See title and poll question.

I, for one, voted yes.

Let me know if I should add more options.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Every time this discussion comes up it always devolves into an argument about the definition of "balance". Detractors love to point to symmetrical games (e.g. chess) and claim that individual armies would loose personality if the game were more "balanced".

I'm working off an interpretation of "balance" wherein there's a good reason to use all armies, units, and options, as opposed to a game where you'd never play a certain army or use a certain unit because it's bad. And in that sense I would vote "yes". I want to play a game where I can pick up any arbitrary unit, think "well, this looks cool", put it on the table, and be able to find a way to make it work, not a game where there's a chunk of stuff that's not worth using and I have to be penalized for thinking some of it's cool.

Good definition of balance, right there.

Yes.
Fight me

I want it to be close enough but im not asking for absolute perfection. that aint happening.

Every time this discussion comes up it always devolves into an argument about the definition of "balance". Detractors love to point to symmetrical games (e.g. chess) and claim that individual armies would loose personality if the game were more "balanced".

I'm working off an interpretation of "balance" wherein there's a good reason to use all armies, units, and options, as opposed to a game where you'd never play a certain army or use a certain unit because it's bad. And in that sense I would vote "yes". I want to play a game where I can pick up any arbitrary unit, think "well, this looks cool", put it on the table, and be able to find a way to make it work, not a game where there's a chunk of stuff that's not worth using and I have to be penalized for thinking some of it's cool.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Every time this discussion comes up it always devolves into an argument about the definition of "balance". Detractors love to point to symmetrical games (e.g. chess) and claim that individual armies would loose personality if the game were more "balanced".

I'm working off an interpretation of "balance" wherein there's a good reason to use all armies, units, and options, as opposed to a game where you'd never play a certain army or use a certain unit because it's bad. And in that sense I would vote "yes". I want to play a game where I can pick up any arbitrary unit, think "well, this looks cool", put it on the table, and be able to find a way to make it work, not a game where there's a chunk of stuff that's not worth using and I have to be penalized for thinking some of it's cool.

Added this quote to the OP, to (hopefully) preclude arguments.

Thanks!

 Desubot wrote:
I want it to be close enough but im not asking for absolute perfection. that aint happening.

Same here. I'll take a fun game over a perfectly balanced one, but I'm not a national level competitive player.

Lol, I'm sorry but what kind of question is this, regardless of how you play balence is for the best in every kind of and style of play in 40k, and I play mainly narrative games and have never played competitively.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I want it to be close enough but im not asking for absolute perfection. that aint happening.

Same here. I'll take a fun game over a perfectly balanced one, but I'm not a national level competitive player.

so far 8th is the closest. only 2 games and both were fun and fairly close. (1 game was an absolute gak show though but that was my list being exceptionally gakky and the other being a VERY mobile list that i had no answers for. can only play more games to see how it goes but its looking quite exciting)

Yeah I hate games where I table someone as much as I hate getting wiped out.

There's nothing better than a close game that could go either way right up to the last turn.

I can count on one hand the games I lost in sixth and I played weekly, it was dire and it wasn't just one army.

And it wasn't because I'm some gaming god its because my opponents played weaker armies and even toning down didn't work.

I played melee cron for fekkes sake using triarch praetorians when they were crap and lost once.

So yeah I crave balance above all.

 Desubot wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I want it to be close enough but im not asking for absolute perfection. that aint happening.

Same here. I'll take a fun game over a perfectly balanced one, but I'm not a national level competitive player.

so far 8th is the closest. only 2 games and both were fun and fairly close. (1 game was an absolute gak show though but that was my list being exceptionally gakky and the other being a VERY mobile list that i had no answers for. can only play more games to see how it goes but its looking quite exciting)

Agreed. It's been fun so far, and it doesn't feel like games drag.

hobojebus wrote:

There's nothing better than a close game that could go either way right up to the last turn.

100% agree with this, my top three favourite games I've ever played have been decided by the last dice roll. And I lost two of them.

In x-wing I never concede cause you never know if your last ship can pull off that against all odds win.

More than once it has, quite often it won't but never say die never surrender!

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Every time this discussion comes up it always devolves into an argument about the definition of "balance". Detractors love to point to symmetrical games (e.g. chess) and claim that individual armies would loose personality if the game were more "balanced".

I'm working off an interpretation of "balance" wherein there's a good reason to use all armies, units, and options, as opposed to a game where you'd never play a certain army or use a certain unit because it's bad. And in that sense I would vote "yes". I want to play a game where I can pick up any arbitrary unit, think "well, this looks cool", put it on the table, and be able to find a way to make it work, not a game where there's a chunk of stuff that's not worth using and I have to be penalized for thinking some of it's cool.

This is a little vague, is the problem. I am not sure it is coherent to want it to be the case that units are very different from each other with different strengths and weaknesses and yet you can take any random unit, put it in your army, and not have it badly underperform relative to other choices you could have made.

But if you're saying that every unit should be a significant contributor to some competitive lists, I'd agree with that. If I want to use Unit X, I should be able to come up with an army where Unit X is the best possible choice for completing it, and then the army works out really well on the tabletop. Really this would ideally be the case for every set of options each unit could take too -- units and their options should be priced such that they are desirable in a generally-small fraction of high-performing lists. It is a very small problem when some of a unit's options are almost never or never desirable, but this isn't really any worse than the option not existing. It is a problem when a unit, regardless of its options, is almost never or never desirable. And of course it is a huge problem when a unit is basically always desirable, essentially because this warps what a high-performing list is and ends up making lots of other units undesirable.

in 40k there will never be true balance. there just cannot be. really the devs are already comically off base with a lot of entries over or undercosted and this is looking to be close o the most balanced 40k has been in the past decade i have played.

hell there is even thigns that would in theory be worth more vs certain other armies. a flamer would be great against orks and tyranids but less good against terminator heavy space marine lists but there is no real way to balance the specific army vs army. I would be happy with a set... T3 costs x points, toughness 4 costs x points, armor save 3+ costs x points vs armor 6+ should cost x points; The issue is I think GW will never do that. marines, elder and tau (the good guys) always have to have more efficient points per unit than the perceived bad guys (everybody else)

 G00fySmiley wrote:
in 40k there will never be true balance. there just cannot be. really the devs are already comically off base with a lot of entries over or undercosted and this is looking to be close o the most balanced 40k has been in the past decade i have played.

hell there is even thigns that would in theory be worth more vs certain other armies. a flamer would be great against orks and tyranids but less good against terminator heavy space marine lists but there is no real way to balance the specific army vs army. I would be happy with a set... T3 costs x points, toughness 4 costs x points, armor save 3+ costs x points vs armor 6+ should cost x points; The issue is I think GW will never do that. marines, elder and tau (the good guys) always have to have more efficient points per unit than the perceived bad guys (everybody else)

one of the best ways to ballance that out is to write missions and the basic game to encourage a Variety, and that each faction has the basics to provide the variety in there makeup.
They do not have to achieve it all the same, But they should be able to build to match what the game Design is creating.
One of the big issues we see with 40k, is that the devs do not seem to know what scale the game is at, and will often take a kinda AVG Idea and run it into the ground.
I hope that this attitude has changed, Or may as well write this edition off as well.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
in 40k there will never be true balance. there just cannot be. really the devs are already comically off base with a lot of entries over or undercosted and this is looking to be close o the most balanced 40k has been in the past decade i have played.

hell there is even thigns that would in theory be worth more vs certain other armies. a flamer would be great against orks and tyranids but less good against terminator heavy space marine lists but there is no real way to balance the specific army vs army. I would be happy with a set... T3 costs x points, toughness 4 costs x points, armor save 3+ costs x points vs armor 6+ should cost x points; The issue is I think GW will never do that. marines, elder and tau (the good guys) always have to have more efficient points per unit than the perceived bad guys (everybody else)

To be fair, Flamers were always designed for chaff. but at least most armies have the option to deal with different threats like melta for tanks and stuff but now all the weapons have a little cross over.

people that build mono focused lists are going to have trouble i think vs all comers or a balanced list. but we will see i dont think it will take long for "gamers" to figure out the most broken garbage.

No, I enjoy getting schooled every time I play because I've chosen the loser wrong army.

Balance is a subjective term, but yes I want balance. I want to win a game because I outplayed my foe and not because the scenario gave unwinnable objectives or gave random victory points for accomplishing the same tasks.

"I killed your Rhino for...*roll*...1 Victory Point."
"I killed your Rhino for...*roll*...3 Victory Points. I win, I am such a great commander!"

As close to even as can be.

I can't answer this thread poll fairly, because I am not worried about BALANCE in the traditional sense, as I am more worried about having a relaxed time that is fun for both me and my opponent. That said, the conversations everyone is having on the forums these days (today in particular) are giving me some ideas on what people are actually trying to say. Let me ramble for a bit and paraphrase what I wrote on another thread...

[]

Points and Power Levels are both "guidelines" to figuring out an army's size and relative power. Due to the variety in terrain, discrepancies in the analog nature of how models are moved around and can be bumped or finagled into and out of optimal positions, and inconsistencies in standard base sizes, conversions, and modelling for advantage/disadvantage, you will never be able to have an empirically balanced game. Unless the game moves to preset terrain and boards, and a hex-based or grid-based map for movement and range checking, and the players share from a common pool of dice free from being weighted, then you won't be able to have a truly "balanced" game.

In Warmachine & Hordes, the points became more granular from Mark 2 to 3, with army sizes roughly and almost doubling what they were in Mark 2. Back a few years ago I kept hearing from Warmahordes fanboys that Mark 2 is "super balanced" and "better than anything GW has ever done". But once I got into the game, I found that this was not true at all, and that it was just different. Not better and not worse as a game system, just different. I dropped out of the game before Mark 3 hit, but I have heard as much (if not more) complaining about the lack of balance and playtesting in Mark 3 that it is a mess of a game. And guess what? Mark 3 uses more granular, larger points numbers to calculate army size and strength. Sure, the lack of playtesting is an entirely different issues (that may or may not be an issue for 8th Edition 40K), but the benefits of a more granular points system versus a less granular point system is not something that in itself makes a game better in the case of Warmahordes.

I am willing to try the game without the super granular points that we have become used to, because the points won't be perfectly balanced either. Maybe I'm lucky in that I have enough local players that are untainted by the WAAC attitude that has plagued our local area for over 4 years now, but I have no problem asking any of my friends if they would want to try the game without Points OR Power Levels. Why? Because we can make the game fair for each opponent by coming up with something to weaken ourselves or boost our opponents. This may take some effort and a little bit more time, but it can be just as effective as the points system for making our games more even.

Age of Sigmar is selling better now that the General's Handbook is released, and I was one of those who never really tried the game without points before hand. That is partly due to the fact that so many players were afraid of the "pay-to-win-and-fill-the-board" and "infinite-summoner" players (of which I was concerned to face, given the WAAC attitude of several local players). But the idea that a game could be played without an official structuring system is completely foreign to so many players because they are worried about something beyond having a good time. In hindsight, it was a gutsy move on part of GW to do that, and I applaud them for trying to do something completely new and original compared to their game systems.

If you want a perfectly balanced game, then play an identical army to your opponent, on a 2-Fort style (perfectly mirrored terrain) board, sharing a common pool of dice and measuring tape, and see who wins. Heck, let's do that for tournaments - every player bring a pre-determined army designed by the tournament organizers. (Actually, this sounds like a pretty cool idea!).

[/ ]

So in summary, I have a new thesis statement for you all to ponder over: People aren't so much worried about BALANCED games, but FAIR games.

And what is considered fair is not always going to be based upon Points or Power Level, but on the subjective views of the players and what kind of game they are wanting to play, which comes down to the attitudes and desired experiences of the players - Casual or competitive, Narrative versus Matched versus Open, story based games versus going "pew-pew-pew" with your models.

Mark 2 had notable balance issues too with more than its share of no-brainer choices. Nobody used Trenchers as their main shtick was nullifiable by any spray or cover-ignoring unit, while almost every Menoth build went for the Reckoner as the go-to heavy Warjack due to superior speed, range melee, and an Assault gun that could actually be usable vs hard targets in a pinch. Likewise, so many army/tech gimmicks could be shut down with these four words: "I brought Examplar Errants." ("They remind me of Tactical Marines.")

I'm gonna refrain from answering this one because questions of this nature is inherently flawed and triggers huge (and often not very friendly) debates. Reason being:

1.) It goes without saying that everyone, at least on the outside, wants balance. We all want the idea that you're going into a completely fair game and not one where it's heavily skewed towards one particular faction or player. Which means that this question is a loaded one; anyone who says they don't want balance will be, at least implicitly, seen as the "bad guy".

2.) Everyone inherently wants to win. Even if you are just playing for fun, on some level you do want to win. You also want that win to be with the units of your army. But to win means to be better than someone, and more often than not this comes about as a result of an imbalance. Now this imbalance *should* be created by the player skill, but let's all admit it; if you somehow found the army you own has an inherent imbalance in favour of you, you'll want to use it. This is because you are invested in your own army, which creates an inherent bias for your units, your army, and ultimately your faction. And that is just for people who say they're all for balance and don't care about the win. The people who are unashamed WAACs will obviously not want this at all, since their entire purpose is to win and to achieve that goal through the easiest way possible. They *might* say they want balance but they don't, and it's very obvious from their tone and the things they complain about that they don't.

So with both in mind, I would like to say that this poll is perhaps best left alone, as I'm sure people will use it as a thinly veiled way to rant about the changes to their army and how other people are being unreasonable one way or another.

On a related note, even perfectly symmetrical games can become unbalanced. Extra Credits actually did a segment on this where in GO, the advantage afforded by simply going first was so good that, in the event of a tie, the second player wins by default. Same goes for chess now that I think about it. Unless a game is both symmetrical and allows for both players to act at the same time (say, many sports), even a game with identical sides can be unbalanced. Which is again why I think this question is very loaded and one that probably shouldn't have been asked.

Yes I want balance. I want every army to be viable and every unit to have a role or place.

Vague question; do I want balance in the game, or balance in fun between players?

Those two have different answers I think.

In the game. You can't balance fun by removing it from both players like a Handicapper-General of fun.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In the game. You can't balance fun by removing it from both players like a Handicapper-General of fun.

What about narrative games that are often inherently unbalanced?

 General Annoyance wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In the game. You can't balance fun by removing it from both players like a Handicapper-General of fun.

What about narrative games that are often inherently unbalanced?

An unbalanced-in-points game can be made fair. It will take the effort of the players to figure it out, but is entirely doable. I am of the mindset that every Narrative Game needs a GM to design or manage the game as well in case things get too one-sided.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Vague question; do I want balance in the game, or balance in fun between players?

Those two have different answers I think.

I don't think they do. The only people that would benefit from unbalanced gameplay are WAAC players. But a balanced game in my mind leads to more fun, as players can play more how they want to and less "what can I take that wont severly handicap me"

BunkhouseBuster wrote:An unbalanced-in-points game can be made fair. It will take the effort of the players to figure it out, but is entirely doable. I am of the mindset that every Narrative Game needs a GM to design or manage the game as well in case things get too one-sided.

A GM is always a great idea, however I don't think a game where you get crushed necessarily has to be a bad experience. Campaign games would be a good example of this, where your opponent outnumbers you by incredible odds, yet you can still play and enjoy the game as you try to cause as much loss within their forces before yours is wiped out.

However, unbalanced games usually suck because:

- They take most of the control away from you

- Your own moves and strategies have little to no effect

- There is a significant end game consequence, such as losing a large chunk of your forces pointlessly in a campaign setup, or just feeling like crap after

It's a tricky one to explain, but I don't think balance is the be all and end all of enjoyable TT gaming, although that should be no excuse to have a poorly balanced game.

TheLumberJack wrote:I don't think they do. The only people that would benefit from unbalanced gameplay are WAAC players. But a balanced game in my mind leads to more fun, as players can play more how they want to and less "what can I take that wont severly handicap me"

Balance is important, but you could have the perfectly balanced game and it could still suck, either because it's boring or mechanically all over the place. Evidently 40k is still a fun game despite being horrifically unbalanced, as people still play it regularly, "competitively" and "casually"

 JNAProductions wrote:
See title and poll question.

I, for one, voted yes.

Let me know if I should add more options.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Every time this discussion comes up it always devolves into an argument about the definition of "balance". Detractors love to point to symmetrical games (e.g. chess) and claim that individual armies would loose personality if the game were more "balanced".

I'm working off an interpretation of "balance" wherein there's a good reason to use all armies, units, and options, as opposed to a game where you'd never play a certain army or use a certain unit because it's bad. And in that sense I would vote "yes". I want to play a game where I can pick up any arbitrary unit, think "well, this looks cool", put it on the table, and be able to find a way to make it work, not a game where there's a chunk of stuff that's not worth using and I have to be penalized for thinking some of it's cool.

Good definition of balance, right there.

Should probably add/change a Yes option to something like "within reason" they are never going to achieve perfect balance and I don't think very many people think that is the case.

 General Annoyance wrote:

TheLumberJack wrote:I don't think they do. The only people that would benefit from unbalanced gameplay are WAAC players. But a balanced game in my mind leads to more fun, as players can play more how they want to and less "what can I take that wont severly handicap me"

Balance is important, but you could have the perfectly balanced game and it could still suck, either because it's boring or mechanically all over the place. Evidently 40k is still a fun game despite being horrifically unbalanced, as people still play it regularly, "competitively" and "casually"

I think fun however has to do with more than just balance however, its not a linear scale. People play 40k and have fun because of rules sure, but also because or lore, or because of models, etc. Does balance bring fun? Sure, but if that was the only factor then people would have jumped ship a long time ago

 General Annoyance wrote:

BunkhouseBuster wrote:An unbalanced-in-points game can be made fair. It will take the effort of the players to figure it out, but is entirely doable. I am of the mindset that every Narrative Game needs a GM to design or manage the game as well in case things get too one-sided.

A GM is always a great idea, however I don't think a game where you get crushed necessarily has to be a bad experience. Campaign games would be a good example of this, where your opponent outnumbers you by incredible odds, yet you can still play and enjoy the game as you try to cause as much loss within their forces before yours is wiped out.

It's a tricky one to explain, but I don't think balance is the be all and end all of enjoyable TT gaming, although that should be no excuse to have a poorly balanced game.

You and I are on the same page here, in that the purpose of the game can add significance to the experience, especially in the case of Narrative Play.

Which is why I am trying to convince people that Balance is not always going to be Fair, and that a scenario based game can modify an unbalanced army matchup to still be a fair (and fun!) game.

 TheLumberJack wrote:
I think fun however has to do with more than just balance however, its not a linear scale. People play 40k and have fun because of rules sure, but also because or lore, or because of models, etc. Does balance bring fun? Sure, but if that was the only factor then people would have jumped ship a long time ago

I think balance brings fun in an environment where no pre-game context or prep has been set up (i.e. a pickup game), as there it is perhaps the most important element to having an enjoyable experience. Equally, I think a lot of people don't understand that a game does not have to be in your favour to be enjoyable; similar to what Bunkhouse said, it's about having a good scenario or at least some good players to make the experience enjoyable.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
You and I are on the same page here, in that the purpose of the game can add significance to the experience, especially in the case of Narrative Play.

Which is why I am trying to convince people that Balance is not always going to be Fair, and that a scenario based game can modify an unbalanced army matchup to still be a fair (and fun!) game.

I'm not following your second line; what's the difference between balance and fair play? Surely those two things are inherently identical to each other?

 General Annoyance wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In the game. You can't balance fun by removing it from both players like a Handicapper-General of fun.

What about narrative games that are often inherently unbalanced?

They are not often imbalanced. Or shouldn't be. They SHOULD be asymmetrically balanced.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
You and I are on the same page here, in that the purpose of the game can add significance to the experience, especially in the case of Narrative Play.

Which is why I am trying to convince people that Balance is not always going to be Fair, and that a scenario based game can modify an unbalanced army matchup to still be a fair (and fun!) game.

I'm not following your second line; what's the difference between balance and fair play? Surely those two things are inherently identical to each other?

Similar, but not the exact same. By my definitions and interpretations, I am referring to "Balance" in the sense of the published Points values that are used to determine model, unit, upgrade, and army size and strength, which is what has been argued over in several threads recently. For example, an army may be "Balanced" and fit the rules of the game (points, composition, etc.), but it may not be "Fair" to play against someone who is not prepared for that particular list.

And to use your example, yet, you can have a fun game where your army is outnumbered and is holding the line as long as possible. Such a game would not be "Balanced", but it may be "Fair" if the smaller army has been given a slight bonus or something, or not depending on what all else is going on in that particular Narrative. It can still be a fun experience too without having "Balance" or being "Fair".

 Lance845 wrote:
They are not often imbalanced. Or shouldn't be. They SHOULD be asymmetrically balanced.

What does that actually mean, though?

Is a scenario where my Blood Ravens are outnumbered 10 to 1 by a legion of Nihilakh Dynasty Necrons "asymmetrically balanced"?

Does it sound like fun when I have the chance to make a heroic last stand to burn as many filthy xenos as I can before I lose? Hell yeah it does.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Similar, but not the exact same. By my definitions and interpretations, I am referring to "Balance" in the sense of the published Points values that are used to determine model, unit, upgrade, and army size and strength, which is what has been argued over in several threads recently. For example, an army may be "Balanced" and fit the rules of the game (points, composition, etc.), but it may not be "Fair" to play against someone who is not prepared for that particular list.

In the case of that example though, is the downfall in fair play down to the game being unbalanced due to relative unit strength to point ratios, or because a player hasn't prepared their list properly?

And to use your example, yet, you can have a fun game where your army is outnumbered and is holding the line as long as possible. Such a game would not be "Balanced", but it may be "Fair" if the smaller army has been given a slight bonus or something, or not depending on what all else is going on in that particular Narrative. It can still be a fun experience too without having "Balance" or being "Fair".

Sorry if I'm being thick, but I still don't see the difference between Balance and Fair. Perhaps giving that small army a bonus or deployment advantage is a fair way to set up the scenario, but the game still isn't "fair" by any means

I want balance as long as the armies remain noticeably different in playstyle.

When I say I want balance I want players (within reason no taking 100 pyrovores then complaining you cannot kill a Knight) to be able to play with the models they like with the expectation that even if they don't win the game will be close.

I like when there are multiple options for each roll in an army, and that all are at least remotely similar in effectiveness if used correctly.

At the worst, choice of faction should not be a deciding factor in winning and losing if player skill is close.

The problem with balance is that wargames are maked by humans.
And as humans, they have limits.

I'm not calling GW rule writers good ones, because they are mediocre at best, but if you want a good balance you need to strip options and flavour.

And thats something that every good rule-writer knows. Kings of War? Balanced. Warhammer Fans? Call it bland.
Infinity? Pretty balanced. Again, balanced achieve at the cost of variety.

The problem is that people don't understand that the scale and variety of warhammer 40k can't be balanced by the humans you have working in the Wargames industry.

See for example 8th edition: Bland! My army is bland, boring! No legion thraits, no chaos marks, no Chapter Tactics, everyone does the same, boring, boring!

People... didn't you know... thats HOW you achieve balance in a game so big?

Perfect balance isn't possible, but theres degrees of balance. You see, some people in this thread, calling for balance, are the sames that call GW "the old GW" because they have erased rules like the looted wagon, a concept that goes agains't all kind of balance in a competitive game.
A faction having access to vehicles of all other factions, even them being worse? Absurd.


And to me thats the problem. People don't know what they want, and don't realise the limits of the medium they are playing.

They want all the flavour, they want their army to be all special snowflakes full of rules and customization, at the same time they want hundreds of units and options, and at the same time they ask for balance at a degree that is impossible without sacrificing the others two.

People should have more realistic espectations.

And I'll say it again: I'm not in any shape or form using this to defend the poor rule writing of GW. But I can bash bot GW AND the players of Warhammer40k at the same time.


Why is Starcraft so balanced? 3 factions. 30 units per faction. Enjoy.

I said yes, but realistically? No.

What I want is an engrossing product which gives me a need/purpose for all of the units available to my army, and preferably a fantastic range of well thought out scenarios (or even "historical" scenarios) with which to use them. There is nothing more nauseating to me than the balanced "let's move across the table and try to gather points..." approach to a wargame.

The only thing I've heard of even remotely close to this in a 40K aspect is some of the scenarios mentioned in a few of the older Forge World books. The generic "fight to the death" nature of most wargames is fine, but really feels like the kiddie pool after a few games. Most importantly because this is where meta/mathhammer/super net lists seem to originate. That's some yawn-inducing garbage right there.

While I have no interest in playing 2000 points vs. a 2000 point Knight list in a standard game of "punch me, then I punch you" 40K....I'd gladly play a scenario designed around such an encounter. Start the knights on the short edge of the table and have them attempt to break through a heavily fortified line being held by support weapons and infantry, etc. Sure, even if one side is out-gunned/out-numbered. Give the game some kind of actual story-telling purpose and I'm fine. Play a game where the scenario dictates you run nothing but Space Marine scouts against an Imperial Guard artillery position etc. Sure, go nuts.

EDIT: I agree very much with Galas that GW's writers have gone over-board with unit special snowflake rules. People think they want them, but really it doesn't add anything to the game. The game lost nothing when an Eldar lascannon was just like an Imperial lascannon or an Ork lascannon. The statline should separate units, not hundreds of special rules. That's a serious downfall of the game to me - and one of the things I see that frustrates most players when you have cheesy chapter tactics or some nonsense "feth you" rule for all of your models, etc.

Every army should be balanced such that you would not be surprised to see any given army in a tournament. Every army should also be viable as the core of such a list, with the exception of armies designed to act as supplementary forces (inquisition or assassins most obviously).

Each army should also be balanced such that no unit lacks a role within the army, or whose role is obviously fulfilled better by another unit within the army.

If you can manage both those, you've gotten things as balanced as you can reasonably expect them to be. Unless you want to heavily reduce the complexity of the game and number of units/armies that exist. Balance is extremely important up to a certain point, but minor imbalances (some units only feeling extremely specific roles or being useful in extremely specific scenarios, some armies still being viable but having a bit of an uphill battle and needing more external support) aren't as big a deal. Just get things close enough.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Similar, but not the exact same. By my definitions and interpretations, I am referring to "Balance" in the sense of the published Points values that are used to determine model, unit, upgrade, and army size and strength, which is what has been argued over in several threads recently. For example, an army may be "Balanced" and fit the rules of the game (points, composition, etc.), but it may not be "Fair" to play against someone who is not prepared for that particular list.

In the case of that example though, is the downfall in fair play down to the game being unbalanced due to relative unit strength to point ratios, or because a player hasn't prepared their list properly?

And to use your example, yet, you can have a fun game where your army is outnumbered and is holding the line as long as possible. Such a game would not be "Balanced", but it may be "Fair" if the smaller army has been given a slight bonus or something, or not depending on what all else is going on in that particular Narrative. It can still be a fun experience too without having "Balance" or being "Fair".

Sorry if I'm being thick, but I still don't see the difference between Balance and Fair. Perhaps giving that small army a bonus or deployment advantage is a fair way to set up the scenario, but the game still isn't "fair" by any means

I am using the point-to-strength ratios as my reference to Balance, with consideration given to army construction requirements. The rules and points as published are the Balance, with any Narrative scenario advantages, fan-made rules, and on-the-fly game changes by a GM as an attempt to make it a Fair game.

In your example of a Last Stand for your army against a larger one, it would not be Balanced according to the rules as written, but it could still be a Fair game based on scenario bonuses or advantages (like getting first turn to the defenders, a boost to shooting for a turn, whatever).

Balance is for tournaments, Fair is for everyone else, maybe? Does that help? I think I am being think myself on these (it's been a slow, boring day at work).

Everyone benefits from a balanced game. The same way everyone benefits from clearly written rules.

Its a no brainer.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
They are not often imbalanced. Or shouldn't be. They SHOULD be asymmetrically balanced.

What does that actually mean, though?

Is a scenario where my Blood Ravens are outnumbered 10 to 1 by a legion of Nihilakh Dynasty Necrons "asymmetrically balanced"?

Does it sound like fun when I have the chance to make a heroic last stand to burn as many filthy xenos as I can before I lose? Hell yeah it does.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Similar, but not the exact same. By my definitions and interpretations, I am referring to "Balance" in the sense of the published Points values that are used to determine model, unit, upgrade, and army size and strength, which is what has been argued over in several threads recently. For example, an army may be "Balanced" and fit the rules of the game (points, composition, etc.), but it may not be "Fair" to play against someone who is not prepared for that particular list.

In the case of that example though, is the downfall in fair play down to the game being unbalanced due to relative unit strength to point ratios, or because a player hasn't prepared their list properly?

And to use your example, yet, you can have a fun game where your army is outnumbered and is holding the line as long as possible. Such a game would not be "Balanced", but it may be "Fair" if the smaller army has been given a slight bonus or something, or not depending on what all else is going on in that particular Narrative. It can still be a fun experience too without having "Balance" or being "Fair".

Sorry if I'm being thick, but I still don't see the difference between Balance and Fair. Perhaps giving that small army a bonus or deployment advantage is a fair way to set up the scenario, but the game still isn't "fair" by any means

Symmetrical balance is chess. Both players have the same pieces in the same set up with the same moves. Everything is equal. Asymmetrical balance is actually represented (historically very poorly) in Warhammer 40k. Each army has different units with different abilities and as a result the game has much more flexibility. A good video game example could be Golden Eye or Halo 1-3 where in multiplayer every player is basically the same. They can all make the same moves and have the same abilities. It's what they do with it that matters. Where as in Team Fortress 2 each class is very different with very different capabilities but are balanced against each other in various ways.

The standard mission types in 40k are all symmetrically balanced. A narrative mission with asymmetrical balance makes use of different deployment zones, different point limits, the inclusion or exclusion of fortifications, different objectives and the like to build a (preferably) balanced mission that gives each side a fair chance to win while not giving them the same tools.

A good board game example is Descent. Or any other board game where 1 player controls the monsters vs the player party. A well balanced version of this (I think Descent 2nd ed is) has each side having different goals with different tools but any decision by any player can swing the match one way or the other.


Narrative games can be balanced. Any game can be balanced. Asymmetrical balance is a lot harder but harder is not impossible. It's also almost always more interesting.

I will say the poll is silly. No one wants the best balance possible, because that's literally everyone playing the same army without variation (such as chess). This is always the best balance possible because there will always be at least minor issues balance between different armies or lists.

Similarly, no one thinks balance isn't important. If balance didn't matter at all we wouldn't need points or power levels to play (and anyone who did AoS pick up games before those were around can tell you you need some sort of balancing factor if you want to have fun).

Everyone just disagrees about the weighting of balance and more flavorful and interesting mechanics. Because it is a trade off, and anyone arguing for hypothetical perfect balance that doesn't sacrifice the majority of what makes the game fun isn't being realistic.

BunkhouseBuster wrote:I am using the point-to-strength ratios as my reference to Balance, with consideration given to army construction requirements. The rules and points as published are the Balance, with any Narrative scenario advantages, fan-made rules, and on-the-fly game changes by a GM as an attempt to make it a Fair game.

In your example of a Last Stand for your army against a larger one, it would not be Balanced according to the rules as written, but it could still be a Fair game based on scenario bonuses or advantages (like getting first turn to the defenders, a boost to shooting for a turn, whatever).

So Fair in this context means giving each player some kind of benefit to prevent the side with the larger army from just steamrolling?

I think I get you now!

There must be a better word to describe that though; fair implies that the match is giving each player an equal chance of winning, which doesn't have to be the case in narrative play.

Balance is for tournaments, Fair is for everyone else, maybe? Does that help? I think I am being think myself on these (it's been a slow, boring day at work).

I do think that tournament games need balance and fair play, but yes, I get your point now. Cheers

Lance845 wrote:The standard mission types in 40k are all symmetrically balanced. A narrative mission with asymmetrical balance makes use of different deployment zones, different point limits, the inclusion or exclusion of fortifications, different objectives and the like to build a (preferably) balanced mission that gives each side a fair chance to win while not giving them the same tools.

A good board game example is Descent. Or any other board game where 1 player controls the monsters vs the player party. A well balanced version of this (I think Descent 2nd ed is) has each side having different goals with different tools but any decision by any player can swing the match one way or the other.


Narrative games can be balanced. Any game can be balanced. Asymmetrical balance is a lot harder but harder is not impossible. It's also almost always more interesting.

I think any regular game of 40k is meant to be asymmetrically balanced, since the whole nature of the game is that different armies play differently. However, a narrative game does not have to be balanced to be a good experience, symmetrically or asymmetrically.

 General Annoyance wrote:
There must be a better word to describe that though; fair implies that the match is giving each player an equal chance of winning, which doesn't have to be the case in narrative play.

Indeed. I am finding my vocabulary lacking in trying to come up with terms and discourse that fit with Casual, Narrative, and non-Competitive gaming situations. Time to break out the dictionary again...

 General Annoyance wrote:
I do think that tournament games need balance and fair play, but yes, I get your point now. Cheers

Huzzah! The written word succeeds again!

I voted yes. I am ok if a list has the synergy to wipe another list off the table if a person knows how to get the most out of their list. With that being said, every army should have a counter for every other army in the game. At that point it come down to what did you being as opposed to what I brought. And unit versus unit matchups, playing to your army's Strengths while attack your opponent's weaknesses is the key to a great game.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In the game. You can't balance fun by removing it from both players like a Handicapper-General of fun.

What about narrative games that are often inherently unbalanced?

I play almost entirely "narrative" games both in 40k and my other favorite games bolt action and x wing. My answer is absolutely yes, I want balance to be as close as possible precisely because I want to inject imbalance into scenarios in an engaging fashion, not just because. The imbalance isn't there because I don't want balance, it's there to tell the story of the battle.

So it allows me to set up a scenario where a defender is absolutely going to "lose", but he can still pull off a strategic win if he can hold onto at least 2 of the 4 objectives until turn 5, for example. Both the attacker and the defender should have roughly equal chances of achieving their objectives, it's just that for the defender it's not destroying the other army.

I hope that makes sense. Frankly I don't understand why everyone keeps saying narrative = imbalance/casual in the sense that both players shouldn't have a good chance at "winning". They absolutely should, it's just that narrative games often change what constitutes winning. I put several times the effort into narrative games than one off competitive matches because they're trickier to get right, and I appreciate a system where the designers do the same to make it as easy as possible for me to do what I'm trying to do.

On another note, balance shouldn't come at the cost of player agency. Arguably, a game like Chutes&Ladders is balanced. You could argue it's also technically not a game because you're not making any choice in-game.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
On another note, balance shouldn't come at the cost of player agency. Arguably, a game like Chutes&Ladders is balanced. You could argue it's also technically not a game because you're not making any choice in-game.

Correct. Chutes & Ladders is actually not a game lol, It's more a training tool to introduce children to basic game systems.

I voted for the 'somewhat' option because I appreciate a reasonably balanced game, in which I have a chance to win no mater what my opponent puts on the table, but in the past I have seen the ceaseless thirst for balance have a deleterious effect on variety and asymmetry in a game system because it is much easier to balance things that way.

Also, and maybe I am strange, I rather enjoy using under powered weapons, characters or strategies in games. I enjoy the challenge of figuring out how to mitigate their disadvantages and capitalise on their strengths and the thrill I get when they actually exceed offsets the majority of the times when they don't haha!

A fully balanced game is not attainable.
I think the problem is NP hard but I havent proved it.
The game is too large to be balancable.

So, for any of the people who voted "No", care to share your opinion? Or did you already and I just missed it?

I voted for the best balance possible, and understand this to mean that it's not possible to be totally balanced due to the amount of variables and army composition choices.
As close as they can get is fine by me. I think in seventh they didn't even try.

New editions are like new presidents. People seem to give them too much benefit of the doubt.

I remember when 6th first came out and people said it would bring balance to 40k and that 5th "had gotten stale".

Then I remember people saying 7th would bring balance to 40k, as the initial wave of codexes were...very toned down in power compared to their 5e incarnations.

I seriously doubt there will be much difference this edition, as GW oscillates between "no options" vs "everything is awesome" faster than a politician's promises.

 Huron black heart wrote:
I voted for the best balance possible, and understand this to mean that it's not possible to be totally balanced due to the amount of variables and army composition choices.
As close as they can get is fine by me. I think in seventh they didn't even try.

Yeah. That's why I didn't say "Perfect Balance". That's just not possible in a game as complex as 40k.

That being said, they can do a better job.

Good rules make a healthier competitive scene and make casual play more likely to run smoothly.

I don't expect perfect balance (it's GW... also, IDK if any game has achieved that), but I certainly would appreciate an environment where good balance is considered a reasonable aim. I really didn't expect some of the backlash I saw when I commented that there are potentially massive disparities between points and power, responded with a pair of arguments "players should balance their own games" and "points disparities should be exploited as a skill".

Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible just not in 40K with several different races.

But you sure as fekke can get better than 7th.

hobojebus wrote:
Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible just not in 40K with several different races.

But you sure as fekke can get better than 7th.

No, the whites one have an advantage for beginning first.

 Galas wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible just not in 40K with several different races.

But you sure as fekke can get better than 7th.

No, the whites one have an advantage for beginning first.

Or the disadvantage of revealing their stratagy first.

hobojebus wrote:

 Galas wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible just not in 40K with several different races.

But you sure as fekke can get better than 7th.

No, the whites one have an advantage for beginning first.

Or the disadvantage of revealing their stratagy first.

No, it's a well established fact in the Chess world that the advantage is to white.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

EDIT: Ninja'd!

 Purifier wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Galas wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible just not in 40K with several different races.

But you sure as fekke can get better than 7th.

No, the whites one have an advantage for beginning first.

Or the disadvantage of revealing their stratagy first.

No, it's a well established fact in the Chess world that the advantage is to white.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

Sorry when did we cross over into talking about world class games? here I thought we were on about regular gamers playing at clubs and stores.

Hobojebus, isn't necesary to move the goalpost so further away from the point when you are wrong. I have been wrong many times. People correct you. You learn something new, life continues.

When were goalposts set? Can you point out where anyone said this thread was only about high end tournaments?

Because if that's the case sure in pro chess white has an advantage, but if we are just talking about average joes like me then it makes no real difference according to that article.

So if I play some rando at chess and I get white its highly unlikely I as a pleb will gain that 5% advantage meaning chances are 50/50.

You guys need to learn to not engage with some of the people on forums lol.

 auticus wrote:
You guys need to learn to not engage with some of the people on forums lol.

If your not willing to defend your point of view then its clearly worthless, besides a good spirited discussion is fun and intellectually stimulating.

Cowards refuse to hear opposing views.

Balance can exist outside of a mirror match like chess. Starcraft, while not perfect, is MUCH closer than 40K has ever been. Even a heads up game of Civ 5 is better balanced for most of the factions. This is GW's first attempt at giving a crap. Most of my play group is stoked, including many who quit in late 5th ed because of IG/BA/GK/Necrons.

The notion I see trotted around here of perfect imbalance is, to me, nonsense. Units should cost what they are empirically worth. Said units can have very different roles, and these costs may certainly shift over time.

Necrons were actually lower tier in 5th it was sixth that massively boosted them.

Gk and sw razorback spam were too strong certainly, don't remember ba being that great.

BA were very strong. Some people claim they were a problem, but I was beaten by Orks on a regular basis. IG/GK/SW/BA were all strong in 5th due to parking lots.

BA did not have psybolt ammo or super undercosted chimera spam going for them, though.

Lots of Xeno players forget how incredibly pedestrian vanilla marines were. They regularly lost to Orks and Tau in 5th.

Man I miss orks being a threat on the table, hull points devastated their ability to cross the board reliably and green tide just got slaughtered.

I hope we're wrong about orks in 8th sincerely.

Orks look good in 8th. But I don't even have my books yet. They've got their 4th ed morale back, and that alone helps a LOT. They're also base S4.

hobojebus wrote:

 auticus wrote:
You guys need to learn to not engage with some of the people on s lol.

If your not willing to defend your point of view then its clearly worthless, besides a good spirited discussion is fun and intellectually stimulating.

Cowards refuse to hear opposing views.

Like people that dismiss arguments and claim their are oranges to apples? Hasn't happened in this thread.

Martel732 wrote:
Orks look good in 8th. But I don't even have my books yet. They've got their 4th ed morale back, and that alone helps a LOT. They're also base S4.

their biggest boost was the new mob rule. much less likely to run off. a 30 man blob will only possibly run off on a roll of a 6 after 16 casualties removed. and that is assuming no bigger unit is within 6 inches.

vehicle buffs are a mixed bag, w lost open topped so no move the BW, get out, waaagh to run then charge, but they can barring melta usually rush up, weather the first turn then get out and charge turn 2 or 3.

I am optimistic about a lot of their stuff, though I am still dumbfounded by the 900 point base stompa unless GW just wants to sell more morka and gorkanaughts.

It's got 40 wounds. You have to pay for that. Maybe they got it wrong, though. They might be erring on the side of caution for now after the riptide debacle.

Starcraft has gone through a lot of patches throughout its history though and there is still a fair bit of debate over whether it is as balanced as fans like to claim it is (there historically had been a far heavier preference for Terran and Zerg over Protoss at high-level play). One thing Blizzard has been good at is fixing notable exploits in their system like the Shooting Shuttle.

Back in the day, Reavers could fire super-powerful bomb drones, but they had to be built using resources, and firing them had a pretty hefty cooldown. Since embarking/disembarking from a Shuttle or other transport automatically reset the cooldown, one player found that extreme micro let him load/reload his Reaver to get all of its drones out in an alphastrike the game devs did not anticipate.

The GW approach to balance would probably be "no more than half your army may be Reavers" or some other cap that doesn't address the core issue!

I care about balance. It's not a 1000% omg wtf bbq must hab at the expense of every other thing in the game-- if it was, I'd be playing checkers (because chess is way too unbalanced, queens, rooks, and bishops are OP). But internal and external balance, while keeping flavor, is important.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Starcraft has gone through a lot of patches throughout its history though and there is still a fair bit of debate over whether it is as balanced as fans like to claim it is (there historically had been a far heavier preference for Terran and Zerg over Protoss at high-level play). One thing Blizzard has been good at is fixing notable exploits in their system like the Shooting Shuttle.

Back in the day, Reavers could fire super-powerful bomb drones, but they had to be built using resources, and firing them had a pretty hefty cooldown. Since embarking/disembarking from a Shuttle or other transport automatically reset the cooldown, one player found that extreme micro let him load/reload his Reaver to get all of its drones out in an alphastrike the game devs did not anticipate.

The GW approach to balance would probably be "no more than half your army may be Reavers" or some other cap that doesn't address the core issue!

Well, "no more than half your army being Reavers" wouldn't address the surface issue either, since shuttles make up the other half!

GW has always failed at translating flavor to the game, imo. Where are the 500 tyranids per game?

Martel732 wrote:
GW has always failed at translating flavor to the game, imo. Where are the 500 tyranids per game?

Or they fail in translating the game to the fluff. The books can say "one squad of Grey Knights versus an entire daemonic incursion..." but if you have to paint hundreds of models to play Daemons and only a dozen to play Grey Knights who's going to play Daemons?

You guys are acting like GW's fluff is, in and of itself, consistent. Foolish, that

Martel732 wrote:
It's got 40 wounds. You have to pay for that. Maybe they got it wrong, though. They might be erring on the side of caution for now after the riptide debacle.

As an Ork player, I would not say the Mob Rule or lack thereof was the main issue for many builds, so much as that the army has become increasingly one-dimensional ever since Andy Chambers left. From losing functional Zzap Guns and Turbo Boostas, to losing looted vehicles to round out their capabilities, losing functional Deep Strike/Infiltrate (Nazdreg's Kunnin Plan) in the 3rd to 4th transition, then seeing the viability of Warbuggies and Kans plummet from 5th to 6th, to losing functional Deffrollas and Bike Troops and Nob Troops and making Lootas compete with Kannons from 6th to 7th, while requiring a Warboss to even Waaagh in the first place.

The army has become very much about the Boyz, but the tools to make them work have been fairly sidelined. You get your Tankbustas and Deffkoptas and Mek Gunz and call it good, while Bikes were only a choice if you're running Zhadsnark. An Ork army should be both Kunnin and Brutal, or was that Brutal and Kunnin. Be it Kommandos firing smoke grenades in front of enemy Devastators, Bubble Chuckas creating temporary forcefields to wall off enemy escapes, or even giving Grots access to longer-ranged weapons so that Ork Snipers isn't just a euphemism for Inquisitorial shenanigans. Be it Battlewagons with Grabbin Klaws being able to pull enemy Rhinos off objectives, or even Lootas being able to commandeer enemy vehicles in-game, there's a lot of potential for Orks to have comedic hijinks that actually result in emergent tactical decisions while not being reduced to "hurrhurr, random charts is funny" like 4e Trukk Explosion rules.

Martel732 wrote:
It's got 40 wounds. You have to pay for that. Maybe they got it wrong, though. They might be erring on the side of caution for now after the riptide debacle.

true, it has 40 wounds, but it is 900 base, no inv save

Imperial knight is 320 base and has 24 though. though it has a 5++ inv to shooting making it ~ 32 wounds to shooting

once kitted the IK seems on paper to be better than the stompa barring lucky rolls on the stopma part. roughly the same in cc but the ik deadlier at range

(heavy d6 / heavy 2 D6 shots looks nice but you still are looking at averaging 2/4 hits)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GW has always failed at translating flavor to the game, imo. Where are the 500 tyranids per game?

Or they fail in translating the game to the fluff. The books can say "one squad of Grey Knights versus an entire daemonic incursion..." but if you have to paint hundreds of models to play Daemons and only a dozen to play Grey Knights who's going to play Daemons?

To be fair, I remember the 3rd ed Daemonhunter Codex let Daemon players do "Without Number" DS reinforcements, and there was that whole fluffy narrative section for allowing your character to be possessed/have Daemon allies. (Which could potentially lead to hilarity like a Daemon-possessed Necron Lord) or the Witch Hunters fighting Psyker Dark Eldar.

Rather silly but little things like that *could* in theory be exploited for making narrative asymmetric advantages between factions.

Maybe they got it wrong, then. I'm thinking many erratas are coming in the next year. Or they fix it in the codex.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe they got it wrong, then. I'm thinking many erratas are coming in the next year. Or they fix it in the codex.

hopefully, its not a huge deal. and i did not add there the transport capacity 20 though still not seeing the points change. morka and gorkanaughts look good though so my stompas shall stay counts as gorka and morkanaughts with magnetized weapons

No one is likely to care if you do that.

Can meks repair these things? That might make a difference?

it seems like a mek can repair 1 wound, a big mek can repair D3. but it is one repair per vehicle no matter how many6 meks there are, and does not say it can be repaired from inside. it appeas no more 7th edition unkillabel stompa with 2 big meks, 2 regular meks and 3-6 loota meks in there

After the 4E debacle stemming from it "all balance, all the time", I have shied away from cries for uber-balance in other games.

That does not mean that I want an unbalanced system, but I don't want that balancing to become so much of a concern that it interferes with my enjoyment of the game. - the armies should feel and act different, not just be redressings of black and white chess pieces, and preferably no unit or option should be utter trash. A particular option/unit may not cater to a particular player's playstyle, but it should work for a significant number of players if they choose to use them.

 Stormonu wrote:
After the 4E debacle stemming from it "all balance, all the time", I have shied away from cries for uber-balance in other games.

That does not mean that I want an unbalanced system, but I don't want that balancing to become so much of a concern that it interferes with my enjoyment of the game. - the armies should feel and act different, not just be redressings of black and white chess pieces, and preferably no unit or option should be utter trash. A particular option/unit may not cater to a particular player's playstyle, but it should work for a significant number of players if they choose to use them.

See, here we go again. "Redressings of black and white chess pieces" isn't balance, it's symmetry. It may be easier to achieve balance in a highly symmetrical game since there are fewer variables you have to consider, but balance is a property independent of symmetry that can exist to different degrees in both symmetrical and asymmetrical games. (The bit of your post right after "black and white chess pieces" is a much more apt/accurate description of "balance" than the comparison to chess earlier in the post is.)

In starcraft, marines are 50 min, zerglings are 25 min, zealots are 100 min. They all have very different uses but are balanced within the confines of the game. The whole chess analogy is complete BS. Balance has nothing to do with similarity.

hobojebus wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Galas wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible just not in 40K with several different races.

But you sure as fekke can get better than 7th.

No, the whites one have an advantage for beginning first.

Or the disadvantage of revealing their stratagy first.

No, it's a well established fact in the Chess world that the advantage is to white.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

Sorry when did we cross over into talking about world class games? here I thought we were on about regular gamers playing at clubs and stores.

You said it has "perfect balance." It does not. You being bad at the game doesn't reflect on whether the game has perfect balance or not, and has absolutely nothing to do with the claim.

Nice ad hominem there, why assume I'm bad rather than average or good rather than great?

Also I already conceded that in high level play white does have an advantage, but at the level I play it doesn't have a big impact as mentioned in the linked wikki article.

I'm not wanting to jump in the argument, just adding to the board game balance discussion. The closest game I can think of with perfect balance would be Go. White plays second but gets an extra half a point in that sides favor.

hobojebus wrote:
Nice ad hominem there, why assume I'm bad rather than average or good rather than great?

Also I already conceded that in high level play white does have an advantage, but at the level I play it doesn't have a big impact as mentioned in the linked wikki article.

Nice ad hominem fallacy. The perceived insult doesn't in any way change the argument. You conceded butt-all. We're talking about the game, and whether or not it has perfect balance. Your relative skill in the game has exactly zero impact on how well balanced the game is. Your skill only affects whether it's balanced enough for you. Your argument was that:

Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible

They do not. No matter how much you try to bend it to "well, I'm sort of right," you just aren't. The games do not have perfect balance, end of discussion. With your reasoning, if I'm bad enough at 7th 40k, and my opponent is too, then 7th 40k has perfect balance. I'm sure you can tell how absurd that sounds. Our relative skills in no way makes the game of 40k have perfect balance.

Tic-tac-toe is perfectly balanced. As long as both players know the exact moves, it's impossible to win the game. Yayyyyyy.

There *should* be an unstable equilibrium in a game in order to actually speed up the game once one player starts getting an advantage. Case in point, take Shogi. Shogi is similar to chess ("protect your king, checkmate the enemy king") but with a few differences: Rather than an 8x8 board, it's a 9x9 board, and rather than white and black, both players have the same pieces, which are almost like dominoes with a "direction"/"arrow" and Kanji saying what they are. While the move options are generally more restricted (pawns only move and capture straight and don't have a double-advance, there's only one bishop/rook per player, there's no queen analogue, and each piece has a specific promotion), Shogi also is very unlikely to result in a Stalemate for one simple reason:

When you capture an opponent's piece, you hold onto it. When it's your turn, rather than moving any of your pieces, you can place a piece you captured down anywhere on the board, on your side, with restrictions: can't own two pawns on the same column, can't deploy a piece into a promotion spot, and can't deploy a Pawn that it would checkmate the enemy King (you could plop down any other unit to pull this off though). You could think of it as "zombie chess" but the original rationale was that you recruited captured regiments to fight for you instead, and the "one redeploy per turn" represented logistics, negotiating a new contract, etc. Because losing pieces early on is so dangerous, the game starts off far more defensively but once the piece-trading ensues, the end result is a lot faster than how chess has many possible stalemate scenarios.

A game that is in fact perfectly balanced is simultaneous Battleship. As long as you don't alternate moves, you will both have exactly equal chance to pull off anything, and there is in fact no reason to alternate, other than that doing it simultaneously can end in an unlikely draw.

Could also just say that whoever didn't start gets one more move when the game ends to attempt to draw it. Since losses in Battleship in no way hinders your own offensive ability, it stays balanced throughout.

People want balance, but people also want to blame their losses on imbalance. Look at any video game.

In the end if you wanna win a tournament you have nobody to blame but yourself. Everybody have the freedom to pick the strongest faction and the strongest units which in the end you have to do if you want to win.

The only problem with miniatures games is that if your faction turns to shieet you have to buy a new one which cost a lot of money and take a long time to paint.

And some of the most expensive units can be the best which makes it kind of pay to win.

But in the end one thing I know is that most losers blame everything but themselves and always will.

 Purifier wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Nice ad hominem there, why assume I'm bad rather than average or good rather than great?

Also I already conceded that in high level play white does have an advantage, but at the level I play it doesn't have a big impact as mentioned in the linked wikki article.

Nice ad hominem fallacy. The perceived insult doesn't in any way change the argument. You conceded butt-all. We're talking about the game, and whether or not it has perfect balance. Your relative skill in the game has exactly zero impact on how well balanced the game is. Your skill only affects whether it's balanced enough for you. Your argument was that:

Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible

They do not. No matter how much you try to bend it to "well, I'm sort of right," you just aren't. The games do not have perfect balance, end of discussion. With your reasoning, if I'm bad enough at 7th 40k, and my opponent is too, then 7th 40k has perfect balance. I'm sure you can tell how absurd that sounds. Our relative skills in no way makes the game of 40k have perfect balance.

Double down if you want but we'll only end up in a recursive loop, player skill should always count for something or there's no point playing to begin with, the whole motivation behind wanting balanced gameplay is so skill rather than random luck decides the winner.

And I really don't see the need for you to make this so personal there was no reason for it to go that way, calling me a liar is an unnecessary escalation they'll only end badly for one us.

Passion is fine but is it really worth a ban for breaking rule 1? Let's try to keep it civil.

hobojebus wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Nice ad hominem there, why assume I'm bad rather than average or good rather than great?

Also I already conceded that in high level play white does have an advantage, but at the level I play it doesn't have a big impact as mentioned in the linked wikki article.

Nice ad hominem fallacy. The perceived insult doesn't in any way change the argument. You conceded butt-all. We're talking about the game, and whether or not it has perfect balance. Your relative skill in the game has exactly zero impact on how well balanced the game is. Your skill only affects whether it's balanced enough for you. Your argument was that:

Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible

They do not. No matter how much you try to bend it to "well, I'm sort of right," you just aren't. The games do not have perfect balance, end of discussion. With your reasoning, if I'm bad enough at 7th 40k, and my opponent is too, then 7th 40k has perfect balance. I'm sure you can tell how absurd that sounds. Our relative skills in no way makes the game of 40k have perfect balance.

Double down if you want but we'll only end up in a recursive loop, player skill should always count for something or there's no point playing to begin with, the whole motivation behind wanting balanced gameplay is so skill rather than random luck decides the winner.

And I really don't see the need for you to make this so personal there was no reason for it to go that way, calling me a liar is an unnecessary escalation they'll only end badly for one us.

Passion is fine but is it really worth a ban for breaking rule 1? Let's try to keep it civil.

I'm not attacking you, and I'm not calling you a liar, but I guess if playing the victim is all you have left, it's all you have left. You can just admit you're wrong and that's the end of it. Personal skill has nothing to do with whether the game in itself is intrinsically perfectly balanced as you claimed. I'm not "doubling down." I'm trying to explain a very simple concept to you. A game's balance is not affected by who is playing it. If two 4 year olds play 40k, that doesn't magically make the game perfectly balanced. Why are you completely disregarding all of my arguments and instead playing the victim card, or accusing me of doing things I'm not?

From having spent about a year designing azyr comp for AOS I will tell you firsthand that most people really do NOT want balance.

A good chunk of people enjoy listbuilding, which requires bad unbalanced items on both ends of the spectrum.

If you had real tight balance, then 2000 points of my stuff would always be about the same power as 2000 points of your stuff. Which would make listbuilding not really a thing anymore. Which would enrage a lot of people.

No, that's also a fallacy. Composition matters. While starcraft has good balance, 200 marines die to 4 colossi , while 10 marauders and 10 vikings kill the colossi easily.

Uh huh. I don't really think so.

I've been a part of many-a-listbuilding thread where it was apparent that people want undercosted and overcosted items so that you have to have "skill" in picking the undercosted items.

Of course thats not universal but there are a ton of people that based on those conversations would be angry if everything was appropriately point costed.

To me, the game should be 2000 points is roughly equal to 2000 points. To many people the game should be the illusion that 2000 points is roughly equal to 2000 points, but clever list building and netlisting can make the game really 2000 points against 4000 points (what 40k has been since the beginning)

At the height of azyr comp being used in the early aos tournaments, there were a lot of complaints that models were costed too high because the player wasn't steamrolling like he thought he should be and that games were "boring" because they were all so close, and that listbuilding didn't matter in Azyr since you could just grab whatever and it would be as effective as someone spending an hour combing over their list.

This was actually one of the #1 complaints that hit my inbox for several months.

I don't want undercosted and overcosted stuff because that actually takes list building out of the game through false choices.

Then that's a bad game because i just showed how composition is the real list building.

 auticus wrote:


At the height of azyr comp being used in the early aos tournaments, there were a lot of complaints that models were costed too high because the player wasn't steamrolling like he thought he should be and that games were "boring" because they were all so close, and that listbuilding didn't matter in Azyr since you could just grab whatever and it would be as effective as someone spending an hour combing over their list.

So... people were technically complaining that they had to learn o play?

Exactly. Like riptide spammers do now in 8th.

The current culture has undercost unit maximization so ingrained that yes... they wanted their list to win the game like is traditional.

 auticus wrote:
The current culture has undercost unit maximization so ingrained that yes... they wanted their list to win the game like is traditional.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they want Rock-Paper-Scissors. They want there to be a choice that is the right one to bring against X but that may not work against Y. This will create unbalanced games, but both players had the potential to be the one coming to the table loaded to win.

 auticus wrote:
The current culture has undercost unit maximization so ingrained that yes... they wanted their list to win the game like is traditional.

Those people should lose, then. That's not how normal games are balanced, for the most part. Only GW.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The current culture has undercost unit maximization so ingrained that yes... they wanted their list to win the game like is traditional.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they want Rock-Paper-Scissors. They want there to be a choice that is the right one to bring against X but that may not work against Y. This will create unbalanced games, but both players had the potential to be the one coming to the table loaded to win.

Individual games being unbalanced is different than the overall game being unfair. Didn't bring anti-tank? Not the game's fault. Hell, in Starcraft, you change you build in the middle of the game based off your enemy unit composition.

I'd agree they want rock/paper/scissors.

Which to me is horrible in a way.

Maybe because GW rock/paper/scissors is always to make rock useless while super powering scissors which results in the same netlists running around ad naseum.

Martel732 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The current culture has undercost unit maximization so ingrained that yes... they wanted their list to win the game like is traditional.

Those people should lose, then. That's not how normal games are balanced, for the most part. Only GW.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The current culture has undercost unit maximization so ingrained that yes... they wanted their list to win the game like is traditional.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they want Rock-Paper-Scissors. They want there to be a choice that is the right one to bring against X but that may not work against Y. This will create unbalanced games, but both players had the potential to be the one coming to the table loaded to win.

Individual games being unbalanced is different than the overall game being unfair. Didn't bring anti-tank? Not the game's fault. Hell, in Starcraft, you change you build in the middle of the game based off your enemy unit composition.

This is why I really like the new summoning, and I think it should be more prevalent even as just reinforcements. Being able to put 500 points in reserve and then "summoning" in the right tool for the job is a really cool concept. Could just become a problem with people like me that build lists really slow. But I could bring a handful of different pre-made detachments at 500 points that I can choose from mid game.

Let me redress my issue since I don't think I'm saying what I really mean lol

The concept of someone being able to take, say... all tanks... means that they are loading down on "rock". If your army isn't equipped with a massive amount of anti-tank weaponry... ie your army is not all paper... you will lose.

This extreme form of listbuilding is where my primary issue lies.

 auticus wrote:
I'd agree they want rock/paper/scissors.

Which to me is horrible in a way.

Maybe because GW rock/paper/scissors is always to make rock useless while super powering scissors which results in the same netlists running around ad naseum.

Ehhhh, I don't quite think that's what people want. They don't want the whole game to be a rock/paper/scissors, they want elements or parts of the list to counter and be countered by their opponent's list. When that happens, the game turns into a real challenge of trying to get the right units in the right place at the right time.

My favourite wargaming will always be spaceship/naval combat because of the way movement works, forcing you to plan a few turns in advance. One particular system I played had simultaneous turns with orders you wrote out/planned (much like X-wing setting their orders on the wheels), which meant you had to figure out quickly what they were going to do based on their optimal weapon ranges and how they were going to try and mitigate your damage based on your optimal weapon ranges. The winning player would always be the one who planned the better movements to get into optimal range first while staying outside their opponents' arcs as much as possible. That game was well balanced and offered plenty of customization, so you always had to plan a different way to tackle your opponent's fleet.

There are going to be players who just want to win and want an easy way to do it, and sometimes they'll do it under some pretense of wanting balance. You can spot them when they point out overpowered things outside their army, but vehemently deny that they use anything overpowered in their own list (despite obviously using an overpowered unit). You can safely ignore those people. Balance isn't a committee. You can harness the power of community by reading the raw data (batreps, mathhammer, tournament results), but ultimately, the final balance decisions should be left in the hands of a few professionals.

I think composition in the form of having a TAC list should be encouraged.

But I agree with Auticus that when the "rock/paper/scisors" reach the point of "I'll take all rocks. If your army isn't all paper, you lose" it isn't a fun game.

If I have a TAC army, it should be enough to fight anything that my opponent throw at me. Spammy lists should be just bad lists, and don't expect to win because their opponen just hasn't enough of the tools to fight them.

In Resume: Ideally, you should bring anti-tank weaponry to kill your opponent tanks. But if your opponent has only tanks you should be capable of winning still even if your list isn't 100% anti-tank weaponry. One thing that works towars this is the "everything can hurt everything": You can see all the "mu inmhersion!" that, even being reasonable complaint, is a rule needed to have a more balanced game and interactive game.

Not more "Hmm, I have bringed 4 Imperial Knights... I have killed all your meltas in the first turn... GG eazy peazy"


And I agree with Auticus that people don't want a fair game. They want to stomp their opponents mechanically. You see it in League of Legends. Why is that game so popular? In the moment you take an advantage, the game becomes basically 15-20 minutes of YOU destroying your opponents with 3 hits one time, without nothing they can do, until you win or they surrender. People LOVES that sensation. The "heroic comebacks" can be counted with the fingers of your hand.

 Galas wrote:
I think composition in the form of having a TAC list should be encouraged.

But I agree with Auticus that when the "rock/paper/scisors" reach the point of "I'll take all rocks. If your army isn't all paper, you lose" it isn't a fun game.

If I have a TAC army, it should be enough to fight anything that my opponent throw at me. Spammy lists should be just bad lists, and don't expect to win because their opponen just hasn't enough of the tools to fight them.

In Resume: Ideally, you should bring anti-tank weaponry to kill your opponent tanks. But if your opponent has only tanks you should be capable of winning still even if your list isn't 100% anti-tank weaponry. One thing that works towars this is the "everything can hurt everything": You can see all the "mu inmhersion!" that, even being reasonable, is a rule needed to have a more balanced game.

There should be alternatives to "I move and shoot and hope my statistics defeat you" too, besides hoping you can take integrated AT in every unit you do have. Back in 5th edition, the edition of "mechhammer", vehicles did have weaknesses still. You didn't have to destroy them so much as you had to shake/stun lock just enough to prevent them from contesting your control over the center of the map. Likewise, blocking them was surprisingly easy to do, since vehicles did have restrictive movement rules: Vehicles either move forwards, backwards, or turned around their center. In 5th edition, Rhinos could not do a Tokyo Drift. Since LOS was measured from weapons, and cover was "50% of the model" for monsters/vehicles (rather than 25% or so), the edition also encouraged running your vehicles in "train" formation, to optimize cover. However, intercept or stun the front and back of that train...and you could really screw up an opponent's battle-plan as you ended up with a 9-Razorback pileup!

Wow, I went off tangent there, but point is there should be more to the game than "am I statistically superior?" Can out-maneuvering the opponent provide concrete advantages over your foe, can "techpieces" serve as effective force multipliers besides "I give stat mods", etc.

I agree with all of what you said MagicJuggler, but in any point have I said that the game should be gunline vs gunline and throwing dice until one side wins

I was just speaking against extreme "rock/paper/scisor" gameplay

Issue I have with the poll is the question is really biased where you're not going to get any useful information out of it.

Even people who want to play an unbalanced, no-win scenario want a balanced system where all units feel viable in some niche and armies are equivalent at least on a broad standpoint so they know how far things are unbalanced.

The question reads like "Do you want a game that works or not?"

 auticus wrote:
...

At the height of azyr comp being used in the early aos tournaments, there were a lot of complaints that models were costed too high because the player wasn't steamrolling like he thought he should be and that games were "boring" because they were all so close, and that listbuilding didn't matter in Azyr since you could just grab whatever and it would be as effective as someone spending an hour combing over their list.

This was actually one of the #1 complaints that hit my inbox for several months.

Really? That is hilarious and sad at the same time, and is a perfect example of a subtle WAAC attitude.

 auticus wrote:
I'd agree they want rock/paper/scissors.

Which to me is horrible in a way.

Maybe because GW rock/paper/scissors is always to make rock useless while super powering scissors which results in the same netlists running around ad naseum.

Rock/Paper/Scissors is okay, especially if you add in Spock/Lizard, then it becomes a bit more varied in what the result and army lists would be.

But, If I bring my army's own Scissors against another army's paper, it might still end up like dull kids craft scissors going up against corrugated cardboard depending on the match up - beatable, but only if I am lucky and everything goes well for me.

Hatachi wrote:
The question reads like "Do you want a game that works or not?"

Which can include a one-sided narrative game consisting of a "final-stand" scenario. It will just take more effort to make it work than giving more points to the weaker army, either in the form of scenario bonuses or terrain or the attacking army having a sort of handicap.

But that extra effort scares people away, either because A), they don't want to plan it themselves (for whatever reason), B), they don't trust some other player to plan it (again, for whatever reason), or C), it wasn't released by the publisher and is therefore automatically invalid (though even that is sometimes not enough for some players!).

I don't think you understand the crux of my post. Some people may like unbalanced scenarios; It doesn't mean they was the architecture of the game system itself unbalanced. It's comparing apples and oranges. The group for narrative groups doesn't have to be large, it only has to be the people that want to do it. Not everyone wants to do Cities of Death, but it should work if they want to do it as well as tournament.

Neither of these scenarios, without bringing up if people want to put the work in or not for the type of game that is or isn't what they don't want to do, is more important than the other. The fact the game mode you don't prefer works as well is proof the game, not the scenario, is balanced as well as flexible.

Flexibility should be just as important to you. You don't want balance that will shatter the moment they add a single new unit, faction. or scenario.

*EDIT* I want to point out that I like unbalanced scenarios and tend to play fluffy lists. That's the side I usually fall on. I'm trying to approach the question in the way a game designer would.

Most historical scenarios are unbalanced, and the point is to try to do better than the historical outcome. 40K doesn't have this mode at all.

Hatachi wrote:
I don't think you understand the crux of my post. Some people may like unbalanced scenarios; It doesn't mean they was the architecture of the game system itself unbalanced. It's comparing apples and oranges. The group for narrative groups doesn't have to be large, it only has to be the people that want to do it. Not everyone wants to do Cities of Death, but it should work if they want to do it as well as tournament.

Neither of these scenarios, without bringing up if people want to put the work in or not for the type of game that is or isn't what they don't want to do, is more important than the other. The fact the game mode you don't prefer works as well is proof the game, not the scenario, is balanced as well as flexible.

Flexibility should be just as important to you. You don't want balance that will shatter the moment they add a single new unit, faction. or scenario.

*EDIT* I want to point out that I like unbalanced scenarios and tend to play fluffy lists. That's the side I usually fall on. I'm trying to approach the question in the way a game designer would.

Gotcha! Makes much more sense when you put it that way. I hadn't thought about "flexibility" in all of these discussions, but you are absolutely right to use that term.

You have expanded my academic-view-of-wargaming vocabulary. Thanks!