If you had to choose, would you rather have a game...

- that gives lots of options in the variety of units and way they to equip those minis but sacrifices some game balance.

or

-with fewer options but gives a more balanced game experience.

Many folks will of course say you can have both, or that "it depends" but if you had to choose, which would it be and why?

What do you think your choice says about you as a gamer?

If something with more options isn't balanced wouldn't that lead to fewer actual choices as the superior "options" see vastly more play?

Options, every time. I'd rather have the option to take something and be at a disadvantage than not have the option.

 Eldarain wrote:
If something with more options isn't balanced wouldn't that lead to fewer actual choices as the superior "options" see vastly more play?

This ^^
I have the option to take Howling Banshees and Mutilators...but since they're so useless, they're not really an option. I'd rather have a game I could enjoy and feel free to use whatever I want having to worry about "Is this OP or useless?"

Flawed poll is flawed.

Balanced does not mean everything is the same.

Balance, though it should be noted that less options does not mean more balance. As someone pointed out, there are plenty of options in some GW codices, and yet they're only using a few of those options.

I want a game that is balanced because for me its about the fun of playing. If the game is a stinker on the table, I don't want to play it.

I'd choose balance first. I'm creative by nature, so making my army or crew or faction or whatever look and feel unique is not a challenge. Balanced games, however, are dramatically superior for all player types, which means a broader set of social contacts are play-with-able regardless of competitive differences.

On the other hand, playing a game like Malifaux right now helps reinforce that the answer from a game design perspective should always be "both," since "both" is readily executable.

Balance. No question.

Balance, always. Otherwise you have the illusion of choice, since some choices will obviously be better than others and it's poor design to punish someone for taking X instead of Y.

I would chose balance , as we can add to the game with our own home brew options if we want to.
And keeping balance in home brew expansions is MUCH easier if the game you add to has balance.

Trying to add balance back into a game with '*too many options' is impossible.
(*Too many options for the games scale and scope that is.)

Thanks for the responses so far folks. Very interesting to see where folks fall.

For those saying "what about…" or "flawed poll.." or "wouldn't that lead to…" you are thinking to hard. I realize that balance and options might not be mutually exclusive, but if it helps, consider this this basically a "would you rather" question?

Just take a deep breath and pick one.

As for myself I picked options. Though homebrew is always an option, I'd rather have more in-game options in how I equip and setup my units than less, even if it sacrifices a bit of balance. I love playing a game (and I prefer that things be somewhat balanced), but the competitive side of things is a bit less important to me than flexibility and narrative quality of being able to personalize my units.

For example, my favorite game is "Song of Blades and Heroes" I love being able to create my own units, however, it does force the game cub to be a bit vigilant because it's entirely possible to build some units that can make the game incredibly imbalanced.

Given that the ludicrous numbers of fiddly, meaningless options were what drove me away from the core 2, guess my response.

I always think of this article when this type of conversation comes up:

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/fail-safes-in-competitive-game-design-a-detailed-example.html


tl;dr since I'm typing this on a phone: variety and balance do not have to inherently be at odds PROVIDED your system is robust enough or has safeguards in place to make sure things don't get too crazy. That said, this article doesn't mention the potential elephant in the room (GG is notoriously system-heavy by fighting game standards, with 4 separate bars per character to track just as an example), but it's something to consider.

Balance, no question. You can have a well-balanced game with lots of diversity in options, so if you're sacrificing balance to add options you're either an incompetent game designer or adding way too many redundant options. And I don't want a bloated mess of pointless options even if it came without any sacrifices in balance.

I like options, because as a gamer I can always create a semblance of balance via scenario/mission/whatever. Plus, sometimes I want imbalance.

However, I also believe in the "radical" notion that wargaming is a collaborative and not a competitive activity.

I like options... but I don't want to either hilariously handicap myself, or have opponents think I'm a WAAC maniac, just for making use of them.

So that would be a vote for balance.

The best game ever played in a tourney format is a 'HUMAN ONLY' blood bowl league. BAM. Everyone has the exact same everything but can develop and play how they see fit.

Balance over options any day of the week.

 Easy E wrote:

However, I also believe in the "radical" notion that wargaming is a collaborative and not a competitive activity.

I'm going to give this statement some thought. I need to ponder it a bit, but it seems to eloquently sum up a particular point of view that doesn't yet have a commonly agreed upon term, but is sometimes incorrectly blanket-labled as "narrative play".

Thanks for that, I may feel an essay coming on.

 Easy E wrote:
However, I also believe in the "radical" notion that wargaming is a collaborative and not a competitive activity.

A balanced game benefits casual/narrative/collaborative play just as much, if not more, than it does competitive play. If I'm arguing about rules more than playing, it not casual to me.


I'll take balanced, well written rules over options every time.

What good is telling a story everyone knows the end of? That has been my frustration with any attempt at narrative games, they are either never remotely balanced or are ineptly constructed, one might even say the individual behind the narrative was too "naive". I would agree that wargaming is or should be collaberative in so much as ensuring both parties are playing the kind of game they enjoy, but the collaboration is far more difficult when it comes to actually playing the game because you simply cannot be impartial or objective when it comes to interpreting poor rules writing. I'm going to be more objective outside of the game than during one and I'd have to be a masochist to let an opponent walk all over me.

But ya, balance over choice. No doubt I think we'd be better off if we all still played a normal one codex game where actual factions fight each other, instead we have collections of random stuff because narrative. All the added bloat serves only to conceal the rot. Turning 40k into apocalypse has decimated the game and the community, and now it seems to GW any semblance of restraint could potentially affect their revenue stream so god forbid a player ever be told they're only allowed one or a few of anything in particular, we wouldn't dare want to have some order in the chaos. Free market 40k, entitlement 40k, don't limit me 40k... yay...

Balance over options, forever.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
However, I also believe in the "radical" notion that wargaming is a collaborative and not a competitive activity.

A balanced game benefits casual/narrative/collaborative play just as much, if not more, than it does competitive play. If I'm arguing about rules more than playing, it not casual to me.


I'll take balanced, well written rules over options every time.

I also like well-written rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are balanced. For example, the rules for Blackjack are very clear, but they are not balanced because the advantage goes to the dealer. Well-written, but not balanced.

Plus, if you believe as I do that wargaming is a collaborative act, why are you arguing about rules?

 Eilif wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

However, I also believe in the "radical" notion that wargaming is a collaborative and not a competitive activity.

I'm going to give this statement some thought. I need to ponder it a bit, but it seems to eloquently sum up a particular point of view that doesn't yet have a commonly agreed upon term, but is sometimes incorrectly blanket-labled as "narrative play".

Thanks for that, I may feel an essay coming on.

What it is is a simple truth. The fact the game we're probably all thinking of here has no requirement to be refereed or have a game master, you are already relying on player integrity to follow the rules and not cheat. Is it really that big a leap to rely on that same integrity for them to endeavour to make the game enjoyable for you as you are for them? You trust then to play by the rules, is it that hard to trust them to not exploit them?

The only time imbalance is a major issue is when one or both players seek to actively exploit it. In 40k, for example, taking a single Wave Serpent gives no significant advantage over spending the points elsewhere, in same way that taking one Penitent Engine isn't going to impact your chance of winning that severely. It's only a problem when multiplied by the mindset of finding the best possible option and taking as many as possible, which is something rarely seen outside of players actively seeking to do this.

Why is it acceptable that such imbalance between options exist? What are you gaining by having such blatant inequities present?

I just don't see the narrative upside of some units being hot garbage while others excel at everything they do.

Why fracture and chastise a portion of the playerbase for taking strong options in a game built for the express purpose of determining a winner (All I see in the rulebook is the method by which you declare a winner after 5-7 turns. For all the talk of "forging a narrative" the book is incredibly anemic in narrative elements)

 Easy E wrote:
Plus, if you believe as I do that wargaming is a collaborative act, why are you arguing about rules?

Because bad rules cause arguments, collaborative gaming or not. Very many times, issues in interpretation don't come up until you've already hit the table unless every single member of a group is sitting down and reading the rules together at the same time aloud.

 Eldarain wrote:
Why is it acceptable that such imbalance between options exist?

It's acceptable because it gives the ability to endlessly move the goal post, never ever blame the system ever or even look at it and always project all faults on the gamer but never ever the game. (trying to put myself in the mind of the insane lol )

 Eldarain wrote:
What are you gaining by having such blatant inequities present?

The ability to pretend to be unaware and use that as social camouflage to be both immune to criticism "just being fluffy" while dishing out quite a bit criticism of others.

 Eldarain wrote:
I just don't see the narrative upside of some units being hot garbage while others excel at everything they do.

Agreed, some units are just terrible in every way and it doesn't help that GW more or less came out and admit that they don't make rules then models, they make models and then make rules for them, which seems to be about the most inept way to go about making a game.

 Eldarain wrote:
Why fracture and chastise a portion of the playerbase for taking strong options in a game built for the express purpose of determining a winner (All I see in the rulebook is the method by which you declare a winner after 5-7 turns. For all the talk of "forging a narrative" the book is incredibly anemic in narrative elements)

Because doing the inverse would mean I'd actually have to learn to play instead of just saying things are fluffy/unfluffy. The good opponents get better over time, the bad ones just get louder.

 Easy E wrote:

I also like well-written rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are balanced. For example, the rules for Blackjack are very clear, but they are not balanced because the advantage goes to the dealer. Well-written, but not balanced.

Plus, if you believe as I do that wargaming is a collaborative act, why are you arguing about rules?

This is not a terribly apropos example. The imbalance in Blackjack is very slight, even amongst casino games. The imbalance in Blackjack can be as low as 0.28% (assuming 'correct' game-play and Vegas strip dealer rules). It works out for the casino because in the long run the house will make a profit due to the fundamental imbalance of the game.

So, yes, Blackjack is an imbalanced set of rules (like virtually any casino game), but it is the kind of imbalance that a wargame player would probably never notice because of the length of most games and their relative complexity. Additionally, any player going into a Blackjack game knows that the game is imbalanced. That's pretty important. Nobody goes into a casino thinking that the house does not have an edge; they are hoping that they will enjoy some of the money that the casino is sending out of the door.

Even in 'narrative' games, scenarios are usually designed to create balance. Both players might know that the defending army is going to inevitably be overwhelmed, but within that framework the defending player might have 'victory' conditions determined on a basis other than his forces 'winning' the engagement.
My army lost the battle, but because I was able to survive for 7 game turns I accrued more victory points than my opponent, and thus won the game.

As someone else pointed about above, part of the point in playing a game is to see what happens, whether or not you are playing competitively. When a game is imbalanced, it is easier to anticipate the outcome.

As long as both parties have fun in the end either choice doesn't matter to me. (Of course, wargamers are a varied lot)

I will have to say that I find myself enjoying more options over inherit balance.

 Paradigm wrote:
The only time imbalance is a major issue is when one or both players seek to actively exploit it.

The new player who builds an army of the models he likes without understanding how the game works, who then either gets stomped repeatedly because the units he chose were the worst from his codex, or branded 'That Guy' because he happened to choose the units that people don't use through some unspoken agreement on the basis that they are considered beardy... that player might disagree with you.

In 40k, for example, taking a single Wave Serpent gives no significant advantage over spending the points elsewhere, in same way that taking one Penitent Engine isn't going to impact your chance of winning that severely. It's only a problem when multiplied by the mindset of finding the best possible option and taking as many as possible, which is something rarely seen outside of players actively seeking to do this.

What about the guy who took multiple wave serpents because he really, really likes the model, or because the fluff for his home-brew Craftworld has them deploying exclusively in them?

His army is every bit as abusive as the guy doing it to give himself an edge.

To echo insaniak's last comment, this is a game where good intentions will not save you because people will project whatever they want on to you. Whether or not your intention was thematic or based on efficacy in game.

I suppose it comes down to a simple equation of the more options the player has, the more risk inherent in the design of the game mechanics.

If it's handled badly, and depending on the game setting (someone sitting down for a razor-edge tournament of Warmachine might want a different experience to someone re-creating Custer's last stand, for instance), then it can cause problems.

But, the two aren't always mutually exclusive. A well designed game can cater to the player in terms of options but still give them a balanced experience, player ability notwithstanding - Infinity is a great example of this, I read somewhere the developers spent about 4 years playtesting the game before it initially went on sale, they're refining it all the time and it shows with the lack of comments of 'auto win' amongst even the hardcore fraternity of players.

 Pacific wrote:
I suppose it comes down to a simple equation of the more options the player has, the more risk inherent in the design of the game mechanics.

I remember recently looking up what relic meant only to see it's basically 0-1. I was in love, forgeworld was adult enough to potentially risk their bottom line if it meant a semblance of sanity. This is something that is such a foreign concept in 40k now, the audacity to say no.


I'm still very curious to see what GW did with planetstrike, because the original still existed in a system with no allies and an actual forge org chart. Planetstrike set itself apart by having the attack and defender access different force org's. Now that they've thrown the force org chart in the toilet, I was just curious how they'd reign it back in for planetstrike.

There's no need to choose. It is QUITE possible for a competent game designer to design a game with plenty of options that is well balanced, not just between factions, but multiple options within factions.

As a tyranid player, if my army/dex was balanced I would have a huge amount of options - no need to add anything new! What you see now for the most part with nid armies is the same few models and weapons/biomorphs that work best because so much is subpar. When you see a hive tyrant it almost always will be a flyrant with 2 sets of devourers - its not because everyone loves this build - it is because with poor balance we have few options.

A balanced ruleset works for casual/competitive players alike. IF you are playing amongst friends you can do whatever you want anyways regardless of rules if that is your desire. Balance helps everyone.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm still very curious to see what GW did with planetstrike, because the original still existed in a system with no allies and an actual forge org chart. Planetstrike set itself apart by having the attack and defender access different force org's. Now that they've thrown the force org chart in the toilet, I was just curious how they'd reign it back in for planetstrike.

Planetstrike might have done interesting things with the FOC, but it was arguably the least balanced thing GW has ever published. The defender automatically wins every Planetstrike game unless they decide to go easy on their opponent and deliberately take a weak army and terrain setup. And since GW gives absolutely no guidelines on how to use the defender's advantages in a "fair" manner it's very easy for even people who aren't looking for an auto-win to create an extremely unbalanced game.

Amusingly, this is one situation where GW's obsessive focus on profit might actually benefit us. The worst Planetstrike abuses involved building your own terrain, and I can't imagine GW allowing that in the new version. If it only has rules for using specific Citadel™ Terrain™ Miniatures™ on your Citadel™ Realm™ Of™ Battle™ Board™ it will probably be a lot harder to create an auto-win situation.

Balance unless I'm playing a scenario. The battle of thermopylae is never going to be balanced for instance, but that doesn't mean both sides can't win.

This immediately made me think of GW vs PP in play style differences. PP games (W/H) are lacking heavily in options. From the number of models in a unit (min versus max) to the way a model is equipped (you never choose its loadout), the game limits options to ensure more focus on game balance.

40k gives many options, from weapons taken to number of models in a unit, to types of units. In fact, you can even play unbounbd if you want to go "no safeties" and just have a "game" with virtually no rules.

*I* prefer balance, because I like to play games where skill has a say, rather than just building a stupid Eldar army and crushing people because my codex is the flavor of the year. I do enjoy 40k to a degree, as I love the models and if my opponent and I agree on a narrow ruleset we casn actually play the same game. The fact that we have to do that shows a major flaw in the game TO ME, and therefore I prefer to have a game where everyone is playing the same game.

The two styles cater to different personalities. People who prefer the options over balance are looking for something very different in their games than I do. I have people locally who play for fluff, and are more "role-player" than "War-gamer." Others prefer the models, others still LIKE the imbalance that 40k has JUST so that they can exploit the game and WAAC. Many WAAC players who go to W/H don't last long, lol.

I play casual, themed games in 40k, and they are fun. But in a general sense, if I had to choose, it would always be balance over options, fluff, model-prettiness, and anything else you can come up with. Simply put, I play games to have a fair game (as often as possible in this genre of games!)

 Moktor wrote:
This immediately made me think of GW vs PP in play style differences. PP games (W/H) are lacking heavily in options. From the number of models in a unit (min versus max) to the way a model is equipped (you never choose its loadout), the game limits options to ensure more focus on game balance.

40k gives many options, from weapons taken to number of models in a unit, to types of units. In fact, you can even play unbounbd if you want to go "no safeties" and just have a "game" with virtually no rules.

*I* prefer balance, because I like to play games where skill has a say, rather than just building a stupid Eldar army and crushing people because my codex is the flavor of the year. I do enjoy 40k to a degree, as I love the models and if my opponent and I agree on a narrow ruleset we casn actually play the same game. The fact that we have to do that shows a major flaw in the game TO ME, and therefore I prefer to have a game where everyone is playing the same game.

The two styles cater to different personalities. People who prefer the options over balance are looking for something very different in their games than I do. I have people locally who play for fluff, and are more "role-player" than "War-gamer." Others prefer the models, others still LIKE the imbalance that 40k has JUST so that they can exploit the game and WAAC. Many WAAC players who go to W/H don't last long, lol.

I play casual, themed games in 40k, and they are fun. But in a general sense, if I had to choose, it would always be balance over options, fluff, model-prettiness, and anything else you can come up with. Simply put, I play games to have a fair game (as often as possible in this genre of games!)

Interesting to note that MkI of Warmachine was much closer to 40k. You bought the min unit and could add X many guys up to the maximum (still didn't get the same plethora of options, but really is Plasma Gun vs. Meltagun vs. Grav Gun vs Flamer really a meaningful option?). MkII changed that to only be min or max squads.

Part of the issue is that since GW doesn't balance anything, you have a nearly random gap between "good" and "garbage" units in the same book, to say nothing of across codexes. So a Wave Serpent is way OP, but an Eldar army with lots of Aspect squads (not just Dire Avengers) in Wave Serpents is fluffy. So an army like that will be fluffy and powerful, while something like a footslooging Iron Warriors siege army will be underpowered, despite being fluffy. There's too great an imbalance.

I'd personally go for more options if the options make the units fun to use.

If it's not that, I'd go for balance.

Does 40k realy give more options in most codex?


My main army for hordes cercle has quite a lot of options.
With
11 units, all but 1 with an upgrade I beleave.
13 warlocks all bringing something to the table with choice.
10 solo units.
19 warbeasts
That's a lot of options when you ad that there are mercs sand minions along with it.

Would be interesting to see how it's realy broken down in a codex for the difernt army's.
Maybe it's more a posiblity that 40k is rather choosing to ad options for there game differently than there simply being more.(this could also depend on what you take away as a meaningfull option. Also potently how it ads to the game also :0 )

Really tough choice, in the end I'd choose Balance over Options because:
1. I enjoy playing the game slightly more than the other aspects of the hobby, balance makes a game more competative/enjoyable
2. It would be easier for newcomers to get to grips with the game,
3. With balances forces you are "fighting" the player more than the army, having to rely more on tactics

However,

Having Options is awesome and I think its what sets WFB and 40k apart, plus you'd lose loads of hobbiests who colect the models for painting more than gaming

Balance does not really matter that much to me, but then again I rarely play and when I do, its mainly just for fun.
I like playing against the odds and I like the variation, I think that to make it more balanced would be to water it down so to speak.

I can see the other side of the argument though, I can see why competitive players could like more balance, it stands to reason.
I never really thought of it as a competitive game until I came to this forum.

 Crablezworth wrote:
To echo insaniak's last comment, this is a game where good intentions will not save you because people will project whatever they want on to you. Whether or not your intention was thematic or based on efficacy in game.

Unless of course, you talk to your opponent before hand and actually know what type of gamer they are.

I find the "balance" debate tends to be an ideal only when the player in question has a lot of games with people they do not know very well.

When you are close to the person these issues are much less strenuous.

@ orksmasha.
I really do not see why collectors need rules to let them collect minatures?
Or does GW confuse sales spiel to inspire purchases, with the functional requirement of random pick up games.
(That is the only purpose of the F.O.C and point values in 40k.)

Any group of friends can develop their own special narrative scenarios and units with as many new options as they want to devise.

However, a new player looking for a game , is better served with a well defined rule set that is balanced enough to allow random pick up games to be fun.

I enjoy narrative games as much as the next player.BUT my list of favorite narrative rules do not appear to have point values anywhere in sight.
(And not many have force composition lists either.)

Any game that includes point values and force organization charts, should be play tested enough to ensure enough balance to support enjoyable random pick up games.

 Eldarain wrote:
If something with more options isn't balanced wouldn't that lead to fewer actual choices as the superior "options" see vastly more play?

And it always does in my experience.

Also I think we talk about this as a binary, and it is way more relative than that.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Options, every time. I'd rather have the option to take something and be at a disadvantage than not have the option.

And it always does in my experience.

Also I think we talk about this as a binary, and it is way more relative than that.

An excellent point.

Personally, I love the background and the narrative of a game. However, I'll take a balanced ruleset over more options any day of the week I find that a well-balanced game is much more fun for both players, and easier (for me personally) to enjoy in a narrative as well.

I think in my case this certainly depends on whether you are a painter / modeller / collector or a gamer.

I know they are not mutually exclusive but in my case collecting, building and painting models and minis is my favourite part of the hobby and gaming for me is a secondary benefit.

However there are others who see the minis as tools to play a game and gaming is their primary benefit.

Because I fall into the painting and collecting camp for me it's all about options.

In other words I like to be able to model and paint lots of different things rather than having lots of stuff the same, or having to build and paint stuff purely because it's good in a game.

I like the new direction 40K is going in as it means I can now use my Super Heavies, Buildings and mixed lists to my heart's content but I can see why others don't enjoy that as much.

SInce this thread was posted, I've been asking my friends which option they'd prefer. I've only asked a few wargamers so far, but it's been a resounding "balance" over "options" for me.

Board gamers love balance the most, RPGers are all about options. The MTG dorks were split right in the middle (weeeird).

The couple minis gamers I talked to said balance, but with options. Cunningly brutal bunch, that lot.

Outside this poll they are absolutely not mutually exclusive.

How about (C) Competence

Proper playtesting and the desire to issue errata and rule changes outside of codex releases are very possible. If you care about your rules, you can have both :p

 MWHistorian wrote:
Outside this poll they are absolutely not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I know. I told them it's really a "chocolate in my peanut butter" situation. The best answer was that about proper internal/external balance allows for plenty of options when it's done well.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Outside this poll they are absolutely not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I know. I told them it's really a "chocolate in my peanut butter" situation. The best answer was that about proper internal/external balance allows for plenty of options when it's done well.

I love options, but I don't like how Gw implemented it. The model can use up to three x,Y, Z weapons and comes with only one of each, but you need to kit the squad out with Y,Y,Y. So you have to pay extra for that from bits services or scrounge them up somehow. Not a fan. I'd rather the kit comes with what it can have.

I really am struggling to understand why painter/collectors feel they need game developers to write rules to justify their purchases.

Painters and collectors just buy/create stuff they like the look of.

War game players buy the stuff they need to play the game.

If you are creative enough to create your own 'cool stuff' , then create your own cool rules to use them with.
And get opponents consent to use them .
No-one I know would refuse to play a narrative game with house rules to include creative cool stuff.

However, including rules for units that break the game JUST to sell expensive kits.
Destroys the fun for everyone .

Proper game development includes enough play testing , editing and proof reading to allow balance good enough for pick up games , and enough ACTUAL USABLE options to keep everyone happy.

Balance for me, mainly because of the rock paper scissors element. I'd prefer to win or lose a game based on tactics (assuming dice rolls even out) rather than because I picked an uber deathstar or units that an opponent cannot harm at all.

Im not sure if that falls under balance or poor rules writing though. Are they the same thing?

Those of you extolling the virtues of WMH balance obviously don't look at tournament lists. I'm sure people will quote one or two examples of someone winning a tournament with a weird list that nobody else uses while totally ignoring the fact that those cases are the exception rather than the rule. Here's an example of model usage in major tournaments in 2014 by Menoth (this was the easiest faction to find this data for but all the others would look similar. The data is comprised of 236 Protectorate of Menoth lists, played by 93 tournament entrants (fairly large sample size of players/tournaments all over the world).
Warjacks
1. Reckoner - 154 - (65.25%)*
2. Devout - 79 - (33.47%)*
3. Redeemer - 68 - (28.81%)
4. Judicator - 52 - (22.03%)*
5. Vanquisher - 48 - (20.34%)*
6. Templar - 28 - (11.86%)*
7. Repenter - 15 - (6.36%)*
8. Revenger - 6 - (2.54%)
9. Vigilant - 3 - (1.27%)*
10. Guardian - 2 - (0.85%)
10. Sanctifier - 2- (0.85%)
12. Crusader - 1 - (0.42%)
12. Dervish - 1 - (0.42%)

We have a clear top 5 and a whole bunch that are very rarely used. How is this different from the heavy support slot of most 40k books?

Units
1. Choir of Menoth - 199 - (84.32%)*
2. Exemplar Errants - 120 - (50.85%)*
3. Holy Zealots - 86 - (36.44%)
4. Temple Flameguard - 46 - (19.49%)*
5. Exemplar Bastions - 42 - (17.80%)*
6. Exemplar Vengers - 39 - (16.53%)*
7. Daughters of the Flame - 33 - (13.98%)*
8. Knights Exemplar - 27 - (11.44%)
9. Idrian Skirmishers - 23 - (9.75%)
10. Flame Bringers - 11 - (4.66%)
11. Flameguard Cleansers - 5 - (2.12%)*
12. Deliverers - 2 - (0.85%)
12. Deliverer Sunburst Crew - 2 - (0.85%)*

More of the same. A clear top 4, one of which was in nearly 90% of lists (auto take like dire avengers for eldar) and there's units that weren't even used at all (namely cinerators which PP were kind enough to include in the starter box everyone loves, probably to get rid of them because nobody in their right mind would buy this useless unit).

Solos
1. Vassal of Menoth - 187 - (79.24%)*
2. Wracks - 107 - (45.34%)
3. Hierophant - 79 - (33.47%)
4. Vassal Mechanik - 66 - (27.97%)*
5. Reclaimer - 41 - (17.37%)*
6. Knights Exemplar Seneschal - 33 - (13.98%)*
8. Exemplar Errant Seneschal - 23 - (9.75%)*
7. Paladin of the Order of the Wall - 19 - (8.05%)*
9. Attendant Priest - 16 - (6.78%)**
10. Exemplar Bastion Seneschal - 8 - (3.39%)
11. Allegiant of the Order of the Fist - 1 - (0.42%)

More of the same. 4 popular choices, 5 choices below 10% and more that nobody at all took.

Warcasters (Includes two players' Warcasters, whose lists are otherwise not included in the data)
1. Harbinger - 57 - (60.00%)
2. Feora2 - 39 - (41.05%)
3. Severius1 - 30 - (31.58%)
4. Kreoss3 - 25 - (26.32%)
5. High Reclaimer - 23 - (24.21%)
6. Kreoss1 - 22 - (23.16%)
7. Kreoss2 - 12 - (12.63%)
8. Severius2 - 10 - (10.53%)
9. Testament - 8 - (8.42%)
10. Amon - 4 - (4.21%)
10. Feora1 - 4 - (4.21%)
12. Reznik1 - 3 - (3.16%)
12. Thyra - 3 - (3.16%)
14. Vindictus - 2 - (2.11%)

Slightly more parity here but still 7 casters at 10% or less.

Mercenary Character Solos
1. Rhupert Carvolo, Piper of Ord - 73 - (78.49%)
2. Gorman di Wulfe, Rogue Alchemist - 57 - (61.29%)
3. Eiryss, Angel of Retribution - 51 - (54.84%)
4. Orin Midwinter, Rogue Inquisitor - 21 - (22.58%)
4. Saxon Orrik - 21 - (22.58%)
6. Kell Bailoch - 15 - (16.13%)
7. Anastasia di Bray - 11 - (11.83%)
8. Taryn di la Rovissi, Llaelese Gun Mage - 7 - (7.53%)
9. Eiryss, Mage Hunter of Ios - 6 - (6.45%)
9. Madelyn Corbeau, Ordic Courtesan - 6 - (6.45%)
11. Gastone Crosse - 4 - (4.30%)
12. Master Gunner Dougal MacNaile - 2 - (2.15%)
13. Alten Ashley - 1 - (1.08%)
13. First Mate Hawk - 1 - (1.08%)
13. Lord Rockbottom - 1 - (1.08%)

Notice a theme here? Every section has several units that are either auto take or auto take with a certain caster. The only difference is in 40k you have more options with each unit. I'm just tired of hearing how WMH is soooo much more balanced than 40k and every unit is useful bla bla bla. You can take that stance but good luck finding hard data to back it up.

Toofast wrote:
Notice a theme here? Every section has several units that are either auto take or auto take with a certain caster.

Which then leads to the next question: Is that because those units are better, or because they are perceived as being better?

Also, doesn't WMH have different event styles? How much does people taking armies geared towards specific events affect the pool of available options?

They are just flat out better. For example cinerators vs bastions. Bastions are the same cost, harder to kill, hit harder, can take UA to buff them even more and have reach. It's exactly like GH vs BC in the 5th edition SW codex but strip the extra attack from the BC. Why would anyone ever take them? No matter which caster you use or what the rest of your list looks like, there are exactly zero reasons to take cinerators over bastions. Every faction has choices like this, and it's not just restricted to units. The game as a whole is slightly better balanced but anyone who says WMH doesn't have auto takes or useless units like 40k is either purposely ignoring facts to make a point or delusional.

While there are certainly units that work better in situations than others in WM/H, I'd love to see that same data for 40K tournaments, I'm willing to bet it's a lot narrower than the WM/H data, where although there are several units taken far more often than others, most of the units are taken in at least some lists.

How many tournament lists do you think are taking say, purgation squads? Or Pyrovores, or rough riders? The Deliver Sunburst Crew is easily regarded as one of the single worst units Menoth has access to, but it's there.

Another thing to consider is that data was taken from a 2 list format. Anything under 10% was taken as a one off in people's backup/skew lists and would've been a 0 in a single list TAC format like 40k tournaments. I would venture a guess that between games, based on one list formats, the numbers would be about the same. The only variables would be certain factions like ret or cyriss that don't have as many options, or stuff like tyranids and sisters where they only have a few competitive units. If you compared the original 4 WMH to the top 4 in 40k (eldar, sm, necrons, daemons), the numbers would be almost indistinguishable.

Deadawake1347 wrote:
How many tournament lists do you think are taking say, purgation squads? Or Pyrovores, or rough riders?

Heh, I don't think I've seen Rough Riders on a table since 2nd edition.

True, warmachine does have units which are better than others.. however, GW simply creates rules for unts which make the unit so terrible that no one will buy the unit in the span of 4 editions! That's the main problem.. There are very few models in WH imo that are flat out terrible

Options 10 times out of 10.

There are already tons of games out there that offer balance. I could always play chess or checkers or go or, sheesh, thousands of them, probably.

What makes 40k stand out is the particular way that it does options. People can exercise a little brainpower to make an options game balanced enough, but nothing can force a balanced game to have options. The idea of "assymetric balance" is an unproven rumor at best, and an outright lie at worst. Balance comes through symmetry. Symmetry means no options.

Plus, you can already make 40k balanced. Just bring the same list as your opponent and set up symmetric terrain. You don't need to change the 40k at all to make it fit the needs of someone who craves balance.

 Ailaros wrote:
There are already tons of games out there that offer balance. I could always play chess or checkers or go or, sheesh, thousands of them, probably.

Oh good, this argument again. You're as consistent as the sunrise, everyone tells you how you're wrong about balance vs. symmetry, and you come right back to post the same thing again as if those previous discussions never happened.

What makes 40k stand out is the particular way that it does options.

No, what makes 40k stand out is that the game is garbage. There's nothing special about how it handles options, GW just threw a bunch of them into every unit entry without giving any thought to how they're supposed to work or what their point costs should be. Any idiot can do that, part of being a good game designer is knowing that you shouldn't.

Plus, you can already make 40k balanced. Just bring the same list as your opponent and set up symmetric terrain. You don't need to change the 40k at all to make it fit the needs of someone who craves balance.

And, as people have told you over and over again, that's not what anyone wants. We want a balanced game with an interesting variety of options, and for all the models/units GW produces to be viable choices. Saying "don't buy that squad of rough riders, you have to use a symmetrical list" is no better than saying "don't buy that squad of rough riders, they suck".

From a game design perspective there is no excuse for creating units with no function (IE rough riders for example). You can't use the balance vs options argument to hide laziness or ineptitude

Oh no, not the "balance is symmetry" thing again. It's demonstrably false. Look at all the other war games out there Aileros, they have wildly different armies and play styles, yet they're acceptably balanced. So, no, balance =/= symmetry. Case in point. My convergence army last night fought a Legion army. The two armies are drastically different with fast light monsters that hit hard vs my slow heavy guys that have a lot of synergy. Not symmetrical. Yet balanced. I came close to winning.

I understand you don't care about balance, but try to understand why some people do, and that starts with a correct understanding of what balance actually is, because you don't get it.

You don't need to change 40k to fit the needs of someone who wants balance? What?

Toofast wrote:
Another thing to consider is that data was taken from a 2 list format. Anything under 10% was taken as a one off in people's backup/skew lists and would've been a 0 in a single list TAC format like 40k tournaments. I would venture a guess that between games, based on one list formats, the numbers would be about the same. The only variables would be certain factions like ret or cyriss that don't have as many options, or stuff like tyranids and sisters where they only have a few competitive units. If you compared the original 4 WMH to the top 4 in 40k (eldar, sm, necrons, daemons), the numbers would be almost indistinguishable.

You aren't arguing what you think you're arguing. There is always going to be a "better" choice, because ultimately the game boils down to math and probability. What you're overlooking is the fact that certain things aren't taken SIMPLY because they're better, but because they work better as a whole. Consider your Cinerators. They aren't as good as Bastions, but that doesn't mean they're useless. Cinerators can still serve a purpose and work well in a list, the fact that Bastions are better doesn't completely invalidate Cinerators and make them a meaningless choice. if YOU want to run Cinerators, you can and make them work, you don't go into a game with a point in the hole already because you didn't take Bastions instead.

That's the kind of balance we're talking about

Also Ailaros are you STILL arguing the same "balance means everything is equal" argument? Hasn't it sunk in yet that NOBODY wants everything equal, and not only that but you can have balance without making some units garbage and some units great, and you can have MEANINGFUL options (i.e. not "Do I give this squad a S5 AP4 weapon or a S4 AP5 weapon") without making some choices worthless.

A ton of lead and a ton of feathers: they both weigh the same (aka balance) but are drastically different. Same thing in war games. Units can be VERY different and still be balanced.

But being different and having options isn't the same.

A queen and a pawn aren't the same as each other, but that doesn't mean you can choose your chess pieces. You have to use the same setup as your opponent. You can't come up with your own way of doing things. You don't have options.

 Ailaros wrote:
But being different and having options isn't the same.

A queen and a pawn aren't the same as each other, but that doesn't mean you can choose your chess pieces. You have to use the same setup as your opponent. You can't come up with your own way of doing things. You don't have options.

Except for the fact that isn't relevant for games like Warmahordes or Malifaux which do have quite good balance. Or Infinity. In fact, what game is this example of yours relevant to?

In the games I listed, you can choose a different setup to your opponent. He could have buckets of blokes (say, Cryx with eDenny so lots of Banes and maybe raiders), while you could have just a few jacks on the other side (I dunno, a jack heavy Cyriss list). Or he could have a crew based around scheme markers and movement shenanigans (Colette and co) while you have a killy crew of deadly killiness (Perdita and her clan is what I'll go with for his. Not that its all they can do, but get Francisco into combat then get Perdita firing into it, and tell me they aren't killy).

It's not nearly that black and white. Options vs balance, I want options over perfect balance... but GW can achieve so much more balance within their options that when I say I'd prefer options over balance, I still expect far more balance than GW manages with 40k.

I mean really, 40k balance is horrible. You can look at a unit entry and out of 3 "options" soooo often 1 of them just plain sucks. You don't even have to play a game to realise that some options are just flat out worse than others. This is not options, this is lack of options caused by poor balance.

When balance is sooo bad that you can see some options are inferior to others without even playtesting it, then talking about options vs balance sort of becomes a pointless discussion because you aren't even attempting to balance the options you already have.

motya wrote:Except for the fact that isn't relevant for games like Warmahordes or Malifaux which do have quite good balance.

Those games aren't even remotely balanced. You just like the imbalance better.

 Ailaros wrote:

motya wrote:Except for the fact that isn't relevant for games like Warmahordes or Malifaux which do have quite good balance.

Those games aren't even remotely balanced. You just like the imbalance better.

Citation needed.

Toofast wrote:

More of the same. A clear top 4, one of which was in nearly 90% of lists (auto take like dire avengers for eldar)

Just to pull you up on this single point, you're talking about a trivially cheap support unit which the warjacks of the army have been balanced and costed around, and which is described as ubiquitous in the background.

Because balance does not mean homogeneity and because perfect balance is nothing more than a strawman, there are still better choices for certain roles, and the nature of tournaments big and high-profile enough to set their data down online mean that people will take things that give them even a marginally better chance. So while X is seldom taken, that doesn't mean X is useless, just that Y performs the same role slightly better, by a margin insignificant at most levels of skill. Even in fighting games regarded as balanced, you'll still see the same few characters in big tournaments. But it's telling that unlikely stuff gets used, and won with, at the highest levels, which suggests to me that while some options lack synergy or a clear role, very little of it is "wasted points".

In addition, the steady release stream for all factions means that less-favoured options become better. Grissel-2 was regarded as weak until the Warders came out, which she had amazing synergy with, and the combo has risen in prominence among Troll players. Arkadius was one of the weakest Minion warlocks, but a recent theme force for him looks set to increase his stock dramatically.

 Ailaros wrote:

motya wrote:Except for the fact that isn't relevant for games like Warmahordes or Malifaux which do have quite good balance.

Those games aren't even remotely balanced. You just like the imbalance better.

If you want this point to be taken seriously (and not look like a drive-by trolling), you need to explain it in more detail.

 Ailaros wrote:
Options 10 times out of 10.

There are already tons of games out there that offer balance. I could always play chess or checkers or go or, sheesh, thousands of them, probably.

What makes 40k stand out is the particular way that it does options. People can exercise a little brainpower to make an options game balanced enough, but nothing can force a balanced game to have options. The idea of "assymetric balance" is an unproven rumor at best, and an outright lie at worst. Balance comes through symmetry. Symmetry means no options.

Plus, you can already make 40k balanced. Just bring the same list as your opponent and set up symmetric terrain. You don't need to change the 40k at all to make it fit the needs of someone who craves balance.

Bang on for me, Its pretty much subjective as every topic here normally is, but its nice to see what people think.

The symmetry = balance thing is cods wallop, even if you have symmetry there's not perfect balance because someone still has to go first and will be advantaged or disadvantaged for going first depending on what army it is.

Beyond that, balance with asymmetry simply means having options that are all close to equally viable options. 40k is miles from this. There are options that are close to unanimously considered bad.

 Ailaros wrote:

motya wrote:Except for the fact that isn't relevant for games like Warmahordes or Malifaux which do have quite good balance.

Those games aren't even remotely balanced. You just like the imbalance better.

Well, I'm not gonna argue with you, but I respect your right to be wrong.

 Ailaros wrote:

motya wrote:Except for the fact that isn't relevant for games like Warmahordes or Malifaux which do have quite good balance.

Those games aren't even remotely balanced. You just like the imbalance better.

They are balanced, just not to your definition. You keep using your own definition/idea of what balance is, and using it to ignore anyone's arguments. The kind of balance people are talking about here is balance where picking Unit A over Unit B doesn't cost you the game before it even begins, because Unit a is so bad. 40k has that, virtually no other game does. In Warmachine if I take a unit of Exemplar Cinerators over a unit of Exemplar Bastions (to point out Toofast's argument), my Cinerators can still perform well; they might not perform 100% as good as the Bastions, but they aren't complete garbage. And neither of them are just going to win me the game. You can't just go and take a tournament list in Warmachine and do well with it if you don't actually know what you're doing; virtually none of it is "point and click" like some of the netlists in 40k. This is also why you sometimes see high-ranking players take lists that use "bad" units and still win with them; because it's the player not the list. That's the kind of "balance" that everyone here is talking about.

For example, if I know I'm facing a Menoth army with pFeora (who can set everything on fire), I just might want to play Assault Kommandos, even if they're lackluster elsewhere, because they're Immune to Fire and that neutralizes part of my enemy's gameplan. Are they a bad unit? Ultimately yes, they aren't very good if you compare points and stats to other units that cost the same. But they have a place. There is never a time when you look at them and say they're utterly worthless and there's no reason to ever field them. They're a tool in a toolbox. Sometimes you don't use a tool for months, or ever, and then it's the best tool for a certain job.

I think you need to really define the definition of balance that you're using in this discussion, because right now it really does come off as just trolling and dismissing everyone else's arguments based on some criteria known only to you.

But if he broadens his definition then he would have to admit that the balance in 40K is garbage.

So he keeps to his own, narrowly defined, definition.

Besides, playtesting for balance in a niche industry is otiose.

Given the way the poll is leaning... I think that it is obvious that most folks replying value balance over options - and given that I play Kings of War, it is equally obvious how my own preferences lie. (KoW has fewer options, but is very well balanced.)

The Auld Grump

Elemental wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

motya wrote:Except for the fact that isn't relevant for games like Warmahordes or Malifaux which do have quite good balance.

Those games aren't even remotely balanced. You just like the imbalance better.

If you want this point to be taken seriously (and not look like a drive-by trolling), you need to explain it in more detail.

Oh come on, this is self-evident. Tell me there aren't people on warmahordes forums right now asking "is X viable?" and "which is better Y or Z?". Tell me there aren't stronger and weaker builds. Tell me you can basically play whatever you want AND be able to have a roughly equal chance of winning. And how about a deconstruction of the game or some statistics to prove it.

The only drive-by trolling is people claiming that other games have great balance and then disappearing without giving any evidence for their position. Or at least some deductive reasoning.

 Ailaros wrote:

Elemental wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

motya wrote:Except for the fact that isn't relevant for games like Warmahordes or Malifaux which do have quite good balance.

Those games aren't even remotely balanced. You just like the imbalance better.

If you want this point to be taken seriously (and not look like a drive-by trolling), you need to explain it in more detail.

Oh come on, this is self-evident. Tell me there aren't people on warmahordes forums right now asking "is X viable?" and "which is better Y or Z?". Tell me there aren't stronger and weaker builds. Tell me you can basically play whatever you want AND be able to have a roughly equal chance of winning. And how about a deconstruction of the game or some statistics to prove it.

The only drive-by trolling is people claiming that other games have great balance and then disappearing without giving any evidence for their position. Or at least some deductive reasoning.

You're missing the point. It's not that people aren't asking that, it's that the difference are minuscule if you don't listen. If you take Z instead of Y in 40k, you're going into a game at a loss because Z is likely worthless and Y is likely overpowered. In Warmahordes if you take Z instead of Y you aren't at much of a disadvantage, and it's still 90% of how you use unit Z. What people are saying is that Warmahordes is MORE balanced than 40k because the gap between "good" and "bad" is a lot smaller. Also yes you can play whatever you want and have a roughly equal chance of winning. You know why? Because list building is only a small part of the game. A great player with a mishmash of units can beat a newbie using a netlist he found online. That's how a game should be. There is no situation where taking Unit A instead of Unit B actively hurts you, even if Unit B is better than Unit A, Unit A still has a place in some lists and is a viable choice to pick, it's not worthless.

What part of that aren't you understanding?

Also linking to an article on your own blog as some kind of resource is the height of arrogance.

Keep it civil, please.

I've had this argument / discussion with my local gaming group about Warmahordes not really being very balanced, either... but it's true that compared to 40k it's like a shining example of it

Personally, I think it's also somewhat a difference of how people view balance- in Warmachine (as WayneTheGame points out above) even generally "bad" units usually have some corner-case, buff- and combo-dependent build that lets you run them semi-effectively. To me, that's not Really balance... but it is better than nothing.

It still didn't make Mulg not infinitely better than any other choice for many of my lists, but it did make something considered pretty weak (Mountain King) an absolute monster in one, maybe two builds. However, given that I was trying to run a Mountain King in something other than that one build, I found it underpowered and really frustrating to use... not unlike some of my experiences in 40k

In the end, it's all relative. I would agree that Warmachine is more balanced than 40k, but that's a pretty darn low standard to beat, after all.


---------------------------

Edit, regarding this:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Also yes you can play whatever you want and have a roughly equal chance of winning.

My experience is that this is not true at all. Certain weak units ONLY work well in very specific builds. You can't just take whatever you want and have a roughly equal chance of winning! That's pretty much absurd, from anyone who has seen Warmachine games. It's very combo-dependent, so if you're taking a weak unit, you have to tune your list to account for it and shore up it's weaknesses. It's very possible to do this, but you can't just throw a bad unit / a bunch of bad units into any army and have an equal chance of winning against a strong list. You would have a much lower chance of winning, just like in any game...

Exactly. It isn't that Warmachine is somehow absolutely perfectly balanced, with any build vs. any other build, at all times, in all ways.

It's that every single unit can be useful and as long as you know what your army can do (and what your opponents' armies can do), you can potentially make any single unit work.

This is what people mean when they say Warmachine is balanced; it is balanced in comparison to 40K, where taking, say, Pyrovores instead of Hive Guard is always the wrong choice and the Pyrovores will never be worth their points; IE, Hive Guard are extremely good, and Pyrovores are worthless.

In Warmachine, Unit X may be objectively better in almost all circumstances than Unit Y, but Unit Y will still be effective and can potentially earn its points back, and there may even be specific situations where Unit Y might be better than Unit X.

That's the kind of balance I like in a war game.

 Eilif wrote:
Many folks will of course say you can have both, or that "it depends" but if you had to choose, which would it be and why?

Balance of course.

Sure, I could bring my SoB in tournaments for the sake of getting my butt kicked diversity. Hey, I could even field Celestians: the least useful unit of one of the weakest codexes. Or even better, add some WDex Preachers, which were the most useless unit of the entire game. Yeah, even the most terrible Tyranid units were actually a bargain compared to Preachers.

What's the point of fielding that kind of stuff? When there's no balance, there's no meaningful options.

I enjoy playing DBA with my classical armies, because the balance is fine. Some armies have few options, but that's okay. My Polybian Roman army must be made of 12 standard-sized units, with some mandatory ones: 6x Swordmen, 2x Cavalry, 2x Spearmen, 2x Skirmishers...
As you can see, there's not much room for customization.

Agreed. In 40k I want to play footsloging Iron Warriors but my local meta is not forging at all. I have wanted a fluffy Sam hann (no idea if that's spelt right) for a while too, but then I'd be accused of powergaming.

Warmachine I wouldn't say is VERY well balanced, but it is well balanced. I want to play a jack heavy khador (the infantry faction) list there with men o war (not considered very good). I'm limited in what I can take because I have to build around those units but if I play it properly it has a perfectly fine chance of winning.

Dystopian wars was almost as bad as 40k in its first edition, I liked it none the less. Then the issues began to grate like they did with 40k and my interest wandered.
2nd edition fixed a huge swath of problems and all of a sudden I am loving it more that ever.
I really, really wish GW would learn a lesson from that. Its exactly what I want to see for 40k.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Dystopian wars was almost as bad as 40k in its first edition, I liked it none the less. Then the issues began to grate like they did with 40k and my interest wandered.
2nd edition fixed a huge swath of problems and all of a sudden I am loving it more that ever.
I really, really wish GW would learn a lesson from that. Its exactly what I want to see for 40k.

This is why I don't understand the "well it's always been bad" crowd. Why on earth after 16 years and 5 editions of what basically amounts to the same rules have they still failed to fix it when other games fix it after 1 edition?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Dystopian wars was almost as bad as 40k in its first edition, I liked it none the less. Then the issues began to grate like they did with 40k and my interest wandered.
2nd edition fixed a huge swath of problems and all of a sudden I am loving it more that ever.
I really, really wish GW would learn a lesson from that. Its exactly what I want to see for 40k.

This is why I don't understand the "well it's always been bad" crowd. Why on earth after 16 years and 5 editions of what basically amounts to the same rules have they still failed to fix it when other games fix it after 1 edition?

That's what makes the 40k argument so funny. The "industry leader" is seemingly incapable of actually addressing problems despite having 30 years to do it, 15 (or more?) of which use the same "engine" of the game, and instead handwave problems and pass blame to the players with terms like "forge the narrative" and constant references to not being a game but a collecting hobby. It's ridiculous, and it's things like that that make me not want to play despite knowing that I'd be able to get games in, because why bother when I'd get screwed over if I wanted to play something fluffy that isn't part of the meta, even if I'm not in a competitive meta?

Like, I could start again and play in an escalation league coming up in a few weeks. But why would I bother when I'll have to spend a lot of money and am limited in what I want to play unless I want to lose all the time? How on earth is that worth it, when I have other options that provide more options for the same price and same level of enjoyment?? Even the cool factor of quasi grimdark sci-fi isn't worth the loss of actual fun.

When comparing to Warmachine, its important to note the structure of competitive WMH drastically changes the way you view 'balance'. Namely, the multi-list format. This severely tempers any attempts at skew list.

The two list format means that if one of your lists is a heavy skew, it is possible (or even likely) for one of the opponent's list to be a hard counter. The harder the meta skews, the more frequently hard counters appear. The other side of the same coin: your hard-counter list has to be able to deal with the opponent's other force, thus you can't ever counter too hard lest you lose the TAC ability.

I think this format would be even better in 40k than it is in WMH. The current competitive scene is full of extremely hard skew lists, and they skew even further as you start allowing multiple CADS, unbound, escalation, etc, etc. Allowing players to take a secondary army would I think alleviate many issues, however 40k is prohibitively expensive to do this with.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
This is why I don't understand the "well it's always been bad" crowd. Why on earth after 16 years and 5 editions of what basically amounts to the same rules have they still failed to fix it when other games fix it after 1 edition?

Two reasons:

1) GW continues to employ hopeless incompetents who believe that anyone who cares about the rules is a WAAC TFG, which means they aren't capable of doing the playtesting and development required to make a balanced game.

2) GW believes that their core market is kids who never manage to finish building their boxes of space marines before they quit the game, so all they need is the idea of how cool a wargame is to motivate them to buy a starter box. And if most customers don't care about the quality of the rules then why waste money on making better rules?

Until GW dies and someone else buys the IP we're never going to see any serious attempt to fix the rules.

Balance gives everyone more viable options. It's strictly better.

@Peregrine.
I feel I have to correct you post, as it is a bit harsh on the game devs at GW towers...

Two reasons:

1) GW continues to be run by hopeless incompetents who believe that anyone who cares about the actual game play is not part of their core demographic.Which means they instruct the game developers to focus on selling the latest releases, with 'inspiring rules', rather than fix game play issues.

2) GW believes that their core market is kids who never manage to finish building their boxes of space marines before they quit the game,or collectors who do not care that much about rules.So all they need is the idea of how cool a wargame is to motivate them to buy GW product. As if most customers don't care about the quality of the rules then why waste money on making better rules?


I know this basically makes reason 1 and 2 practically identical.But is such a huge problem it deserves to be mentioned twice!

This situation results from GW plc not actually doing any meaningful market research.Because if they did , it would prove how wrong/deluded Tom Kirby has been.

Lanrak wrote:
@as it is a bit harsh on the game devs at GW towers...

Actually it isn't harsh enough. Every person involved in writing GW's rules should be fired for incompetence. It's bad enough that "sleeping with the CEO" becomes a plausible explanation for why these idiots are still employed.

And I disagree with your "corrections". GW certainly believes stupid things about their market, but if you look at the statements from their game designers you'll see that they're "casual at all costs" types who believe that wargames should be played by creating a "fluffy" army and then using the rules to put it on the table, and anyone who builds an army based on how effective it is at winning games is doing it wrong. This has been true for a lot longer than GW's current market research idiocy, they've always made a big deal about how superior "beer and pretzels"* play is to all those WAAC TFGs who dare to defile the sacred ideal of a "casual" game.

*This is especially amusing because 40k is not even close to a "beer and pretzels" game.

 Peregrine wrote:
*This is especially amusing because 40k is not even close to a "beer and pretzels" game.

It can be if someone hosts/GM's it. There's almost no tactical depth to it, and if someone is telling you what rolls you need to make there's very little work to it either.

Of course, if having someone GM the game is the only way for it to work, there's almost no point having the game anyway.

No game as esoteric and poorly written as 40k can be considered a "Beer and Pretzels" game.

Despite almost completely lacking in tactical depth, and essentially being a glorified version of Yahtzee, it's a massively convoluted mess that flies right in the face of everything that makes a game good for such play.

Herzlos wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
*This is especially amusing because 40k is not even close to a "beer and pretzels" game.

It can be if someone hosts/GM's it. There's almost no tactical depth to it, and if someone is telling you what rolls you need to make there's very little work to it either.

Of course, if having someone GM the game is the only way for it to work, there's almost no point having the game anyway.

Tactical depth has nothing to do with a game being a "beer and pretzels" game. The reasons why 40k is not a "beer and pretzels" game in any way is because you have to read several hundred pages of rules to be able to play it, spend tens of hours assembling and painting miniatures and perhaps more important, spend several hundred dollars to have anything resembling a playing force.

Beer and pretzels games are supposed to be cheap, fast to learn and fast to play. 40k is none of those.

That's why I said if it was hosted/GM'd, then the players don't need to learn anything beyond what the units are; "those are regular guys, those are super-armoured guys, that's a transport and that's a big tank". The GM can then tell them "with those guys you need a 4 to hit on 20 dice" and so on.

Without that hand holding it's about as far away from a beer and pretzel game as is possible without going for something like DBA or the table heavy Naval games.


For perspective; I've been playing 40K on and off for 18 years and I still don't quite know how it works. By my 2nd game of Bolt Action (the same author) I was helping my opponent play, because it's just so much clearer and has less pointless options (weapons are in classes - pistol,rifle,light-mortar, light anti-tank, medium anti-tank and so on -so there's only about 15 of them). You get better balance and the options are still there (you just don't get a choice of 4+ more (las,auto,bolt,plasma) or less similar pistols).

In terms of gaming, BA manages to be both more balanced and more casual, whilst having more strategy and tactical depth.

Herzlos wrote:
In terms of gaming, BA manages to be both more balanced and more casual, whilst having more strategy and tactical depth.

Highly ironic that Bolt Action is, for all intents and purposes, a better 40k than 40k right now. Meaningful choices, tactical depth, clear and interesting rules, the normal game size is that sweet spot between "too small" and "too large" and a normal sized force is reasonably priced ($125USD for a 1,000 point Bolt Action army). Everything 40k fails to hit.

I'd certainly be up for trying to play BA 40K - I think even the order dice alone would revolutionise the game.

Herzlos wrote:
That's why I said if it was hosted/GM'd, then the players don't need to learn anything beyond what the units are; "those are regular guys, those are super-armoured guys, that's a transport and that's a big tank". The GM can then tell them "with those guys you need a 4 to hit on 20 dice" and so on.

At which point, why the hell are you even trying to play 40k?

The fluff, just like everyone else. Or beer and pretsels. Hosted narrative games with home brew rules seem to be what the studo do.

I see that you haven't read or taken into account any of the previous points.

How so?

As much as people claim 40K is a casual game (because the rules aren't important) it's a terrible example of one - it's convoluted and unclear whilst providing no real in game decision making. In terms of game play it's pretty casual (once you ignore the mess of the rules) in that all you can really do is move forward, shoot and then assault. The in-game decisions boil down to "These guys will shoot those guys".

You can make it casual by hosting it - taking all of the rules decisions out of the players hands and doing all the work for them, leaving them the casual element. I get the impression from reading WD's from the last year or 2 that that's largely how the design studio play 40K - someone sets it up, decides on the mission and any special rules, then the others come over and roll some dice.

That's fine - but if you're doing that you can do it with pretty much any other game more easily, and it really doesn't fit in with how most games, especially those that play in stores/clubs play.

@Peregrine.
Professional games developers develop the game in the way they are instructed to by their employer.(If they want to remain employed.)

So when the 'sales department' is put in charge of a game development studio, the focus can becomes 'short term sales pitches', rather than long term growth.

And ALL game developers seem to improve their quality of game design massively , when they are free from the idiocy at GW towers.
(Andy Chambers,Alessio Cavatore, Jake Thornton, etc.)

So the game developers developers realize 40k rules are rubbish, and they want to improve them.
(There has been constant call for major changes to the 40k rules by the game devs ,every edition since 3rd ed.No major changes to fix core problems have ever been approved!)

They can get fed up of the constant aggravation/frustration trying to get higher ups to listen and approve changes needed, and leave GW .
Or they keep trying , (and failing) to improve the 40k rules .

I am not saying that 'Kirby Kulture' is totally responsible for the horrid state of the 40k rules.But it has a massive impact on what changes the devs could actually make.

I prefer to judge game developers on work they produce free of GW influence, as this seems to be a better measure of their capability.

Just wanted to add that 40k is only beer and pretzels if you're regular games are Tractics and Starfleet Battles and Advanced Squad Leader is your idea of light fare.
40k has to many rules to be beer and pretezels. Beer and Pretzels games need to be simple enough to be playable while drunk and 40k just has too much going on.

Herzlos wrote:
I'd certainly be up for trying to play BA 40K - I think even the order dice alone would revolutionise the game.

You should check out "Gates of Antares" from Warlord. It's very much based on the Bolt Action game with additional rules for the sci-fi setting. You can get the beta for free by signing up at their forums.

I interpret "beer and pretzels" in the context of 40k to mean "you can only enjoy it while drunk"

The last thing I want to do when drunk is begin arguing over convoluted rules with ambiguous ruling.

I guess it depends what sort of drunk you are, I tend to be more easy going when drunk, some of my friends are angry drunks and I imagine there would be models and tables broken by the end of the game