close combat experts? If you want all the options available to the other armies, this may not be the game for you. If you want an army that has a specific challenge, like lack of flyer support or no close combat, this game has that. Each army has a speciality, some more narrow than others. And sometimes, GW screws up by trying to make one army just like another.

MTG has become that game. When I played, if you played black, you had to deal with the fact that there were no black counterspells. Now, every color gets access to every type of spell, completely ignoring the fluff of the game that is ignored anyway because it has nothing to do with the game.

See what balance gets you? A boring game.

No one has said that balance means everyone can do everything. That's nonsense.

The point is that no matter how good a codex is supposed to be at, say, close combat and big creatures, another codex will have easy answers - Sanctuary, Purifying Flame, Force Weapons on everyone. And that codex doesn't have to specialize to get that.

And you're wrong about MTG by the way. Most every color has access to every spell, but they balance it by having the casting coats vary significantly.

With the exception of the bit about MTG, only because I know nothing about it, I agree with SoloFalcon1138. 'Perfect' balance is impossible to have with diverse faction rulesets in a game. The best you can get is a perfect imbalance, of sorts. This is something GW clearly strives for, but is hit and miss in their delivery.

No. GW doesn't care about game balance. They're a miniature company first.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Nobody wants to have to buy 400 Tyranids to field a 1500 point army, lol.

I would. In a heartbeat.

Yyyyesssssssss...

Perfect balance? - No with a continuously evolving game such as this. But perfect balance is not what is needed.

A serious move to balance books internally and externally? Yes, this is easily possible.

Proper detailed errata would address older dex/messed up issues easily until a new dex was done so the slow dex release schedule would not be a big issue. Players would still buy the new dex for any new rule changes/new units, etc.

Look at the nid dex. The day it came out there were serious problems with internal balance and poorly written/unworkable rules. The external balance was also off and each new dex highlighted serious weaknesses with the nid dex. So what happens - many units don't get used much or many biomorphs are not seen because of it.

If after 6 months, and GW cared about their customer/product, GW had released a detailed errata many of these issues could have been addressed - not to make it an OP dex but to provide some balance. This would be easy.

When 6th edition came out, sure they put out an errata but it was inadequate as many issues with nids in 5th remained and other things got nerfed a bit (stealers)(yes 6th also helped certain units/builds too which are the units you saw before and now even more often). How hard would it be to look at their rules and realize they are nerfing certain abilities such as outflank without adjusting the costs of units that are paying for this ability.

Every dex could be adjusted this way easily - not every couple of weeks - but say at regular intervals - say every 6 months and when a new edition is released. Then the customer knows the company cares about the consumer - the consumer is happy that his/her army/units that so much money and time were spent on are still decent - happy consumers continue to buy more product - GW should be happy.

Adding more balance to the game in such ways would not stop players from starting new armies and buying other models. But making a poor game that isn't properly supported will.

 kronk wrote:
No. GW doesn't care about game balance. They're a miniature company first.

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Nobody wants to have to buy 400 Tyranids to field a 1500 point army, lol.

I would. In a heartbeat.

Yyyyesssssssss...

Fair enough, lol. I mean, yeah, I'd love to see a model tidal wave of cheap Tyranids troop selections that got mulched by extremely effective shooting rules, and the hope was that they could overwhelm on numbers.

However, as a marketing decision, Games Workshop would either have to drop the price on the models significantly, or essentially price out beginning players even more than they already are, haha.


Maybe the accurate way to say that is that "Nobody at Games Workshop" wants you to have to buy 400 models. It sounds good on the surface, but it would actually kill sales because then price would reduce demand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
No. GW doesn't care about game balance. They're a miniature company first.

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

Nobody said they were good at being a miniatures company.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

You're going to disagree with their own investor relations page? Ok. Good luck with that. Just for the record, gaming comes last there.

In regard to the models, there's several reasons. They may not have had the large kit capacity at that time. They could have been doing revenue smoothing strategies. They could have been following the pattern they've had for the last decade or so where they had rules but no model to let people convert as they wanted.

And for not being a good company, look at their longevity. They have outlasted every other game company out there. Remember, this company was printing 1e AD&D just before Warhammer ever premiered. They have outlasted every minis company I know of. Stop complaining or get a new hobby.

You need to figure out what your argument is there SoloFalcon.


However, nobody is arguing they haven't been successful, and more successful than many of their competitors. But it doesn't change the fact that they've made mistakes, and struggled. When you have a successful cash cow product, you can make more mistakes and not suffer for them. There's a lot more at work than what you seem to understand, at least from a business model standpoint.

My point is that GW finds themselves in a particularly unique situation. They may not be perfect, but they have succeeded where many other companies have struggled or failed. Don't like it? Take up golf.

That's sort of an empty argument. "Don't like it, git out?". That's not really even in the frame of this discussion. What needs to go their separate ways are you, and this thread, lol.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
That's sort of an empty argument. "Don't like it, git out?". That's not really even in the frame of this discussion. What needs to go their separate ways are you, and this thread, lol.

kinda missed the rest of my responses, huh?

 Sigvatr wrote:
No.

That's all.

^this basically. Too many units to try and balance out between each other. Even PP struggles balancing armies against each other with the few units it has per army. (khador widowmaker deathstar comes to mind)

Though they could do a better job of trying. Coteaz only costing 100 or so points for a mastery level 2 psyker is already bad enough, add in what else he does and he's easily a 200pt + HQ choice. Now its not too bad when your running pure GK termies, but otherwise he is incredibly cheap. Compare that to the ork HQ choices like Ghaz who is, IMO, extremely overcosted for what he does and is 250pts. Now I suppose the internal balance idea was that since GK units were so expensive the HQ's needed to be cheaper, but with allies he can provide a lot of stronger potential than orks (since no ally can benefit)

I dont expect perfect balance ever, but Sheesh at least pretend to try and balance the army point costs instead of it just being all over the place.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
And for not being a good company, look at their longevity. They have outlasted every other game company out there. Remember, this company was printing 1e AD&D just before Warhammer ever premiered. They have outlasted every minis company I know of. Stop complaining or get a new hobby.

Foundry, RAFM, and Ral Partha/Iron Wind, would all disagree with you. GHQ actually laughs at your statement as well. There are several rulesets still in print that make WFB and 40k combined look wet behind the ears for how long they've been out. Don't let that stop your sweeping, albeit incorrect, generalizations though.

12thRonin wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
And for not being a good company, look at their longevity. They have outlasted every other game company out there. Remember, this company was printing 1e AD&D just before Warhammer ever premiered. They have outlasted every minis company I know of. Stop complaining or get a new hobby.

Foundry, RAFM, and Ral Partha/Iron Wind, would all disagree with you. GHQ actually laughs at your statement as well. There are several rulesets still in print that make WFB and 40k combined look wet behind the ears for how long they've been out. Don't let that stop your sweeping, albeit incorrect, generalizations though.

And how long would it take me to find these rules? My copy of Rally 'Round the Flag dated from the mid-80's (I think) and few people have ever even heard of it. My buddy Jim has a copy of Ral Partha's failed attempt at a miniatures skirmish game not too unlike TSR's short-lived BattleSystem. GHQ doesn't produce rules, just minis.

Anyway, back on topic...

The OP is an inherently poor question. Unless there is a game released specifically balancing gameplay, like Titan, where every player begins with the same resources and it is left to the players to affect the outcome, no wargame is balanced. As I showed with Magic, when you try and balance a system, it reduces the storyline of the game to a footnote on the game card. The fluff is half the reason some people play games like 40k.

(Dangerous) real world example: IROC racing. It took racing aces from all different racing groups and gave them identical cars, so the skill of the driver was showcased, not their mechanics' skills. It was kinda boring.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
No. GW doesn't care about game balance. They're a miniature company first.

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

Reminds me when GK were head and shoulders the most powerful army in 5th...and the cheapest to collect. Yet so many people on these boards insisted this was "very clever marketing" by GW.

Just ignore the GW haters, they're basically sanctioned trolls

 Testify wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
No. GW doesn't care about game balance. They're a miniature company first.

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

Reminds me when GK were head and shoulders the most powerful army in 5th...and the cheapest to collect. Yet so many people on these boards insisted this was "very clever marketing" by GW.

Just ignore the GW haters, they're basically sanctioned trolls

Yeah... agreed...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

12thRonin wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
And for not being a good company, look at their longevity. They have outlasted every other game company out there. Remember, this company was printing 1e AD&D just before Warhammer ever premiered. They have outlasted every minis company I know of. Stop complaining or get a new hobby.

Foundry, RAFM, and Ral Partha/Iron Wind, would all disagree with you. GHQ actually laughs at your statement as well. There are several rulesets still in print that make WFB and 40k combined look wet behind the ears for how long they've been out. Don't let that stop your sweeping, albeit incorrect, generalizations though.

And how long would it take me to find these rules? My copy of Rally 'Round the Flag dated from the mid-80's (I think) and few people have ever even heard of it. My buddy Jim has a copy of Ral Partha's failed attempt at a miniatures skirmish game not too unlike TSR's short-lived BattleSystem. GHQ doesn't produce rules, just minis.

http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/military-models-rules.html.

It's also not hard to find a copy of ASL or Star Fleet Battles, just as a start.

Must have missed the link to their rules throight the massive selection of minis.

Either way, you missed the point.

Unless they can think up something that makes people play smart, not build overly cheesy lists and dont act like TFG no.

Nope, im with the "and they dont want to" camp. Not from GW hate though, more that from a business view they have kind of struck gold. They just do what most similar companies in fields do, make more money and either a) give you less or b) finding a way to make you keep buying more. Doesnt matter whether they're a model or game company, they make both, they sell both and the strategy applies to both. So in honesty i also say good on them in that respect (doing well in business).

As for SoloFalcons constant "sell your minis, play X" generic comebacks, he has a point. Well not the sell your minis part, but if you dont like this edition, take a break and play something else for a bit, its not like things will change, and its not like getting bent out of shapes going to change things. If you dont want to play something else, then ask your friends/group if they'll agree to play to older editions that you think worked. Its not like every time GW releases new editions of things law states they MUST be played >>

But the "Purposely broken for money" idea doesn't work, because if the game was at least well made in terms of balance, there would be a greater incentive to buy ALL of the models, not just the ones that are head a shoulders above the rest of the codex

The game should not be balanced in every matchup as obviously you should be punished for building a bad or just worse list like not bringing high strenght weaponry to matchup with Nidzilla or not bringing anything fast to outmanouver your opponent etc. Codieces should be balanced internaly and externaly, AA should be balanced with anti AA etc but finding a good tactic and building a force that suits it should gve you an edge vs opponent with randomly put together or just "fun" list. It's still a game and you have to field units according to FOC limitations etc so the obligation to create an effective force is fair, there just shouldn't be such massive disproportions in army strenght like when both players make no serious mistakes when building a list but one has a huge advantage because of his codex. Not to mention all units should be fieldable, that's a "fun" part when you can use the units you really like and they don't hurt your chance of wining, or when you have options for AA so you don't have to take that ADF you hate (that's me btw).

Would be enough for GW to avoid blatant underpricing or overpricing units, they are either incapable of or unwiling to though. It would take a realy lazy writing or bad playtesting to explain the Carnifex btw.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
No. GW doesn't care about game balance. They're a miniature company first.

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

Maybe releasing from time to time is better for profit, as some players build their forces from what is avilable or buy additional models to convert but will buy the new units released anyway. This would mean GW gave themselves a chance to cash people twice, just a wildguess though.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
But the "Purposely broken for money" idea doesn't work, because if the game was at least well made in terms of balance, there would be a greater incentive to buy ALL of the models, not just the ones that are head a shoulders above the rest of the codex

It works when every Tyranid player owns too many Carnifexes and you want to sell them new MCs.

Lack of anti air except flyers and ADF is a cash grab too, imo.

 Trondheim wrote:
Unless they can think up something that makes people play smart, not build overly cheesy lists and dont act like TFG no.

That's a wrong attitude, why should players fix the game epecialy when it requires throwing out their ability to find effective combinations and setups?

Cheese is a fault of GW who makes some units obviosly OP vs their cost, not players.

Btw when we're at it, a spam tax, like taking second unit of the same kind (or more than 2 troops) costs you additional 10% of its price crossed my mind

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Must have missed the link to their rules throight the massive selection of minis.

Same thing is easy to do on the GW site too since you have to dig through menus to find them.

Either way, you missed the point.

Not really. Your points are all over the place. They aren't the oldest miniatures company and they aren't the oldest gaming company.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The funnier part of this thread is the fact that many of you have the tone that GW intentionally refuses to balance the game. In effect, its true. Do you want Tyranids with heavy artillery? Or Tau that are close combat experts? If you want all the options available to the other armies, this may not be the game for you. If you want an army that has a specific challenge, like lack of flyer support or no close combat, this game has that. Each army has a speciality, some more narrow than others. And sometimes, GW screws up by trying to make one army just like another.

People want *balance* not *symmetry*. There is a distinct difference in the two. Balance would mean armies would be GREAT in melee *or* shooting, or OK in both of them. Instead we have some armies that are just good at melee or shooting, and terrible in the other facing off against armies that are close to great in both. That is not even remotely balanced. We also have space marine chapter lists where the basic troops have bonus skills and better weapon options, but are CHEAPER than regular tactical marines. That isn't just unbalanced, it shows a distinct lack of quality control across the codex development process. Add in army relevance and balance goes even more out the window.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
My point is that GW finds themselves in a particularly unique situation. They may not be perfect, but they have succeeded where many other companies have struggled or failed. Don't like it? Take up golf.

Yeah you opinion is the only one that matters, eh SoloFalcon...

GW outlasted many other mini companies because their minis were strides better. Even the earlier citadel lines were more varied and detailed then their contemporaries. The problem is that the gap has closed considerably in recent years and GW Is no longer the only company making trully exceptional looking minis. There are so many great options for minis these days it is great. As such my own GW purchasing and gaming has slowly diminished to play games like Malifaux, Flames of War and Warmachine. Rules that are written *better* that GW's rules, and rules that are actually *improved* when a new version comes out instead of just changed to remove the old problems while introducing a whole slew of new problems in their place. Battlefront released V3 of Flames of War. The changes they made were linked tightly with player feedback througout the life of V2. They left things that worked great ALONE and fixed all of the areas where players regularly had issues or complaints about the rules. They even offered free softbound mini rulebooks to anyone who already owned the V2 hardback rulebook to enable their existing players to jump right into the new version without requiring them to buy the new rules.

I don't have to take up golf to acknowledge the silly way that GW does business. Their rules are barely playable half the time, the codex books seem to be written in a vaccuum completely separate from any existing lists, and their pricing schemes are just nuts. I have gotten a new friend to start playing 40k in about 5 years completely due to the price. As someone who works solidly in the quality assurance field the way they write codex lists offends me to the core and makes them look completely amateurish as a company. How hard is it to make all your space marine codex lists come out comparable in points and balanced around the center line of the baseline Space Marines list? Apparently it is impossible in GW land, but those of us who do this stuff for a living know it is easily doable, but they actually have to do it. These days I greatly enjoy playing games where I am actually testing myself against my opponent's tactical acumen as opposed to fighting against the rules and the holes in them. In weeks of Flames of War legaue play at the local store you might here *1* argument about rules interpretation, whereas it happens every time WFB or W40k are played in the store. That right there should tell you something.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
(Dangerous) real world example: IROC racing. It took racing aces from all different racing groups and gave them identical cars, so the skill of the driver was showcased, not their mechanics' skills. It was kinda boring.

And just as boring as if some drivers were given baseline, off the dealer floor IROCs to race with and others were given super suped up versions to race with and always won. Yeah both extremes give the same result, which is why most people want things to settle into the middle: Balanced, not symmetrical. Balanced, but not exactly equal.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
Just ignore the GW haters, they're basically sanctioned trolls

Just like the fanboys who think GW walks on water are sanctioned suck ups??

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trondheim wrote:
Unless they can think up something that makes people play smart, not build overly cheesy lists and dont act like TFG no.

This is the balance that people are looking for. It is eminently in GW's control to write tighter rules, better thought out codex lists and unit rules and generally make a better product, but they don't. Such rules and lists would make it harder for people to build overly cheesy lists and be TFGs and ruin the game for others. It is certainly doable, but they just don't do it.

Skriker

Balance is not possible. Updating armies in the proper order and thereby not pissing off long time collectors with old codecies IS possible however. They just simply choose not to apparently.

IF the rule set for 40k was re written focusing on game play and provable levels of imballance .To make it suitable for ballanced competative play .
Then YES.

(As there are games with 2 to 5 times as many army lists, 10 times as many units than 40k,that have far better balance than 40k does.)

But as GWplc 'is in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children'.They simply focus on making the latest releases appeal to thier target demoghraphic.
Which is NOT gamers ...but children/collectors...apparently.

If you want a well ballanced intuitive wargame ,why play 40k?
40k the game of special rules,specialy written for GW s special demoghraphic.....

Is the goal perfect balance?

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance

There's a difference between perfect balance (something no one in this thread has asked for) and perfect imbalance - and 40k is neither.

Skriker wrote:Their rules are barely playable half the time, the codex books seem to be written in a vaccuum completely separate from any existing lists, and their pricing schemes are just nuts. I have gotten a new friend to start playing 40k in about 5 years completely due to the price. As someone who works solidly in the quality assurance field the way they write codex lists offends me to the core and makes them look completely amateurish as a company.

errr...... i thought this was a 40k forum...... if it "offends you to the core" why are you still here at all??

not wanting to start anything, just curious....


personally i think the game IS currently balanced. yes space wolves have cheaper stuff, but they have lower leadership and dont have access to some of the stuff normal marines do. i would happily drop long fangs being able to split fire to have heavy weapons in my grey hunters.

yes some armies are bad match-ups, daemons vs grey knights for example (unless the fool hordes on termies/paladins) but deamons have units that are amazing at bringing down gk units..... flesh hounds will tear up strike squads/termies if you load up on them (and are good units in their own right)

i dont get all the "my current list doesnt work so the game is broken" arguments that populate the internet.... fliers have been introduced to the game and i'm all for them, even if the only flier i own is a valkyrie. every army has good options/opportunities for bringing down fliers, some just rely on allies (i'll agree that nids struggle, but even they have some options).

my grey knights lost their first game since the new codex a few weeks ago because of a doomscythe. not because it did anything spectacular (killed 2 rhinos and a dreadnought) but becuase i panicked and sent everything i had to destroy it (doing so in one turn).... leaving the necron army free from retaliation to pick me apart..... i think this applies to the internet complaints i keep seeing.... poeple need to be realistic about how dangerous fliers really are and what they think "balance" is

so then......... that turned into a bit of a rant

....... i'll say this again though: the game is balanced already, dont mess it up


and for what its worth, i think a balanced list is the most broken type of list you can create.............

Hi mrspadge.
I am glad you are personaly happy with the current level of game ballance in 40k.

Just curiuos why bother posting in this thread?

You admit there are some 'bad matchups' and 'some lists are no longer that viable.'
Well these statments prove the game IS NOT ballanced.
(And some people get a bit annoyed after spending alot of time and money on an army to have it 'invalidated' on a game developers whim).

If there was provable levels of imbalance, ALL lists would be equaly viable, and there would NOT be any bad match ups.

Not wanting to start anything , just saying....

I think forge world could be used more effectively as a method of mopping up the really heinous balancing issues that are discovered after a codex release.

Abhorash15000 wrote:
I think forge world could be used more effectively as a method of mopping up the really heinous balancing issues that are discovered after a codex release.

If Forge World releases were more "balanced" between codexes, sure.

GW could achieve balance if every Codex was Codex Space Marines, and all we were doing was painting the models differently for different races.

But there are so many variables in a 40k game, it's very difficult to model them effectively. The only way to even study balance is over a series of millions of games, involving some understanding of the relative skills of the players.

The current system of playtesting is suspect, and I doubt there is any kind of mathematical scrutiny applied to analysis outside of simple probability. This is why we see units with multiple wounds / no cover save, this is an attempt to adjust for noted imbalances without the benefit of detailed models that can explain the relative strengths and weaknesses of each unit.

There are a number of statistical analysis models, such as PECOTA odds for baseball, that provide a basis for analyzing different matchups with wildly different sets of variables. They achieve their accuracy through historical comparisons and observed trends which would be impossible for individuals to pick up on. The number of variables they track dwarf those possible for a 40k game, but they also have the benefit of 100+ years of collected data to look at. There are no stats in 40k, other than what we glean from tournaments and the occasional world wide event.

All that said, I think the math geeks at GW are all tied up working for marketing and sales. They certainly know how to ensure they sell the most models possible when new releases hit the shelves, and how to predict consumer behavior. I doubt anyone in a position to affect the rules will ever apply serious scrutiny to issues of balance in this game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
FWIW, I wish GW would publish some of the rules they use to assign point values to units in specific armies. I can't find any rhyme or reason to it myself and often believe they just make stuff up as they go along. Or that marketing and sales guys write the rules to ensure they are selling enough models.

I find it odd that people throw generalisations that for balance everyone must have same models. A game with multiple different factions and models can be quite balanced with sufficient testing. GW just is not interested in doing this for 40k. It would most likely mean the removal of myriad special rules which could hurt the "cinematic" feeling that 40k is trying to achieve.

Obviously balance is not required to make a successful game (meaning a game which makes a lot of money to its producer).

Originally when I started playing Warhammer 40,000 I believed that this game could be balanced, but it wasn't because the designers were stupid.

As it turns out, the designers were only incompetent, but they weren't necessarily stupid.

I believe that it is impossible for GW (or any company) to make this game balanced in every matchup. Make that "most matchups" and I'd have an easier time saying yes. But the simple fact is that there are so many units and so many different ways to customize them that it's impossible for any system to cope.

I am currently still playtesting a tabletop wargame I'm writing, and I -still- find things that are underpointed or too expensive and I've been testing the game for more than a year now. Granted I have changed parts of the rules over the years so that changes unit interactions/the strength of equipment, etc.

Here's how you could make the game have a semblance of Balance:

-Scrap all codices, and then make new ones and playtest them all rigorously against eachother.

And we know this all isn't going to happen, so I go back to my answer that no, this game can't be balanced in EVERY matchup. The simple fact is that there are players who metagame (including myself) and this gives them more of an advantage then you'd think.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
That's sort of an empty argument. "Don't like it, git out?". That's not really even in the frame of this discussion. What needs to go their separate ways are you, and this thread, lol.

kinda missed the rest of my responses, huh?

"I wouldn't exactly say that I missed them, Bob"

Just saying that you've apparently run out of constructive things to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Here's how you could make the game have a semblance of Balance:

-Scrap all codices, and then make new ones and playtest them all rigorously against eachother.

I still believe that to balance a game, you have to give the same weight of power to all aspects of the game for the armies.

The early armies evolved to play 2nd Edition, which was shooting based.

Some armies evolved to play 3rd edition, which was close combat weighted.

The rules only got goofier from there.

The problem is that some armies are optimized for editions that no longer exist. And then there is the Tau, who didn't even exist until the game was optimized against them.


Scrap the codex books. Scrap the rules. Start from scratch. That's the only way. But, for some players, it will require a complete alteration of their army to play at a competitive level because they will have models that are largely useless once "balanced" rules are in place.

I agree that the game, with new dexes/rules and a multitude of units, will never be perfectly balanced and there will be bad match-ups particularly between certain lists. That is fine. But there is a difference between that and the mess of imbalance that GW allows and fails to correct. Within a ruleset edition, each dex should be relatively internally balanced so that pretty much all choices are options. Some units/wargear will obviously work better depending on the list you happen to face.

For bad balance just look at nids. A Hive Tyrant has 4 choices of ranged weapons, but you will almost always see only one picked (devourers). This is a combination of how the current ruleset plays (such as the addition of flyer rules) but also because of poor rules/weapon stats in the dex. It is fine if one weapon is better vs something than another - so that target type, range, str, AP, special rules, etc all become considerations. But you have imbalance when most of the choices are poor options and 1 or 2 are always chosen. A good errata could fix most of these types of problems between units/wargear/biomorphs allowing for a much wider variety of builds that are still good, but might have certain bad match-ups.

Yeah. Exact same points, TL S5 AP5 Assault 3 or TL S6 AP- Assault 6.

 Skriker wrote:

Just like the fanboys who think GW walks on water are sanctioned suck ups??

I've been on this forum for a while and I've never seen a single GW fanboy.

Hena wrote: It would most likely mean the removal of myriad special rules which could hurt the "cinematic" feeling that 40k is trying to achieve.

I don't think it is special rules that lead to a cinematic feel. Last time I checked, Space Wolves with Acute Senses were no more cinematic than Ultramarines without it.



I think that "perfect" balance is not feasible, because it's always possible for a player to make poor choices. A Space Marine army with flamers and heavy bolters is going to have a hard time against a land raider, for example. You can have 1000 points of those marines, and outpoint me 4-1, and my land raider will still not die to your army.

I think better balance is certainly possible - but not for GW. They're simply not competent enough. A good first step would be to simply standardize the costs of all marine armies and make the differences between chapters a matter of what they have available, rather than what they pay.

 Redbeard wrote:

Hena wrote: It would most likely mean the removal of myriad special rules which could hurt the "cinematic" feeling that 40k is trying to achieve.

I don't think it is special rules that lead to a cinematic feel. Last time I checked, Space Wolves with Acute Senses were no more cinematic than Ultramarines without it.

I was thinking more along the lines of special characters. A generic rule over an army shouldn't pose much problems from balance, as long as they are not against a specific enemy (ala Grey Knights vs Demons).

I think that "perfect" balance is not feasible, because it's always possible for a player to make poor choices. A Space Marine army with flamers and heavy bolters is going to have a hard time against a land raider, for example. You can have 1000 points of those marines, and outpoint me 4-1, and my land raider will still not die to your army.

I think better balance is certainly possible - but not for GW. They're simply not competent enough. A good first step would be to simply standardize the costs of all marine armies and make the differences between chapters a matter of what they have available, rather than what they pay.

I think it would be sensible to define what I meant with good balance.
1. Internal. Each (or almost everyone) selection in the list is usable.
2. External. Each army list is balanced against other lists.

So sure above allows you can make a list which will not work. However what should be possible is to not have lists which by themselves are best. That other combinations played well should work as well.

GW is able to do this (or close to it) as Epic: Armageddon presents. I just don't think that is the aim in 40k.

Faq point costs each let's say 3 months, problem solved.

Good game balance is far more than just provable levels of in game performance,(Points values.)

The rules and army composition has to be written to support the intended game play.(To illiminate clunky counterintiutive play.)

After defining the level and types of interaction , in game performance can be measured,

Then after acurate as posible PV are allocated , synergistic anomalies need to be identified and addressed.

Accurate provable levels of imbalance is just PART of the process..

Can't we just hate matt ward and move on

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
can't we just matt ward and move on

But that would be too easy unless matt wards evil plan is to make forum goers do all this ballancing business for him, and 6ed is just a blank template for a ballanced 7ed without gw doing any of the work

GK are OP and always will be 20pts for anything with a Force weapon is OP
GK can and do kill 190pt Carnifexs solo all the time. but often die fighting Nurglings. do you think anyone told him the Daemonhunters, since we all know he dose not read the fluff

Sometimes i wonder if Matt Ward is clearly Compensating about having a small Penis

mrspadge wrote:
errr...... i thought this was a 40k forum...... if it "offends you to the core" why are you still here at all??

not wanting to start anything, just curious....

Not wanting to start anything but starting it anyway...

I have been playing this game for 25+ years, since 3rd edition WFB and Rogue Trader. I have plenty of time and enjoyment in during that time. As such, as a quality professional, I can easily be offended by the poor way they handle quality in their products and still be here. They are a game company after all and my irritation is that they come across as complete amateurs in this kind of stuff than the long term veterans of the market that they are. If they were using slave labor I would stop supporting them, but disliking the fact that their writing staff seems lazy and incapable of collaborating with each other is not even remotely close to the same concept level. I also still buy computer games software to entertain myself despite the fact that almost zero PC games are functional out of the box anymore without downloading *at least* one patch after installation. Again, shoddy quality work. Gamers seem to accept this just fine all the time, but few other consumers do. I know in my job if we ship a product that requires a patch before it can be used the first time then we have failed. It is that simple. If we release a product that completely ignores how another package we do does things and change the paradigm because we didn't bother to pay attention, then we have failed. GW releasing 5+ different Marine codecies that don't sync up in the least logically or mathematically is just lazy work and a fail in my book from the standpoint of being a quality professional.

I can still be here *AND* still wish they would take it to the next level. Those things are not even remotely mutually exclusive of each other.

Skriker